Inspired by the very similar thread about school incidents.

    • watersnipje@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t know, I guess so? Most drug tests are severely flawed, because many don’t test if someone is under the influence right now, they can test positive even when it’s longer ago and outside of worktime.

      So in essence, you can get fired for being under influence at work, even though you’re not, because these tests are not good enough. And I think that’s nuts, aside from the massive invasion of privacy of giving an employer a claim to you bodily fluids.

      Sure, you’re not supposed to use drugs. But is it your employer’s task to enforce the law? No, they’re not the police, and it’s none of their business what people do at home.

    • rossome!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      In the US, can each of these occupations get shitfaced the second they’re off work?

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Alcohol, yes, but with marijuana, since the substance they test for stays in your system for a long time, no. Though the argument has always been that it’s illegal and so more serious. And technically it’s still illegal at the federal level, so o guess technically that’s true, but the federal government doesn’t often enforce it and in several states it’s legalized. If it ever gets legalized at the federal level and they still do hair tests instead of blood tests, though, I don’t see how they can justify that.

        But in reality, pretty much the only people who get punished for marijuana use are either minorities or someone being targeted for something else they did and weed is just an easy excuse to fire them, put them in for-profit prisons, murder them legally, etc.