Urine Test

#1
JZVOL

JZVOL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
12,928
Likes
0
#1
I got this email today and it made a lot of sense to me.

Urine Test

I have a question, not only for Cook County, but for the entire state of Illinois , and all 50 states.

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit.

In order to get that paycheck. I am require to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.


Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass.



Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check.

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
novel idea, but doomed to failure after the ACLU determines that it unfairly targets <<insert your favorite demographic group here>>
 
#3
#3
JZVOL said:
I got this email today and it made a lot of sense to me.

Urine Test

I have a question, not only for Cook County, but for the entire state of Illinois , and all 50 states.

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit.

In order to get that paycheck. I am require to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.


Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass.



Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

YOu shouldn't have to pass a urine test. It is the biggest joke of all time. Who would you rather hire? the guy who goes home and gets drunk every night or the guy who smokes a little marijuana from time to time. Easy answer, but guess what. The drunk can pass the unrine test and the recreational marijuana user can't, even though he never smokes before work and the effects ware off long before he is on the job. the active ingredient in marijuana stores itself in fat bodies and takes up to 30 days to get out of your system. Even though you are not even close to being "high", you can test positive and don't get hired or get fired. Terrible system. Some companies are now doing hair test which can detect marijuana that was used many months prior. It is an issue someone is going to have to address before too long or competent, hard working employees are going to continue to lose jobs because of extreme right wing human resource managers.
 
#4
#4
there are so many ways around a urine test it's almost ridiculous they waste money testing for it. if you know where to look, the products are out there.

however, most companies will get a break on insurance if they drug test potential employees.
 
#5
#5
doozer said:
there are so many ways around a urine test it's almost ridiculous they waste money testing for it. if you know where to look, the products are out there.

however, most companies will get a break on insurance if they drug test potential employees.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know about the discounts for drug testing. therein lies the problem. You get an even bigger discount if you do randoms. Yeah, I know the products are out there, but they don't do you any good if you are working at a place that does randoms. Of course, unless you keep it with you at all times
 
#6
#6
truefan said:
YOu shouldn't have to pass a urine test. It is the biggest joke of all time. Who would you rather hire? the guy who goes home and gets drunk every night or the guy who smokes a little marijuana from time to time. Easy answer, but guess what. The drunk can pass the unrine test and the recreational marijuana user can't, even though he never smokes before work and the effects ware off long before he is on the job. the active ingredient in marijuana stores itself in fat bodies and takes up to 30 days to get out of your system. Even though you are not even close to being "high", you can test positive and don't get hired or get fired. Terrible system. Some companies are now doing hair test which can detect marijuana that was used many months prior. It is an issue someone is going to have to address before too long or competent, hard working employees are going to continue to lose jobs because of extreme right wing human resource managers.
Click to expand...
this is truly idiotic. HR people rarely set the rules. The bosses set rules, HR folks process paperwork. What about the part where the driker is doing something within the law and the toker is not? Does that matter?
 
#7
#7
don't bring laws and reason into this debate papa. clearly pot smokers are just alright. I mean after all they only smoke in the evening....
 
#8
#8
I don't know why, but I always get a kick out of reading the arguments of the pot defenders.
 
#11
#11
allvol123 said:
Start your own company and you won't have to. Until then, the man that pays your salary can run the business how he determines to be the best way.
Click to expand...


I didn't say I smoke marijuana did I? And I do have my own business. I just happen to be socially liberal on these type of issues.
 
#12
#12
BigPapaVol said:
this is truly idiotic. HR people rarely set the rules. The bosses set rules, HR folks process paperwork. What about the part where the driker is doing something within the law and the toker is not? Does that matter?
Click to expand...

Get your far right wing head out of your azz
 
#13
#13
truefan said:
I didn't say I smoke marijuana did I? And I do have my own business. I just happen to be socially liberal on these type of issues.
Click to expand...

Where did I say you smoked marijuana. I didn't. You claim it is a joke for employers to issue drug tests. Well, you may think so, but that is no reason for them to not run their business as they see fit.
 
#14
#14
allvol123 said:
Where did I say you smoked marijuana. I didn't. You claim it is a joke for employers to issue drug tests. Well, you may think so, but that is no reason for them to not run their business as they see fit.
Click to expand...

Fair point.

I don't think it is a joke for employers to require drug tests. I believe heroin and cocaine and other hard drugs CAN AND DO affect one's ability to function responsibly. There is so much gray area with tests and how they are coducted. A person addicited to cocaine can pass a drug test because cocaine leaves the body in 48-72 hours. all traces of it. If you take a couple of puffs off of a joint tomorrow you could test positive for it three weeks later without having smoked any more than that.

Someone mentioned the "bosses" and not the human resource manager make the rules. I don't know where that guy works, but he is clueless. In the past, I was one of the "bosses" at a large company. Our human resource manager pushed for random drug testing. Once our CEO, who wasn't in-house, signed off on , it was implemented. We did an in-house random test on everyone at the plant. I mean everyone. The only ones who knew it was coming were the CEO and the human resource manager. We lost some really good employees who tested positive for marijuana. Some of the employees I knew for a fact had meth problems, passed their tests. So we had to keep the meth heads and lost some really good people who were rec users of marijuana. Senseless and extremely unfair.
 
#15
#15
the hysteria over marijuana appears to once again be reaching "Reefer Madness" proportions. While I do think that in certain circumstances it can be a "gateway" drug, it isn't as personally destructive as meth, cocaine, crack or even alcohol.
 
#16
#16
Weed is destructive in the sense that, if you are willing to continue smoking weed at the risk of losing your job, then it is destructive.
 
#17
#17
MG1968 said:
the hysteria over marijuana appears to once again be reaching "Reefer Madness" proportions. While I do think that in certain circumstances it can be a "gateway" drug, it isn't as personally destructive as meth, cocaine, crack or even alcohol.
Click to expand...

Marijuana is worse for you lungs then tobacco.
 
#18
#18
isn't that primarily due to the practice of holding marijuana smoke in the lungs for a far longer period of time than tobacco smoke?
 
#20
#20
oklavol said:
Marijuana is worse for you lungs then tobacco.
Click to expand...


Is it? Marijuana being 'worse for your lungs' is purely because of the smoke. However, there is an alternative to smoke, it's called Vaporizing. You get (around; strains are the main factor) the same high and there is no real health risk.

Generally, tobacco is much worse. Especially when the addiction of the drug and the chemical-laden, radioactive-ferts-fed tobacco that the big Corps put into their Cigs factors in. I believe nicotine rustica has the highest amount of natural nicotine in it. Did anyone here know that nicotine is actually a poison rather than a drug? One teaspoon is enough to kill a room full of people and then some. Marijuana isn't deadly unless you're a cop (see: http://media.freep.com/audio/2007/0510potcop_freep.mp3)
Yes, that's a cop. He and his wife decided to bake hash brownies and they got too stoned. Pure comedy. Note: You can't OD on the reefer. "I'm pretty sure I'm dead."
pointlaugh.gif



Drugs such as tobacco, alcohol and cocaine among others all affect the dopamine receptors in the brain. The dopamine receptors are the brains rewards system and upon taking the drugs more dopamine is released than usual. When the body is deprived you get symptoms of addiction. Most addiction are caused by this dopamine neurotransmitter. Marijuana however has no effect on the dopamine re-uptake in the body therefore no real addiction ever develops. Same goes with other drugs that don't effect the dopamine re-uptake such as LSD, mushrooms and even ecstasy which effects serotonin and results in depression rather than a real addiction.

You have an addictive drug and a non-addictive drug. The most lung damage will likely be done to the ones who are addicted to it. Pot is not physically addictive. (does not cause a dependency or deficiency within your anatomy) Therefor, the threat is poses to potential lung damage is small. However, it CAN be psychologically addictive, as can any pleasure; sex, sports, video games, foods etc. Its that simple. Cigs are very physically and psychologically addictive. Where as pot is, at worst, just a psychological addiction. Lets not forget the medical benefits of marijuana, as cigs have none.

In conclusion, the addictive tobacco (cigs) potentially carries the biggest threat to your lungs.
 
#21
#21
#23
#23
truefan said:
Fair point.

I don't think it is a joke for employers to require drug tests. I believe heroin and cocaine and other hard drugs CAN AND DO affect one's ability to function responsibly. There is so much gray area with tests and how they are coducted. A person addicited to cocaine can pass a drug test because cocaine leaves the body in 48-72 hours. all traces of it. If you take a couple of puffs off of a joint tomorrow you could test positive for it three weeks later without having smoked any more than that.

Someone mentioned the "bosses" and not the human resource manager make the rules. I don't know where that guy works, but he is clueless. In the past, I was one of the "bosses" at a large company. Our human resource manager pushed for random drug testing. Once our CEO, who wasn't in-house, signed off on , it was implemented. We did an in-house random test on everyone at the plant. I mean everyone. The only ones who knew it was coming were the CEO and the human resource manager. We lost some really good employees who tested positive for marijuana. Some of the employees I knew for a fact had meth problems, passed their tests. So we had to keep the meth heads and lost some really good people who were rec users of marijuana. Senseless and extremely unfair.
Click to expand...


You came out ahead if you got rid of the pot smokers, and most drug test will pick up meth use as well.
 
#25
#25
truefan said:
Get your far right wing head out of your azz
Click to expand...
OK, I've got it out now, thanks for the suggestion. Now you gonna regale me with tales about how those willfully choosing to break the law and well aware of the ramifications somehow DESERVE a job. I want the guy that will follow the rules and do the right thing, not the one who will do what he wants.

By the by, your sweet little attitude will likely keep you the rule follower for life. Rule making is far more fun, probably moreso than weed smoking.

Finally, YOU'RE FIRED.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top