CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yes. Sometimes employers are out of touch with the real world and they need ideas as to which drugs are popular at a given time and thus, which drugs to try next ;)
Employers hire people to work for them. They hire people based on how much the company gets in return for a salary. Over time drugs affect how well a person can work, a drug test prior to employment decreases the risk taken by the employer.
No, what someone does outside of their job shouldn't matter, obviously you shouldn't show up to work under the influence of any drug but someone shouldn't be turned away from a job cause they use a certain substance.
What someone does outside of their job affects how well they can do their job. Drugs affect various parts of the body which are used to do what the job requires.
True, but not all drugs do, like if someone is using meth or heroin well then of course, but if someone is drinking or smoking weed on the weekend or even using some lsd or shrooms here and there it will not effect their job.
A little here and there can soon turn into an addiction and depending on the person may even start affecting the body early on. With drinking and smoking I can agree that it shouldn't be considered in hiring because it takes many years for the effects to be serious. But LSDs and Shrooms last from 4-7 hours and can definitely affect their job. If someone is taking drugs it becomes an unnecessary risk for employers.
Exactly, shrooms and LSD last 4-12 hours, im not saying "show up for work tripping balls" I'm saying that if you take some a day or two before you go back to work its fine, btw, LSD and shrooms are non-addictive. But anyway, if your high (being drunk is a kind of high also) or tripping outside of work it doesn't matter.
Many jobs last outside of the workplace and getting high for 4-12 hours once you get home will affect what you can do.
"LSD and shrooms are non-addictive"
That I didn't know :), but even if it was not addictive people will still use it irresponsibly. For example I'm not addicted to my computer but i still use it irresponsibly to get out of doing my work.
With regard to alcohol, many people drink but not everybody gets drunk everyday. Alcohol takes many years to create any of the severe problems such as cirrhosis and if the person is extremely careless about alcohol then it is reasonable to take that in consideration.
People can be careless with anything really so I don't see drugs as a problem for work, people will always be irrisponsible, whether they use drugs or not.
As for the illegal side, legality is not an issue when it comes to the job, I mean yes I guess they are "criminals" but it doesn't hurt anyone and would not effect their job . As for being careless with drugs, again, you can be careless with anything and I'm a little annoyed with this way of thinking that if you ever use any drug, doesn't matter if its booze, weed, phsycadelics, persriptions or hard drugs that you wil no matter what use the carelessly... because you won't!
"legality is not an issue when it comes to the job"
If they are arrested that would affect their job possession of lsd has a 1-3 year sentence. And when you're imprisoned you can't necessarily work.
With the being careless part: Firstly no matter how bad this sounds a person using a drug (Clear line between medicinal drugs and drugs used to get high) is being irresponsible, they are wasting money, risking going to prison and risking their health. Its like saying "I'm taking cyanide responsibly."
These drug tests can also help to identify the people that are using illegal drugs. This can better a community and also help the user to hopefully stop before its too late. With less drug addicts on the street the demand goes down and the sellers will hypothetically go out of business.
There is no reason why a Pre-employment drug test would have have any adverse results.
I meant legality doesnt effect the job in the sense that just because its illegal doesn't mean its terrible. Now not all drug users are irresponsible, there is thing called moderation. As for "its like taking cyanide responsibly" well let me remind you that there is a large difference between weed, alcohol, psycadelics and cyanide. The prison part is true, but the money and health part is not. Not all "drugs" are bad for your health (alot of medical drugs are though ironically) just some like MDMA, meth, heroine, crack, stuck like that. Its not a waste of money, its a form of recreation, its like going to the movies were you pay a fee, get an experience and then its over.
As for helping the user "stop before its to late" you can't just act like all drug users are exactly like heroine and meth addicts, there is a large diffference between them and phsycadelics and pot users. As for the drug dealers going out of business, there will ALWAYS be a demand, no matter how many people you throw in jail, there will always be more suppliers and more people who want to use them. What sounds better for the community, people being able to use substances to enjoy themselves and they act responsibly, or making it hard for users to get jobs and throwing people in prison over it?
Again, if the employee is caught taking any illegal drug they will be arrested. If they are arrested they cannot work if they cannot work they will have to be fired. Now the employer has to advertise the position again and has lost the candidates who would have been a better choice.
Even in moderation using something that is harming your body is irresponsible. You cant argue that drugs have no side effects.
The "it's like taking cyanide" is a hyperbole.
Next you said "not all drugs are bad for you." Drugs are illegal for a reason. The courts don't make drugs illegal because they're mean, they do it because it is necessary. I'm assuming that you mean psychedelics when you say that. But just because they are the safest of the all drugs out there doesn't mean that they are safe. This is why it was made illegal :"However, drug studies have confirmed that the powerful hallucinogenic effects of this drug can produce profound adverse reactions, such as acute panic reactions, psychotic crises, and "flashbacks", especially in users ill-equipped to deal with such trauma." Medicinal drugs can be described as "necessary evils" they also have side effects but are usually a lot less harmful than what they cure. That is why we have the FDA to reduce the risk from medicinal drugs.
It is a waste of money because drugs can be very expensive and they may give you a few hours of superficial "happiness" but unlike in a movie the fee is also physical and psychological. Many euphoric drugs make users feel depressed about the real world and they take them more and more often to feel better. (You cannot just rule out harmful drugs as they are still used and will be tested for)
The "stop before it's too late" you can't rule out heroin and meth addicts as they are users as well. With psychedelics you can still dissuade someone from using them.
"large diffference between them and phsycadelics and pot users" I can't believe that you refute the side effects of pot but that is for another debate ;)
I know that whatever you do there will still be users and dealers but the key point is that there will be a reduction.
It does affect the community. If there are less users then less people will get introduced to these drugs and more people will live a life without being burdened by drugs. (By this I mean less people will be introduced to harmful drugs if you still don't accept that even psychedelics are harmful)
The answer to your last question is the second option. Sending criminals to prison for willingly breaking the law is GOOD. Letting people use harmful substances by believing in "Human goodness" doesn't work in the real world. Most people are not going to be responsible (again if that is even possible) and therefore it is is an unnecessary risk (it's probably not a risk but more of an inevitable danger)
Finally if there is no good reason against it and if you agree that it will stop people from risking prison then why not do it?
I'll reply to the rest of this later, but for "Drugs are illegal for a reason" then main reasons they are illegal is because of lobbying, propaganda and it being branded as part of social normality. I didn't mean psycadelics are the safest, I meant weed is the safest and the only substance that cause flash backs is LSD and that is because when it is made correctly it doesn't cause flash backs, but when it became illegal the makers too a cheaper and easier way to make it which is what causes flash backs. But besides LSD, mushrooms and ayaoska have no long term effects.
So, if you don't have have anything to hide what would be the problem? The records would be confidential and it has greatly cut down on the use of drugs in many places. The use of drug testing in the military had the following results: "illicit drug use in the military dropped from 30% to 5%."
Drug testing only tests for the presence of active components of the drug in the body, there are too many variables. Me, well, I'd fail a drug test; depends on the week, but I could fail several parts of the expanded drug test, but that doesn't really mean anything. I may spend some of my own free time stoned, or tripping, stuff like that, but that doesn't mean I am incapable of performing a task extremely well. Psychedelics have never hurt my education; if anything, they've potentiated it.
When testing for marijuana they are not even testing if you are high, which I find to be the biggest issue with employment drug testing.
They're checking to see if you engage in marijuana on your spare time, which should not be of concern for employers. Employers should really only worry about people who are showing up to work fucked up, and that would be obvious in their performance.
Drug testing is one of the most useless and expensive things that some employers have gotten into.
Actually, if you have any trace of it in your system they can arrest you for being "driving under the influence" for having the minimal amount of THC detectable in your system, people have been arrested for "driving under the influence" because they smoked a joint last week.
Again I would argue that this practice is the same as a warrantless search, entrapment and a violation of peoples civil rights. While the courts have ruled for drug testing in the past they have lost scope of our even most basic rights in the US. If you want to work you must take and pass a drug test or the employer will not hire you, or the employer will fire you if you test positive. For an employer to tell me I will not hire you unless you take a drug test, or I will fire you if you do not submit to a random drug test is the same as the employer and my own government holding an assault rifle to my head and making demands against my own liberty, life and pursuit of happiness that simply should not be required as a condition of employment.
In the State of Texas, no drug test labs are regulated by the State, thus due process is denied. There is not a formal grievance process, therefore due process is denied. There is no formal complaint process, thus due process is denied. Even if people are using drugs outside of the workplace then any employer choosing to place employees or potential employees under duress by implementing a drug test policy in the workplace should be subject to Civil and Criminal penalties. Once they are challenged and loose in court on enough occasions, it will permanently resolve the problem of pre employment and random drug testing in the workplace.
