Drug Testing and Internships

[Cal_kashi]

Employers DO have the right to require sobriety and to enforce such any way they see fit. They are not the government, they can hire you or dismiss you for any reasons whatsoever or for no reason at all (assuming a state with at will employment). Finally if they request or require sobriety and that doesn't jive with you you can leave. There is nothing keeping you at that job. You have agency and if that companies philosophies differ what what you want to help support you can change to a job who's beliefs are more inline with your own.
Corporations in America exist in a free market, a capitalist system. You are free to make choices and so is the company. If suddenly drugs became so commonplace that a company was having difficulty filling its positions with abstinent workers you better believe those policies will change very quickly. Similarly if consumers are demonstrating that they expect a company to be associated with 0 tolerance with drugs, and doing so by purchasing only from those businesses you can ensure that companies will continue to drug test.
The point of all this, finally, is that companies will do whatever they think is in the corporations best interest. Consumers and employees essentially dictate what beliefs a company will endow and it's fallacious to place the blame on the company entirely, if in any part at all.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Employers DO have the right to require sobriety and to enforce such any way they see fit. They are not the government, they can hire you or dismiss you for any reasons whatsoever or for no reason at all (assuming a state with at will employment). Finally if they request or require sobriety and that doesn't jive with you you can leave. There is nothing keeping you at that job. You have agency and if that companies philosophies differ what what you want to help support you can change to a job who's beliefs are more inline with your own.
Corporations in America exist in a free market, a capitalist system. You are free to make choices and so is the company. If suddenly drugs became so commonplace that a company was having difficulty filling its positions with abstinent workers you better believe those policies will change very quickly. Similarly if consumers are demonstrating that they expect a company to be associated with 0 tolerance with drugs, and doing so by purchasing only from those businesses you can ensure that companies will continue to drug test.
The point of all this, finally, is that companies will do whatever they think is in the corporations best interest. Consumers and employees essentially dictate what beliefs a company will endow and it's fallacious to place the blame on the company entirely, if in any part at all.

What Samson said was more being idealistic, obviously these companies have the right to drug test. The problem lies with privacy, hell, I could be pregnant and they could dismiss me on that basis. I've seen people fail a drug test and denied a job after prescription drugs (prescribed to them) were found, when the facility was informed of it beforehand. What you are prescribed is none of their business. Another problem is how fast drugs get out of your system. I understand companies don't want employees to do any drugs, but the fact that crystal meth and cocaine are out of your system in a matter of days leaves a company very vulnerable to hiring those types of users. I mean, I'm a professional person. I don't go to work high, I don't talk about those things with my coworkers, and I just want people to get out of my business regarding what I do with my free time. It shouldn't be asking for the goddamn moon.

[complich8]

So, to answer Ani's earlier question, medical marijuana's pretty limited in its scope, and as far as I can tell never prescribed for anxiety or other psychological conditions, nor is it generally recognized as a treatment for insomnia. One or both of those would probably be better treated by antidepressants, and there's some correlation between drug abuse and both conditions. Which came first is the question... but both have viable non-cannabinoid treatment options.


More recently, yeah ... drug testing's pretty controversial. I remember having to do a drug test when I started working at a local grocery store, which was kinda bullshit -- you can probably stock shelves roughly as well if you're lightly baked as if you're hung over from abusing a perfectly legal depressant, which may in fact keep you more on task than being sober.

Anyway, I started a clearance job about 2 years ago that didn't have any such requirement, and involved some classified documents with actual national security implications. Then my most recent job, I did a contract-to-hire arrangement, and had to do a drug test for the contracting company but not for the actual employer. My current employer has a policy that basically says if they're looking for a reason to fire you, they might drug test, but if you're not bringing it to work and it's not affecting your quality of work, they don't care. But then, we have some positions that have higher level clearances that require disclosure of past drug use, and in the case of some of our highest level clearance stuff (TS/SCI full scope)

A friend of mine got addicted to drugs pretty much as a direct result of a co-op program he was in. He met some other co-op students who introduced him to all sorts of entertaining substances, and he really liked a couple, and went on about an 8 month long stint of heavy use. Then he pretty much disassembled his whole social safety net, and left just a couple of close friends to catch him. It was bad times.

I guess what I'm saying is ...

drugs are bad, mmmk

Something else to be aware of is that for a lot of employers, unfair as it may be, simply asking about their drug testing policy at the interview raises enough red flags to assure them that they probably don't want to get involved with you. In several interviews I've sat in on, the hiring decision was pretty much made when the interviewee asked whether there's a drug testing policy. While a rare interviewer may appreciate your honesty in broaching the subject and give you points for it, most will hear the question as "I won't pass a drug test, is that a problem for you?" Generally, that's the kiss of death on a lot of professional jobs, even at places that don't have any testing policy.

In faster-moving places (with higher turnover, lower pay, etc) the drug testing is typically expected within 24-48 hours of the interview. With slower-paced places (like the last place I had a drug test for), the company notified me by USPS that I needed a drug test, and followed up a couple days after I got the notice with a phone call telling me who to call and where to go to get it, so there was a window of several days that I knew that they didn't know for sure that I knew -- which could be used to do some good work attempting to either get clean enough to pass or otherwise defeat the drug test, if such a thing were required.

Hair testing is relatively rare, and I think relatively more expensive. If the company's willing to spring for hair testing, you might ask yourself how serious you are about wanting to work with them -- especially for an internship. Internships are very rarely the serious business that "real" jobs are...

[Animeniax]

That's surprising that clearance jobs don't have more stringent drug policies, as a dependence on drugs can easily lead you to sell secret information or otherwise betray your trust in return for money for drugs. I'd be surprised if during the investigation process if they found you had a history of drug use/abuse issues, that that wouldn't preclude you from getting the clearance.

I need a security clearance. In the government world, it's worth more than a college degree.

[The Heretic Azazel]

So, to answer Ani's earlier question, medical marijuana's pretty limited in its scope, and as far as I can tell never prescribed for anxiety or other psychological conditions, nor is it generally recognized as a treatment for insomnia. One or both of those would probably be better treated by antidepressants, and there's some correlation between drug abuse and both conditions. Which came first is the question... but both have viable non-cannabinoid treatment options.

As far as California is concerned those are frequent reasons for prescribing. Can't speak for the situations in Colorado and Rhode Island, the only other states with marijuana dispensaries, but I know many people are unhappy with how apparently easy it is to get a medical marijuana card in CA. People often cite examples of anxiety, depression, headaches, and insomnia for prescription reasons. Cancer and AIDS, two conditions upon which more people are accepting of medicinal marijuana, are obviously far worse than those examples, but I believe it's not for another to say how negatively your conditions impact your life. I was on antidepressants for a little while but when I turned 18 I lost my health insurance and haven't seen a doctor since. It's not that I'm going to go through withdrawal if I don't smoke, because I can and have picked it up and put it down at will, but it does help me at the end of the day, especially since lately I've been having stress management issues. My anxiety however has been with me since before I started.

I'm really just tired of someone waving a fucking jar of piss in front of my face everytime I try to get a job. Like the rest of you I know there are exceptions, I certainly wouldn't want my pilot or doctor high on anything. But when it comes to my IT project analyst I could really care less, it's not like I'm going into a safety sensitive field.

[complich8]

That's surprising that clearance jobs don't have more stringent drug policies, as a dependence on drugs can easily lead you to sell secret information or otherwise betray your trust in return for money for drugs. I'd be surprised if during the investigation process if they found you had a history of drug use/abuse issues, that that wouldn't preclude you from getting the clearance.

I need a security clearance. In the government world, it's worth more than a college degree.

Don't be fooled. It's worth more, but you've gotta have the degree first. No paper and like 90% of the time you probably don't meet the minimum requirements for them to talk to you. If they aren't willing to hire you, they're definitely not gonna shell out the 15-20k it costs them to sponsor you .

Also, the higher the clearance level, the more invasive the process, the longer the time window, and the more frequently you have to get it renewed. Entry-level clearances (confidential, public trust) usually don't transfer from agency to agency, and are basically worthless except as a demonstration that you're probably "clearable" (makes you more hireable, but not hireable for more).

Secret and above generally transfer. Secret's generally worth a couple grand, but not that much (like, maybe 5k). TS/SCI with full scope poly is probably worth about 20-30k in the DC metro area or working for defense contractors on defense projects. You only realize that if you change jobs after you're cleared, and take your clearance with you. In the case of TS/SCI, if in the interim you take a non-cleared job, it's likely that your clearance will lapse before you job-hunt again (since TS has like a 5 year lifespan).

That, and a TS job that actually gives you that pay premium is going to probably involve a complicated bureaucracy, little freedom to create, and restrictions on your ability to travel out of the country. As a bonus, more often than not they're in SCIFs, which it just plain sucks to work at. Honestly, if you're a creative or dynamic person, the difference in pay is about on par with the difference in job satisfaction you're likely to experience. Not worth it, IMO.

Piece of advice: if you're entertaining clearance jobs any time in the future, keep documentation of everywhere you've lived for the last 10-15 years, including people who aren't related to you who can vouch that you lived there and didn't seem like a terrorist, and keep in touch with those people so that you're comfortable with using them as references when the SF-86 comes rolling your way. Probably the single worst part of that form, especially if the 7-15 years of background check window overlap with a college career that has you living at 3 or 4 different addresses per year (eg: home, a dorm, a summer residence).

As far as California is concerned those are frequent reasons for prescribing.

heh ... cali doctors. There is that...

I'm really just tired of someone waving a fucking jar of piss in front of my face everytime I try to get a job.

Even though I'm not a drug user at all, ever, I 100% agree with this statement. I find it personally insulting any time I have to put up with that.

[Animeniax]

Don't be fooled. It's worth more, but you've gotta have the degree first. No paper and like 90% of the time you probably don't meet the minimum requirements for them to talk to you. If they aren't willing to hire you, they're definitely not gonna shell out the 15-20k it costs them to sponsor you .

[Lots of good information.]

I've worked overseas for the government before and dealt with a lot of guys with security clearances. They were making $150k-300k/yr without a college degree. Of course, that's typically working for 70-80 hours a week in Dubai/Kuwait/Iraq/Afghanistan, but it was generally light duty work.

[itadakimasu]

I'd rather come up with a test to figure out if somebody is an idiot. If I were running a business, I would employ some sort of common sense quiz @ the interview to figure out how dumb said candidate was.

I'd only consider drug testing if drug use were noticable and keeping somebody from doing their job.... if a person were doing their job flawlessly, I'd see no need for drug testing.

[Animeniax]

I think it's been verified beyond doubt that drug use adversely affects your job performance, regardless of your job function, so drug testing makes sense. It's pretty cut and dry. I know I don't want to work with people who are stoned or inebriated. They're already suffering from base stupidity and laziness. No need to hamper them further.

Plus, drug use means they are more likely to steal or miss work because of legal problems.

[The Heretic Azazel]

I think it's been verified beyond doubt that drug use adversely affects your job performance, regardless of your job function, so drug testing makes sense. It's pretty cut and dry. I know I don't want to work with people who are stoned or inebriated. They're already suffering from base stupidity and laziness. No need to hamper them further.

Plus, drug use means they are more likely to steal or miss work because of legal problems.

Problem is, if someone tests negative for cocaine (crack or powder) or heroine or LSD/PCP/ecstacy it means they quit for 3 - 5 days TOPS. A lot of people do argue that a hard drug user can't quit for that long, and to them I would say, observe your prospective employee during their interview. If they are a frequent user and trying to detox quickly for a drug test you will be able to tell, I promise.

And then there are people like me who fake it with synthetic urine anyway. And by the off-chance your employment is contingent upon a supervised drug test (quite unlikely for employment), if you REALLY wanted the job, you can use your synthetic urine together with a prosthetic penis that stores it and lets it out via a small pump you squeeze. Looks just like you're urinating. Some people swear they can pass that way even if the supervisor were looking at it. I think a football player or someone got in trouble when their prosthetic jock was found in his luggage at the airport not a hell of a long time ago and the company got in trouble, but I think another company started making them. Anyway I've never gone to those lengths, it's mainly used by people on supervised probation.

Drug tests are extremely fallible and humiliating, there has to be some trust between you and your employer, especially if you have an impressive work history.

[Death BOO Z]

And then there are people like me who fake it with synthetic urine anyway

I thought you couldn't make this sound weirder

.together with a prosthetic penis that stores it and lets it out via a small pump you squeeze. .

but you did.