Purposefully engaging in illegal activity speaks to character. If someone uses illegal drugs, then they have in that instance made a conscious choice to disregard the law. Employers often ask for and check on character references in the hiring process. If an employer finds out that an employee is into child pornography and yet their work performance is adequate or better, should they disregard the "victimless crime" and ignore what the employee does on their own time? If an employer discovers that an employee is engaged in illegal bookmaking and yet they are doing a great job at work, should the employer pass it off as none of his business? Character has to still stand for something...doesn't it?
Jeff- possessing marijuana (under 25 grams, which would be the case for most people who like to catch a buzz) is NOT a crime..It's a violation! Also, smoking weed is not a crime...since this is not an illegal activity that speaks to one's character, as you put it, why should that person be denied the opportunity to be employed? When you get hurt on the job, the first thing your employer will have you do is take a drug test...why? Not to determine your character, that's for sure! Employers don't want your ability to be impaired while you're on their time. If that's the case, why aren't people tested for alcohol abuse? I think that can be much more dangerous than marijuana. The child pornography and bookmaking have absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here, you can't compare them!
I want people who drive school buses, drive the big rigs or fly passengers tested. I have no problem with law enforcement or public safety workers being tested either.
Matt, marijuana is an illegal drug, in order to obtain it, illegal activity had to have taken place (unless you are growing it yourself and then we are splitting hairs down to the Nth degree). This is not a debate about the legalization of marijuana, it is a debate about illegal drugs and marijuana is one of them along with cocaine, heroine, meth, etc. The bookmaking and pornography are perfect comparisons since my post was about the character of disregarding the law and an employers right to hire and maintain employees who don't participate in illegal activity.
I knew this debate would pull out the argument about the occassional joint smoker, but the bigger picture is an employers right to maintain (or not) a work environment that fosters (or doesn't) consistent behavior and expectations from all employees.
John, how about the 10 ton press operator, the guy operating crane in a busy construction site, the taxi driver, the guy welding a split seam on a fuel tank, the guy standing under your car fixing your brakes, the guy opening up your chest to repair a valve in your heart? Their are a lot more jobs than just what you mentioned that carry inherent risks to both the employee and the public.
You're wrong jeff...... "the most common charge we see is Unlawful Possession of Marijuana
(UPM - Penal Law 221.05) for possession of less than 25 grams (about 7/8 of an ounce) of marijuana. This is not a crime - it's a violation." If a person is getting high, or even in possession of marijuana, they are in no way "disregarding the law." As I said, Smoking marijuana is NOT a crime, nor is it considered criminal activity, therefore, can not be compared to child pornography or bookmaking because those two activities are illegal..
Jeff, if you think heart surgeons are going to ever be drug-tested, you're delusional. That heavy boot is only for us working stiff peons. Got to control the masses.
jeff---"If an employer finds out that an employee is into child pornography and yet their work performance is adequate or better, should they disregard the "victimless crime" and ignore what the employee does on their own time?" I certainly would not classify child pornography as a "victimless crime."
When they put the Pope in jail for turning a blind eye to pedophilia I'll concern myself with the moral failures of those who smoke a little of God's herb.
As noted in a previous thread, general drug screening for employment nets 25% positives. Over 42% of Americans smoke pot. The notion that drug testing prevents employing drug users is a profitable mirage- profitable for those companies supplying/administering the tests.
The issue is not whether drug users should be ignored by employers; the issue is testing. HR personnel, the interview process and probationary period provide a more effective filter for unsuitable employees; so why demean the workforce by requiring a urine sample? ...Just to demonstrate who is in charge? ...A morbid act to treat job applicants like horses?
As noted by other posters, testing is not universal, and the exceptions seem to favor management.
Will we be so forgiving when insurance companies demand genetic testing prior to providing health insurance?
One can use bottom line to justify anything- doesn't make it right. The bottom line is rapidly reducing any claim to personal property: wiretaps, imminent domain, no-knock law, patriot act... How much will we surrender before declaring, enough?
To think people sighed a breath of relief in 1984, presuming Orwell's book was still stacked under 'fiction'!
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. But take my word for it, hide anyway and be scared shitless because "you won't like what comes after America." -Leonard Cohen
Listed under non-fiction.
If some idiot can't NOT do drugs even for a few days in order to get a job, I don't want to work with him or her.
It's actually quite simple: If an employer requires pre-employment or random drug testing, and you want to work there, don't do drugs and pee in the damn cup. If your drug use is more important than obtaining a job, you have greater problems than being unemployed.
Nobody is questioning WHY employers test. Are they trying to make a positive impact on society? Heck no. Pre-employment and "random" screens help the bottom line. Most employers require testing immediately following a work related accident. You're high? Forget about workman's comp, civil suits, and insurance claims.
I suggest to those that oppose such testing need to put their idealism and thoughts of "an intrusion" into ones privacy aside. Get real. It's all about $$$.
Everything is about money, and pre-employment screening is a waste of money Bob. You can tell in a week if your employee is a loser and you let him go if he is. Like you said, anyone can test clean to get a job and what does that prove? I'd be more concerned about what is in the employees head than what is in their urine but that's just me, a damn liberal.
Matt, that was the reason for the quotation marks. It is also a misconception that casual pot smoking is a victimless crime. Where do you think the majority of marijuana comes from? (again, I am not talking about homegrown which makes up such a small percentage) Mexico, South and Central America. Now it doesn't cross the border in open trucks where it is inspected, taxed, and then distributed. It is smuggled in. A great deal of slave type labor goes into growing, harvesting, and transporting of marijuana and conditions at our borders have deteriorated in the recent years where it is not safe to even live near the Texas/Mexican border. The statistics on how many people die each year in drug related violence or are relegated to servitude just so that some can enjoy the occassional joint ought to make that 42% think twice.
Just think, if this thing that naturally grows out of the ground wasn't illegal, you wouldn't have all that violence..lol, but you're right jeff, that's all the reason to deny someone employment...After all, it's not hard at all to find a job these days. Now back to the point of this article, let's give a meaningless test that is so easy to "cheat" on (not to mention the fact that most drugs are out of your system in a few days anyway), so the "users" can just go back to using while holding down their job. That doesn't sound like a waste of time and money at all! Good thing the company checked the "character" of its employees!
Posted by matt riggi on March 1, 2011 - 11:46am
Jeff- possessing marijuana (under 25 grams, which would be the case for most people who like to catch a buzz) is NOT a crime..It's a violation!
221.05 Unlawful possession of marihuana.
A person is guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana when he
knowingly and unlawfully possesses marihuana.
Unlawful possession of marihuana is a violation punishable only by a
fine of not more than one hundred dollars. However, where the defendant
has previously been convicted of an offense defined in this article or
article 220 of this chapter, committed within the three years
immediately preceding such violation….. (shortened for space)
From http://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/2008/03/what_is_an_offense_n…
Offense: The definition of “offense” is found in Section 10 of the Penal Law. It applies to the CPL unless the CPL contains a different definition. An “offense” is any violation of law, including state and local laws as well as local ordinances, for which a term or imprisonment or a fine may be imposed. See PL § 10.00(1). Any “crime”, including a “felony,” “misdemeanor,” “petty offense,” “violation” and/or “traffic infraction” are “offenses”.
There are three levels to criminal offenses. Felony (most serious) Misdemeanor (less serious) and Violation. All are CRIMINAL offenses and therefor CRIMES. The classes simply rank them for what sentences are available. IE:
Felony (the lower ones atleast, none sex offenses) you can get 5 years of probation or up to/including state prison time.
A Misdemeanor offenses (the more serious) 3years probation or up to a year local jail time,
B misdemeanors 1 year probation or 90 days jail.
VIOLAIONS (IE unlawful possession of marijuana) up to 15 days jail. (also note fines can be levied in most of the above cases)
Posted by matt riggi on March 1, 2011 - 11:46am
When you get hurt on the job, the first thing your employer will have you do is take a drug test...why? Not to determine your character, that's for sure! Employers don't want your ability to be impaired while you're on their time. If that's the case, why aren't people tested for alcohol abuse? I think that can be much more dangerous than marijuana
They will also have you take an alcohol test. Alcohol is not illegal unless you are under 21. I’m not going to get into an argument about which is worse (they are both bad for you regardless) but there are laws one of them. In addition if alcohol abuse is impacting your work chances are they will fire you eventually, same with drug use, even if they don’t test you when they hire you.
Posted by Jeff Allen on March 1, 2011 - 11:26am
If an employer finds out that an employee is into child pornography and yet their work performance is adequate or better, should they disregard the "victimless crime" and ignore what the employee does on their own time?
Not sure if that was in jest or not but child porn is definetly NOT a victimless crime.
Bill- we have gone completely off track, but, here goes...your article is interesting, however, I found one important point you failed to include... Your paragraph that reads:
"Offense: The definition of “offense” is found in Section 10 of the Penal Law. It applies to the CPL unless the CPL contains a different definition. An “offense” is any violation of law, including state and local laws as well as local ordinances, for which a term or imprisonment or a fine may be imposed. See PL § 10.00(1). Any “crime”, including a “felony,” “misdemeanor,” “petty offense,” “violation” and/or “traffic infraction” are “offenses”. ",
you left out the last sentence of that, which reads, "It’s interesting to note that the term “petty offense” includes the non-criminal offenses of “violation” and “traffic infraction”. CPL § 1.20(39)"..Note the word "NON-CRIMINAL". I believe that changes your theory a bit!
Drug testing is nothing more than insurance companies manipulating the employers by lowering premiums to those companies who drug test.
Whats next, cholesterol testing, nicotine testing, body fat index testing, give me a break.
Suppose you had a job and you were taking narcotic pain killers for a chronic condition. So one day at work you are injured through no fault of your own, and you test positive for narcotics. Now your employer knows he has an employee working for him who is under the influence of narcotics. If the drug(s) were prescribed, it makes them "legal drugs", but doesn't change the fact a person is at work under the influence of narcotics.
As far as I'm concerned, this person would be a likely candidate for soon to be unemployed. Just my 2 cents.
Offenses labeled violations in New York are NOT considered crimes and therefore convictions for violations do not give the person so convicted a criminal record in New York.
(best site i could find right now)
is a 16 year old kid that has a 6pk of beer going to go to jail for it? should they even? UPM is treated on the same level.
the point i'm trying to make is there are different levels of offenses in NYS. the key point they all share is that they are a violation of a law, and therefore ILLEGAL ACTS.
nice link, concise info
and frank unless your job requires you to inform them that you are prescribed drugs that may impair your functioning at work i'd think that you would have a case for unlawful termination
Bill, Obviously the termination wouldn't be due to the prescrition drugs, the employer would find other excuses for termination, or lay off. No matter how you slice it, drug testing is an invasive tactic, I don't want an employer to know what types of medication(s) I'm taking, or have knowledge of any health issues I may suffer from,it's simply not their business.
Do you honestly beleive a person with chronic illness would be hired once the employer has knowledge of this, I don't. The employer sees a person who may affect the experience rate of their insurance.
Do you beleive an employer would hire a pregnant women?
I don't, it will add to their bottom line.
I sure don't want any drug
I sure don't want any drug addict making my fast food let alone some other important job ! :P
I prefer to pay taxes that support Public Assistance.
Gabor, If you're eating fast
Gabor, If you're eating fast food, the last thing you should worry about is who is making it! lol
Yeah Gabor, that McLunch is
Yeah Gabor, that McLunch is way worse for you than a puff or three off the hippie cigarettes.
Purposefully engaging in
Purposefully engaging in illegal activity speaks to character. If someone uses illegal drugs, then they have in that instance made a conscious choice to disregard the law. Employers often ask for and check on character references in the hiring process. If an employer finds out that an employee is into child pornography and yet their work performance is adequate or better, should they disregard the "victimless crime" and ignore what the employee does on their own time? If an employer discovers that an employee is engaged in illegal bookmaking and yet they are doing a great job at work, should the employer pass it off as none of his business? Character has to still stand for something...doesn't it?
Jeff- possessing marijuana
Jeff- possessing marijuana (under 25 grams, which would be the case for most people who like to catch a buzz) is NOT a crime..It's a violation! Also, smoking weed is not a crime...since this is not an illegal activity that speaks to one's character, as you put it, why should that person be denied the opportunity to be employed? When you get hurt on the job, the first thing your employer will have you do is take a drug test...why? Not to determine your character, that's for sure! Employers don't want your ability to be impaired while you're on their time. If that's the case, why aren't people tested for alcohol abuse? I think that can be much more dangerous than marijuana. The child pornography and bookmaking have absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here, you can't compare them!
I want people who drive
I want people who drive school buses, drive the big rigs or fly passengers tested. I have no problem with law enforcement or public safety workers being tested either.
Matt, marijuana is an illegal
Matt, marijuana is an illegal drug, in order to obtain it, illegal activity had to have taken place (unless you are growing it yourself and then we are splitting hairs down to the Nth degree). This is not a debate about the legalization of marijuana, it is a debate about illegal drugs and marijuana is one of them along with cocaine, heroine, meth, etc. The bookmaking and pornography are perfect comparisons since my post was about the character of disregarding the law and an employers right to hire and maintain employees who don't participate in illegal activity.
I knew this debate would pull out the argument about the occassional joint smoker, but the bigger picture is an employers right to maintain (or not) a work environment that fosters (or doesn't) consistent behavior and expectations from all employees.
John, how about the 10 ton
John, how about the 10 ton press operator, the guy operating crane in a busy construction site, the taxi driver, the guy welding a split seam on a fuel tank, the guy standing under your car fixing your brakes, the guy opening up your chest to repair a valve in your heart? Their are a lot more jobs than just what you mentioned that carry inherent risks to both the employee and the public.
You're wrong jeff...... "the
You're wrong jeff...... "the most common charge we see is Unlawful Possession of Marijuana
(UPM - Penal Law 221.05) for possession of less than 25 grams (about 7/8 of an ounce) of marijuana. This is not a crime - it's a violation." If a person is getting high, or even in possession of marijuana, they are in no way "disregarding the law." As I said, Smoking marijuana is NOT a crime, nor is it considered criminal activity, therefore, can not be compared to child pornography or bookmaking because those two activities are illegal..
Jeff, if you think heart
Jeff, if you think heart surgeons are going to ever be drug-tested, you're delusional. That heavy boot is only for us working stiff peons. Got to control the masses.
jeff---"If an employer finds
jeff---"If an employer finds out that an employee is into child pornography and yet their work performance is adequate or better, should they disregard the "victimless crime" and ignore what the employee does on their own time?" I certainly would not classify child pornography as a "victimless crime."
When they put the Pope in
When they put the Pope in jail for turning a blind eye to pedophilia I'll concern myself with the moral failures of those who smoke a little of God's herb.
I mispoke.....smoking pot is
I mispoke.....smoking pot is "disregarding the law" because it is "unlawful", but so is illegal parking! You get my point
As noted in a previous
As noted in a previous thread, general drug screening for employment nets 25% positives. Over 42% of Americans smoke pot. The notion that drug testing prevents employing drug users is a profitable mirage- profitable for those companies supplying/administering the tests.
The issue is not whether drug users should be ignored by employers; the issue is testing. HR personnel, the interview process and probationary period provide a more effective filter for unsuitable employees; so why demean the workforce by requiring a urine sample? ...Just to demonstrate who is in charge? ...A morbid act to treat job applicants like horses?
As noted by other posters, testing is not universal, and the exceptions seem to favor management.
Will we be so forgiving when insurance companies demand genetic testing prior to providing health insurance?
One can use bottom line to justify anything- doesn't make it right. The bottom line is rapidly reducing any claim to personal property: wiretaps, imminent domain, no-knock law, patriot act... How much will we surrender before declaring, enough?
To think people sighed a breath of relief in 1984, presuming Orwell's book was still stacked under 'fiction'!
If you have nothing to hide
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. But take my word for it, hide anyway and be scared shitless because "you won't like what comes after America." -Leonard Cohen
Listed under non-fiction.
If some idiot can't NOT do
If some idiot can't NOT do drugs even for a few days in order to get a job, I don't want to work with him or her.
It's actually quite simple: If an employer requires pre-employment or random drug testing, and you want to work there, don't do drugs and pee in the damn cup. If your drug use is more important than obtaining a job, you have greater problems than being unemployed.
Nobody is questioning WHY employers test. Are they trying to make a positive impact on society? Heck no. Pre-employment and "random" screens help the bottom line. Most employers require testing immediately following a work related accident. You're high? Forget about workman's comp, civil suits, and insurance claims.
I suggest to those that oppose such testing need to put their idealism and thoughts of "an intrusion" into ones privacy aside. Get real. It's all about $$$.
Everything is about money,
Everything is about money, and pre-employment screening is a waste of money Bob. You can tell in a week if your employee is a loser and you let him go if he is. Like you said, anyone can test clean to get a job and what does that prove? I'd be more concerned about what is in the employees head than what is in their urine but that's just me, a damn liberal.
Matt, that was the reason for
Matt, that was the reason for the quotation marks. It is also a misconception that casual pot smoking is a victimless crime. Where do you think the majority of marijuana comes from? (again, I am not talking about homegrown which makes up such a small percentage) Mexico, South and Central America. Now it doesn't cross the border in open trucks where it is inspected, taxed, and then distributed. It is smuggled in. A great deal of slave type labor goes into growing, harvesting, and transporting of marijuana and conditions at our borders have deteriorated in the recent years where it is not safe to even live near the Texas/Mexican border. The statistics on how many people die each year in drug related violence or are relegated to servitude just so that some can enjoy the occassional joint ought to make that 42% think twice.
Just think, if this thing
Just think, if this thing that naturally grows out of the ground wasn't illegal, you wouldn't have all that violence..lol, but you're right jeff, that's all the reason to deny someone employment...After all, it's not hard at all to find a job these days. Now back to the point of this article, let's give a meaningless test that is so easy to "cheat" on (not to mention the fact that most drugs are out of your system in a few days anyway), so the "users" can just go back to using while holding down their job. That doesn't sound like a waste of time and money at all! Good thing the company checked the "character" of its employees!
Posted by matt riggi on March
Posted by matt riggi on March 1, 2011 - 11:46am
Jeff- possessing marijuana (under 25 grams, which would be the case for most people who like to catch a buzz) is NOT a crime..It's a violation!
From the NYS Penal law (taken from http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article221.htm )
221.05 Unlawful possession of marihuana.
A person is guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana when he
knowingly and unlawfully possesses marihuana.
Unlawful possession of marihuana is a violation punishable only by a
fine of not more than one hundred dollars. However, where the defendant
has previously been convicted of an offense defined in this article or
article 220 of this chapter, committed within the three years
immediately preceding such violation….. (shortened for space)
From http://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/2008/03/what_is_an_offense_n…
Offense: The definition of “offense” is found in Section 10 of the Penal Law. It applies to the CPL unless the CPL contains a different definition. An “offense” is any violation of law, including state and local laws as well as local ordinances, for which a term or imprisonment or a fine may be imposed. See PL § 10.00(1). Any “crime”, including a “felony,” “misdemeanor,” “petty offense,” “violation” and/or “traffic infraction” are “offenses”.
There are three levels to criminal offenses. Felony (most serious) Misdemeanor (less serious) and Violation. All are CRIMINAL offenses and therefor CRIMES. The classes simply rank them for what sentences are available. IE:
Felony (the lower ones atleast, none sex offenses) you can get 5 years of probation or up to/including state prison time.
A Misdemeanor offenses (the more serious) 3years probation or up to a year local jail time,
B misdemeanors 1 year probation or 90 days jail.
VIOLAIONS (IE unlawful possession of marijuana) up to 15 days jail. (also note fines can be levied in most of the above cases)
Posted by matt riggi on March 1, 2011 - 11:46am
When you get hurt on the job, the first thing your employer will have you do is take a drug test...why? Not to determine your character, that's for sure! Employers don't want your ability to be impaired while you're on their time. If that's the case, why aren't people tested for alcohol abuse? I think that can be much more dangerous than marijuana
They will also have you take an alcohol test. Alcohol is not illegal unless you are under 21. I’m not going to get into an argument about which is worse (they are both bad for you regardless) but there are laws one of them. In addition if alcohol abuse is impacting your work chances are they will fire you eventually, same with drug use, even if they don’t test you when they hire you.
Posted by Jeff Allen on March 1, 2011 - 11:26am
If an employer finds out that an employee is into child pornography and yet their work performance is adequate or better, should they disregard the "victimless crime" and ignore what the employee does on their own time?
Not sure if that was in jest or not but child porn is definetly NOT a victimless crime.
Bill- we have gone completely
Bill- we have gone completely off track, but, here goes...your article is interesting, however, I found one important point you failed to include... Your paragraph that reads:
"Offense: The definition of “offense” is found in Section 10 of the Penal Law. It applies to the CPL unless the CPL contains a different definition. An “offense” is any violation of law, including state and local laws as well as local ordinances, for which a term or imprisonment or a fine may be imposed. See PL § 10.00(1). Any “crime”, including a “felony,” “misdemeanor,” “petty offense,” “violation” and/or “traffic infraction” are “offenses”. ",
you left out the last sentence of that, which reads, "It’s interesting to note that the term “petty offense” includes the non-criminal offenses of “violation” and “traffic infraction”. CPL § 1.20(39)"..Note the word "NON-CRIMINAL". I believe that changes your theory a bit!
I found an interesting website...http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/drug-testing-2 This site relates better to the poll, not reefer laws..would love to hear what you think..
Drug testing is nothing more
Drug testing is nothing more than insurance companies manipulating the employers by lowering premiums to those companies who drug test.
Whats next, cholesterol testing, nicotine testing, body fat index testing, give me a break.
Suppose you had a job and you were taking narcotic pain killers for a chronic condition. So one day at work you are injured through no fault of your own, and you test positive for narcotics. Now your employer knows he has an employee working for him who is under the influence of narcotics. If the drug(s) were prescribed, it makes them "legal drugs", but doesn't change the fact a person is at work under the influence of narcotics.
As far as I'm concerned, this person would be a likely candidate for soon to be unemployed. Just my 2 cents.
Matt non criminal simply
Matt
non criminal simply means its not going to show up on your rap sheet or criminal history check, just like a speeding ticket wont.
quote from http://www.new-york-arraignments.com/violation.htm
Offenses labeled violations in New York are NOT considered crimes and therefore convictions for violations do not give the person so convicted a criminal record in New York.
(best site i could find right now)
is a 16 year old kid that has a 6pk of beer going to go to jail for it? should they even? UPM is treated on the same level.
the point i'm trying to make is there are different levels of offenses in NYS. the key point they all share is that they are a violation of a law, and therefore ILLEGAL ACTS.
nice link, concise info
and frank unless your job requires you to inform them that you are prescribed drugs that may impair your functioning at work i'd think that you would have a case for unlawful termination
Bill, Obviously the
Bill, Obviously the termination wouldn't be due to the prescrition drugs, the employer would find other excuses for termination, or lay off. No matter how you slice it, drug testing is an invasive tactic, I don't want an employer to know what types of medication(s) I'm taking, or have knowledge of any health issues I may suffer from,it's simply not their business.
Do you honestly beleive a person with chronic illness would be hired once the employer has knowledge of this, I don't. The employer sees a person who may affect the experience rate of their insurance.
Do you beleive an employer would hire a pregnant women?
I don't, it will add to their bottom line.