Perch and Drug Testing

[Duchess Jack]

Perch...

 

I never got an explination from the below post. I am actually quite curious about your answer.

 

Perch

It's $80 per employee per test, and then it's having to worry about your unemployment insurance going up each time you fire a pothead. Yes it is a cost of doing business. A cost that increases the cost of our projects, which in turn increase the cost to the community. I love the way that people (not necessarily you DJ) say "that's just a cost of doing business" when they have absolutely no idea about running a business, and how quickly those little costs add up. Regulation costs, cost of doing business, double taxation, cost of doing business, outrageously high insurance limits to protect from scum sucking lawyers and estranged wives, cost of doing business, Obamacare, cost of doing business, etc...

 

 

DJ

again, you make some good points. I can see where you - as a business owner can complain about double taxation, regulation and all that other stuff. I can see where you feel this stuff is impossed unfairly upon you.

 

The pot smoking thing seems a little different. Here it seems like you are looking to limit everybody's rights - to save you the 'risk' and costs of testing - but then I have heard you talk in the past about business owners and the money they make and how they make the money they do because they are the people to take the risk.

[gbpfan1231]

I thought it was discussed but I will add my 2 cents and maybe it will not be what Perch was thinking but...

 

If I remember the topic it was about not having the ability to test someone for pot like it is for alcohol. No simple breathalyzer and it is more difficult to "notice" someone high on pot as opposed to drunk.

 

Yes businesses take risk but there are different levels and types of risk - I would assume Perch is not willing to take this risk because the rewards do not justify the risk and there is nothing or it is too costly to a business to try and combat the risk. Businesses just don't take risk for the hell of it - they take risk if they think they can overcome that risk with a reward that is suitable for them to take the risk.

 

Maybe way off base but my two cents.

[Duchess Jack]

I thought it was discussed but I will add my 2 cents and maybe it will not be what Perch was thinking but...

 

If I remember the topic it was about not having the ability to test someone for pot like it is for alcohol. No simple breathalyzer and it is more difficult to "notice" someone high on pot as opposed to drunk.

 

Yes businesses take risk but there are different levels and types of risk - I would assume Perch is not willing to take this risk because the rewards do not justify the risk and there is nothing or it is too costly to a business to try and combat the risk. Businesses just don't take risk for the hell of it - they take risk if they think they can overcome that risk with a reward that is suitable for them to take the risk.

 

Maybe way off base but my two cents.

I understood his point. It just seemed to me that he seemed to think that legalization might be an alright idea if he did not own his construction buisness. His response was off of my 'cost of doing business' comment. I was just wondering if he thought it was right to deny the entire population something so he does not need to invest in some testing as a business owner. This is not to say that he is personally denying people something - or that this is a right people have - but it seems like legislating morality to save small minority of people a few dollars.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[polksalet]

Legalization is a bad idea. We do not need more lazy people.

[Deathpig]

I thought it was discussed but I will add my 2 cents and maybe it will not be what Perch was thinking but...

 

If I remember the topic it was about not having the ability to test someone for pot like it is for alcohol. No simple breathalyzer and it is more difficult to "notice" someone high on pot as opposed to drunk.

 

Yes businesses take risk but there are different levels and types of risk - I would assume Perch is not willing to take this risk because the rewards do not justify the risk and there is nothing or it is too costly to a business to try and combat the risk. Businesses just don't take risk for the hell of it - they take risk if they think they can overcome that risk with a reward that is suitable for them to take the risk.

 

Maybe way off base but my two cents.

 

If there is no simple breathalyzer how do DUI/DWI stops/arrests/procedures work in pot is legalized (touch your nose' sobriety tests)? Or for that matter, negligence cases related to intoxication in general? Doesn't seem like a fun legal quagmire to wade into.

[TimC]

Legalization is a bad idea. We do not need more lazy people.

 

If anyone is over 24 years old and still smoking pot on a regular basis, then it's probably too late to talk sense into them. They're probably just waiting for their Gubment checks to arrive.

[bpwallace49]

If anyone is over 24 years old and still smoking pot on a regular basis, then it's probably too late to talk sense into them. They're probably just waiting for their Gubment checks to arrive.

 

[brent] [/brent]

[westvirginia]

I don't think perch was saying it's a bad idea because he's in the construction business, but it would have a negative effect on his business. I also think I've seen him say that if there was something such as the breathalyzer for Josh Gordon where he could test someone and find that they are that minute under the influence of THC versus they've inhaled cannabis sometime in the last 5 days or whatever then he'd be all for legalizing it. If he puts someone who uses pot up on a scaffold and they fall, then he needs a test to determine whether they'd smoked on their lunch 2 hours ago or if the last time was last night and it was all out of their system. Make sense? Because if it's still in their system they have responsability, but as far as I know there's no way to tell the difference (unless it'd be a blood test) between use last week and use last hour. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think that was his issue. It's no one's business what substances one puts in their body, frankly, but you can't use those substances with impunity, just like alcahol or nyquil.

 

I understood his point. It just seemed to me that he seemed to think that legalization might be an alright idea if he did not own his construction buisness. His response was off of my 'cost of doing business' comment. I was just wondering if he thought it was right to deny the entire population something so he does not need to invest in some testing as a business owner. This is not to say that he is personally denying people something - or that this is a right people have - but it seems like legislating morality to save small minority of people a few dollars.

[bpwallace49]

I don't think perch was saying it's a bad idea because he's in the construction business, but it would have a negative effect on his business. I also think I've seen him say that if there was something such as the breathalyzer for Josh Gordon where he could test someone and find that they are that minute under the influence of THC versus they've inhaled cannabis sometime in the last 5 days or whatever then he'd be all for legalizing it. If he puts someone who uses pot up on a scaffold and they fall, then he needs a test to determine whether they'd smoked on their lunch 2 hours ago or if the last time was last night and it was all out of their system. Make sense? Because if it's still in their system they have responsability, but as far as I know there's no way to tell the difference (unless it'd be a blood test) between use last week and use last hour. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think that was his issue. It's no one's business what substances one puts in their body, frankly, but you can't use those substances with impunity, just like alcahol or nyquil.

 

That is exactly what perch was saying. He would be for it if there was a legitimate test to shield him from risk due to a negligent employee

[Duchess Jack]

That is exactly what perch was saying. He would be for it if there was a legitimate test to shield him from risk due to a negligent employee

Again, I think I follow what he was saying. I was just asking about having to pay for tests.

 

 

I've worked for a couple engineering firms and they'd test the people in the field all the time. I understand that tests cost money, but I am wondering when it comes to legislating what people can and cannot do - if testing money 'should' be considered part of doing business.

 

So - let's say there was a law put in place that said "an employer will not be held liable for an actions of a stoned employee (assuming herb is determined to have caused the accident) so long as the employee has been tested in the last month. I am wondering if Perch would see something like that as fair. I guess in this scenerio - to get as unbiased answer as I can - that we can say these protections wouldn't give him any additional coverage than he has now - but it would essentially 'negate' the additional liability that might come with legalization (so long as monthly tests are performed) - would this be good for perch?

 

Non-issue really. Just curious. I'm bored.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Legalization is a bad idea. We do not need more lazy people.

Un-employment benefits ... that is the problem with legalization. An we are now in a record setting period for un-employment benefits. You can sit on your couch for 90 weeks without lifting a finger and get paid by the gov't.

[Duchess Jack]

Un-employment benefits ... that is the problem with legalization. An we are now in a record setting period for un-employment benefits. You can sit on your couch for 90 weeks without lifting a finger and get paid by the gov't.

I have always been a proponent for drug tests for anybody on government assistance.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I have always been a proponent for drug tests for anybody on government assistance.

yup should be mandatory and bi weekly .

[Scooby's Hubby]

I have always been a proponent for drug tests for anybody on government assistance.

I would differ here, only b/c the gov't is not supposed to dictate what you do with your life. If you want to appreciate my circumstance and lend a hand, then lend a hand. If it bothered the gov't so much, then do not do it at all. Same with any friend you help out. You don't give your buddy money and then tell him what to eat or how to have sex with his girlfriend. Same with the gov't. If it bothers you to help, then do not help.

 

This also will spill over into healthcare, eventually.

[Duchess Jack]

I would differ here, only b/c the gov't is not supposed to dictate what you do with your life. If you want to appreciate my circumstance and lend a hand, then lend a hand. If it bothered the gov't so much, then do not do it at all. Same with any friend you help out. You don't give your buddy money and then tell him what to eat or how to have sex with his girlfriend. Same with the gov't. If it bothers you to help, then do not help.

 

This also will spill over into healthcare, eventually.

how can you not take somebody claiming money issues while taking drugs as part of their circumstance.

 

as for friends - I am the dumb-ass that a lot of my friends come to when they are in a jam. I have one friend I lent a couple grand to. He said he'd pay it back within six months, but after two years, he had only paid half of it back. I am understanding and lent the money because I could. I wanted the help the guy out and if he had a legit reason he could not pay me back - then I'd roll with him, because I helped him out because I wanted to help him out.

 

This friend though played like it was killing him inside that he could not pay me back. He could not accept though that his going to strip clubs close to every night and his buying herb and drink was the reason he was unable to pay me back. He could not understand that he was putting these things above my family. He refused to understand it. This sir is a relevant circumstance and changed what I was/am willing to do for him moving forward.

[gbpfan1231]

how can you not take somebody claiming money issues while taking drugs as part of their circumstance.

 

as for friends - I am the dumb-ass that a lot of my friends come to when they are in a jam. I have one friend I lent a couple grand to. He said he'd pay it back within six months, but after two years, he had only paid half of it back. I am understanding and lent the money because I could. I wanted the help the guy out and if he had a legit reason he could not pay me back - then I'd roll with him, because I helped him out because I wanted to help him out.

 

This friend though played like it was killing him inside that he could not pay me back. He could not accept though that his going to strip clubs close to every night and his buying herb and drink was the reason he was unable to pay me back. He could not understand that he was putting these things above my family. He refused to understand it. This sir is a relevant circumstance and changed what I was/am willing to do for him moving forward.

Amen my brotha.

[TimC]

Yep, don't ever lend money to drunks and drug addicts.

[Scooby's Hubby]

how can you not take somebody claiming money issues while taking drugs as part of their circumstance.

 

as for friends - I am the dumb-ass that a lot of my friends come to when they are in a jam. I have one friend I lent a couple grand to. He said he'd pay it back within six months, but after two years, he had only paid half of it back. I am understanding and lent the money because I could. I wanted the help the guy out and if he had a legit reason he could not pay me back - then I'd roll with him, because I helped him out because I wanted to help him out.

 

This friend though played like it was killing him inside that he could not pay me back. He could not accept though that his going to strip clubs close to every night and his buying herb and drink was the reason he was unable to pay me back. He could not understand that he was putting these things above my family. He refused to understand it. This sir is a relevant circumstance and changed what I was/am willing to do for him moving forward.

I hear ya, but to say that all, or even a near majority, of people getting gov't asistance are using drugs is incorrect. You have overwieght people with "disabilty". You gonna ration their food and insulin? You have single moms getting college loans, you gonna go find the deadbeat dads and make them man up? is the gov't gonna make sure they do their class homework? You want to go tell the mommy who would rather stay at home making kids she has to give a few up and then get neutered? I am not even scratching the surface of the kind of people on gov't assistance. Oh, you just wanna drug test. Well, then if you are gonna drug test, then also you need to monitor the fat lazies' food and diets, you need to make sure that all student loans have straight A's, snip all the deadbeat dads so they can't multiply , etc. So looking at the big picture, the gov't cannot be everyone's mommies and daddies. Either give the money and take the good with the bad or don't give any money. And drug testing would just be another enormous expense that would not solve anything.

 

I know you are probably thinking if we drug test we can then clean up the druggies on welfare. I think all you would be doing is going back to the same problem and reason you are giving them a handout in the first place.

[Scooby's Hubby]

and yet you are right in that it sends a horrible signal that being worthless to society is acceptable, so this is not a easy program to judge.

[bpwallace49]

. And drug testing would just be another enormous expense that would not solve anything.

 

You really arent serious . . are you?

 

Drug tests cost 50 bucks for my business. If you deduct the test from the assistance, it doesnt "cost" the gubmnet anything, it creates jobs for a lot more testing labs/companies, and it starts to have assistance go to what it is for . . . to assist people with shelter/food.

 

Plus drugs are illegal, wheras food/having kids are not.

 

Drug testing to qulaify for gubmnet assistance is a GOOD thing.

[Duchess Jack]

I hear ya, but to say that all, or even a near majority, of people getting gov't asistance are using drugs is incorrect. You have overwieght people with "disabilty". You gonna ration their food and insulin? You have single moms getting college loans, you gonna go find the deadbeat dads and make them man up? is the gov't gonna make sure they do their class homework? You want to go tell the mommy who would rather stay at home making kids she has to give a few up and then get neutered? I am not even scratching the surface of the kind of people on gov't assistance. Oh, you just wanna drug test.

 

No doubt and if you find somebody who hinted that everybody on government assistance is on drugs - you should give them a stern talking to. I was brought up on government assistance. My mom ran away with my dad when she was 17. He wouldn't let her work, go to school or even have a winter coat (so she would not go out). I was 3 and my sister was 6 when she left him. She had no skills and no foundation. I am here today because of government assistance.

 

You want to go tell the mommy who would rather stay at home making kids she has to give a few up and then get neutered?

Perhaps not give kids up - but I'd be all ears to hear about a neutering program.

 

I am not even scratching the surface of the kind of people on gov't assistance. Oh, you just wanna drug test. Well, then if you are gonna drug test, then also you need to monitor the fat lazies' food and diets, you need to make sure that all student loans have straight A's, snip all the deadbeat dads so they can't multiply

 

I tend not to subscribe to the idea that if you cannot fix 100% of a problem, you should not fix the problem at all. Further - fat and lazy are subjective and not everybody is armed enough to get straight 'A's. In fact - I don't see any of these things as being comparable at all to drug testing.

[gbpfan1231]

You really arent serious . . are you?

 

Drug tests cost 50 bucks for my business. If you deduct the test from the assistance, it doesnt "cost" the gubmnet anything, it creates jobs for a lot more testing labs/companies, and it starts to have assistance go to what it is for . . . to assist people with shelter/food.

 

Plus drugs are illegal, wheras food/having kids are not.

 

Drug testing to qulaify for gubmnet assistance is a GOOD thing.

Dead on.

[Ursa Majoris]

It's an odd paradox but the liberals around here are in favor of drug testing for welfare while some of the more conservative see it as an infringement of liberty. Weird or what?

[SEC=UGA]

Again, I think I follow what he was saying. I was just asking about having to pay for tests.

 

 

I've worked for a couple engineering firms and they'd test the people in the field all the time. I understand that tests cost money, but I am wondering when it comes to legislating what people can and cannot do - if testing money 'should' be considered part of doing business.

 

We have a drug testing policy in our office. The break we get from our work comp. company makes up for the money we spend on testing. There are issues, however, surrounding the timeline at which someone smoked the Josh Gordon and that is a big problem. If they show up positive when they hit the hospital, it doesn't matter whether they smoked last week or at lunch, the work comp company will not pay and our rates go up.

[SEC=UGA]

It's an odd paradox but the liberals around here are in favor of drug testing for welfare while some of the more conservative see it as an infringement of liberty. Weird or what?

 

Weird...

 

To clear up my position... Drug test 'em, neuter 'em, stop feeding 'em and let god sort 'em out.