Drug Screen for First Job

Off Topic
81

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What do you do?

I run occ-med company for some of the largest contractors, petrochemical and energy companies nation wide. That includes drug screening.

So all your points about testing are bro-science because unless you work for a lab, which you obviously don’t with your points, are just talking out your ass[/quote]

Whoa, now we’re playing the call out game are we? Shit just got REAL…

Once again, why are you attacking me personally, instead of addressing my arguments? Is that how the big boys argue?

And I don’t see what working in a lab has to do with anything. Were I you, I wouldn’t presume to know anything about my scientific background. However, if you want a hint, consider this: I would be more than glad to engage in an AMICABLE scientific discussion.[/quote]

Bud, trust me Derek knows more than anybody on this site and perhaps most of the U.S. on this subject…His multi-multi million dollar company specializes in this VERY thing. You have brought a knife to a gunfight here.

Back slowly away.

Not hating, just advising.[/quote]

That may be so, but I was simply requesting that we debate this civilly and rationally, something that we often seem to have a hard time doing on these forums. I’m a reasonable guy and I’m willing to say, “that’s a really good point, perhaps I’ll have to reconsider my position”, if he provides a sufficiently compelling reason.

Additionally, though Derek may have extensive knowledge in this field, his expertise may also be a liability to his position. He’s obviously a very successful guy who has a lot invested in his career. It is a natural tendency to believe that we are contributing positively to society and that what we do is valuable. As such, this is likely to produce a selectivity bias in his perspective of the topic. Don’t take what I said here the wrong way, I’m not saying that what his company does doesn’t have some value.

But as I said earlier, if his arguments are good enough, I’m open to rethinking my position.

On the topic of my position, I feel that many of you have gotten the wrong idea of where I actually stand. Though I’ve been playing the devil’s advocate for most of this thread, I’m actually quite moderate in terms of my beliefs about this. I don’t doubt that drug testing is quite valuable for many positions, but like any system, there are always flies in the ointment. To blindly follow what others put forth without questioning if the system could be made better, more fair, is to fall into stagnation. As I mentioned earlier, most truly dedicated abusers already have strategies for dealing with drug tests. That’s why I have no moral qualms about sharing the same strategies with those who I perceive to be regular people.

82

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thehebrewhero wrote:
Pura blend tea drink 1 gallon the day before. Take niacin pills and golden seal the day of piss + a multi vitamin so pee looks yellow

If you dont have to do it in front of someone just bring in some piss from a clean buddy or relative… Keep it close to your body so its a good temp

I passed plenty of PO pee tests back in the day those tricks always worked for me :)[/quote]

Why would you tell a young person to lie to their first employer when they are doing nothing wrong?

OP, this advice is stupid. Be honest on the forms. You’ll be fine and have nothing to worry about. [/quote]

This isn’t lying, it’s covering your ass. You can still tell them you’re on Rx drugs, but it saves everybody trouble if you come up clean anyway. I tested positive for amphetamines (prescribed, brought in my bottle), but was still sent to jump through more hoops for a confirmation test (with a lower threshold) to determine the type of amph.

Drug tests are pretty easy to beat if you’re interested. I took my meds the day of the confirmation test, but decided to try and see if I could beat it.

They will test urine quality in terms of colour, masking agents (don’t use them), and ESPECIALLY specific gravity to check for flushing.

Don’t give them your first piss of the day, it’s more concentrated.

Drink lots of cranberry juice when you wake up, it’s a diuretic. It will help you do this: take a piss as often as you can prior to the test, diluting drug metabolite concentrations.

Don’t flush your system by drinking lots of water. It works, but it will alter the specific gravity of your urine. I drank a lot of Gatorade and a V8 for the electrolytes.

Take a multi and some vit B12 for nice yellow urine.

In the test, when you’re pissing into the cup, do not use your piss from the beginning or the end. Use the stuff mid-stream. It’s lower in metabolites.

Does it work? I took my meds the day of the test, and passed it easily, even with the lower threshold.[/quote]

Using someone else’s urine to pass a drug test, while signing a consent form isn’t a lie?

83

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thehebrewhero wrote:
Pura blend tea drink 1 gallon the day before. Take niacin pills and golden seal the day of piss + a multi vitamin so pee looks yellow

If you dont have to do it in front of someone just bring in some piss from a clean buddy or relative… Keep it close to your body so its a good temp

I passed plenty of PO pee tests back in the day those tricks always worked for me :)[/quote]

Why would you tell a young person to lie to their first employer when they are doing nothing wrong?

OP, this advice is stupid. Be honest on the forms. You’ll be fine and have nothing to worry about. [/quote]

This isn’t lying, it’s covering your ass. [/quote]

From Webster’s: Lie: Definition of LIE

intransitive verb

: to create a false or misleading impression

You sure it’s not lying?[/quote]

How are you creating a misleading impression if you admit to the prescription drugs. You aren’t misrepresenting anything. Just because you’re on Rx drugs, doesn’t mean they have to be in your system at the time of the test.

Flushing your system might save you the trouble of having to drive around some other day to whatever independent lab of their choosing for a confirmation test.[/quote]

It’s not his pee…

[quote]thehebrewhero wrote:
If you dont have to do it in front of someone just bring in some piss from a clean buddy or relative… Keep it close to your body so its a good temp [/quote]

This is a bold face lie.

84

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals.

85

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Are you stating that infrastructure would be similar or just developed?[/quote]

We’ll never know, because the government will never give up that cash cow.

Of course it is, we do it daily, random testing is real time testing onsite. I send techs onsite facilities to do Breath alcohol and urine collection.

86

Who is supposed to pay for this on site drug testing, the employer?

87

Must hate testing Canadians.

88

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What do you do?

I run occ-med company for some of the largest contractors, petrochemical and energy companies nation wide. That includes drug screening.

So all your points about testing are bro-science because unless you work for a lab, which you obviously don’t with your points, are just talking out your ass[/quote]

Whoa, now we’re playing the call out game are we? Shit just got REAL…

Once again, why are you attacking me personally, instead of addressing my arguments? Is that how the big boys argue?

And I don’t see what working in a lab has to do with anything. Were I you, I wouldn’t presume to know anything about my scientific background. However, if you want a hint, consider this: I would be more than glad to engage in an AMICABLE scientific discussion.[/quote]

Bud, trust me Derek knows more than anybody on this site and perhaps most of the U.S. on this subject…His multi-multi million dollar company specializes in this VERY thing. You have brought a knife to a gunfight here.

Back slowly away.

Not hating, just advising.[/quote]

That may be so, but I was simply requesting that we debate this civilly and rationally, something that we often seem to have a hard time doing on these forums. I’m a reasonable guy and I’m willing to say, “that’s a really good point, perhaps I’ll have to reconsider my position”, if he provides a sufficiently compelling reason.

Additionally, though Derek may have extensive knowledge in this field, his expertise may also be a liability to his position. He’s obviously a very successful guy who has a lot invested in his career. It is a natural tendency to believe that we are contributing positively to society and that what we do is valuable. As such, this is likely to produce a selectivity bias in his perspective of the topic. Don’t take what I said here the wrong way, I’m not saying that what his company does doesn’t have some value.

But as I said earlier, if his arguments are good enough, I’m open to rethinking my position.

On the topic of my position, I feel that many of you have gotten the wrong idea of where I actually stand. Though I’ve been playing the devil’s advocate for most of this thread, I’m actually quite moderate in terms of my beliefs about this. I don’t doubt that drug testing is quite valuable for many positions, but like any system, there are always flies in the ointment. To blindly follow what others put forth without questioning if the system could be made better, more fair, is to fall into stagnation. As I mentioned earlier, most truly dedicated abusers already have strategies for dealing with drug tests. That’s why I have no moral qualms about sharing the same strategies with those who I perceive to be regular people.[/quote]

I have only been this part of medicine for the past 5 years. So I do not believe I have a “blinders on” view of this topic.

Do I care if the kid working at Subway smokes pot when he is off work? No
Do I care if professionals in medicine or transport systems smoke pot when off work? Yes
Do I care if the laborer who works at a chemical plant smokes when he is off? Yes, you may ask why I would care about this one. Well even the most mundane guy sometimes can have his finger on the trigger. Bad things can happen in certain settings.

However back to this topic, fundamentally you are missing my point.

Illicit drugs are by definition illegal. So why would you want your workforce to have an element of breaking the law? People miss work when they are in jail, kind of bad for business.

89

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Who is supposed to pay for this on site drug testing, the employer? [/quote]

Correct sir. Most of the time the big companies Exxon, BP, Shell etc mandate that contractors have a drug screening program.

90

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Who is supposed to pay for this on site drug testing, the employer? [/quote]

Correct sir. Most of the time the big companies Exxon, BP, Shell etc mandate that contractors have a drug screening program. [/quote]

Shoot, if I was them I’d lower wages and add “onsite drug testing” to the benefits package.

91

I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the logic that daily, real-time drug testing, is totally cool and not a major privacy concern. While intermittent random drug testing, or a test prior to employment is nanny state privacy invasion that goes beyond an employer’s legal right.

92

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the logic that daily, real-time drug testing, is totally cool and not a major privacy concern. While intermittent random drug testing, or a test prior to employment is nanny state privacy invasion that goes beyond an employer’s legal right.

[/quote]

You and me both.

93

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Who is supposed to pay for this on site drug testing, the employer? [/quote]

Correct sir. Most of the time the big companies Exxon, BP, Shell etc mandate that contractors have a drug screening program. [/quote]

Shoot, if I was them I’d lower wages and add “onsite drug testing” to the benefits package. [/quote]
Well OSHA pretty much has an office on big job sites. They have an interest in drug screening also. Hiring people has gotten to be costly, however it is still lower than hiring someone who kills half the refinery because he is impaired.

Sorry to head things off at the pass, I am not convinced that occasional drug use has no ill effects on cognition. This again in its nature shows that a person who does this is not averse to risk, meaning when they do get on a job site they have that mental make up.

94

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Who is supposed to pay for this on site drug testing, the employer? [/quote]

Correct sir. Most of the time the big companies Exxon, BP, Shell etc mandate that contractors have a drug screening program. [/quote]

Shoot, if I was them I’d lower wages and add “onsite drug testing” to the benefits package. [/quote]
Well OSHA pretty much has an office on big job sites. They have an interest in drug screening also. Hiring people has gotten to be costly, however it is still lower than hiring someone who kills half the refinery because he is impaired.

Sorry to head things off at the pass, I am not convinced that occasional drug use has no ill effects on cognition. This again in its nature shows that a person who does this is not averse to risk, meaning when they do get on a job site they have that mental make up. [/quote]

Ya, I agree with you.

95

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals. [/quote]

Certain substance aren’t illegal in many countries and on their way to being decriminalized in several states.

Are you stating that the employer should own the employee’s actions 24/7 even if they are legal?

So you can test impairment levels on a jobsite other than alcohol and differentiate use off site? That is pretty interesting.

96

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Who is supposed to pay for this on site drug testing, the employer? [/quote]

Correct sir. Most of the time the big companies Exxon, BP, Shell etc mandate that contractors have a drug screening program. [/quote]

Shoot, if I was them I’d lower wages and add “onsite drug testing” to the benefits package. [/quote]

Your company administers the tests to those that are heading out to rigs in the gulf don’t ya?

97

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals. [/quote]

Certain substance aren’t illegal in many countries and on their way to being decriminalized in several states.

Are you stating that the employer should own the employee’s actions 24/7 even if they are legal?

So you can test impairment levels on a jobsite other than alcohol and differentiate use off site? That is pretty interesting.

[/quote]

Cigarettes aren’t illegal either, but I know that at least one local doctors office will not hire a nurse if she smokes. Which their only test is if they smell smoke so its fairly easy to beat but the point is, cigarettes are 100% legal however if a private employer doesn’t want to hire someone because of it, why should they have to?? Don’t they have the same freedoms as the nurse that wants to smoke?

98

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the logic that daily, real-time drug testing, is totally cool and not a major privacy concern. While intermittent random drug testing, or a test prior to employment is nanny state privacy invasion that goes beyond an employer’s legal right.

[/quote]

You and me both. [/quote]

I am referring to impairment indices while working. Which I find within the rights of the employer.

Not finding positives via hair or urine from off site usage.

Both of you have made it clear you believe the employer owns the employee. That is your perspective. I however disagree.

99

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Who is supposed to pay for this on site drug testing, the employer? [/quote]

Correct sir. Most of the time the big companies Exxon, BP, Shell etc mandate that contractors have a drug screening program. [/quote]

Shoot, if I was them I’d lower wages and add “onsite drug testing” to the benefits package. [/quote]

Your company administers the tests to those that are heading out to rigs in the gulf don’t ya?

[/quote]

Nah, I’m in the book publishing industry. I did have to take a pee pee test though and took many in the military.

Maybe I should open an onsite testing business though…

100

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the logic that daily, real-time drug testing, is totally cool and not a major privacy concern. While intermittent random drug testing, or a test prior to employment is nanny state privacy invasion that goes beyond an employer’s legal right.

[/quote]

You and me both. [/quote]

I am referring to impairment indices while working. Which I find within the rights of the employer.

Not finding positives via hair or urine from off site usage.

Both of you have made it clear you believe the employer owns the employee. That is your perspective. I however disagree. [/quote]

I don’t think they think the employer owns the employee. The employer is not forcing the employee to take a drug test. The employee at anytime could quit and leave that job. Everybody is free in this scenario, employer has the freedom to hold their employees to certain standards, employee has the right to not work for employers who’s standards they don’t like.