[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
Derek, you’ve definitely come up with some solid points regarding legality that have allowed me to entertain a shift in my position.
You are correct in that companies are acting in their best interests and within legal boundaries in imposing drug testing for some position. It is perhaps not this system that is primarily flawed so much as the legislation of psychoactive drugs.
For example, Derek, would you not consider designer drugs to be a big problem?
This is an industry that I consider to be detrimental to say the least. All things considered, we are talking about a very lucrative industry that produces quasi-legal psychoactive compounds with little known about their effects (both physiological and subjective), some of which are specifically designed to break down into metabolites that will not show up on any standard form of drug test. In many ways, the lack of knowledge about them and their effects places both the user and others (such as the employer) at a greater risk than standard recreational drugs because of their unpredictable nature. For a great example of this, I’m sure we’ve all heard some good horror stories about MDPV (a.k.a. “bath salts”). The scary thing is that this is an industry that is growing in popularity and directly benefits from prohibitionist legislation. And the terrible thing is, banning these substances hasn’t proven to be an effective way of dealing with the industry, as this is considered a cost of doing business, much the same way tech companies consider patent infringement to be.
Perhaps it is our approach to regulating psychoactive drugs that requires modification.[/quote]
There is now testing for designer drugs. K2, spice, bath salts etc
We do them on reasonable suspicions for the past year