Detrox wrote:kalvano wrote:ilovesf wrote:I'm surprised by the amount of people here so strongly opposed to smoking. Maybe it's just because I go to school in SF, but more than half of the people I know in school smoke.
I don't think it's entirely that they are opposed to smoking. I don't care, personally. But don't whine and bitch about potential drug tests if you do. It's part of the risk you take.
I think this is a fair point. The problem I take issue with is that the original question in this thread (and many others) was simply asking for info about whether or not a certain job drug tests. Obviously people should exercise caution and not smoke if there is a risk of drug test, but I don't see anything wrong with trying to get a better idea of the level of that risk. I honestly don't understand why employers are not more open and straightforward about their drug testing policies. The CIA and other National Security groups are very upfront about their stringent requirements, and I think it improves the application process by narrowing the field and putting potential violators on notice so as not to apply/change their habits. Seems to be no reason why you shouldn't be able to find out whether an employer drug tests until after you have accepted a position to work for them...
/rant off. TL;DR Don't hate on people trying to find out if employers drug test, provide info or just ignore them.
I think the benefit of not telling prospective employees about your drug testing policies is actually more advantageous to employers than being upfront. Nobody who would actually get hired by the CIA, for instance, would go into the hiring process if they couldn't pass the drug test. A highly motivated individual would, however, wait until they could pass a drug test (because they know there will be one), and then apply, thereby circumventing the purpose of the pre-employment drug screen.
Employers that are secretive, however, have the advantage of springing the test on you whenever they want during the hiring process, if at all. This, I believe, provides a more accurate level of testing, as those people that would otherwise abstain may not do so in the belief they don't think they will be tested.
If the whole point of testing is not to hire people who test positive, secretive, randomly timed tests during the pre-employment period would seem to be more useful than openly planned tests.