Hey, I am working at the SEC this summer and wanted to know if they drug test. If anyone has any information, I would appreciate the feedback.

When I interned there last year, there was none. But I had been "in the system" from employment at other federal agencies. None of them required a drug test, but all of them required declarations and affirmations regarding drug use.

inb4 "Just don't do drugs, bro"

My brother worked there this past spring... No drug test. Have a great summer.

I had a friend who worked there during the semester I believe. He smoked weed everyday.

I worked at one of the regional offices this semester and was not drug tested. I have no idea if that's the case for the summer or at other offices.

if you were a productive, law abiding citizen, this would not be an issue.

disagree. unless you are being facetious. aspirin is a drug. it happens to be good for you in low doses. I have a friend who smoked weed through law school and did quite well.

Disagree, marijuana makes your brain look like Swiss cheese. Haven't you seen that commercial?

hahaha or the one on Harold and Kumar where the kid blows his head off with a shotgun after smoking the chronic.

I hear that if you smoke pot, you may or may not hit small children riding on bikes near fast food restaurants...

also, you may forget to pick up your brother from basketball practice.

you've all been warned...

i'll never understand why the gov't views the use of alcohol as ok

but isn't ok with the use of cannabis

classic fucking anon post.

Don't hate, you know its true

Alcohol is a disgusting drug that ruins lives

Cannabis on the other hand has never resulted in a single death

The facts speak for themselves

This seems like the beginning of an even handed discussion on drug law policy which has never been debated on these boards by anonymous drug users whining about the need for reform without taking any real action to drive legislative change, or by their counterparts, self-rightous internet guardians of the current legal regime who equate the passage of a law with the moral proclamation that the acts it forbids are legitimately harmful to society.

I look forward to the respectful debate and corresponding wealth of new information that should spring forth from both sides...

To paraphrase Tosh, I just want weed to be legal so stoners have nothing to talk about any more.

Alcohol is the cheapest downer on the market today. My friend Anne's brother died of cirrhosis or holes in his esophagus I don't remember which due to being an alcoholic. She still starts crying when she talks about it. Cops tell me that it's always alcohol that results in fights, be it at bars or domestic battery. Cops get shot all the time when responding to angry drunks. When have cops gotten shot responding to a bunch of people smoking weed? The only scenario I can see a cop getting hurt is with dealers (who often deal harder drugs as well) or grow houses. However if marijuana was legal, none of that shit would go down.

alcohol v cannabis

NHTSA web site: alcohol related traffic fatalities = 43,443

CDC report, total # of alcohol related deaths = 75,766

.
.
.

deaths from cannabis = 0; not 0 this year, or 0 last year, 0 SINCE THE DAWN OF RECORDED HISTORY


Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

there is a big difference between "it can kill fewer people" and "it will kill no one"

not only will it not kill anyone but it could of also prevented some of the 50,000+ deaths in Mexico last year as a result of the drug cartels

legal cannabis = no money for cartels

No one has ever died from driving while high on weed, you guys.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/4/prweb9375729.htm


surprisingly from fox news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IurjNZJLCs

1. You Are wrong

2. Really Wrong

you fail in so many ways i don't even know where to begin

the second link you posted states that 10,xxx drivers tested had marijuana in their system

no1 said that if you smoke marijuana you will never be in an accident. Those individuals could have been involved in those accidents regardless of whether or not they smoked.

...furthermore, the test itself is flawed due to the following:

it is simply a test that determines whether or not cannabis is present in their body. One could test positive on these tests for up to 90 days after they smoked.

bottom line, your sources cant conclude anything more than that those individuals had smoked within the past 3 months.
your sources cant even prove that they smoked that very day, let alone that the effects of cannabis contributed to the accident

So, saying there is no way to know if a person is high is supposed to help your argument? Even when a study says a person with THC and even just .04 BAC is significantly impaired at driving?

I also think the argument "the only thing bad about pot is it is illegal" is dumb. It's a drug, it has both fun and shitty side effects, just like almost every drug (some drugs have exclusively shitty side effects, none have exclusively positive).

I'm not against legalizing pot, I just don't think it will happen because there aren't enough ambitious and powerful stoners. If you really believed pot was OK, you wouldn't hide behind an annon