1L Summer Job - Drug Tests Forum

[ScrabbleChamp]

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.

[ScrabbleChamp]

I hope those of you on your moral high horse never touch a drop of alcohol until you were 21. Or downloaded a song illegally. Or driven over the speed limit.

I could care less if people want to do drugs, I was simply stating that I think it is ridiculously stupid to do something that could risk your future/current career. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine a lawyer arrested for possession could be disbarred or, at the very least, disciplined by the Bar.

Hey, it's your (not you, specifically) life... if you want to screw it up doing drugs, go ahead.

[ilovesf]

I hope those of you on your moral high horse never touch a drop of alcohol until you were 21. Or downloaded a song illegally. Or driven over the speed limit.

I could care less if people want to do drugs, I was simply stating that I think it is ridiculously stupid to do something that could risk your future/current career. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine a lawyer arrested for possession could be disbarred or, at the very least, disciplined by the Bar.

Hey, it's your (not you, specifically) life... if you want to screw it up doing drugs, go ahead.

I was reacting to the incorrect use of the expression.

[ScrabbleChamp]

I couldn't care less if people want to do drugs, I was simply stating that I think it is ridiculously stupid to do something that could risk your future/current career. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine a lawyer arrested for possession could be disbarred or, at the very least, disciplined by the Bar.

I was reacting to the incorrect use of the expression.

FML. Grammar fail.

[Anonymous User]

I hope those of you on your moral high horse never touch a drop of alcohol until you were 21. Or downloaded a song illegally. Or driven over the speed limit.

I could care less if people want to do drugs, I was simply stating that I think it is ridiculously stupid to do something that could risk your future/current career. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine a lawyer arrested for possession could be disbarred or, at the very least, disciplined by the Bar.

Hey, it's your (not you, specifically) life... if you want to screw it up doing drugs, go ahead.

Completely true - it can screw up your life. Douglas Ginsberg has been limited to a mere 25 year DC COA career because he smoked marijuana while he was a professor. If he had quit during law school like Clarence Thomas did he'd be on the USSC right now.

[Cupidity]

Downloading a song illegally only gives rise to a civil suit. Learn some copyright law.

[omninode]

I hope those of you on your moral high horse never touch a drop of alcohol until you were 21. Or downloaded a song illegally. Or driven over the speed limit.

I could care less if people want to do drugs, I was simply stating that I think it is ridiculously stupid to do something that could risk your future/current career. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine a lawyer arrested for possession could be disbarred or, at the very least, disciplined by the Bar.

[STRS]

.

[kalvano]

For all intensive purposes, I could care less about your possible drug use, but irregardless, don't do it if you want to apply for a government job.

[ScrabbleChamp]

Hey, it's your (not you, specifically) life... if you want to screw it up doing drugs, go ahead.

Completely true - it can screw up your life. Douglas Ginsberg has been limited to a mere 25 year DC COA career because he smoked marijuana while he was a professor. If he had quit during law school like Clarence Thomas did he'd be on the USSC right now.

First, be man enough to say something like that, not hide behind the anonymous function. Second... Really? You are going to use one example of someone you believe to be the exception to the rule? I'm sure we can all agree that ilicit drugs more often than not have a detrimental effect.

[romothesavior]

The posts you guys are making are really unhelpful and have nothing to do with the thread topic. OP wasn't asking for your opinions on the morality of drug use. You're also being pretty pretentious and holier-than-thou about it. Most people have done things that are illegal, and of all the "bad things" one can do, smoking a joint is about as low on the totem pole as it gets.

[Anonymous User]

Hey, it's your (not you, specifically) life... if you want to screw it up doing drugs, go ahead.

Completely true - it can screw up your life. Douglas Ginsberg has been limited to a mere 25 year DC COA career because he smoked marijuana while he was a professor. If he had quit during law school like Clarence Thomas did he'd be on the USSC right now.

First, be man enough to say something like that, not hide behind the anonymous function. Second... Really? You are going to use one example of someone you believe to be the exception to the rule? I'm sure we can all agree that ilicit drugs more often than not have a detrimental effect.

I can think of at least ten people in the top 10% at my school who smoke marijuana. Should they? No, probably not. But "ruining their lives?" Give me a break. That'd be on par with saying, "People who use alcohol are ruining their lives." Sure, the potential for alcohol abuse is there. But you are the one flipping the "rule" and the "exception."

Also, that you are lumping in marijuana with other drugs just shows that you are willfully blind to how they work or just a total prudish, moral crusader.

Finally, people are using the anon feature because they don't want to out their opinions on drug use. Why is that so freaking hard to understand?

[kalvano]

If you're going to have an opinion on drug use, be man (or woman) enough to own up to it.

If you're afraid of having an opinion that others may not agree with, then perhaps you should reexamine that opinion.

[Detrox]

If you're going to have an opinion on drug use, be man (or woman) enough to own up to it.

If you're afraid of having an opinion that others may not agree with, then perhaps you should reexamine that opinion.

Unlike popular or socially acceptable opinions which should never be reexamined. Stigma from illegal drug use is one thing, but now we're going to condemn others for not wanting possible stigma associated with criticising modern popular perceptions of drug use as well?

[mountaintime]

If you're going to have an opinion on drug use, be man (or woman) enough to own up to it.

If you're afraid of having an opinion that others may not agree with, then perhaps you should reexamine that opinion.

despicable

[Naked Dude]

I had to take one for my in-house internship. It even included a tobacco test, lulz.

Why tobacco? I can't think of any reason but health insurance costs. Do you even get insurance as an intern?

[ScrabbleChamp]

I had to take one for my in-house internship. It even included a tobacco test, lulz.

Why tobacco? I can't think of any reason but health insurance costs. Do you even get insurance as an intern?

A lot of companies (in CA, at least) are tobacco-free and won't hire you if you use any tobacco products.

[Naked Dude]

USAO will ask if you've done any drugs in the past year, if you answer yes its an automatic DQ. Lying on a federal form is a big deal and if you do it definitely don't plan on working there again (apparently they polygraph their permanent hires) Some offices will have you fill out an SF 86 form which asks you to list all the drugs you've done in the past 7 years. Meant to say that this is why I ended up having to awkwardly pull out of the app process with the USAO (had an interview but had to hand in the forms first). I planned on just answering honestly but apparently there is a chance that having all your drug history out there can bite you in the ass when you go up for C&F.

So basically if you've smoked any weed this year probably best to just give the USAO a pass. People I know with gigs lined up at DA didn't have to fill anything out but plan on quitting in time for a drug test this summer.

All in all probably just a lot smarter to not burn in law school.

I can't believe they polygraph. What a fucking joke.

[Naked Dude]

I had to take one for my in-house internship. It even included a tobacco test, lulz.

Why tobacco? I can't think of any reason but health insurance costs. Do you even get insurance as an intern?

A lot of companies (in CA, at least) are tobacco-free and won't hire you if you use any tobacco products.

How long does it stay in your system? I enjoy the occasional cigar (granted, you're not really supposed to inhale but I'd imagine some gets in your system).

[ScrabbleChamp]

I had to take one for my in-house internship. It even included a tobacco test, lulz.

Why tobacco? I can't think of any reason but health insurance costs. Do you even get insurance as an intern?

A lot of companies (in CA, at least) are tobacco-free and won't hire you if you use any tobacco products.

How long does it stay in your system? I enjoy the occasional cigar (granted, you're not really supposed to inhale but I'd imagine some gets in your system).

I don't know the specifics, but I do know they say hair follicles can retain chemicals up to 6 months. Whether that applies to everything or just XYZ chemicals, I do not know.

[Naked Dude]

Illegal is illegal.

I'm sure that your buds over at NAMBLA are saying the same morally-relativistic garbage. Ironically, I actually last heard your line from a bud of mine who liked to rob porn and liquour stores to "teach them a lesson," he didn't keep the goods, but loved escaping the police and scaring shop owners. Kid was a straightedge homeschooled Christian who thought that his moral view usurped the law.

As someone who has committed my share of assinine acts as a youth, I still wouldn't advise someone to break the law, as it does not make for a great ROI. I actually usually love these threads on TLS because it entertains me to see the cognitivie dissonance at work as people advise other people to risk everything in order vindicate their own moralistic leanings.

Illegal is illegal, indeed, but my respect for the law is dramatically diminished by the fact that cannabis (marijuana is Mexican slang for Christ's sake) is Schedule fucking I.

[Naked Dude]

Illegal is illegal.

I'm sure that your buds over at NAMBLA are saying the same morally-relativistic garbage. Ironically, I actually last heard your line from a bud of mine who liked to rob porn and liquour stores to "teach them a lesson," he didn't keep the goods, but loved escaping the police and scaring shop owners. Kid was a straightedge homeschooled Christian who thought that his moral view usurped the law.

As someone who has committed my share of assinine acts as a youth, I still wouldn't advise someone to break the law, as it does not make for a great ROI. I actually usually love these threads on TLS because it entertains me to see the cognitivie dissonance at work as people advise other people to risk everything in order vindicate their own moralistic leanings.

Did you not cover this in crim? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Yeah Jesus, this. Unreal. TaipeiMort, have you ever written a single thing that didn't suck horribly?

Pretty sure almost no firms test. Someone earlier in the thread said they do, and I am almost positive that is incorrect (had a conversation with a paralegal about it one time). Government employers and in-house are probably a yes, but firms are usually a no.

Seriously. How can either of you make statements like that while maintaining even a shred of intellectual honesty? First, I am not into the prohibita/per se game. Pretty much all of our laws are byproduct of public choice compromises, and by trying to fit laws into these two categories requires godly intuition.

But, to play...

Sure, it makes sense to you guys that smoking a bloke with your bros is mala prohibita. It would probably make more sense to card fat poor kids at Taco Bell-- I'm sure this would do more to increase American life expectancy than restrictions on several current controlled substances. Additionally, World of Warcraft players probably experience many of the same downside effects of depression, anxiety, social isolation, unproductiveness, retardation, etc. as pot addicts.

It would be awesome if the government evenly enforced like-controlled substances, or got out of the regulation game of non-deadly substances.

However, I can definitely see some some mala per se grounds for marijuana. I have worked with indigent peoples across the world that have been absolutely jacked by alchohol, pot, and non-deadly opiate use. Addictive substances lead to deviate and unproductive behaviors, which lead ultimately to failure of entire groups of people. People are not at their best when addicted. I worked with one group in Asia where all adults sat around the table all day chewing, smoking, and boozing. Their children were raised by others, and they had no investment in any type of success at all. Some would argue that prohibiting addictive substances will make for ultimately better societies, and some evidence would agree.

Just because you can't comprehend moral views of others doesn't mean they don't have arguments for their side. You are the same as Sarah Palin and her crew of Bible-thumping moralists-- you refuse to see both sides of issues.

Alcohol is a completely safe, non-addictive substance that is impossible to abuse and has never destroyed anyone's life or family. That's why it's legal. Marijuana is deadly and addictive. That's why it's illegal. I'm glad our laws and the people of our country recognize this most important distinction.

[Naked Dude]

Lumping pot smoking, as unproductive as it is, into the same category as child rape and robbery is extremely retarded. Your friend is not a straightedge home schooled Christian, he's a brainwashed nut job; and I guarantee you he was keeping the goods.

Everyone knows the best way to not fail a drug test is to not do drugs. No one is telling the kid to keep smoking and not worry. That would also be retarded.

No, lighting a dried leaf and inhaling its smoke while sitting on the couch is absolutely the moral equivalent of walking into a bank and sticking a gun in the teller's face and having sex an underage child.

[Naked Dude]

I hope those of you on your moral high horse never touch a drop of alcohol until you were 21. Or downloaded a song illegally. Or driven over the speed limit.

I could care less if people want to do drugs, I was simply stating that I think it is ridiculously stupid to do something that could risk your future/current career. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine a lawyer arrested for possession could be disbarred or, at the very least, disciplined by the Bar.

Hey, it's your (not you, specifically) life... if you want to screw it up doing drugs, go ahead.

--ImageRemoved--

[ScrabbleChamp]

Lumping pot smoking, as unproductive as it is, into the same category as child rape and robbery is extremely retarded. Your friend is not a straightedge home schooled Christian, he's a brainwashed nut job; and I guarantee you he was keeping the goods.

Everyone knows the best way to not fail a drug test is to not do drugs. No one is telling the kid to keep smoking and not worry. That would also be retarded.

No, lighting a dried leaf and inhaling its smoke while sitting on the couch is absolutely the moral equivalent of walking into a bank and sticking a gun in the teller's face and having sex an underage child.

Of course it is not the same... However, in all instances, you are making a conscious choice to violate a federal law. Like it or not, the Law is the Law. I don't find it intelligent to actively participate in an activity that could prevent you from being admitted to the Bar, morality aside.