Maybe I should temper my response.

They test for drugs because being under the influence of drugs (including alcohol) is a safety hazard. I suppose if tests were developed that could differentiate between "I'm intoxicated" and "I smoked on my day off", the situation could change.

There's a Y Combinator startup for that: https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/13/y-combinator-bets-on-a-sta...

I'm hoping for the marijuana legalization people that test happens because get the feeling that DUI is going to be a problem.

Although I'm arguably pro legalisation I have problems with this. It assumes drugs = MJ, and from observation I'd say alcohol is a more dangerous drug in the way it disinhibits more risky behaviour than MJ - but there should never, ever be use of any drugs, legal or illegal, that can affect someone when they do potentially dangerous work. I think we can all agree on that.

My bigger problem with legalisation is my experience of the utter fucking stupidity that suddenly manifests when drugs are present. Responsible use just does not seem part of many people's nature. I include legal drugs like alcohol in that.

---

Bit of info, more FYI than actually relevant to the point here, but interesting: a mate of mine works in the office of a largish UK company.

He mentioned that there is drug testing for him and others in the office, at which point I predictably blew my top, assuming it's fucking intrusive American working practices come with American companies trying to spread fucking witless American drug policies over the world (and that is real problem IMO).

Hold on, said my mate, and pointed out that the company has a sizeable workforce that goes out to fix heavy, moving infrastructure under risky conditions. Drug testing is necessary under those conditions, agreed? And if they test them, the company can hardly make an exemption for the office staff, right?

Couldn't agree more.

.. why can't they only test those who do field work?

Because it would be grossly unfair. Very likely illegal too.

Why would it be unfair? This is a simple cost-benefit risk management. Of course testing people has some cost (harder to find employees, privacy concerns, bad PR, the actual cost of the testing and management of testing), of course if someone fucks up that has an even bigger cost usually, so preventing fuckup while high seems to have a big positive cost-benefit. Okay, then simply get a threshold and look at the risk involved for each individual role/position and test those that are above.

Unfairness is a purely emotional judgement. I can see it, if you can't that's just how it is. I don't mean that negatively.

But fairness comes in under the law, it's formalised as discrimination. That is something companies are rightly keen to avoid.

I'm asking for the moral calculation that lead you to say it's unfair to make the lives harder for only those who are above a threshold for certain risks.

And also how the law works, what's the legal test to determine fairness?

The brain remains slowed for several days after the high wears off.

Oh, post some bloody evidence will you. Whenever drugs get raised someone comes along and makes unbacked blanket statements like this that don't help.

If you're going to say something potentially very useful, at least back it up.

Source: years of personal experience