X ` Man wrote:
On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:45:09 -0400, X `
wrote:


Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of
date.

This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test.

Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is
different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest.


Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a
construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might
think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule.

True but if you smoke crack on Friday afternoon you will probably
pass the test on Monday.
OTOH if your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin you are fine,
no matter what even if you are stoned out of your mind.

That is a real flaw in the drug testing scam.

Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident
investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be
****faced drunk and pass.

BTW I am surprised you didn't mention the original test law said you
had to be tested in Scott's own lab. That didn't last long.



If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely
are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of
the testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going
to be fired.


No zero tolerance in the union jobs? That's silly!

-HB

On 9/30/2011 9:54 PM, Honey Badger wrote:
X ` Man wrote:
On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:45:09 -0400, X `
wrote:


Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of
date.

This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test.

Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is
different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest.


Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a
construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might
think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule.

True but if you smoke crack on Friday afternoon you will probably
pass the test on Monday.
OTOH if your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin you are fine,
no matter what even if you are stoned out of your mind.

That is a real flaw in the drug testing scam.

Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident
investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be
****faced drunk and pass.

BTW I am surprised you didn't mention the original test law said you
had to be tested in Scott's own lab. That didn't last long.



If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely
are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of
the testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going
to be fired.


No zero tolerance in the union jobs? That's silly!

-HB

I actually worked with the labor force in the union, I wasn't a union
propagandist like our friend here and I can tell you, the crack pipes
were glowing in the parking lot all night long... At least 50% of the
warehouse workers were either drunk or stoned, each and every night...

On 9/30/11 11:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:30:17 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote:

Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident
investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be
****faced drunk and pass.




If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely
are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of the
testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going to be
fired.

One would think that was true but we had a minority hire at IBM who
was a smack addict and everyone just assumed he was stupid.
It took almost 3 years to get rid of him and they ended up buying him
out.
When I asked him how he was getting away with it, he said he was
stoned at his interview and they never saw any difference over the
years.

There are plenty of people who drink at work. US Civil service people
spring to mind. They are pretty much fire proof too.
I knew a guy who was selling drugs right at his desk at an agency
down on Western Avenue. Nobody ever questioned how a GS-5 was driving
a new Benz. He was in the mail room so I assume the tax payer was his
shipping department.


Wow...you really have an attitude about construction workers and civil
servants. Your pool of experience, though, seems to be before drug
testing got serious, or on "light" construction jobs.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

X ` Man wrote:
On 9/30/11 11:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:30:17 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote:

Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident
investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be
****faced drunk and pass.




If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely
are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of
the
testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going
to be
fired.

One would think that was true but we had a minority hire at IBM who
was a smack addict and everyone just assumed he was stupid.
It took almost 3 years to get rid of him and they ended up buying him
out.
When I asked him how he was getting away with it, he said he was
stoned at his interview and they never saw any difference over the
years.

There are plenty of people who drink at work. US Civil service people
spring to mind. They are pretty much fire proof too.
I knew a guy who was selling drugs right at his desk at an agency
down on Western Avenue. Nobody ever questioned how a GS-5 was driving
a new Benz. He was in the mail room so I assume the tax payer was his
shipping department.


Wow...you really have an attitude about construction workers and civil
servants. Your pool of experience, though, seems to be before drug
testing got serious, or on "light" construction jobs.

He seems to avoid the truth. Harry is the biggest A-Hole I've seen here
so far.

-HB

On 9/30/2011 1:15 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:45:09 -0400, X `
wrote:


Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date.

This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test.

Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is
different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest.


Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a
construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might
think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule.

True but if you smoke crack on Friday afternoon you will probably
pass the test on Monday.
OTOH if your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin you are fine,
no matter what even if you are stoned out of your mind.

That is a real flaw in the drug testing scam.

Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident
investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be
****faced drunk and pass.

BTW I am surprised you didn't mention the original test law said you
had to be tested in Scott's own lab. That didn't last long.

I could smoke a joint today, and pass a test tomorrow...

On 9/30/11 9:26 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/30/2011 1:15 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:45:09 -0400, X `
wrote:


Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of
date.

This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test.

Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is
different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest.


Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a
construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might
think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule.

True but if you smoke crack on Friday afternoon you will probably
pass the test on Monday.
OTOH if your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin you are fine,
no matter what even if you are stoned out of your mind.

That is a real flaw in the drug testing scam.

Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident
investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be
****faced drunk and pass.

BTW I am surprised you didn't mention the original test law said you
had to be tested in Scott's own lab. That didn't last long.

I could smoke a joint today, and pass a test tomorrow...


A point of random drug testing is that it is...random.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

On Sep 29, 7:17*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:









On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X `
wrote:

Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs
By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law
requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less
likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian
suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be
submitting specimens.

Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug
testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called
"a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on
board.

"There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen
said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column.

"Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families)
money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that
humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money
for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at
his Vero Beach home.

Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its
kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the
state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs..
Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law
has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are
more likely to use drugs.

Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000
applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested
positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent
declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials
say.

All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test.
On the other hand that is an important skill because you have to take
a drug test for just about any job you might want to have ...
including any job that involves government money.
Are government workers more likely to be drug users? They all have to
take drug tests.

I guarantee you that if the state were using a modern drug test and
proper procedures for running it, "beating" the test would be nearly
impossible.

Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date.

This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test.

Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is
different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest.

If you want to see the drug history, do a hair sample and look at the
growth time.

It tells a lot.

On 9/29/2011 8:47 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X `
wrote:









On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X `
wrote:

Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs
By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law
requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less
likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian
suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be
submitting specimens.

Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug
testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called
"a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on
board.

"There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen
said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column.

"Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families)
money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that
humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money
for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at
his Vero Beach home.

Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its
kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the
state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs.
Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law
has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are
more likely to use drugs.

Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000
applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested
positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent
declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials
say.

All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test.
On the other hand that is an important skill because you have to take
a drug test for just about any job you might want to have ...
including any job that involves government money.
Are government workers more likely to be drug users? They all have to
take drug tests.

I guarantee you that if the state were using a modern drug test and
proper procedures for running it, "beating" the test would be nearly
impossible.

Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date.

This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test.

Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is
different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest.

If you want to see the drug history, do a hair sample and look at the
growth time.

It tells a lot.

It's really not the ones who have the control to quit for a couple weeks
before a test that we are worried about in my opinion.

On Sep 29, 8:01*pm, JustWait wrote:
On 9/29/2011 8:47 PM, Tim wrote:









On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X `
wrote:

Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs
By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law
requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less
likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian
suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be
submitting specimens.

Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug
testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called
"a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on
board.

"There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen
said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column.

"Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families)
money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that
humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money
for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at
his Vero Beach home.

Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its
kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the
state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs.
Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law
has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are
more likely to use drugs.

Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000
applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested
positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent
declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials
say.

All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test.

On 9/30/11 1:16 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:47:26 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, wrote:

.

If you want to see the drug history, do a hair sample and look at the
growth time.

It tells a lot.

That may be why a lot of construction workers shave their head.


You seem to have developed an anti-working guy attitude recently.
You say a "lot" of construction workers shave their heads. Have you done
a study? What percentage shave their heads?

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.