Okay I have 4.5 days to pass a drug test

[KushMcDieselson]

I passed drug tests while I was smoking pot, but I can promise you not once did I have to ask someone else how to do it. You know why?> Because I am smart enough to figure it out on my own.

 

Holy poo, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you spend 15 pages telling this dude what he is doing is totally immoral and wrong and he is a terrible person and doesn't deserve to get the job, for doing something you admit to doing in your past.

 

 

I can assure you that I have more life experience with every single aspect of this conversation that you do. 

 

Yet instead of providing him with some useful information about his original question, you continuously tell him how bad of person he is, and how he should be making better life decisions, just like you.  He didn't post a thread asking for motivational "I've been down in the dumps and hit rock bottom all because of the terrible reefers, please help me turn my life around you guys?"  He just asked how to pass a simple piss test.

 

This is the "holier than thou" that a previous poster mentioned.

[Jangler]

Wow. really? 323 people were executed for dealing/growing pot? No murder involved? And you believe that?

 

And you had the nerve to call me ignorant?  

 

Wow.

 

really worded badly...maybe people were killed in raids, but state sanction executions for growing/dealing only? lol

[Happy Panther]

That is what I meant....not sure how it was interpreted another way.

You seem to be jumping around concepts.

 

My assertion is the hiring of this guy could be mutually beneficial to him and his boss (and the company for that matter) despite a cheated drug test.

 

Your response

 

If it harmed nobody and if lying would be a "good thing" for the company.....the company would NOT have a passed drug test as a criteria for getting the job.

 

seems to be suggesting that this hiring can't be mutually beneficial because of the existence of the drug testing policy itself.

 

A drug testing policy may be beneficial to the company on a macro basis on average but it will certainly kill off a great salesmen here and there.

 

My point is if the company did not care whether their employees used drugs, then they would not require a drug test as a condition of employment.

 

This seems like a different conclusion but what is "the company?"

 

I doubt his boss cares if he smokes weed if he can sells cars. I doubt anyone does. Drug testing is usually an HR policy to save money. Policies don't care about things.

 

The owner smokes weed for all I know. Lots of people do.

[Happy Panther]

marijuana has caused zero deaths

 

Zero user deaths from overdose sure.

[Jase]

Zero user deaths from overdose sure.

 

that isn't what it said though, not even close

[sharkkiller]

Holy poo, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you spend 15 pages telling this dude what he is doing is totally immoral and wrong and he is a terrible person and doesn't deserve to get the job, for doing something you admit to doing in your past.

 

 

 

Yet instead of providing him with some useful information about his original question, you continuously tell him how bad of person he is, and how he should be making better life decisions, just like you.  He didn't post a thread asking for motivational "I've been down in the dumps and hit rock bottom all because of the terrible reefers, please help me turn my life around you guys?"  He just asked how to pass a simple piss test.

 

This is the "holier than thou" that a previous poster mentioned.

 

 

So a person is not allowed to learn from their mistakes? Heaven forbid.

 

And I did offer advice, although it was ignored. 

 

I did not start saying anything about him as a person until he started attacking people who offered alternate views. I used the example because he claimed that I had no idea what he was talking about. I was a different person back in my younger days, so I have life experience that I can draw from. 

 

You keep defending this guy, when all he has done is call people stupid and ignorant because they told him to stop smoking pot if he wanted to ensure he passed the test, or responded to his personal attacks with logic. I am not sure he is someone you want on your side in an argument.

 

He trusts facts spouted out in twitter just because they support his point of view.

[Happy Panther]

that isn't what it said though, not even close

I know.

 

Is that a surprise?

[MadHatter]

You seem to be jumping around concepts.

 

My assertion is the hiring of this guy could be mutually beneficial to him and his boss (and the company for that matter) despite a cheated drug test.

 

Your response

 

seems to be suggesting that this hiring can't be mutually beneficial because of the existence of the drug testing policy itself.

 

A drug testing policy may be beneficial to the company on a macro basis on average but it will certainly kill off a great salesmen here and there.

 

This seems like a different conclusion but what is "the company?"

 

I doubt his boss cares if he smokes weed if he can sells cars. I doubt anyone does. Drug testing is usually an HR policy to save money. Policies don't care about things.

 

The owner smokes weed for all I know. Lots of people do.

If the actual owners of the company did not care....they would not require a test.

 

You are doing mental gymnastics to try and support a failed logic.  You think smoking week is no big deal, so everyone should think that way.

 

Apparently the owners of the company that he is interviewing with DO CARE.

[KushMcDieselson]

So a person is not allowed to learn from their mistakes? Heaven forbid.

 

And I did offer advice, although it was ignored. 

 

I did not start saying anything about him as a person until he started attacking people who offered alternate views. I used the example because he claimed that I had no idea what he was talking about. I was a different person back in my younger days, so I have life experience that I can draw from. 

 

You keep defending this guy, when all he has done is call people stupid and ignorant because they told him to stop smoking pot if he wanted to ensure he passed the test, or responded to his personal attacks with logic. I am not sure he is someone you want on your side in an argument.

 

He trusts facts spouted out in twitter just because they support his point of view.

 

No one said you can't learn from your mistakes, it's more about you appearing to be very condescending about his choice to make his own mistakes to learn from. He even mentions in his first post that short term quitting is an option.

 

"make sure your wife's not pregnant"

 

That's advice?  I mean you know a lot about faking piss tests, you'd know that a large majority of them don't even check for sex, it's literally the same dip strip that comes in home drug tests, unless it's being sent off to a lab for GC/MS analysis.

 

And I'm not necessarily defending him, because I give exactly 0 fugs about two people liking each other on the internet, just pointing out that it does in fact look "holier than thou" when you give him so much poo about doing something you've admitted to doing, as if you are so much better than him because you decided to stop smoking.

 

Basically, both of you have some valid points, but you're both being condescending douches about it.  While he may need some work on his debating skills, I would much rather toke up with him, than be talked down to by you about how terrible cannabis is.

[KushMcDieselson]

If the actual owners of the company did not care....they would not require a test.

 

You are doing mental gymnastics to try and support a failed logic.  You think smoking week is no big deal, so everyone should think that way.

 

Apparently the owners of the company that he is interviewing with DO CARE.

 

 

You're missing the concept here, what he's trying to say is that the drug testing policy is in place as a way of protecting themselves from any liability, not that they actually care about people smoking cannabis.  It's all about profits and limiting liability.  That's why large corporations are mostly guaranteed to do preemployment drug testing, while smaller "mom and pop" type operations usually require limited drug testing. Both sectors will do drug testing if it will save them money and liability.  If any of you non smoker's really had a clue as to how many people you deal with on a regular basis that do in fact smoke, you'd be blown away.  If you've eaten at a restaurant, had home repairs or remodeling done, had an IT guy come and fix your computer, there is probably a 75% chance a smoker was involved, and he might have even been high while he was doing it.

[Happy Panther]

If the actual owners of the company did not care....they would not require a test.

 

You are doing mental gymnastics to try and support a failed logic.  You think smoking week is no big deal, so everyone should think that way.

 

Apparently the owners of the company that he is interviewing with DO CARE.

There are plenty of reasons why a CEO or an owner would not care yet there would still be a drug testing policy. Some of them based on my actual experience.

 

Just because you believe in a sweeping generalization doesn't mean it is true in reality.

[Happy Panther]

You're missing the concept here, what he's trying to say is that the drug testing policy is in place as a way of protecting themselves from any liability, not that they actually care about people smoking cannabis.  It's all about profits and limiting liability.  That's why large corporations are mostly guaranteed to do preemployment drug testing, while smaller "mom and pop" type operations usually require limited drug testing. 

Thank you!

[sharkkiller]

No one said you can't learn from your mistakes, it's more about you appearing to be very condescending about his choice to make his own mistakes to learn from. He even mentions in his first post that short term quitting is an option.

 

"make sure your wife's not pregnant"

 

That's advice?  I mean you know a lot about faking piss tests, you'd know that a large majority of them don't even check for sex, it's literally the same dip strip that comes in home drug tests, unless it's being sent off to a lab for GC/MS analysis.

 

And I'm not necessarily defending him, because I give exactly 0 fugs about two people liking each other on the internet, just pointing out that it does in fact look "holier than thou" when you give him so much poo about doing something you've admitted to doing, as if you are so much better than him because you decided to stop smoking.

 

Basically, both of you have some valid points, but you're both being condescending douches about it.  While he may need some work on his debating skills, I would much rather toke up with him, than be talked down to by you about how terrible cannabis is.

 

 

It depends on the test that they conduct, which you have no way of knowing, as to whether or not the wife being pregnant matters. I had a friend who was diagnosed diabetic because of the sugar level in his urine as a result of a drug test, and they recommended he go to a doctor. 

 

And I did not start being condescending until he started acting like a complete douche. 

 

And if you really were reading the entire thread as you claim, it was not about the pot. It was about making good choices when it comes to providing for his family. Smokiing pot on the way to take a drug test to get a better job, is not a good choice, no matter what your stance on pot legalization is.

 

The only thing I said was that I was smart enough to figure out how to pass a drug test (which BTW consisted of drinking about 2 gallons of water a day the weekend before the test and spending the weekend pissing) without soliciting help from strangers.

[sharkkiller]

You're missing the concept here, what he's trying to say is that the drug testing policy is in place as a way of protecting themselves from any liability, not that they actually care about people smoking cannabis.  It's all about profits and limiting liability.  That's why large corporations are mostly guaranteed to do preemployment drug testing, while smaller "mom and pop" type operations usually require limited drug testing. Both sectors will do drug testing if it will save them money and liability.  If any of you non smoker's really had a clue as to how many people you deal with on a regular basis that do in fact smoke, you'd be blown away.  If you've eaten at a restaurant, had home repairs or remodeling done, had an IT guy come and fix your computer, there is probably a 75% chance a smoker was involved, and he might have even been high while he was doing it.

 

 

Aren't you missing the concept that it is a policy? And if you want to work for said company you should adhere to their policies?

 

And you keep bringing up totally unrelated people doing unrelated jobs while high. No one said you couldn't do certain jobs while high, but there are other jobs that should not be done while under the influence. Such as driving a car, which will inevitably be part of a job selling cars.