The way I see it, if you must work for a living there is a good chance you'll be subject to random drug-testing either already or somewhere down the line. The Government/Public Service sector, mining and industry, transport, education, food production, banking and finance - in fact any position of responsibility or influence you can think of demands sobriety of employees for all the right reasons. It's not difficult to think of worst-case scenarios where injury/death, damage to or loss of property or opportunity etc. have, as a result of the investigative mechanism, found drugs or alcohol to be mitigating or contributory factors.
It makes sense for employers to go all-out to protect their interests, and randomly testing workers is one way they do it. Sad but true. Recreational and dependant drug users have consequently had to modify their consumtion to account for this, in the same way most of us have had to when we get behind the wheel of a car. Chances are we'll be stopped for a random breath or drug test and there's no getting away from it. This then arrows out to insurance. If you test positive at work or after a traffic accident the pertinent insurance policy(s) are likely rendered void. No payout, because clauses will have stipulations about what is permissible and what is not.
It would seem then that the anti-legalisation mob will ultimately have the last laugh unless pro-choicers go on the dole and walk everywhere. Sound good? We might even be doomed here as well. I read a Letter to the Editor from a truckie working for a mining company in Kalgoorlie complaining how he worked long and hard for his big bucks, resenting how much tax he had to pay and how careful he had to be with his alcohol consumption. He was royally pissed-off about 'dole-bludgers' who rocked-up on payday and walked off with $ to piss up against the wall and buy drugs with. His solution was to drug-test them and if they weren't clean - no $. Hmmm.
So, sorry to be long-winded but I'm curious to hear what others have to say on how drug-testing at work and insurance issues affect their intake of whatever substance(s) they might use. It's certainly changed the way I go about things.
It makes sense for employers to go all-out to protect their interests, and randomly testing workers is one way they do it. Sad but true. Recreational and dependant drug users have consequently had to modify their consumtion to account for this, in the same way most of us have had to when we get behind the wheel of a car. Chances are we'll be stopped for a random breath or drug test and there's no getting away from it. This then arrows out to insurance. If you test positive at work or after a traffic accident the pertinent insurance policy(s) are likely rendered void. No payout, because clauses will have stipulations about what is permissible and what is not.
It would seem then that the anti-legalisation mob will ultimately have the last laugh unless pro-choicers go on the dole and walk everywhere. Sound good? We might even be doomed here as well. I read a Letter to the Editor from a truckie working for a mining company in Kalgoorlie complaining how he worked long and hard for his big bucks, resenting how much tax he had to pay and how careful he had to be with his alcohol consumption. He was royally pissed-off about 'dole-bludgers' who rocked-up on payday and walked off with $ to piss up against the wall and buy drugs with. His solution was to drug-test them and if they weren't clean - no $. Hmmm.
So, sorry to be long-winded but I'm curious to hear what others have to say on how drug-testing at work and insurance issues affect their intake of whatever substance(s) they might use. It's certainly changed the way I go about things.
