The guy is in his mid-40s and he’s passed several drug tests using other guys’ pee.
You should’ve been like, sorry bro, smoked a big one last night, tough luck.
He’s known me long enough to know that I haven’t done pot in several years. Doesn’t really do much for me, plus putting that stuff in my lungs is gross. Tried edibles once - ONCE!
Seems easy enough, take one of those hand warmers that you can activate at will.
Dude is a jerk for asking somebody else to be part of it though, especially more than once in the face of reluctance.
My ~86 y/o grandmother uses a CBD cream for joint pain and a combo CBD/THC tincture to sleep. Seems to do wonders for her.
It’s been funny seeing my family realize they can’t be vocally judgmental now that Grandma is using cannabis daily.
It’s not analogous because alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. (At least… not in the US.) Glad I could clear that up for you.
If you want analogous… if we were living in Prohibition and alcohol was illegal and my employer tested for it… I would probably give it up and simultaneously work to get it legalized.
Since I enjoy alcohol I might be more proactive about legalization than I am about pot, but I do prefer to vote for politicians who favor legalization of MJ. It’s not the most important issue to me though.
ummmm okay…
If alcohol was illegal for my entire life, I probably wouldnt have started drinking in the first place, so I dont think I can compare it to pot
Anyways I think we all agree that pot being illegal is dumb and drug tests are also dumb
4 Likes
Cheers to that 
I might quit because I object to an employer being that intrusive in my life. And if i didn’t, I would probably request a religious exemption for Passover. Otherwise, yeah, I could give up booze.
On the other hand, I refuse the “wellness program”, even though it comes with a chunk of cash, because I don’t want to give my employer a blood sample. Not that I have anything to hide, but it’s none of their business.
I know an actuary who got fired for alcohol, but not in the basis of a drug test. He was fired because alcohol destroyed his performance. I’ve never heard of anyone with a desk job being fired for testing positive for booze residue.
Despite the difference in legal status, I thought it was a pretty good analogy. It may be relevant that I live in a state where recreational pot is legal at the state level. Something I voted for, despite having tried pot exactly once, in college, and hating the experience. (to be fair, I didn’t get high. I just got a nasty taste in my throat for hours.)
Assuming you are an actuary or similar professional, then remember that a lot of the time important decisions are made on the assumption you are telling the truth. Your established trustworthiness is part of your livelihood.
If I were your friend, I would have agreed with your wife and strongly advised you not to do something like that. I do tend to be very cautious in these kinds of issues though.
I think it is absurd your friend is angry at your for not participating in this fraud.
similar, but my throat just hurt like hell for hours. no real high.
Is the legality of the substance really vital to this discussion? Couldn’t an employer legitimately screen for legal activities, as long as they aren’t discriminating against a protected class? I think a vegan advocacy group could try to screen out meat eaters, for example.
Absolutely. I think it’s dumb that they do, and sometimes I don’t even think they realize how dumb it is. Especially in the age of remote working, you’re going to have a trouble finding talent in the progressive cities if you drug test, even though that’s where most of the top talent is.
They can, and many do.
And you can discriminate against a legally protected class if there’s a bona fide need to do so. I had this come up at work once, actually, regarding religious holidays. (We all agreed in the end that while we had the right to make a stink over it that it was better to simply adjust the person’s responsibilities so it didn’t cause a problem.)
And, if you were interviewing for a job with the Temperence League then insisting on you abstaining from alcohol might be reasonable.
An actuarial employer has no possible reasonable reason for discriminating against recreational (or religious) alcohol usage.
I don’t like them screening for pot either, but as long as it remains illegal at the federal level it’s not so distasteful that I’d feel inclined to make a stink over it.
Well… I don’t know how “legit” it is. But it is legal to screen for pretty much anything as long as you don’t bump against a protected class or have a business need for doing so.
We could start an actuarial consultancy and openly declare on our website that we will not hire people whose birthdays fall on the 23rd of the month, if we felt so inclined.
It would be exceedingly dumb to do that, but it would be perfectly legal. We are not discriminating on the basis of age, sex, religion, nationality, etc.
I’m not sure if that’s something you’d consider “legitimate” though.
My first response to you my brain basically subbed the word “legal” in how I formulated my response.
Something closer to home and possibly more “legitimate” would be actuarial employers refusing to hire people who got university credit for exams. That would be legal.
I had an employer screen for smoking tobacco cigarettes. Wasn’t allowed. They later rescinded that policy when they realized they were missing out on talent because of it.
what’s with using the term “talent” to describe people who do actuarial work? I hear it used all the time in recruiting. It rubs me the wrong way. “Talent” to me is a musician or artist or even an actor…not an actuary.
I think it’s implying “actuaries of above-average talent”… as in missing out on people you would have hired who are better some of the people you did hire.