>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35913492/ns/business-careers
>>>>>
>>>>>So...what do you think about this???
>>>>
>>>>Aha, the classic catch 22. I can empathize with him, but he knew he would test hot, and he knew what the policy was. I think, if I were in his position, I would have tried to get a different drug. Gee, what do you wanna bet the MM crowd will use this as PROOF that MM should be legalized everywhere in the universe?
>>>
>>>Aside from the obvious ethical points of how wrong this is I suppose you think society is better off having this guy unemployed? And this "if I were in his position" comment is ridiculous. First of all you don't have access to his medical records and have no way of knowing what other drugs he may of already tried. Furthermore I don't think any of us can speculate what our "position" and/or thinking would be if we were constant pain caused by sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor. You upset or something because he smoked a little grass and got a little euphoria or something? Quite frankly if the guy has terminal cancer a little euphoria might not be so bad for him either.
>>>Your stance on this position is downright cruel sometimes.
>>
>>
>>How far do you go to feel sorry for the guy.
>>
>>Do you let him get stoned at work?
>>
>>Do you let him come in stoned?
>>
>>But..but...but he's in pain! we should let him be stoned at work. Why not? He can always sue Walmart if he injures himself, and anyone else he injures can sue Walmart too - hey - no problem!
>
>No, just pump him full of oxycontin (which would kill him) or morphine and let him stumble around. Really, isn't the issue that he was working while under the influence (regardless of the medical need for it)? Does anyone take morphine or oxycontin and go to work? I understand using mm for chronic pain, but if the pain is that bad that it requires treatment with narcotics (regardless of which one it is) then you are forced to stay home and not go to work. You cannot drive or work under the influence whether it be any other prescribed narcotic. My question is more regarding the test. Was he under the influence still or was the test sensitive enough to pick it up if he is not under the influence. It needs to be fair and be applied for all legal narcotics. If an illegal substance is detected, it doesn't matter, but if it is a legal substance then it needs to detect under the influence and not in the blood stream having been used within the last 48 hours, etc...

I don't know much about how drug tests work. I was under the impression that a drug test would detect marijuana for up to a month after it's been used - perhaps there is a way they can test for levels or something to calculate how recently it was used?