Jul 302014
 July 30, 2014

drug test testing welfareThe media world was rocked this weekend when the New York Times Editorial Board came out in support of marijuana legalization. The New York Times is in the midst of releasing a six part series dedicated to marijuana legalization. The endorsement was welcomed by marijuana activists around the world, and got the attention of just about every media outlet on the planet by the end of the weekend.

While the endorsement is very much appreciated, I still find it troubling that the New York Times plans to continue to drug test its employees. Every drug test that is paid for by the New York Times financially supports companies who have led the fight to keep marijuana illegal, in addition to penalyzing prospective employees for marijuana use. Per the Huffington Post:

But the editorial board’s new stance doesn’t mean incoming Times employees can partake. As Gawker recently noted, the Times is one of several big media companies that require prospective hires to take a drug test. A Times spokeswoman told HuffPost that the paper’s policy for drug testing hasn’t changed, despite the editorial board’s decision.

“Our corporate policy on this issue reflects current law,” the spokeswoman said. “We aren’t going to get into details beyond that.”

Arbitrary drug testing is wrong. People should be hired based on their skill set, not on the purity of their urine. An impairment based drug testing system is much better, and is more accurate. A drug test shows that someone has consumed marijuana within the last 30 days, but does not indicate if that person was under the influence at work, or even if they are a bad worker. I have had marijuana in my system consistently for over two decades, and I’ve always been an exceptional employee, and I know I’m not alone.

There is a Change.Org petition calling for The New York Times to change its drug testing policy. I encourage you to sign it. As of this post, there have been 607 supporters signed up.

Comments

comments

About Johnny Green

Dissenting opinions are welcome, insults and personal attacks are discouraged and hate speech will not be tolerated. Spammers and people trying to buy or sell cannabis or any drugs will be banned. Read our comment policy and FAQ for more information

  12 Responses to “New York Times To Drug Test Employees Despite Supporting Marijuana Legalization”

  1.  

    Indeed, this is a very solid point — it’s talking out of both sides of your mouth to denounce the evils of the drug war and force employees to submit to mandatory drug testing. If the New York Times wishes to have a shred of credibility behind their message, they’ll stop.

    On that note, I’m sorely disappointed by the aggregate reaction to the NYT’s actions from the many media sources, we have. Relatively few got behind the issue without taking a swipe at the New York Times, which to me, honestly, was less about giving the whole story than it was about petty infighting between media outlets. Yes, NYT had the chutzpah to seize on this issue, while most other media outlets were content to carry on with the status-quo: slow-drip progress for the sake of having many more years of juicy cannabis headlines to report.

    Resolved controversies only make headlines, once. Ongoing controversies produce headlines, forever. Yes, the NYT needs to stop drug testing their employees to have a consistent stance on this issue. However, the other media outlets need to stop acting so butt-hurt because the New York Times decided to skip ahead of the pack. It shows me the NY Times has a sort of journalistic integrity that other media outlets lack — the New York Times would rather see an end to the travesty of cannabis prohibition than continue reporting on it, forever.

  2.  

    Too funny that they would test..lol

  3.  

    So what if a few reporters use some drugs? Although I’m firmly against harder drugs, it really just doesn’t matter at a newspaper. Now I do personally think that there are a few jobs which I would support drug testing for. Like airplane pilots; I don’t think that the lives of 300 passangers should be risked by a whacked out pilot. Just my opinion, and yeah I understand that TWB thinks all drug testing is bad for some reason… I simply think that testing might be crucial in some jobs. But newspapers and football for example, whoooo the heck caresssss lol!

    •  

      It’s the fact that the testing is for inactive metabolites, not current impairment/active chemicals. You’ll find almost no one (because I’m sure there are a few) who will argue that people have the right to be impaired by anything while on the job (medical necessity for prescribed medication is a slight issue).

      The conversation has been had many times. Pilots, doctors, police officers, military (based on unit SOP, even deployed, except for in certain middle eastern countries), etc, are all completely fine to go home/off duty and consume alcohol as much as they want so long as they aren’t drunk the next time they report for duty.

      I don’t know much about the prescription pill regulations, but I’d imagine there are cases in which those professions are allowed to keep working while taking prescribed medication that actively impairs them.

      Drug testing should be for active substances only and should only be done when impairment is suspected/after an accident for insurance reasons.

      •  

        Yeah, very good points. I do think that Cannabis should be removed completely from all drug tests, considering the metabolites point. But, I’m not even sure I’m comfortable with old metabolites of coke, crack, ops, and heroin in the system of my pilot / doctor / cop. But yeah it’s an old argument that I’m not really interested in or care about lol. :)

  4.  

    Net York times how can you say that you think marijuana laws should change. Even quoting facts that say marijuana is safer than alcolhol and Tabaco. Then you want to continual to drug test employees. You would be better served to change policy to no smoking marijuana during work hours. Please think about it.

  5.  

    ok I got tired of all this confusion about Palo Azul Tea so I went to my FREAKIN DOCTOR and asked him (while getting my Xanax filled ) How is it that Tea made from the Bark of the Palo Azul plant could make people not show up positive for T.H.C? He said he had never heard of Palo Azul and then he researched on his laptop for a second and this is what he said..” Palo Azul contains negative charged alkaloids that draw out toxins with a positive charge such as THC , ( a negative charge pulls) .Similar to how an air ionizer uses a negative charge to pull the toxins out of the air.. Once the negative alkaloids enter the urinary tract system it bonds on to the toxins and changes their genetic signature ..making the toxins a different compound altogether now ,making them undetectable! , google it.. the fact that some cheap little natural plant from the rain forest can do all that blows my mind! I will post this again up top just so this “drug man” AKA (Magnum Detox Rep) doesn’t try to erase this post and trick you guys into spending a ton of cash on some chemical crap!!!!!

  6.  

    ok I got tired of all this confusion about Palo Azul Tea so I went to my FREAKIN DOCTOR and asked him (while getting my Xanax filled ) How is it that Tea made from the Bark of the Palo Azul plant could make people not show up positive for T.H.C? He said he had never heard of Palo Azul and then he researched on his laptop for a second and this is what he said..” Palo Azul contains negative charged alkaloids that draw out toxins with a positive charge such as THC , ( a negative charge pulls) .Similar to how an air ionizer uses a negative charge to pull the toxins out of the air.. Once the negative alkaloids enter the urinary tract system it bonds on to the toxins and changes their genetic signature ..making the toxins a different compound altogether now ,making them undetectable! , google it.. the fact that some cheap little natural plant from the rain forest can do all that blows my mind! I will post this again up top just so this “drug man” AKA (Magnum Detox Rep) doesn’t try to erase this post and trick you guys into spending a ton of cash on some chemical crap!!!!!

    •  

      Yess!!! the Palo Azul works, but what sucks is that all the people on amazon and ebay are selling bunk kidney wood…its NOT the OFFICIAL “PALO AZUL” (Blue Stick) strain. ive been getting mine straight from the Palo Azul Tea website..They have the only true EXOTIC palo.

    •  

      Thank you for sharing!!

    •  

      I read a bunch of these forums and was really enthused about this… soooo, I obtained a few ounces of this bark and brewed up a gallon of the tea, which was amazingly blue to look at in certain light conditions. proceeded to drink it and it wasn’t unpleasant to taste, kind of like sasparilla tea with no sweetness. drank it all, ate nothing because I didn’t want to dampen the effects.
      long story short, this stuff MIGHT help you clean out in 10 to 15 days if you drink a bunch every day, HOWEVER, it WILL NOT!!!!
      Work to help you pass immediately if you’re a moderately heavy smoker!!!
      Don’t bet your job or career on this method, YOU WILL LOSE!!!!!

  7.  

    People don’t seem to realize that the only reason any corporation drug tests is that they get a reduction in their insurance costs if they do. The # 1 problem in this regard is Capitalism, plain and simple. Every single legal entity, in the current paradigm, wishes to maximize profits and insurance rates eat into that. Long after Cannabis is fully legalized, nationally, companies will still be asking for your pee. We need to fundamentally change the way the insurance industry works, or better yet abandon Capitalism as our primary organizing principle. “People before Profits” is a slogan that is meaningless to our current system. Good luck.

 Leave a Reply