By all means, test airline pilots, bus drivers, taxi drivers, and anyone whose job puts anyone in danger if they are intoxicated. OTOH, testing for weed is usually a waste of time and money.

I think in areas where the employee is responsible for the life and limbs of others yes. I have a hard time in the case of marijuana since it can be detected long after the effects on mental status are cleared

I have worked for several companies and not only was it required for employment, there were random screenings of employees. One company I worked at only screened workers, random screenings and pre-employment, management and engineers were exempt. The question seems to be are you responsible, are you impaired on the job. Some feel if you use off hours then you are irresponsble and should not be employed. I agrgee with all concerns of safety and being impaired anywhere you can endanger others a bad thing, however, should you be denied a job because of recreational marijuana use off hours? Does this automatically mean you would be a risk? Just sayin'

Some companies do carry out random drug tests. It is largley a matter of context and whether or not the nature of the work merits it. For example, someone operating machinery that requires an alert mind might not respond quickly or appropriately whilst under the influence of drugs and may injure himself or others.

My drug of choice is alcohol. I have even only tried weed a couple of times during my misspent youth. I have never tried or "done" anything harder. Wait, there's caffiene. As a long-term, high-volume caffiene user I can state unequivocally that there are no negative side-effects with the exception of an occasional withdrawal headache when I don't get me some bright an early.

Ok, now that my drug history is exposed to the world I'll say I think pre-employment drug testing is wrong. It sets the stage of mistrust, IMHO. I think it would suffice to let prospective employees sign a statement affirming they consume no illegal drugs. Then, depending on the work being done, the company could do random drug testing only for jobs where impairment would create a safety issue (usually vehicular or heavy equipment operation, or mfg/assembly line machine operation).

I voted mixed feelings and I admit it made me cringe a bit. It’s complicated for me. I don’t do drugs but I am not anti drugs (with a few exceptions). I will say that it makes sense to drug test a NICU nurse (just an example) etc.

If lives are at stake yes if lives are not at stake then no simple really . If you take drugs then don't do a job that risks lives I'd never do a job that risks lives just in case someone passes me a spliff on the weekend

I think it really depends on the job. I'm opposed to anyone trying to impose their own values on what workers do on their own in their off hours. There are, of course, jobs that could be dangerous under certain drug influence, but testing before employment doesn't mean that someone won't come to work drunk or on prescription opioids or some other substance six months later. My employer (a media company) tried to push through random drug screening a few years back, and it was three of us who were the most straight-laced who were most offended by it and vocal about our opposition. One had been working here for ~30 years and felt like he was being slapped in the face with distrust. I don't consume illicit substances, I'm reluctant to take any other medication unless it's clearly necessary (even Ibuprofen is a rarity for me), and I almost never drink alcoholic beverages (and never on the job). It's not about getting caught, but about the toxic culture it creates. It treats workers as criminals. My employer backed down eventually and instituted a much more reasonable policy whereby drug and alcohol testing can be required only if a manager and two other witnesses see eratic behavior from an employee suggesting inebriation or other substance use. I'm perfectly fine with that degree of testing. I'm not okay with any mandatory screening for a non-hazardous job for the sake of "catching" people when illicit activity isn't apparent otherwise.

Absolutely for safety reasons!

Mixed.
Many jobs already do random testing, why would a company want to waste their time hiring someone just to have them fail a test later and be terminated?

I'd like to say elected officials should be randomly tested too, but they would probably rig it anyway.

I was in the phatmaceutical industry. All employers drug tested.

Some employees have company cars and should be required to be drug tested. I have worked for such companies. Any one who drives a vehicle forwork-truck,delivery, bus, etc.drivers shouldbe tested to protect us on the roads and highways. It should be a requirement nationally to protect us all.

A lot of them already do. The company I worked for did as well as the one I worked for prior to that.

People on medical cannabis would be in trouble. It's oppressive.

Every employer is required to insure employees in the event they hurt themselves. So yes. Any job that requires you to have a brain should make sure your brain is working properly

I think for soem jobs it shoudl be required if a person operates machinery or operates soem kind of vehicle. Or, in other words, if it affect the safety of the work place, then yes test for drugs.

However, I once had a job as a software support person, where I worked in a call center. I was told I was the first i the company that would be drug tested before employment. I didnt' use drugs, but that really wouldnt' be the point. They looked into my pribate life, even though ti woudl not have affected how I did the job. later they fired me when they figured otu I was gay (because I never really tried to hide it).

So, for soem jobs I can see a need to create a safe work environment, but for others, I just see it as an invastion of privacy.

My first instinct is no - what people do in their own time should be no business of their employer. I do, however, see that there are certain jobs (truck drivers, pilots, surgeons, nurses and others) where there's a definite need to make sure an employee is not under the influence of a drug while working.

define drugs? isnt coffee a drug? do we not get prescribed drugs? I have morphine patches on my back as we speak and cannabis patches are out now too. where should the line be drawn? what about booze? or tobacco?

It is perfectly within their rights to test to make sure they are hiring people who do not use drugs. That effects insurance rates for the company, and allows them to create the type of atmosphere they prefer to do business in

I chose other because I feel that drug use can concur with effective work ethic. If it effects their productivity negatively, then they could risk termination due to their lack of productivity.

My problem is that any testing regime I've seen is based on ideology not sound science and I've seen some nasty unintended consequences because different drugs metabolise at different rates. The worst part is people getting into Meth rather than cannabis because they know they'll be able to pass a drug test a few days later.
If tests related to ability to perform the proscribed work and follow all occuptional health and safety requirements then I'd say yes, but as marijauna stays in the system so long and other far more harmful drugs don't it makes a nonsense of current testing methodologies.

The can test me but I will tell them right up front that I am a medical marijuana patient before we get too deep into the interview process. If they have a problem then I will thank them for their time, get up and walk out. I've got an Rx for everything I take.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and the Mayo Clinic, as of 2015, 70% of Americans take one prescription drug daily, more than half take two and 20% take five or more. The three most popular types of drugs taken are antibiotics followed by antidepressants and opioid painkillers. On the whole, women and older adults received the most prescriptions while antidepressants and opioids were most common for young and middle aged adults. And in states that allow for medical marijuana, opioid use and addiction have dropped 23%.

Were I an employer and truly concerned about employees being under the influence of something in the work place, I would be more concerned about drug addiction and interactions obtained through traditional sources.

It violates both 4th and 5th amendments. The 4th protects one from illegal search and seizure without warrant for probable cause. The 5th protects one from being forced to testify against yourself, in this case, your body testifying agaiinst you. Simply submitting an application for employment is NOT probable cause.

In a perfect world you should only have to prove that you are drug free while you are at work. In a more perfect world you should only have to prove that you are competent and lucid at work. So instead of filtering out applicants I think they should filter out employees after they have demonstrated incompetence due to drug use at work. Even then, if the person is willing to change they should try to help them.

Depends on the job. I'd rather a herion addicted surgeon who's had a fix than an alchoholic one, but a stoned rigger nearly killed me. If my pizza maker (cf comment below) is whacked it matters not to me.