I think that judging how people perform in your company based on drugs test is a rather poor one.

* If your employee performs well at work: keep them
* If your employee does NOT perform well at work: Talk with them and maybe there is a good reason why they perform bad, you might be able to turn that employee into a good functioning one with just one good talk. If they keep failing after that: fire them

Drugs tests will never show if your employees performs good or bad, only you can honestly judge them by reviewing their work!


Kind regards,

The Traveler

lol ofc i wouldnt hire and alcoholic. And you really seem to underestimate the strength of opiates and amphetamines...some semesters ago I took a class on addicting substances (it wasn't anti-drug propaganda,it was actually a legit course) and I can tell you that depending on one's body,one could get seriously addicted by doing one hit of cocaine or meth.So no,I wouldn't want a junkie working for me,and in the term junkie I include alcoholics too.Hell if it was in my hand and not 70% of the people in my country smoked,I wouldn't even want nicotine addicts. I generally don't like addicts, I don't see why that would surprise you. I wouldn't mind pot smokers and I certainly wouldn't mind anyone that takes entheogens

This sounds so wrong. Not just from experience but also physiologically it just doesn't seem right. I don't think an addiction can manifest in the body after one hit. Addiction is something that your body takes a while to fall into. Certainly for the vast majority of people who take one line of coke or one hit of meth there is no addiction immediately after. I agree that the one hit can lead onto a binge which results in addiction, but that's a kinda obvious statement... I can't see any way that someone could become an addict without taking a first hit.

I have a family member who has taken heroin several times throughout his life (probably averages once every 5 years or something) and is not an addict, he suffers no withdrawal after his one hit. I am not sure withdrawal is even possible from the first try of a drug.

I absolutely agree with Jamie & Trav

"and I can tell you that depending on one's body, one could get seriously addicted by doing one hit of cocaine or meth"

Well than you took a class in drug propeganda because that statement is jusr sort of rediculous and not based in reality. I know alot about cocaine addiction and abuse becasue my best friends mother is addicted to cocaine and has abused it for years, along with alcohol. She was in therapy with Gabor Mate and we both researched everything we could on cocaine addiction and abuse. Cocaine is NOT really that physically addictive and the physical withdrawl does not even last longer than a day usually. Most of the problem when it comes to cocaine is psychological addiction. My friends mother can and has quit using cocaine numerous times but she can not stop drinking without having seizures which is common in long term alcoholics when trying to quit. Alcohol withdrawls are far worse for most people than cocaine withdrawls.

Do more research.

Yep definitely. Judge people on their actions, not on their choices of recreation. Finding evidence of previous drug use is no more relevant than finding evidence that someone has had a beer at the weekend. If someone is doing their job badly then that is something to be dealt with, drug use shouldn't really be a factor IMO.

I guess, on the other hand, in a profession like the police it would make sense that they should pass any drug test and would make sense that they be prosecuted if they were in breach of the law that they are getting paid to enforce. I believe that if a policeman is found with DMT in his system he should be reprimanded, since it is a massive hypocrisy... unless he was the kind of police that would turn a blind eye to drug offenses by others (I've never met one of them).

EDIT: Well... found with abnormally high levels of DMT indicative of recreational use. I guess it's obvious they'd have DMT in their system.

"he suffers no withdrawal after his one hit. I am not sure withdrawal is even possible from the first try of a drug."

I have heard Shulgin talk about this in an interview once. His opinion was that no, one cannot become physically dependant on heroin or methamphetamine etc from just one exposure. People might feel a psycholgical draw towards it(as they might with basically anything) but it takes numerous exposures in a given period of time to actually develope a physical addiction.

I remember when crack and freebase cocaine became big news in the early 80s and it was often stated that one hit gets you addicted and the buzz is better than an orgasm.Ive used this over a hundred times in the past 20 years and I never even remotely came close to having a problem with it.I think it depends on ones personality and for some users one hit can impart such a strong desire to take more and more which can lead to addiction issues.My personality is not tuned that way.And, IME, an orgasm is a damnsight better.

There is also a small percentage of opiate users who can use in a controlled fashion without addiction and are able to lead productive (but somewhat less full) lives.These are however a minority.

Methamphetamine Ive also found to be interesting, fairly pleasurable but the protracted nature of the experience and the slow climb to normality after a good session over-rides any psychological desire to just keep on using.

There really is so much total BS about such drugs but this mustnt be allowed to detract from the real hazards of injudicious use.

The only drugs Ive ever heard of which addicts first time are Chew Z and Substance D from the Philip K Dick classics 'The 3 Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch' and 'A Scanner darkly'.

I really phrased it badly,let me rephrase it: in one session of doing cocaine,with the buzz lasting 10 mins or so,one will do more than 1 hits.And after all that,in most cases (learned a % but forgot) they are inclined to use again.

Plus you seem to forget that addiction isn't only physiological but psychological as well. I understand using a substance like dmt as a tool to achieve a means, but when you use substances like alcohol or cocaine or meth only to feel the "buzz", it is called drug abuse. I don't know why someone would go down that path to begin with, but I wouldn't want such a person to be working for me (especially if the job was something where he/she might be needed at any time of the day,or a job where lives are at stake like a doctor)

"but when you use substances like alcohol or cocaine or meth only to feel the "buzz" it is called drug abuse"

Can you provide a referance for that definition? most people I know that use cannabis use it for that purpose as well. As far as I understand drug abuse has nothing to do with what a person uses for a "buzz" and is defined by the the use of a given substance has on the life of an individual or those around them. Just because someone uses a drug occasionally becasue they like the buzz does not mean they are a drug abuser. This sort of logic is moral absolutism.

Lots of people use alcohol for the buzz only once a month or a few times a year..how is that drug abuse?

Alcohol is used as a spiritual tool in many cultures and so is nicotine and cocaine. Are these people drug abusers as well?

You still have not really adressed my point. Not everyone who uses cocaine or methamphetamine or any other drug necessarily becomes addicted to or "abuses" it..psychological addiction can and does happen to some people with any drugs as it can with anything in life.

Even cannabis is proven to cause some physical dependance with heavy use and alot of cannabis smokers are in my opinion very psychologically addicted to it.

This is such a poor way to judge others becasue your understanding of others is going to be limited by these stereotypes.

Agreed with jamie.

I drink for the buzz and relaxation, not to mention as a great way to have fun with friends.

I even have experience with cocaine throughout periods of the year. It is a great buzz and mood lifter. I use it up and then Im done for a few months. Do I want to do more after 1 line? Of course... but I usually dont. Do I become addicted? Not a chance. Granted it is also pure and isnt cut with any other things that can contribute to addiction.

I dont consider this drug abuse at all. I consider drug abuse to be defined by habitual excessive use, no matter what the substance is. But thats just my viewpoint.

Buzz has nothing to do with it.

Cannabis can be used for self-improvement, and has also beneficial effects for the body. cocaine and meth have nothing to do with that,they just get you hyped for 10 mins thinking you can smash a mountain with your head and when you're coming down will leave you wanting more.I do understand cannabis can be abused too, and for me people that search happiness in cannabis are abusing it aswell.

And I really don't get your alcohol references, you are speaking as if I was defending it.Alcohol is a dangerous addictive poison that kills thousands of people each year, and for me is as bad as any opiate.

And your point is invalid.If you would for 1 second be realistic, you would see that the vast majority of people that tried meth are addicted to it.And you cannot compare the psychological addiction to a stimulant that affects the mesolimbic reward pathway so much to the psychological addiction of taking long walks on the beach.That's not even flawed logic,that's lack of logic

"you would see that the vast majority of people that tried meth are addicted to it"

Actually if you had researched this you would know that that is incorrect. Most people who try meth do not become addicted to it. Upon what are you basing these claims?

What is most alarming about cocaine is how much environmental devistation takes place in the rainforest to get pure cocaine from coca leaf. basically all the cocaine in the west comes from SA and anyone who uses it should seriously look into this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6WQcTKONRQ

All of that crap gets dumped off into the river systems etc..real bad for the amazon to support the cocaine black market.

From a 2007 survey done here about meth users.

what survey?

Concider this from a site that is clearly anti meth..

"According to the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Survey, nearly 5 percent of high school seniors in the United States used crystal meth at least once in their lifetime and 3 percent used the drug in the past year."

"http://www.crystalmethaddiction.org/Crystal_Meth_Statistics.htm"

According to that data nearly 5% of high school students in america have tried meth..that would mean by your logic that 5 out of every 100 high school seniors in the US are either current or recovered meth addicts..well I dont buy it.

The data here would not support your claim either..

"The report cites statistics compiled by the government to make its case, including a 2004 survey that estimated 583,000 people used meth in the past month, or two-10ths of 1 percent of the U.S. population."


http://www.bluelight.ru/...index.php/t-259933.html

Just because drugs like amphetamines and opiates etc do have a very real potential for serious addiction and can be toxic(amphetamines) when used chronically etc does not mean that anyone who tries them will suddenly become addicts or that even most of them will. This is all just propeganda fed to people so they will all get on board with the "war on drugs". Yes heroin and other opiates etc are very addictive when used chronically..does that mean that everyone or even most people who break a leg and get morphine for a day become addicts? No..of course there are always acceptions and once someone does develope a true physical dependance on opiates for instance it does take and take and take..

Just because these drugs have real potential for abuse and can be dangerous does not mean we should be unrealistic about it and just buy into a bunch of crap fed to us.

I wouldn't call taking drugs for fun drug abuse, I'd call it drug use. I'd call it drug abuse when it is noticeably damaging to the persons life. Drugs are fun in moderation. Basically everyone I know (including myself) takes things like cocaine, ecstasy or ketamine from time to time purely for enjoyment and I don't know anyone who has a serious drug problem... although several people I know have a drink problem. Recreational drug use isn't inherently bad, and is therefore not inherently abuse. Drugs can fuck up your life just like over indulging in anything else can. Too much heroin can kill you, and so can too much water.

DMT is the only drug I take that I feel has any real meaning to the experience... and at the end of the day I primarily take DMT for enjoyment as well, the fact that I have felt unbelievably profound effects from it is just a happy bonus. If it wasn't fun I probably wouldn't do it (although I have found my bad trips very interesting as well).

It's true: only a relatively small percentage of people have a serious susceptibility to drug addiction. That fact has been almost totally ignored by the Drug Warriors.

But then it IS good to remember that some people are ticking time bombs of addiction susceptibility--and they would be VERY WISE to avoid drugs known to be a risk (alcohol, heroin, coke, meth). And...er...everybody should avoid cigarettes because, interestingly, MOST people are susceptible to addiction to them (and even most animals!).

Ya thats a real shame and all, but my concious is clean because my stuff ISNT made in SA

imagine if they did have a test that would show if you used dmt. it would be pretty messed up if they persecuted you for using it when it definitely wouldn't affect your work. not in any way other than you thinking it's pointless anyways haha. and yea i agree with the traveler and others with a similar view. how is productivity at some job more important than you living your life how you want? UAs aren't even conclusive that you were intoxicated on the job when many things stay in your system for days.