And that's Strike 7: Cleveland Browns WR Josh Gordon arrested again

supafly said:

Most jobs worth a damn have some sort of drug testing procedure in place, and those who fail the tests have punishments. To me, that's not up for debate either. If you choose to break the rules, you have to accept the consequences.

We'll have to disagree on this one, my friend. If you are currently making a lot of money in today's day and age and aren't getting drug tested at any point in time, consider yourself pretty lucky.

Click to expand...

Again, there's nothing to disagree about. You're factually incorrect. Most jobs don't have random drug testing.

supafly said:

Most jobs worth a damn have some sort of drug testing procedure in place, and those who fail the tests have punishments. To me, that's not up for debate either. If you choose to break the rules, you have to accept the consequences.

We'll have to disagree on this one, my friend. If you are currently making a lot of money in today's day and age and aren't getting drug tested at any point in time, consider yourself pretty lucky.

Click to expand...

Not really, there are many many very high paying jobs available that do not require drug testing. Congress, President, any job in law....pretty much any professional person is not drug tested.

I only know 2 people who have to submit to random drug tests and they both are union.

supafly said:

Most jobs worth a damn have some sort of drug testing procedure in place, and those who fail the tests have punishments. To me, that's not up for debate either. If you choose to break the rules, you have to accept the consequences.

We'll have to disagree on this one, my friend. If you are currently making a lot of money in today's day and age and aren't getting drug tested at any point in time, consider yourself pretty lucky.

Click to expand...

I worked in high tech. High paying jobs. Never heard of drug testing folks. Don't ever remember being drug tested. Only remember 1 or 2 mostly no job physicals for employment.

chasa said:

because that team obviously doesn't want to put the effort into making him a man.

Click to expand...

And what makes you so sure the Patriots could do that? Is there something about a Patriots helmet that raises a guy's IQ by 25 points? It didn't work so well with Hernandez, I don't know why anyone thinks it would work here.

We get drug tested often at my job. I bet there's more jobs than you think that test

Deus Irae said:

Again, there's nothing to disagree about. You're factually incorrect. Most jobs don't have random drug testing.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where we got on the subject of "random" testing, but the statement that you took issue with was that the majority of Americans have consequences for failing a drug test. I included the scenario where you won't even get called back for a 2nd interview if you don't pass the initial drug test.

I don't believe that I am the poster who brought up the aspect of "random" testing, which may have given you some confusion, and would make more sense in your stance. I was speaking much more generally. I do believe that it's a fact that the majority of us won't have the jobs we wish to secure or keep if we're failing drug tests, and that was pretty much my exact statement if you go back to where you initially responded.

Nunchucks said:

pretty much any professional person is not drug tested.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your definition of "professional" may be, but anyone working in a medical field (doctors, nurses, technicians), most working in a criminal justice field (cops, many attorneys who are in a corporation, forensic analysts, probation or parole officers), and anyone who teaches (professors, high school teachers, etc) are all "professionals" who must pass drug tests to secure employment.

As you said, basically any union member would be included as well--or at least most. As the Human Resources stats that I posted state, 2/3rds of all Americans had to take drug tests in the calendar year of 2011. My guess is that the percentage would increase when responsibilities and salary increase.

PatsWickedPissah said:

I worked in high tech. High paying jobs. Never heard of drug testing folks. Don't ever remember being drug tested. Only remember 1 or 2 mostly no job physicals for employment.

Click to expand...

I never claimed that every job had pre-employment screening or was subject to any sort of tests, only that most high paying jobs worth a damn included it. Obviously, if you've never had to take a drug test for any job you've had in your entire career, you are exempt. Again, if we're looking at the stats they are up around 67%, and will be continuing to climb if Obama has his way.

patriot1136 said:

We get drug tested often at my job. I bet there's more jobs than you think that test

Click to expand...

The bottom line is that many of us are faced with a decision as to whether or not we want to put our careers above getting high. Some choose the job--while others choose drugs, but I don't think we should feel sorry for those who make the incorrect choice. They know what the deal is.

Josh Gordon had a history of making poor choices, and has blown many chances that he's had to make millions of dollars.

Most other spots test for drugs, so I'm not sure why we'd suddenly expect them not to in the NFL?

patriot1136 said:

We get drug tested often at my job. I bet there's more jobs than you think that test

Click to expand...

We saw the statistics on the last page. Out of 4 different categories, only one was below 50%.

I'm sure those numbers would increase when you included jobs that were paying above the poverty line, as the numbers are already skewed due to many jobs like fast food etc.

Here is another source from the Society of Human Resources Mgmt, who handles statistics such as these as they pertain to employee drug testing, and they claim that "57 percent of American businesses required all job candidates to pass a drug test in 2011, and another 10 percent tested just certain applicants." That is 67% right there.

Personally, I've been getting drug tested for 20-25 yrs since I was a kid in high school trying to get a job at Sears way back in the early 90s. I've had several other examples over the years with better, higher paying jobs once I went to school, but that's just my experience. Others do not have to submit to tests, although the statistics show that they are in the minority.

At Joe Kerr's corporate headquarters, we strive to maintain the highest drug testing standards in any industry. This week we'll be testing peyote,psilocybin, datura weed and DMT on the 2nd floor in the Dr. Timothy Leary unit.Bring your own black lights and groovy glasses. Mescaline soda optional, of course.

Deus Irae said:

Again, there's nothing to disagree about. You're factually incorrect. Most jobs don't have random drug testing.

Click to expand...

Like I said--we'll have to agree to disagree, because I am not "factually incorrect." I stated that a great number of American workers have punishment if they fail their drug tests. I may have even said "the majority." To me, anything over 1/2 is the majority.

The Society for Human Resource Management says 57 percent of American businesses required all job candidates to pass a drug test in 2011, and another 10 percent tested just certain applicants.

http://theweek.com/article/index/253144/the-many-problems-with-employee-drug-testing

----

That is 67% right there, and that was just in the calendar year of 2011 alone.

You may disagree, and I fully respect that, but I'm having a difficult time understanding the controversy in my comment altogether. Either way, I am not "factually incorrect." The fact, main point, and sentence that you took issue with is that many/most of us "normal" American workers receive consequences for failing a drug test. That is a fact.

Whether or not you believe that Josh Gordon got screwed in his deal with the NFL, he has had multiple chances, and at some point probably needs to grow up and weigh the benefits vs. the consequences of his actions. When millions and millions of dollars are involved, one would think that decision shouldn't be all that hard.

supafly said:

You may disagree, and I fully respect that. As a matter of fact, I'm having a difficult time understanding the controversy in my comment altogether, but I am not "factually incorrect." The fact, main point, and sentence that you took issue with is that many/most of us "normal" American workers receive consequences for failing a drug test. That is a fact.

Click to expand...

Take it easy on Deus. He's used to applying for jobs at McDonald's and as a janitor at the local school, so he doesn't know how much drug testing is done for people with real jobs.

SB39 said:

Take it easy on Deus. He's used to applying for jobs at McDonald's and as a janitor at the local school, so he doesn't know how much drug testing is done for people with real jobs.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, Deus is a great poster, who is likely one of the most knowledgeable guys on here. I think there are times when he gets a bit of a bad rep due to being a bit argumentative in some people's opinion, but my dealings have always been that at the end of it all, we go right back to having mutual respect.

If I had to guess our main point of contention would likely be the wording of "random" testing, although I don't believe that I ever used that term. I think it may have been another poster who brought it up altogether. My statement had more of a broader intent, and it certainly wasn't meant to be controversial in the least.

My main point is simple--if the majority of us "regular" people have to follow certain rules and can be given consequences for failing a drug test (whether that means disqualification from consideration for the job, suspension, termination, etc) at work, then I believe guys like Josh Gordon should as well. Some people just have strong beliefs, and it's possible that I hit a soft spot with my comments--although that wasn't even close to my intent.

SB39 said:

Take it easy on Deus. He's used to applying for jobs at McDonald's and as a janitor at the local school, so he doesn't know how much drug testing is done for people with real jobs.

Click to expand...

I know it was intended as a joke, but actually a lot of the lower-wage jobs have drug testing. Maybe not random, but usually before hiring. McDonald's apparently has you sign a form consenting to a drug test if they decide one is necessary. Walmart also drug tests, as does Target. And some schools do drug test (depending on the state), so janitors also face. It's becoming more prevalent at all levels of employment in the US.

Well I'm a navy guy, military do random drug tests and sometime mandatory ship wide drug testing after we pull out of ports.

skspikex2 said:

Well I'm a navy guy, military do random drug tests and sometime mandatory ship wide drug testing after we pull out of ports.

Click to expand...

you would think the test would happen before they leave port.

Deus Irae said:

The fact that you're trying to play the pick-and-choose game with weed and booze should be enough to let you know that your position does not hold water. This is employment, not slavery. You may be fine with giving up privacy rights, but I'm not.

Also, 39% is, clearly, not most.

Click to expand...

The drug policy is a policy agreed to upon by the NFL and the NFLPA. Players enter the league knowing this is a rule for condition of employment. How is this anything remotely considered slavery? The NFL drug policy is a condition of employment. You agree to it when you accept the job.

I am sorry, but most companies of any size have a drug and alcohol policy. Some require random testing. Some requiring testing at the start of employment. Some don't require anything. But if you are found out to have violated these policies in your personal life, you are subject to termination. I have heard of people being fired for things they have posted on social media in terms of drugs.

Playing in the NFL is not a right, it is a privilege. Like many jobs, they are subject to drug testing as a term of employment. If you are not in the drug program, you are only tested once a year around the same time every year. It is easy to take recreational drugs like pot for 11 months out of the year and stop a month before the test. Some players aren't that bright.

Personally, for the right to make millions and millions of dollars, I wouldn't mind the NFL doing a relatively non-invasive test once a year to me for that right. The fact of the matter is about 95% of the players or more get their once a year test and never have a problem.

patriot1136 said:

We get drug tested often at my job. I bet there's more jobs than you think that test

Click to expand...

If you get tested often, you get tested more than most NFL players. Most NFL players only get tested once a year and around the same time every year. Only the players who have violated the drug policy get tested more than that.

convertedpatsfan said:

I know it was intended as a joke, but actually a lot of the lower-wage jobs have drug testing. Maybe not random, but usually before hiring. McDonald's apparently has you sign a form consenting to a drug test if they decide one is necessary. Walmart also drug tests, as does Target. And some schools do drug test (depending on the state), so janitors also face. It's becoming more prevalent at all levels of employment in the US.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the only time I have been drug tested for a job in my life was a part time job I had in high school working at a department store.

Deus Irae said:

???????

The majority of us suffer absolutely no penalty, at all. Most of us aren't working for jobs with random drug testing, and that's a good thing, because there's no reason that we should be getting tested. The problem isn't even that step, though. The problem is that the sports unions were stupid enough to allow non-impactful drugs on testing lists. It's none of the NFL's business if a player is smoking weed, doing other drugs, drinking, etc...

Click to expand...

Shirley you can't be serious! I have dealt with many customers that require drug testing. And I have dealt with many customers that if an employee was arrested for substance abuse, that employee would be fired.

That is the way the real world works. And this arguement "he's just a young guy" is also silly. Plenty of "young guys" take jobs and have to abide by a personal conduct code. That is not counting the many younger guys who have joined the military over the years. If 18 year olds can live by the strict disipline of the military, some prima donna WR who is 23 can live by the personal conduct policy of the NFL.

This is why I was against trading for him last year. He's one of the best (probably top two) in the NFL when he's playing, but you simply can't count on him to be there. Further, he wasn't the difference between having a Lombardi or not. He was only the difference between exiting in the AFCCG or moving on for the honor of the Patriots getting their asses handed to them by Seattle in the Super Bowl.