Drug Testing Questions:

[ethyl]

I was officially accepted to pharm school and read how I'll be subjected to a drug test. I have nothing to worry about... but has anyone heard of people getting tested during pharmacy school? Any stories of people getting caught?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Robinbird]

You got that same email from Wingate today, too? That email was a bit intimidating to me. I don't have anything to worry about either, but I'm not looking forward to having to pay for it out of my own pocket several times. And sorry, I can't answer your question. I've never heard of that happening to anyone.

 

[Khushi]

I had to get the required immunizations and a TB test before starting college. That's all, no drug tests, even. But I've heard nothing about getting drug tests during your years there.

 

[ethyl]

You got that same email from Wingate today, too? That email was a bit intimidating to me. I don't have anything to worry about either, but I'm not looking forward to having to pay for it out of my own pocket several times. And sorry, I can't answer your question. I've never heard of that happening to anyone.

Yep, got the same email . Congrats btw!

 

[ethyl]

I had to get the required immunizations and a TB test before starting college. That's all, no drug tests, even. But I've heard nothing about getting drug tests during your years there.

I'm guessing it's probably going to be like most places of work that have "random drug screening". When in fact, they only drug test when they have reasonable suspicion. I'd imagine it's intimidating, a great inconvenience and morale bummer to have unwarranted drug tests throughout 4 years of school. I'd have to stay away from eating anything with poppy seads.

 

[takethou]

I was officially accepted to pharm school and read how I'll be subjected to a drug test. I have nothing to worry about... but has anyone heard of people getting tested during pharmacy school? Any stories of people getting caught?

It sounded a little intimidating to me too. I haven't heard of anyone being kicked out due to a positive test. See you on August 7th!

 

[lvlyjenn]

That is complete garbage. If I want to smoke I should be able to smoke dammit!

 

[Khushi]

I'm guessing it's probably going to be like most places of work that have "random drug screening". When in fact, they only drug test when they have reasonable suspicion. I'd imagine it's intimidating, a great inconvenience and morale bummer to have unwarranted drug tests throughout 4 years of school. I'd have to stay away from eating anything with poppy seads.

I guess maybe our university doesn't give a darn about what we do, whether its drink or do drugs.

Then again, it was the least competitive too.

Haha @ poppy seeds. I'd have to give those up over the summer when I start working. And I love those too.

 

[snailman]

that's bs. i wouldn't go to that school on principle.
there is a consensus among the scientific and economic community that random drug testing in most venues is counterproductive.

 

[voskoboy]

Yes, I received that email about a month ago. It was quite interesting considering it was not only a drug test, but a background check, social security check, credit check and something else I suppose...

 

[Robinbird]

Yes, I received that email about a month ago. It was quite interesting considering it was not only a drug test, but a background check, social security check, credit check and something else I suppose...

I know. I'm sort of paranoid that they'll find out I was late on my credit card payment (by 1 day and my payment was for the whole amount) or find something else minorly wrong with me and decide that they don't want me at their school after all.

 

[Gizmo]

Unfortunatley, my credit is not good due to some mistakes in undergrad and after graduating....but the school did not rescind their offer to accept me, so I'm sure that they understand that people make mistakes regarding money at some point in their lives.

One good thing that came out of them checking my report is that they alerted me to the fact that there is an "alias", another name, on my credit report that is not my name; a name that I have never used. So now I'll be checking all of my reports to find out what is going on.

Oh, and I have no problem with the school testing me for drugs or doing random testing during my education. This is not an unusual policy to me as all of my medical employers have required this. When I applied to CVS last year, I had to have a drug test. (Although, after I started working, one of the techs that had been there a long time was boasting -- in front of the pharmacist-- that the techs and the pharmacists get together and smoke pot; the pharmacist heard and did not say differently. With that being said, I do think that medical professionals have an obligation to the profession to not use illegal drugs. As pharmacy students we have that obligation as well, so I do not object to drug testing.)

 

[crossjb]

that's bs. i wouldn't go to that school on principle.
there is a consensus among the scientific and economic community that random drug testing in most venues is counterproductive.

Tell that to Bud Selig. Should've tested in 1998 and nailed Big Mac and Sosa.

 

[kellia]

that's bs. i wouldn't go to that school on principle.
there is a consensus among the scientific and economic community that random drug testing in most venues is counterproductive.

Drug testing is likely to part of your future employment as a pharmacist. I really don't think that it is too far off base for schools to request one, although I haven't heard of it before. Think of it like this: they are preparing you for your future!

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I know. I'm sort of paranoid that they'll find out I was late on my credit card payment (by 1 day and my payment was for the whole amount) or find something else minorly wrong with me and decide that they don't want me at their school after all.

I don't think you need to worry about that one.

 

[twester]

I'll go out on an off-topic limb here and say...

If ever there was a family that should be drug tested, it's the one in All4MyDaughter's avatar. Holy Styx concert, Batman! I can't believe there was a time when we all looked like that.

 

[snailman]

With that being said, I do think that medical professionals have an obligation to the profession to not use illegal drugs. As pharmacy students we have that obligation as well, so I do not object to drug testing.)

why do you think medical professionals have this obligation?

 

[lvlyjenn]

I figure that as long as I am doing the best job possible and don;t make mistakes, that noone should worry about my personal life... Drug testing is such crap.

 

[imperial frog]

I'll go out on an off-topic limb here and say...

If ever there was a family that should be drug tested, it's the one in All4MyDaughter's avatar. Holy Styx concert, Batman! I can't believe there was a time when we all looked like that.

We all? Sorry to disapoint but not everyone succumbed to the NJ look.

 

[dgroulx]

I figure that as long as I am doing the best job possible and don;t make mistakes, that noone should worry about my personal life... Drug testing is such crap.

It's not really the lifestyle of drug use that they worry about, it is the use of illegal drugs. You are breaking the law. That's why they conduct background checks as well as drug testing.

 

[snailman]

okay but why is it inherently unacceptable for a medical professional to break a law, given that the breaking of the law does no harm to anyone? the purpose of a law is to protect people or property. when considered in this light, most drug laws seem to be little more than archaic artifacts of past political pressure. <puff puff...passes j to lvlyjenn>

 

[ultracet]

okay but why is it inherently unacceptable for a medical professional to break a law, given that the breaking of the law does no harm to anyone? the purpose of a law is to protect people or property. when considered in this light, most drug laws seem to be little more than archaic artifacts of past political pressure. <puff puff...passes j to lvlyjenn>

it effects your ability to make clinical judgements and therefore intereferes with your professional abilities

and its inherently unacceptable for anyone to break a law

 

[snailman]

Occasional, responsible drug use will have minimal, if any, negative impact on a person's ability to make clinical judgements. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to hear it.

 

[dgroulx]

Specifially what drugs are you talking about? Weed, cocaine, opiods, ecstacy, or something else? They all will affect your judgement differently.

We can even be tested for alcohol use at some rotation sites. That can mess up your judgement big time and it's legal.

 

[ultracet]

Occasional, responsible drug use will have minimal, if any, negative impact on a person's ability to make clinical judgements. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to hear it.

lsd

one trip can last a lifetime


and how is doing something illegal "responsible"?

 

[iammike]

im with snailman and lvlyjenn, drug testing is lame



they should just legalize

 

[snailman]

i used the word responsible as a contrast to reckless. someone who smokes meth all day every day is reckless, whereas someone who uses occasionally and has their usage under control is responsible.

obviously if you are drunk or high when you show up for work, that's a problem. but if you smoked weed a few days ago, or if you did a few lines of coke at a party, that's not going to affect your clinical judgment, but it will give you a positive on the drug test.

 

[dgroulx]

i used the word responsible as a contrast to reckless. someone who smokes meth all day every day is reckless, whereas someone who uses occasionally and has their usage under control is responsible.

obviously if you are drunk or high when you show up for work, that's a problem. but if you smoked weed a few days ago, or if you did a few lines of coke at a party, that's not going to affect your clinical judgment, but it will give you a positive on the drug test.

Maybe pharmacy isn't a good career choice for you. People that use meth or cocaine have no business working in a pharmacy. They are both highly addictive substances. Thinking that you can control your use is merely an illusion. If you get into pharmacy school, you'll change your mind about drug use. Once you study the actual drug and understand it, you'll realize that it is an idiotic thing to do. I was a young, idiot drug user in the past.

 

[snailman]

I don't use meth or cocaine, and I'd be very surprised if I understood illegal drugs any less than you do. I've taken several undergraduate classes on the subject, and conducted a great deal of independent research, including discussions with many current and former drug users. And sure, some of them are reckless losers who shouldn't be allowed to work at McDonald's much less in a pharmacy. But I still don't understand why any illegal drug use should necessarily disqualify a person from a career as a pharmacist.

 

[dgroulx]

I don't use meth or cocaine, and I'd be very surprised if I understood illegal drugs any less than you do. I've taken several undergraduate classes on the subject, and conducted a great deal of independent research, including discussions with many current and former drug users. And sure, some of them are reckless losers who shouldn't be allowed to work at McDonald's much less in a pharmacy. But I still don't understand why any illegal drug use should necessarily disqualify a person from a career as a pharmacist.

I'm sure your undergrad degree taught you much more than the UF pharmacy elective that I took which focuses only on illegal drug use. I also have to deal with drug overdoses in my ICU rotation. Brain-dead from hypoxia isn't funny. That's just from a pot-smoker who decided to experiment with something harder. His "only one time" was his last time.

Why should using illegal drugs disqualify you from pharmacy? Think about it.

 

[Khushi]

Why should using illegal drugs disqualify you from pharmacy? Think about it.

with the word "illegal", it should be self-explanatory.

 

[Mentis]

I'm sure your undergrad degree taught you much more than the UF pharmacy elective that I took which focuses only on illegal drug use. I also have to deal with drug overdoses in my ICU rotation. Brain-dead from hypoxia isn't funny. That's just from a pot-smoker who decided to experiment with something harder. His "only one time" was his last time.

Why should using illegal drugs disqualify you from pharmacy? Think about it.

Just out of curiousity, what did they teach you about marijuana in your elective? Effects, adverse effects, addictiveness?

 

[kkelloww]

I don't use meth or cocaine, and I'd be very surprised if I understood illegal drugs any less than you do. I've taken several undergraduate classes on the subject, and conducted a great deal of independent research, including discussions with many current and former drug users. And sure, some of them are reckless losers who shouldn't be allowed to work at McDonald's much less in a pharmacy. But I still don't understand why any illegal drug use should necessarily disqualify a person from a career as a pharmacist.

From extensive experience in HR and working with literally thousands of employees, I feel I am qualified to answer this. People with drug habits are much more likely to steal from their employer. That's all it is...a matter of economics. It's cheaper for the corporation as a whole to implement drug testing than to deal with the increased level of theft and absenteeism, as well as the potential liability that results from illicit drug use.

I can think of several factors that would make a drug testing program for pharmacists advisable.

-Access to valuable medications
-Access to controlled substances
-Pharmacists make critical decisions. Imagine a company's liability if an impaired pharmacist made an error that affected someone's health (mega-bucks).

In fact, because of the easy access to controlled substances, I can't think of another profession in which drug testing would be more viable.

 

[snailman]

From extensive experience in HR and working with literally thousands of employees, I feel I am qualified to answer this. People with drug habits are much more likely to steal from their employer. That's all it is...a matter of economics. It's cheaper for the corporation as a whole to implement drug testing than to deal with the increased level of theft and absenteeism, as well as the potential liability that results from illicit drug use.

You might be interested to read this. It is a thorough, ACLU-sponsored, cost-benefit analysis of employee drug testing that contradicts the claims you make above. Drug testing is not cost-effective, and there exist several better alternatives.

dgroulx, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you about who knows more about the effects of illegal drugs, but you know nothing about my background in this area, and I don't appreciate your sarcasm.

Drug abuse is a major problem in this country, but a blanket stigmitization of drug users is cruel and results from ignorance.

 

[dgroulx]

Just out of curiousity, what did they teach you about marijuana in your elective? Effects, adverse effects, addictiveness?

They classified it as a hallucinogen. The adverse effects are mainly from smoke inhalation, meaning no brain damage like Ecstacy. I know that when I've tried it when I was younger, I just hacked up a lung. People who have smoked really don't cause a problem, because they just sit on their ass and do nothing. Unfortunately, many choose to do that with their daily lives. It is psychologically addictive, but not physically (no withdrawal symptoms). I don't know of anyone who is successful and goes home to smoke weed. When I was first married and my husband did physical labor, all of his friends smoked. My second husband is professional and no one at his company smokes.

I think that once you get older, you realize that you don't want to experience life in a haze. I'm personally for legalization. We need the tax revenue. But, as long as it remains illegal, it has no place in pharmacy.

 

[dgroulx]

You might be interested to read this. It is a thorough, ACLU-sponsored, cost-benefit analysis of employee drug testing that contradicts the claims you make above. Drug testing is not cost-effective, and there exist several better alternatives.

dgroulx, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you about who knows more about the effects of illegal drugs, but you know nothing about my background in this area, and I don't appreciate your sarcasm.

Drug abuse is a major problem in this country, but a blanket stigmitization of drug users is cruel and results from ignorance.

From the article:
Given the weight of the scientific evidence, the ACLU challenges employers to reconsider drug testing and look at alternative solutions which are more cost effective and do not raise the same privacy and fairness problems. The solutions include:

Impairment testing of workers in safety-sensitive positions.

1.In other words, drug testing of those in certain areas. I believe that pharmacy would count as a "safety-sensitive" position. I could care less if my waiter at a restaurant gets high. The point we are making is that pharmacists should be drug tested.

2.Sorry about the sarcasm.

3. I agree. I really am sick of the DEA thinking that every person using opoids is a drug user. The doctors are afraid to prescribe for patients who need a pain med. My doctor is one of those. I recently had to go to another doctor to get a needed pain med. The DEA would classify this as doctor shopping.

 

[Mentis]

They classified it as a hallucinogen. The adverse effects are mainly from smoke inhalation, meaning no brain damage like Ecstacy. I know that when I've tried it when I was younger, I just hacked up a lung. People who have smoked really don't cause a problem, because they just sit on their ass and do nothing. Unfortunately, many choose to do that with their daily lives. It is psychologically addictive, but not physically (no withdrawal symptoms). I don't know of anyone who is successful and goes home to smoke weed. When I was first married and my husband did physical labor, all of his friends smoked. My second husband is professional and no one at his company smokes.

I think that once you get older, you realize that you don't want to experience life in a haze. I'm personally for legalization. We need the tax revenue. But, as long as it remains illegal, it has no place in pharmacy.

Ah yes, thanks for that. There has been a lot of irrational anti-marijuana stigma stemming from Anslinger and the like, just glad they teach the truth for once.

Anyway, despite the fact that you don't know any successful smokers, you should keep an open mind about it. Yes, it does tend to make people lazy, but only when used in excessive amounts. As with anything, excessive use is not advised. Of course, everyone needs a way to relieve stress, and because it is legal, most people choose alcohol. From my personal experience, alcohol is far more damaging to your system. However, I will not say that marijuana does not do it's damage. When used in moderation, marijuana can be a beneficial experience, and there is really nothing preventing a responsible individual from moderate use, as it is unaddictive. Yes, psychologically addictive, but that means nothing. The case could be made for chocolate, or good TV. Which, by the way, can also make one lazy if used excessively.

If you would like to do some good reading on this topic, I'll give you a link. http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/001.html
(Please read with an open mind, if you do.)

 

[beccala33]

They classified it as a hallucinogen. The adverse effects are mainly from smoke inhalation, meaning no brain damage like Ecstacy. I know that when I've tried it when I was younger, I just hacked up a lung. People who have smoked really don't cause a problem, because they just sit on their ass and do nothing. Unfortunately, many choose to do that with their daily lives. It is psychologically addictive, but not physically (no withdrawal symptoms). I don't know of anyone who is successful and goes home to smoke weed. When I was first married and my husband did physical labor, all of his friends smoked. My second husband is professional and no one at his company smokes.

I think that once you get older, you realize that you don't want to experience life in a haze. I'm personally for legalization. We need the tax revenue. But, as long as it remains illegal, it has no place in pharmacy.

I am not a big fan of marajuana. I think it smells gross and I don't like the way it makes me feel. BUT I worked in an office that was full of professional potheads. It's actually kind of funny that you made a point using professionals not smoking as an example. The office where I used to work had a "game room" where people would go on break and they kept a bong under the sink, I am not kidding. It was a large internet marketing firm and I worked in the IT department coding all day. Almost everyone that I worked with smoked weed daily. Also, my best friend is a lawyer and she works with a bunch of potheads as well (she works for the state attorney's office.) One guy at her office says that he always does coke before a trial because it makes him more agressive- strange times...

 

[alwaystired]

Yes, I received that email about a month ago. It was quite interesting considering it was not only a drug test, but a background check, social security check, credit check and something else I suppose...

Is the president of the school a big fan of the patriot act or what?

Do they have cameras at your house? "We know what you are doing"

Geez.

 

[dgroulx]

I am not a big fan of marajuana. I think it smells gross and I don't like the way it makes me feel. BUT I worked in an office that was full of professional potheads. It's actually kind of funny that you made a point using professionals not smoking as an example. The office where I used to work had a "game room" where people would go on break and they kept a bong under the sink, I am not kidding. It was a large internet marketing firm and I worked in the IT department coding all day. Almost everyone that I worked with smoked weed daily. Also, my best friend is a lawyer and she works with a bunch of potheads as well (she works for the state attorney's office.) One guy at her office says that he always does coke before a trial because it makes him more agressive- strange times...

Could this be regional?

What city was this in? My brother worked for the Florida DA before becoming a judge. No one smoked where he was at. They did view confiscated pornography, though.

My husband is software manager for a large internet auction firm. No one smokes there, either. They'd all be fired.

 

[kkelloww]

Could this be regional?

What city was this in? My brother worked for the Florida DA before becoming a judge. No one smoked where he was at. They did view confiscated pornography, though.

My husband is software manager for a large internet auction firm. No one smokes there, either. They'd all be fired.

I went to an Ocwen Financial Christmas party in WPB several years ago. It was a ritzy affair, full of high-powered attorneys, Vice-Presidents, etc. Imagine my shock when after dinner they all started whipping out joints and passing them around in the middle of the party. I lived in S. Fla. for 20 years and a lot of people smoked.

 

[dgroulx]

I lived in S. Fla. for 20 years and a lot of people smoked.

We finally know how the ballots got lost in the 2000 presidential election.

 

[Moxxie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060313...tVZ8ccF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGVna3NhBHNlYwNzc3JlbA--

I don't know about you, but I want my healthcare provider to remember crucial things like dosage information, drug interactions, etc.

Bottom line (for me at least): you're going to be a professional. People will trust you. You have a responsibility to not allow other people to abuse drugs. So why be a dope and abuse drugs yourself? Grow up a bit and leave this behind. There are other ways to relax that are legal and don't kill as many brain cells.

(Although I actually agree with a lot of people here that we should legalize marijuana - it would mean extra revenue for the government and maybe law enforcement could focus on other things. It's a destructive habit, but maybe not one that should be illegal).

 

[snailman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060313...tVZ8ccF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGVna3NhBHNlYwNzc3JlbA--

here's a quote from this study:
"It's not yet clear whether the intellectual deficits linked to marijuana are lasting, Messinis said, but research "generally supports" the notion that these problems are reversible after longer periods of abstinence. People in his study were required to have been abstinent only for the 24 hours before taking the tests."

obviously someone who has been smoking regularly for the past 10 years will still have a high thc concentration in their body, and will thus be impaired *transiently.* the important thing to remember here is that no in vivo study has ever demonstrated irreversible neurological damage from marijuana use (i follow the current literature closely, but please feel free to cite something that proves me wrong). there exists no evidence that a pharmacist who smokes a couple joints every now and then will do his job any less well than one who does not!

 

[Moxxie]

here's a quote from this study:
"It's not yet clear whether the intellectual deficits linked to marijuana are lasting, Messinis said, but research "generally supports" the notion that these problems are reversible after longer periods of abstinence. People in his study were required to have been abstinent only for the 24 hours before taking the tests."

obviously someone who has been smoking regularly for the past 10 years will still have a high thc concentration in their body, and will thus be impaired *transiently.* the important thing to remember here is that no in vivo study has ever demonstrated irreversible neurological damage from marijuana use (i follow the current literature closely, but please feel free to cite something that proves me wrong). there exists no evidence that a pharmacist who smokes a couple joints every now and then will do his job any less well than one who does not!

I saw that too, and was curious as to how much better the "occasional" users did on the test than the "chronic" users (the article only mentioned that long-term users did significantly worse than short-term and non-users). It seems perfectly rational that occasional use will not cause as many memory problems as those that are smoking every day.

But I still stand by my original statement - pharmacists are health professionals and really shouldn't be doing anything that COULD impair their judgement, even if they don't think that their occasional usage has any effect. I can let individuals in jobs that don't require important health-related decisions slide on this a bit, but I'd rather the people that I interact with (even if I'm just getting my oil changed) be in control of their mental facilities.

My question is: why do you feel the need to so vehemently defend your tokage?

 

[snailman]

I agree that a healthcare professional has a responsibility to go to work with his faculties fully intact. At the same time, if said professional wants to smoke a joint / eat some MDMA / whatever, take it easy Sunday, then go to work Monday, I think he should be able to do it. There are many studies that have shown that occasional marijuana use causes no detectable mental impairment.

I'm defending more than just my alleged tokage. Our country has a staggering drug problem, and I think the way most people think about illegal drugs and illegal drug users is only making matters worse. Decades of prohibition and scare tactics have failed; the drug war is a lost cause. We need to shift toward tolerance, compassion, and honest education with the intent of harm minimization rather than harm elimination. Pharmacists, the drug experts, are in a unique position to contribute to this shift, and it distresses me to see that so many of you are as close-minded as the general population.

Maybe I'm just an idealistic drugged-out dope who will burn out before finishing pharmacy school. Or maybe I'll be on the cutting edge of successful drug law reform. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Mentis]

Maybe I'm just an idealistic drugged-out dope who will burn out before finishing pharmacy school. Or maybe I'll be on the cutting edge of successful drug law reform. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

You are the latter.

Moxxie, and the others who are so against pharmacists using marijuana, please PLEASE, read this link: http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/001.html

It's a bit long, but I can assure you, it is worth the read, and it is directly relevant to our discussion.

 

[Shovingit]

Those of you who are for drug testing and enforcement, how do you feel about pharmacists who use alcohol to varying degrees? Do you think a raging alcoholic, social alcoholic, and someone who uses alcohol lightly should be able to be pharmacists? If yes, is it because alcohol is legal, less dangerous, or more socially acceptable? Curious to see.

Personally, I tend to agree that in most cases very small usage of either alcohol or marijuana is not a significant problem. Its when someone is a heavier user when it can become problematic. That being said, I also don't think someone who smokes rarely should care if their employer wants to drug test them. It screens out the people who have done something illegal. I'd rather hire someone who doesn't smoke at all before someone who has smoked half a dozen times in the last year.

 

[Moxxie]

Those of you who are for drug testing and enforcement, how do you feel about pharmacists who use alcohol to varying degrees? Do you think a raging alcoholic, social alcoholic, and someone who uses alcohol lightly should be able to be pharmacists? If yes, is it because alcohol is legal, less dangerous, or more socially acceptable? Curious to see.

Personally, I tend to agree that in most cases very small usage of either alcohol or marijuana is not a significant problem. Its when someone is a heavier user when it can become problematic. That being said, I also don't think someone who smokes rarely should care if their employer wants to drug test them. It screens out the people who have done something illegal. I'd rather hire someone who doesn't smoke at all before someone who has smoked half a dozen times in the last year.

I agree. I'm not trying to demonize pot use at all. The "dangers" of marijuana have been overplayed by the government/media. As to alcohol - it actually has more potential for abuse than marijuana, IMHO. Occasional social drinking shouldn't be a problem for pharmacists. On the same lines, occasional marijuana use most likely really won't be a terrible problem for a lot of people.

That being said, my arguments against pot use (of any kind) for pharmacists are several fold. First, the afforementioned studies about memory loss (which may or may not be refutable); second, whether or not it should be, marijuana IS illegal, and pharmacists really shouldn't be breaking the law when it comes to drugs; and finally, I know several (pot) smokers that don't realize their level of impairment when they're high. They might think that they are making good decisions, but sometimes they just do stupid stuff.

But it's also probably true that mentis and snailman aren't your typical users (if they do use at all), so perhaps they are the exception to the norm. In any case, I think that they should trod carefully when it comes to drug tests - pharmacies and hospitals have too much liability to risk hiring someone with a potential drug problem (even if they only use occasionally and do so responsibly).

On another note, it's refreshing that this discussion has stayed so civil. Maybe it's just because you guys are mellowed...

 

[dgroulx]

Those of you who are for drug testing and enforcement, how do you feel about pharmacists who use alcohol to varying degrees? Do you think a raging alcoholic, social alcoholic, and someone who uses alcohol lightly should be able to be pharmacists? If yes, is it because alcohol is legal, less dangerous, or more socially acceptable? Curious to see.

The difference is that alcohol is legal. Pharmacists should not be using illegal drugs. Like I said earlier, I don't care if my waiter at a restaurant uses drugs. Retail pharmacies and all hospitals (JACHO rule) will drug test you. This is how it is. I don't see it changing in the near future, so if you want to go into pharmacy, you'll have to stop using drugs.

BTW, some of our rotation sites also screen for alcohol usage. I'm not sure how they can detect it.