From the West Bend Daily News.
Eighty-five percent of local businesses have had issues filling entry level positions because of applicants failing to pass controlled substance testing, a report conducted by the West Bend School District found.
The information was gathered through a survey distributed by the school district to members of the West Bend Area Chamber of Commerce. The survey was taken by employers of the greater West Bend and Jackson areas, representing almost 5,500 employees.
“It’s certainly a great deal of concern,” Chamber Executive Director Craig Farrell said. He added it’s not possible for employers to hire those who don’t pass a drug screening out of concern for the risk they pose to themselves and others.
Farrell said applicants that don’t pass the test “simply don’t get the job.”
“In the month of April we did 191 tests and 20 did not pass,” Carol Schneider, CEO of SEEK Careers/ Staffing Inc., said.
Schneider said most applicants failing tests are found using marijuana or prescription painkillers.
“Our number right now (of failed tests) is 8 percent of candidates for the year, for the company,” said Steve Waller, regional vice president of QPS Employment Group. He said most of those applicants are using marijuana and many of them are skilled candidates.
For Capt. Tim Dehring of the West Bend Police Department, the reaction to drug use is more than just saying no to an applicant.
“Our job is enforcing the laws,” he said, adding treatment needs to be part of the solution.
The main issue for them is heroin and the abuse of prescription pills, Dehring said.
“It’s a problem we’ve never seen before,” Dehring said. “It’s worse than the crack epidemic.”
There are two things going on here. First, although our culture has become more permissive of the use of marijuana, that permissiveness has not changed the fact that the use of pot is both illegal and dangerous on the job. We are doing a great disservice to our young people by telling them that it’s acceptable to smoke weed (overtly or not) when such use will exclude them from a large percentage of the available jobs.
Second, this is another consequence of the opioid epidemic ravaging Wisconsin. Not only are there the personal consequences for the addicted individuals, we are developing an entire class of unemployable people who will be an ongoing burden to society.
Marijuana should be legalized
It poses no more issues than alcohol and both could / should be screened by an employer before and during employment
Drunk employees pose every bit of a hazard as stoned ones
Legalization of other drugs to remove the criminal profit and violence also should be
Strongly considered
That won’t stop abuse . It would stop Cartels
Making money on the human misery of addiction even as the legalization of alcohol eliminated the profit motive of 1920 and 30’s
American mobs
I almost agree with Mark on most of his post.
Liberals should advocate keeping Big Gulp sodas, energy drinks, and gatorade, legal as well.
However those are not “cool” like Marijuana iin the liberal lexicon these days,
Marijuana should not be legalized. Go sit down and talk with your local DEA. Every criminal/heroin addict they interview started out smoking a little weed. There’s a reason it’s called the gateway drug.
Perhaps if weed weren’t illegal, it wouldn’t travel in the same company as heroin and meth.
Ralph — every criminal/heroin addict they interview started out drinking water, too. But thanks for the blast from the past — it’s been a long time since I’ve seen someone make the “gateway drug” argument.
Ralph,
There is a case to make marijuana legal…IF we can get the participating potheads to waive their right of public subsidy of health care, forever.
I’d support legalization in a heartbeat if we can get drug users to pay for, and be responsible, for their own health care.
…and waive their social security benefits!
kev:
“I’d support legalization in a heartbeat if we can get drug users to pay for, and be responsible, for their own health care.”
I would support that as long as it would include every motorcycle rider that doesn’t wear a helmet, every pro athlete that uses PEDs or other drugs illegally, and every motorist that exceeds the posted speed limit by 1 MPH or drives with ANY alcohol in their blood.
“…and waive their social security benefits!”
Now that is a little harsh. Why aren’t they entitled to SS? Or are you imposing a double penalty for drug use.
Baldy says
“I would support that as long as it would include every motorcycle rider that doesn’t wear a helmet, every pro athlete that uses PEDs or other drugs illegally, and every motorist that exceeds the posted speed limit by 1 MPH or drives with ANY alcohol in their blood.”
Motorcycle riders who are licensed and do not wear a helmet is already LEGAL.
Pro Athletes using LEGAL PEDs are already LEGAL.
Pro athletes using ILLEGAL drugs would fall under Kevin’s statement, so you’re just agreeing with him.
Automobile drivers are covered under Automobile Insurance policies and so do not apply.
You’re a real nitwit sometimes, just trying to make noise with no benefit to the conversation. Try to grow up and not be such a clown.
jason:
Nowhere did I make any conditions re legal or illegal, nor did kevin. Is comprehension really that tough for you? There are remedial classes offered at tech colleges that could be of help for you…