A Letter i wrote to the head of my company about Random drug testing

Recently, my job decided to start randomly drug testing employees. I am sending this anonymously to the head of the company. I would like to hear people's thoughts and to see if it sounds alright. I put stars in place of my company's name, for security's sake:

Quote:

---

Dear Mr. *****,

I am writing you anonymously from this email address to discuss the recent changes to your drug and alcohol policy at ***. I prefer to keep my identity a secret for fear of being accused of being a "drug user." I have been an employee with *** for almost 4 years, and I feel that the recent changes to the policy are unnecessary and will be relatively ineffective in weeding out true "drug users" working for the company, not to mention cost the company much more money in the long run.

I feel that the recent addition of post accident drug testing is a very good decision, both for the company and the individuals. However, I think the random drug testing policy is over-kill. In my years of working for ***, I have not suspected any of the employees I have worked with of being a drug user. I have always kept the old policy in mind and would not think twice about reporting someone under the influence of any drug to my supervisor. Since I have not worked with anyone that I would say was under the influence of drugs, I would assume most employees are not using drugs, and therefore requiring them to take random drug tests is a waste of both their time and yours, and also your money. Random drug testing is really only effective in detecting marijuana users, as almost all other drugs are only testable for up to 3 days, some extremely dangerous drugs such as methanphetamines less than 24 hours. Marijuana is a drug that a lot of misinformation has been spread about. The truth of the matter is, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol.

I do not know you personally and have no idea where you stand on the issue of decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana, but I can let you in on my background with the issue. I consider myself an intelligent person and I have researched this topic extremely thoroughly. I have read several medical studies, government documents, and put a lot of my own personal time into learning more about this subject, and all the reading I have done comes back to the same outcome: marijuana is harmless and the information that has been presented to the public is mostly false.

I have also been an occasional marijuana user for many years, and it has not affected the quality of my life or my job performance in any way. It is simply a way to relax and relieve stress after a hard day's work, similar to how some people enjoy having a beer on their day off, only without the damage to my liver and brain cells. There is also no addiction or withdrawal symptoms as with alcohol and other drugs. Although marijuana is illegal in 39 states, myself among many others in the nation wish to inform the general public about this harmless plant and are working to legalize, regulate, and educate the public. I would also like to note that I have never tried any other drug except for alcohol, and that the gateway theory of marijuana has been disproved time and time again. I also have NEVER been under the influence of ANY drug while working for or representing ***. I am a responsible adult, like most of your employees.

I understand that you do not want drug users working with the individuals here at *** and I whole heartedly agree. That may sound contradictory, as I am probably now a "drug user" in your eyes, but I do not consider marijuana a drug. It is a plant that grows from the Earth that was put here by God. I am not asking *** to advocate or allow anything, I am just asking *** to remain my employer without overstepping the boundary and becoming like a parent that oversees what I do in my free time. It is my opinion that this issue should be seriously reevaluated and would suggest either doing away with random drug testing or removing marijuana from the list of the drugs tested for, which would in turn make the test cheaper. I would like to think that I am not the only one who occasionally enjoys a marijuana cigarette on my day off, and is responsible about using the plant.

To put it bluntly, drug testing is an invasion of your employees' privacy and a way for *** to say what an employee can and can't do on their time off. As much as I love working for *** and love my job, I would prefer that *** didn't delegate what I choose to do, as an adult, in my free time when I am not working. Random drug testing allows that, and I feel it is a violation of my personal rights and freedoms. I believe that old policy and the addition of post accident testing is sufficient enough to help crack down on substance abuse in the workplace. I believe that if drugs are truly causing a problem with someone's life, their appearance and quality of work will show that fact. Random drug testing is not necessary. Thank you for your time and I would appreciate a reply if you find the time. Happy holidays.

Sincerely,
Employee

---

what do you guys think?

Very good very good, well rounded and just excellent letter.

Actually you get all sorts of funding from the government to drug test so it will be cheaper.

I must say that it was a very good letter, however i dont believe that the company will comform to your ideas. Most people in this world just are too steadfast in their opinions to do what someone else says. BUt who knows, that was a great letter. Good luck and happy toking

yeah, i don't think it will do much in the grand scheme of things, but hopefully it will at least get some people thinking. as for the happy toking, i wish, but since this new policy has been put in place, i've had to quit to prepare for it.

It's a very good, very strong letter, Dejayou. I'm a former professional writer, and I know good communications when I see them. This definitely qualifies. I'm glad you're writing it because you're making all the important points the head of your company needs to hear. You realize, of course, that he may not choose to hear what you're saying or believe you, but at least you will have said it.

A couple of suggestions. Can you shorten/tighten it at all? I say that because "less is more" in persuasive writing, generally. Also, executives and company chieftains tend to be busy types who don't have a lot of time for reading. You'll be more likely to hit your mark if you're as succinct as possible.

Also, if you want to be real persuasive, you might include, oh, three or four key links about cannabis benefits and the fact that cannabis is more benign than other drugs. You'll have to look for these, but I know they exist. Ideally, those links should come from a marijuana-neutral source like a news site or a mainstream medical institution rather than a pro-cannabis site, which would be automatically assumed to be biased in favor of weed.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3375 (A NORML link about personal use, which includes further links to good info. Scroll down and read the links under Facts.)
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis.shtml (Erowid link to cannabis info. This is a potentially tricky one. Erowid's very good about including both positive and negative info, but if you're trying to persuade someone, that negative info can stand out and work against you. See what you think.)

Several folks have recently posted some good video links here, too, and you might be able to use one of those as well. They were links that told the story of cananbis and explained the history behind its illegality. Those might be persuasive, too.

Good job! And good luck!

don't be surprised if they start popping a hundred people a day...

kp:p

Go for it. I thought it was a very well written letter but then again I can't take the perspective of your employer. There's a chance that your boss may be one of those grown up in a household totally opposed to drugs, the type that won't even listen. It's 100% worth a try but I wouldn't mention that you use it. It is implied when you're writing but you don't want your employer to just disregard you as a stoner. No offense to anybody here but stoners don't get that much respect when it comes to important formal things.

yeah, thats why i am sending it from an anonymous email address and don't reveal my name. i really don't expect it to change anything, i am just more interested in the response.

Great letter dejayou....very well written. I like this line...

ineffective in weeding out true "drug users" working for the company,

No pun intended?

I hope you will post the response :)

hahaha no pun was intended, nor with the "To put it bluntly..." part of the last paragraph. I will definitely post the response when/if i get one.

nice job man....well done

"To put it bluntly..." part of the last paragraph

Hahahahaha I missed that one. :D

Great letter, and way to stand up for the cause! I hope it works for you... either way, start looking for a new job, just to be on the safe side. :)

deja
im 15 and im glad older members of the stoner comunity can represent us so well...
this letter in perfect youve explained your point so well!
im so sorry to hear your work has become another one of the goverments tools!
random drug testing at work is bs!
it sickens me to see the world turning into a police state!
respect to you deja!

I'm sure the boss at KFC will love the letter.

great letter, it's good to see people actually trying to do something about it instead of just coming on here and complaining about it.

no response yet, probably not till tuesday at least, if at all.

nice. fight the power :jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejayou30

no response yet, probably not till tuesday at least, if at all.

---

My geuss is that you will get No response... I hope you did not actually work there for almost 4 years??? you should of said 10...

Good letter though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the yeag

nice job man....well done

---

Wow, he didn't even belittle anybody in that post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quote:

Originally Posted by the yeag
nice job man....well done

Wow, he didn't even belittle anybody in that post.

---

It was a mistake,,,i'm sure...

so apparently the guy i sent the letter to had nothing to do with the policy change, so i wrote to the head of the human resources department. i also revised the letter and made it more concise and made my point stronger. here's the new letter:

Dear ***,

I am writing you anonymously from this email address to discuss the recent changes to the drug and alcohol policy at ***. I prefer to keep my identity a secret for fear of being accused of being a "drug user" for speaking out against the new policy. I have been an employee with *** for almost 4 years, and I feel that the recent changes to the policy are unnecessary and will be relatively ineffective in weeding out true problem "drug users" working for the company, not to mention cost the company much more money in the long run.

I feel that the recent addition of post accident drug testing is a very good decision, both for the company and the individuals. However, I think the random drug testing policy is over-kill and will not necesarily make the individuals any "safer," which was stated as the main motive behind the new policy in the paycheck insert. In my years of working for ***, I have not suspected any of the employees I have worked with of being a drug user. I have always kept the old policy in mind while on the job and am aware of the physical signs of someone under the influence of drugs and alcohol and would not think twice about reporting someone under the influence of any substance to my supervisor. Since I have not worked with anyone that I would say was under the influence of drugs, I would assume most employees are not using drugs, and therefore requiring them to submit to random drug tests is a waste of both their time and also the company's money, not to mention being a violation of the employees' right to privacy.

Random drug testing is really only effective in detecting marijuana users, as almost all other drugs are only testable for up to 3 days maximum. Some extremely dangerous and problematic drugs such as methanphetamine and cocaine are only detectable for 24 hours or less, whereas the byproducts of metabolized THC from marijuana use can be found in the body for as long as 12 weeks. Therefore, a test that is positive for the byproducts of THC doesn't necessarily mean that the person is using the drug before or during work, but rather on their own time where *** should have no say in what that person chooses to do. This also means that someone high on methanphetamine could easily pass their drug test, as a methanphetamine high lasts several days and is usually metabolized in the body within 24 hours. As you may or may not know, marijuana is a drug that a lot of misinformation has been spread about and that several people across the nation are working to legalize or decriminalize, with 11 states already having decriminalized marijuana laws to some degree. The truth of the matter is, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but my point in sending you this is not to convince you that marijuana is harmless. As someone who enjoys the occasional marijuana cigarette on my off days, I just hate to think that something I choose to do in the privacy of my own home while I am not working could affect my job. It just doesn't make sense to me. I am not asking *** to advocate or allow the use of substances in or out of the workplace, I just feel that *** should remain my employer instead of becoming like my parent. I also think it is wrong that someone might be fired for a choice made up to 12 weeks in the past. Several companies in related fields in our area such as *** in *** recognize this fact and choose not to test for marijuana, which may be something *** may want to think about doing.

To put it bluntly, random drug testing is an invasion of your employees' privacy and a way for *** to say what an employee can and can't do on their time off. As much as I love working for *** and love my job, I would prefer that *** didn't delegate what I choose to do, as an adult, in my free time when I am not working. Random drug testing allows that, and I feel it is a violation of my personal rights and freedoms. I believe that old policy and the addition of post accident testing is sufficient enough to help crack down on substance abuse in the workplace. I believe that if drugs are truly causing a problem with someone's life, their appearance, attitude and quality of work will show that fact. Instead of random drug testing, why not take the time to educate your employees as to the physical signs of drug use so the old policy might be more effective? It is my opinion that a person should be judged by the quality of their work and not the contents of their urine and that random drug testing is not necessary at ***. Thank you for your time and I would appreciate a reply if you find the time. Happy holidays.

Sincerely,
Employee

So did he write you back and tell you that he didn't have anything to do with the policy change? I've been wondering about this, Dejayou! Good for you for sending it to HR, too!

I wonder if that's a cop-out on the company head's part? Where I've always worked, HR does what they need to do to keep the company legal in its hiring, firing and employment practices, but they also base their policies on what the company execs/owners want. So if the company head tried to disavow responsibility for the new drug testing policy, that makes me wonder whether he's just trying to lay the blame on someone else.

You make a good Cannabis Crusader, Dejayou!

nice idea, very good letter, wont do shit, they know the other side and have their minds made up. bottom line is random drug testing bullshit though it may be makes things easier for them. the get sued they can say none of the employees were on drugs at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

So did he write you back and tell you that he didn't have anything to do with the policy change? I've been wondering about this, Dejayou! Good for you for sending it to HR, too!

I wonder if that's a cop-out on the company head's part? Where I've always worked, HR does what they need to do to keep the company legal in its hiring, firing and employment practices, but they also base their policies on what the company execs/owners want. So if the company head tried to disavow responsibility for the new drug testing policy, that makes me wonder whether he's just trying to lay the blame on someone else.

You make a good Cannabis Crusader, Dejayou!

---

no, i never heard from the head guy, but we got a little notice in our paychecks that said any questions should be directed to HR. i know the lady i sent the letter to and she seems like the type that would at least reply back. she is pretty young, like 28 maybe, so maybe she's not too old to be convinced that the policy sucks. but alas, it probably won't do anything. i haven't smoked in 9 days to prepare and ordered some quick fix today just in case they test me before january 22nd, which will be my one month mark for being clean.