That being said, I believe that weed usage not being comparable to alcohol usage outside of the workplace doesn't make sense. I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines.
In idealistic world where everybody has the same leverage - perhaps. In real world refusing a job is a luxury most cannot afford. It is asymmetric precisely because negotiation positions are widely unequal.
You're talking like being offered a job is some unique luxury. Maybe for extremely desirable jobs, but if a job is extremely desirable you generally just precluded the possibility of the employer being some dysfunctional drug addict - which makes your argument a nonstarter.
So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees.
> So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees.
Perhaps we should consider the possibility that qualified candidates are not willing to work for sub-standard compensation.
It is also a generic test, kind of like a credit check, to avoid general mayhem. Things are correlated.
Why? Why is it any of my employer's business what I do outside of work?
I think you would be shocked to learn how many of your co-workers take prescription opiates and amphetamines, and aren't punished at all for it.
I used to be addicted to the stuff and ended up starting becauase an analyst gave me some when we were working on a model late at night.
I’m not sure you could agree that one group is “harder” than the other.