Hacker News Reader

Comment by shagie | Hacker News Reader

Back in August of '96 when I had just moved out to California and started the onboarding for working at Taos, the group of us who were new hires that week (a dozen) were sitting in a conference room with some bagels.

Some of the bagels were poppy seed and one of my new-coworkers commented "well, guess we're not doing drug tests."

The "what can cause false positives" is a "this should be well known" and if someone has a positive result and claims that they've eaten poppy seeds, then get a hair sample and test that.

If you're in an industry that is likely to have random drug tests, it may be wise to avoid poppy seeds.

https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/can-poppysee...

View on HN

> If you're in an industry that is likely to have random drug tests, it may be wise to change organizations/industry

FTFY

My field of tech is strict no drug. The level of job security and salaries this provides is insane. FAANG salaries, and a tenth of the work(if that) compared to private sector. Along with being near impossible to get fired or laid off and all I have to do is not smoke a doobie.

I can pass drug tests (without cheating, I mean), what's this magical tech field you're referring to?

Defense contractors.

The job listings I've seen show junior-level Bay Area FAANG compensation for senior-level roles, but I might be looking in the wrong places. Maybe it gets comparable with overtime and hazard pay, but the work environment goes from better to far worse with those add-ons.

well, I guess you have a point: non-evidence based requirements leads to non-evidence based remuneration/TC.

Welcome to government, where comp isn't based on skills and is based on years of experience. And money is based on hours billed rather than shipping a product like private sector :)

I dont want a high pilot on my flight. But it becomes a problem when the pilot, who is a good aviator, is addicted to something due to depression. The tests are the only way it can be caught. If the pilot was ethical/morally competent, he wouldn't have taken anything before a flight at least longtime before it. It's wise to change, yes, but how many people in denial will do that.

> I dont want a high pilot on my flight.

They're usually not testing for intoxication, but any use at all (where possible). What's the point? Who cares what someone did last week? Meanwhile, you can be 200% hungover and blow 0.00 for alcohol even though it has totally affected you.

> But it becomes a problem when the pilot, who is a good aviator, is addicted to something due to depression

Sauce? Not ideal, but where's the problem with successful self-treatment of depression?

> due to depression

Any 2-brain-celled pilot would never admit to any psych issue whatsoever anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com