[dodedo]

Well, that's not what he's saying, did you read the article? His point is that these employment questionnaires are designed to filter out people who tell the truth about fairly common drug activities, which creates a bias towards hiring liars.

The title "Honest People Might Be Dangerous" is sarcastic and tongue in cheek. He did not argue that they are actually dangerous.

[dwyer]

I wouldn't say it's designed to filter out honest people, it's designed to filter out people whose past drug use could be a liability. Is it really so ridiculous to assume that anybody can honestly answer no to those questions? While marijuana use is certainly common where I've lived most of my life, I'm well aware it's not as common in other places, and I know plenty of people who have never used it.

In any case, the article says nothing to imply that the author's past marijuana use was the problem. The issue was with hallucinogens and I would assume that most people can honestly say they've never taken any.

[kevinpet]

It's ridiculous to assume that such a screening will reliably exclude drug users. It's also quite plausible that the screening will increase the number of heavy drug users you hire. Consider:

1. Some people haven't ever used drugs. These people can safely answer honestly.

2. Some people have experimented with drugs in the past, but were never heavy users. These people may naively assume that your screening criteria align with modern societal norms that smoking pot in college is forgivable, but you shouldn't continue to use drugs once you move into the real world. These people will answer honestly and be excluded.

3. Some people may be current users, or former heavy users, and expect that they would not be hired if they answer honestly. Given that they are already active criminals (drug users) they may be more likely to lie.

Net result is that you exclude only 2, and your workforce is populated only by 1 and 3. I think most people, even those who created these policies, would prefer a workplace populated by groups 1 and 2.

[Psyonic]

"I think most people, even those who created these policies, would prefer a workplace populated by groups 1 and 2."

The people that created the policies... sure. Most people? Why? I have no problem with current drug users. Silicon Valley is chock full of semi-regular to regular pot smokers. And who knows how many take a few hits of ecstasy or mushrooms at their annual Burning Man or Coachella outings. You really see this as an issue? To be honest, I actively prefer to work with these people. You wouldn't have hired Carl Sagan?

As long as it's not affecting the quality of their work, why do you even care?

[HalibetLector]

did you bother to read the article? we're not talking about hiring for startups. We're talking about hiring for police/emergency services. Having a selection bias against hiring honest cops sounds like a problem to me.

[Psyonic]

I read the article, and I still disagree. I shouldn't have limited myself to the startup scene. A good friend of mine is a paramedic in training in Austin, and not only has he done hallucinogens a fair amount of times, but many of his coworkers have as well. Yet I'd challenge you to find someone more reliable or dedicated. He's since stopped smoking pot, but primarily because of drug-testing, not because it affects his on-the-job performance. He'd never work high, of course.

I get the liability issue, even if I think it's dumb, but I honestly don't think occasional drug use should have any bearing on even emergency service jobs. Yes, I am ok with my potential ER surgeon smoking a spliff to relax after a long stressful day.

If we as a society were more open and accepting of this, responsible users wouldn't feel the need to lie and we wouldn't have this problem.