.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ArrowHead nli.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ArrowHead%20nli:363560"]DomesticTerror said:[QUOTE] i do agree that it makes no sense at all why they would screen for THC, but not harder drugs. (seeing how it's CVS, maybe painkillers would be a good idea!)[/QUOTE] Makes perfect sense. Pot is the easiest, cheapest, and legally most justifiable drug to test for. A folicle test can be 200% more expensive, and since usage from years past can be detected it's more easily challenged in court. Federal agencies, like the FBI, do folicle tests and will not hire anyone who has done ANY illegal drugs within the past 15 years. As for why they test for THC at all, that's pretty sensible too. You're in a pharmacy. Someone who tests positive for recreational drug use is a lot more likely to steal prescription meds than someone who does not. Same reason it's a bad idea to hire a fat chick to guard a box of donuts. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.009 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][