Lawrence.com

My first interview with the Journal-World was three or four years ago. It went smoothly enough; photo editor Mike Yoder and senior managing editor Bill Snead sifted through my portfolio, told me what worked, what didn't, and, at the end, Mike told me that I was "as good as hired"...which I guess really meant "as good as not hired", because nothing else came from the interview.I wasn't sure of what to make of the experience. Weeks into waiting for a call back, I figured Mike, a really nice guy, probably sucked at telling people that they weren't hired, and so opted for telling them that they were "as good as" hired. It was confusing, so I let it go.That first and only interview set my attitude towards the Journal-World for years. As I watched fellow photographers from the Kansan ease into part-time jobs at the Journal-World, I steadily built conspiracy theories. Not very good ones, but enough to keep me distracted from thoughts of "how does that Bozo get a job and I don't?"I can't count the number of times I've almost worked for the LJW since then. A particularly common scenario, circa 2000, was the "helpful photographer friend" rout -- helpful photographer friend X or Y or Z would come bouncing up to me with a "hey Roper! Mike needs help fast so you should get down there, he'll hire you yo!" or "hey Roper! a bunch of people are leaving, so you've got a job yo!" My hopes high, I would call Mike, and learn again that my services were still not required.It was sort of annoying at first. Then embarassing, humiliating. I'm a 31 year-old man who can't get an $8/hour, part-time job from the local newspaper. Pathetic.So, when Thad Allender asked me last week, "Hey, Roper, want a job at the Journal-World?" I reflexively said "no" or "no f'ing way." It wasn't a "no" to the job per se, but a "no" to the vague and loopy voodoo involved in actually getting the job. It was a "no" to my past experiences with the place. But I really wanted it.The next day I received an E-mail from Bill Snead. Cool. He wrote to welcome me back to the States, and to let me know that it would be a good time to apply for a job, he would put in a good word for me, etc. Very nice. I started to feel a bit more confident -- if the LJW's best photographer was pulling for me, and the LJW's senior managing editor was pulling for me, how could I lose?Gas chromatography. I'm guessing, anyway. It apparently can't discern the cannabinoids in hemp seed from those in the smokable stuff. Damned, dirty UA.If I hadn't just spent the previous year in a country where "personal use" amounts of anything can get you executed, I would have found the test results easier to believe. Nicotine and alcohol use aside, I've been drug-free for a long time. Failing a pre-employment drug screen never crossed my mind. Such a random, blue bolt from heaven. When I got the call from Mike ("I've got some bad news, Jamie...), I was too stunned to argue ("Mike, I've been in China for the past year, I, uh, that means...) It really pisses me off because absolutely nothing can be done to change the situation. I offered to pay for another test, or for them to re-test the original pee...didn't matter. I'm a druggie, unfit for work.And I'm in worse shape than if I'd never applied. I don't know how this will affect my other prospects, like shooting and writing for the deadwood edition of Lawrence.com, or continuing to take pictures for other World Company publications. I'm more than a little angry. I won't get into the sick irony of a Fourth Estate establishment ignoring our constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination, or of snooping into its employee's weekend habits, but I will tell you what I know about drug testing. Before I began working for Physician's Reference Labratory some years ago, I toured one of their labs, where they tested blood, urine and hair for illicit drugs. A humorless, manly woman explained the techniques for testing. She was extremely confident in the rigor of her methods. She was snide and haughty and I couldn't help myself: "What about false positives?" I asked. "It doesn't happen," she said.Oh. "What about poppy seeds? I heard they can make you test postitive for heroin or something," I said. She explained that yes, that's true, but the lab always performed a second, definitive test to confirm or refute the original finding. She would have been golden if she'd stopped there. But she couldn't not brag about the brilliance of her methods, her machines...in fact, everything was so perfect and so precision, she didn't seem overly concerned that she had no accurate way of testing for marijuana usage.OK, sure, she can test you for pot. But she (still) can't accurately interpret the information. That is, she can't tell if you've been smoking joints all day or if you ate a Hemprella sandwich last month. The cannabinoids (cannabinols?) in pot test the same, are the same, as those found in food products made with hemp. There isn't any second test, like with poppys, to conclusively determine the source. The testers themselves act conclusively, though: even if you've never gotten high in your life, you might be branded a druggie, unfit for work.Ye olde "guilty till proven innocent", I guess, with no chance for proving the innocent part. I pointed out the growing popularity of consumable hemp products to this scion of the scientific method -- wasn't she worried about condemning innocent people? She barely guffawed, rolled her eyes and said something like "if you're using one, you're probably using the other." The number of people I haven't killed amazes me.Screw it. God-willing, I won't be around Lawrence long enough to notice my own unemployment. I've got some pretty hard feelings about this whole thing, with no where to direct them exept my liver. Thad Allender and Bill Snead: I apologize if I caused you any embarrassment. Thanks for trying to help me out.Mike Yoder: Thanks for going to bat for me. Better than that, thanks for believing me -- the only worthwhile consolation. Good luck with the new hire. jroper