Legal pot complicates drug-free work policies

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
full http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-07-17-31-43

DENVER (AP) -- Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.

Businesses in Washington state, where the drug is legal, and Colorado, where it will be by January, are trying to figure out how to deal with employees who use it on their own time and then fail a drug test.

It is another uncertainty that has come with pot legalization as many ask how the laws will affect them.

"There's just an incredible amount of gray right now" about how marijuana legalization affects employers, said Sandra Hagen Solin of the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, a coalition of chambers of commerce.

Police departments are especially worried. Officers take oaths to protect all laws, state and federal. In this case, pot is still prohibited under federal law.

The Seattle police department is reviewing its policies on drug use by officers or prospective officers, spokesman Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said, adding that it's unlikely off-duty officers will be allowed to use pot. The department might ease its requirement that applicants not have used marijuana in the previous three years.

The Denver police department is reviewing Colorado's marijuana law, which goes into effect in January. The department has no immediate plans to change employment practices, spokesman John White said.

"Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, so officers would not under any scenario be allowed to use marijuana," White said. White wasn't sure about pre-employment marijuana use.

Other employers, especially those with federal contracts, are concerned what the new laws mean for them. One group of Colorado businesses has pleaded for clarity in a letter to the White House, which hasn't said if it would sue to block the law.

"The uncertainly created will cause havoc for our members and hamper their efforts to maintain drug-free worksites," wrote Mark Latimer, head of the Rocky Mountain chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors.

full http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-07-17-31-43
 
One problem is how long marijuana's metabolites remain in the system. If you drug test someone how do they prove they were high at home and not at work?
You cant, they should treat it like alcohol and not test for it at all, you could go to work drunk and the only way youd get caught is to actually get caught. Same should be with this IMO. Besides even if they were getting high at work its less impairing than alcohol, which isnt tested for.
 
The downstream metabolites of THC are not psychoactive, THC itself (and 11-OH-THC) is.

Believe it or not, there exist tests that can tell if you have been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. Suprisingly enough, nobody uses these to prove intoxication, because you'd test positive on a test if you'd had a beer or two in the past several days. (just like THC!)

Realistically, people just have to keep in mind that the current methodology for drug testing isn't proving intoxication, it's proving you consumed some in the past. I expect a blood test for "active" THC would be effective, just like a breathalyzer.
 
Last edited:
They have road side drug testers that detect pot use up to 8 hrs. This would eliminate those people who had a smoke Sunday afternoon who show up to work Monday morning.
 
I think in the end, recorded & reproducible general purpose intoxication and reaction time tests would be a better solution for everyone. Detecting drugs or their metabolite says nothing about the effects those drugs will or won't have on the biological system. (extreme case: genetic knockout rats. more common case: high-tolerance individuals)
 
I don't see what's so complicated about it. If the drug is legal then it's not illegal for it to be in your system or for there to be evidence that you've done it recently.

The only thing that is punishable is being high on the job. If someone is acting sketchy at work it's pretty obvious. What about people who are on prescription drugs that are messing with their minds? Same thing. If job performance and interaction with co-workers is not being adversely affected then the company needs to mind its own damn business.

Legal is legal. These companies need to get over themselves.
 
If the drug is legal then it's not illegal for it to be in your system

But it can be illegal for you to operate a motor vehicle, heavy machinery, etc. under the influence (alcohol, opiates, sleep medication) I know I would not want a bunch of wrecking workers all doped out on Xanax, or my bus driver nodding off, etc.
 
Here's a crazy idea.

Take it off the NIDA 5.

Or include alcohol making it a NIDA 6.

Otherwise you've stepped in hypocritical shit and someone should sue your invasive company and its draconian policies.
 
But it can be illegal for you to operate a motor vehicle, heavy machinery, etc. under the influence (alcohol, opiates, sleep medication) I know I would not want a bunch of wrecking workers all doped out on Xanax, or my bus driver nodding off, etc.


I wouldn't care if they smoked pot habitually.

I have tattoo artists that I wouldn't consider letting work on me if they HADN'T smoked pot. These are world renowned artists using complex variables, ink and machines to make permament marking on my skin. Driving a car isn't nearly as intensive, especially if you're used to it.

Some people are accustomed to it and need it to function at top notch productivity. Call it a subjective fact.
 
They have road side drug testers that detect pot use up to 8 hrs. This would eliminate those people who had a smoke Sunday afternoon who show up to work Monday morning.

Some guy on Ausdd said he had been roadside saliva tested 3 or 4 hours after smoking pot and it didn't show up. I think I read on some site that said after 5 hours from when you last smoked you should be fine for testing on our roadside drug tests.
 
I wouldn't care if they smoked pot habitually.

In some ways I agree, I know a heap of people who smoke alot of pot and still drive fine and havent been in any accidents or anything (and i used to do it a fair bit and had no probs), but the general population surely would not agree on this.
 
They have road side drug testers that detect pot use up to 8 hrs. This would eliminate those people who had a smoke Sunday afternoon who show up to work Monday morning.

I don't know how it is in Australia, but most workplace drug tests in the US are GC/MS and test for metabolites. Ironically, the only workplace that has ever given me one of those enzyme immunoassay tests (dipsticks) was a rehab I used to work at.
 
Legal is legal...

I've smoked pot at work (just a tiny bit) and it hardly interfered with my performance (and I have a low tolerance).

Pot is probably the most benign substance to work under the influence of.
 
Where's the conflict? I don't see it. Law is law and workplace rules -- duly provided, read, and signed off on before any employment contracts -- are workplace rules.

As far as I know, workplaces are within bounds to ban employees from doing anything that they have good reason to believe works against their corporate interest. They have corporate lawyers present when they draft such rules, to ensure they're worded in such a way as to not exceed their bounds or quash anyone's human rights. Just because something is legal on the streets doesn't mean an employer must abide his employees doing it. For example, tobacco is legal. But the hospital where I work does not permit the use of tobacco, in any form, anywhere on the property, anytime during working hours, or when/wherever an employee is brandishing an ID and representing the hospital. Get caught too many times sneaking a cigarette, you'll be canned. This rule is made abundantly clear from day one -- you don't like it or can't abide it? Don't take a job here. It's really that simple. There are plenty of other hospitals that still maintain a smoking shed out back.

I honestly think the increasing legality of marijuana will make for more, not less, workplace testing. The methods of testing, and the workplace-specific arguments for it, will become more nuanced. Without government to perform this function, the onus will fall on employers and educators to enforce whatever standard of sobriety they deem proper.

Without the limitations of illegality, we'll likely see more behavioral science studies published on the effects of marijuana on various workplace-related performance tasks. Yes, I'm sure a lot of the more egregious, cartoony, "reefer madness"-esque claims will be thrown out. But I really don't think dedicated stoners will like all the results of such studies. I think the overall conclusion will be that marijuana-intoxicated workers are more prone to error and accidents, even if only to a small degree, and that employers cannot afford this risk.

I'm a 15 year marijuana smoker and quite pro legal marijuana, by the way.
 
Great post, Doors.

Also Sekio:
I think in the end, recorded & reproducible general purpose intoxication and reaction time tests would be a better solution for everyone. Detecting drugs or their metabolite says nothing about the effects those drugs will or won't have on the biological system. (extreme case: genetic knockout rats. more common case: high-tolerance individuals)
Completely agree.

People here keep saying "legal is legal", but there is conflict between State and National laws, so it's not that simple.
 
Which countries have employee drug testing as a norm? I know the U.S. does, but anywhere else?

Here in Canada employees do not do drug testing unless they are government or law enforcement. Otherwise it's against civil rights laws.

I don't get why the U.S. does widescale drug testing. It seems like a waste of resources. Wouldn't it be better to base employment on performance? What the employer doesn't know won't hurt them. Another thing I don't understand is the routine credit checks a lot of companies do. How are my finances any of your damn business and what does that have to do with my on the job performance?

It's just hard for me to wrap my head around the drug testing philosophy in the work place. It doesn't seem relevant.
 
Where's the conflict? I don't see it. Law is law and workplace rules -- duly provided, read, and signed off on before any employment contracts -- are workplace rules.

The conflict begins with the fact that the Federal government requires all grantees to ensure a drug free workplace. Many many many businesses receive Federal money (probably more now with Obamacare and the 2009 stimulus) and couldn't relax drug testing procedures even if they wanted to.

Moreover, this has fostered a culture of runaway intrusiveness, so that virtually every business feels compelled to regularly collect its employees' urine. I had a HUGE argument about this with a contractor at my gym the other day. I asked him why he cares that his employees are doing cocaine or MDMA on weekends (two substances he indulges in) if they showed up to work sober. His justification was that his business couldn't survive the PR damage of one of his employees being in the newspaper for a drug-related incident. He somehow cited Miami cannibal Rudy Eugene as evidence!
 
You cant, they should treat it like alcohol and not test for it at all, you could go to work drunk and the only way youd get caught is to actually get caught. Same should be with this IMO. Besides even if they were getting high at work its less impairing than alcohol, which isnt tested for.

many workplaces DO test for alcohol as part of there random drug screening as being under the influence when working on items of machinery that could endanger lifes if you make a mistake is a big no no on any substance
 
Top