Would you agree to work place drug testing if weed was legalized?

I guess it's put up or shut up for me when I asked myself this question
.
Let me know your thoughts on drug testing job positions that are critical to human safety if pot were legalized.

If weed were legal and you were a Doctor, ambulance driver, police officer, medical professional, elevator inspector etc... and everyone was legally allowed to toke anytime they want would you think people should trust the honor system of not doing pot before or during work or should there be some way of testing people in critical job positions for THC levels while on the job before weed is legalized? Sort of like an alcohol brethylizer.

What if your loved one got hit by a vehicle because someone said "trust me", driven to a hospital by an ambulace driver that said "trust me" and then treated by a doctor that said "trust me"?

I thought to myself we already abide by "trust me" when it comes to alcohol and look how many people die even with the laws we have. The don't drink and drive laws are there as a deterrent because people couldn't be trusted and lots of people were dying. It doesn't matter what drug is legalized next, the death toll will raise in proportion to the people using it just like alcohol related deaths. Once something is legalized there will be more people doing it period, not just doing it openly. Weed isn't outlawed to stop people from doing it (just like prohibition didn't stop people from drinking) or because it will poison you outright, the laws are a deterrant to make people think before they get in a car, put on their surgical mask or drive your child to school. I have to admit, the laws are a revenue maker for the goverment also, yuk!

So, would you agree to a test of THC concetration if you got pulled over or periodically at work to see if weed is being used responsibly according to the law sort of like alcohol tests are given now that it is legal to drink alcohol?

Trust me, I'm not a hater of pot, I'm just don't think I could accept people I don't know saying "trust me" all the time with it being legal.

With greater freedom comes greater responsibility.

What do you think?

 

we don't abide by the "trust me"when it comes to alcohol. There are very strict social standards AND more importantly legal standards regarding alcohol. A surgeon performs surgery wasted. you sure as hell can bet he loses his license. This year in Colorado we've seen 2-3 cops removed from their duties for getting drunk and driving around in police cars. Pilots have a strict 8 hr bottle to throttle rule.

I will also disagree that the number of users will increase drastically once it is legalized. You will not see a change int he numbers. People who want to smoke weed already do. They aren't being held back by the legal status. You're kidding yourself if you think that's the case

They need to come up with a better "currently impaired by THC test" before we could see legalization. The have proposed limits in Colorado for driving impaired. Unfortunately, the limits they proposed would leave most of us who are regular smokers in colorado beyond the threshold even if we hadn't smoked that day. Once this test can be figured out, weed ought to be treated in the same recreational light as alcohol. Drive impaired lose your license; show up to work stoned lose your job.

 

This is the main reason it's not legal.......

On to your question, I don't know if there is a % test for THC level like there is for alcohol, It shows up or not and it shows up weeks or a month after using it. (at least to my limited knowledge about testing) So they couldn't tell if you were okay for "mission critical" work or not via a drug test. The more invasive the test, the longer it shows up urine/blood/hair, piss test being least invasive.

On the flip side there's no way to directly link it to a given accident (although with current laws they always link it even if last usage was 3 weeks ago or longer.) This is common here with on the job injuries, workman's comp demands drug tests at the ER before treatment and if anything is found the drug is determined the cause of the injury... doesn't matter if it was one bowl 4 weeks ago, they don't cover it, and you probably lose your job too.

Side note I had to be piss tested just to see a doctor last week, no injury involved, just invasive laws. They call it "compliance testing".

For the other part of your question... certain professions that have to do with life saving quality control issues, those people probably shouldn't be smoking, taking any drugs or drinking at all... Like to see them enforce that with pilots.... Hell! I'd like to see them enforce that in Washington :2thumbsup:

 

I agree with workplace drug testing even though cannabis is illegal.

I just don't agree with marijuana being one of the drugs tested for

 

Being "under the influence" in the workplace is and should be reason to lose one's job. Even occupations which many will consider to be other than “critical job positions” can be dangerous (to oneself and others) if performed impaired.

I’m no “hater of pot” either – I’m a former smoker. However, the nature of my occupation (which most would not think of as “mission critical”) will not permit my being at less than 100% mental capacity for my own safety and for the safety of my co-workers. Unfortunately, personal experience has proven as much. Anyone saying that there’s no way to link marijuana use to a given accident is simply wrong. Thankfully, they just apparently have no personal knowledge of such an occurrence.

Then, there’s the loss of productivity inherent with less than one’s full concentration. Sure, many will say that they function just as well (or better) stoned as not – they’re either kidding themselves or haven’t gone a day without smoking in so long that they can’t make the distinction. IMO, few (if any) are actually able to pull it off.

While the “piss test” may seem the least invasive, it also seems overly so: my understanding is that positive results may indicate use (depending on frequency) even weeks prior to the actual test. In that way, the frequent smoker may be “busted” even though he hasn’t smoked in 8, 10, even 24 hours or longer and isn’t “under the influence”. Something akin to the “breathalyzer” would appear to be a more reasonable test for one’s fitness for work.

I can’t see the legal status of marijuana making much difference in the number of smokers – most of those that want to, do. For some, smoking frequency might increase simply due to availability.

Finally, in answer to the question: I agree with workplace drug testing either way – legal weed or illegal weed. J

 

I think you've taking my words and twisted them completely out of context......

 

' Was certainly not my intent. I simply stated my opinion... perhaps having thought along the same lines... with possibly different conclusions.

 

Well first of all you are coming off like I said that smoking pot can't cause accidents, not sure where you got that from. What was said was the testing is so inaccurate there's no way to determine how close in time the accident was to possible involvement with smoking. Big difference.

If you think that having an accident 3 weeks after smoking a small amount is directly caused by the smoke then you certainly should not be smoking at all..... ever. You should also sign up with the DEA and teach a DARE program in grade school......

The urine test can find THC 3-4 weeks after the fact even for light users unless they are trying to do something to specifically clear their system.... this is how people get nailed with random testing at work. Not everybody that looses their job or get's denied medical in cases of an accident at work is a chronic "pot head". Heck, they don't even have to be the cause of the accident at work to be denied medical. If they fail the test because 4 weeks before an accident they happened to have a few tokes at a concert, and then good old "Bob the boozer" knocks over a row of pallets of widgets crushing the guys leg...... guess who looses everything? It ain't "Bob".

I say we have a totally unfair system of testing in this country, it's doing more harm than good..... but then so are the laws.

 

You pretty much hit the nail on the head(s).

However, as it applies to pilots or drivers carrying OTHERS, I can see blood level/time requirements. On my own, a "walk the line" style test is all that should be required for anyone. I don't agree with having an exact level for alcohol either, everyone is different. Being able to function should be the test.

The idea of testing for weed and intoxication by it is retarded, because it varies so much with tolerance. Some states already have blood levels, but it's stupid, because someone with a high tolerance could smoke HUNDREDS of times what a new smoker could, and not feel jack shit, as you will know if you've smoked any reasonable amount of pot in your time.

Of course I don't support this sort of testing, one should have to be able to function at the necessary level for whatever they're doing. alcohol does not have any sort of honor system in place, even where it SHOULD. Weed does not need one, it is very inherently different from alcohol. Stoned driving is NOT more dangerous than sober driving, if you're that stoned you don't want to be driving anyway, it's nerve racking, nobody wants to drive when they're too high to drive.

I don't think OP has ever smoked pot.... Or JUST started and doesn't have a handle on how much he should be smoking (or any tolerance) yet.

I don't currently smoke marijuana, or really have any plans to, though I have. I don't really have the money or time. But there is no way that I would take a job that would want to drug test me, I simply resent that. If I'm impaired at work, be it from drugs or alcohol or whatever, then they should be able to tell, and firing me is a no-brainer. If they can't tell, there's obviously no drug use that pertains to them: It's not their fucking business, as long as I can do my job properly.

 

Some good points made by all.
I'm opposed to pre-employment and workplace drug testing except in the case of just cause and reasonable suspicion.
Quite simply, drug screening as conducted in the workplace is technically unconstitutional.
It skirts the issue of constitutionality by saying the employee "consented" to the testing, but with one's job at stake, such consent is made under coercion.
Plus often consent to random screening is included in the wording of employment contracts. Read that stack of papers you always have to sign when starting a new job, you may be surprised at some the wording.
On those grounds I am opposed to such an intrusion into my personal privacy.

Now in the case of work related accidents or poor job performance PLUS a reasonable suspicion of drug use that impacts work, then I feel testing is appropriate.

Any federal or government type of job is also subject to random searches , as well as any job in transportation of any type, even driving a pizza delivery truck you can be subject to DOT (Department of Transportation) regulations.
Even sub-contractors of federal jobs can be subject to random screening. So even if you work for company that occasionally, but regularly, does federal work, your workplace could be subject to such random testing. Had a friend in printing that it happened to.
Nice, huh.

Problem with testing is that THC is lipid soluble and binds to fat cells in the body.
The screens test for the waste metabolites of THC as it is eliminated. Due to the binding to fat cells, such elimination is slow and a regular smoker will have a cumulative effect in the amount stored until a saturation/equilibrium is reached. But all that still does not indicate when someone smoked last. Saliva tests are better for the short term, but still can yield results hours or days later.
Alcohol testing is great because alcohol is metabolized and expelled through your breath at a fixed rate, so it's easy to determine how recently you consumed and how much based on the amount exhaled.

Then there is the fact that every study about cannabis impaired driving has shown conclusively that drivers under the influence of weed drive better than when sober.
This has been a fairly consistent result.
Stoned drivers are more aware of their impairment and take conscious effort to drive more safely, that and we're paranoid the cops are gonna pull us over.

It should be legalized and treated the same as alcohol, but testing for immediate impairment is still an issue to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

 

What your post included was:

(third paragraph, first sentence). I stated, based on my own personal knowledge and experience that your assertion is simply wrong and stand by that. How I’m “coming off” could, I suppose, be a matter of interpretation or one of having “taken my words and twisted them completely out of context”. I do agree that current testing methods do not determine the time that has elapsed since smoking and that such testing is unfair and inaccurate insofar as the results being used to determine the cause of anything.

If a re-read of the fourth paragraph of my previous post doesn’t clear up any misunderstanding in regard to what I think about the lasting effects of smoking, perhaps a grade school level remedial reading course is in order. By my thinking, it’s all except impossible that smoking a “small amount” (or any amount) can cause an accident three weeks after. Do you mean that smoking a large amount can?

As previously stated, the piss test can indicate “positive” days or weeks after smoking even though the impairing effects are long gone. No, it’s not fair. However, It’s very unlikely that “a few tokes at a concert” will result in a positive test indication four weeks after the fact – frequency/quantity of use definitely effects how long after smoking urine tests may result in positive indications.

None of the states of which I have personal knowledge (and that’s several), allow denial of worker’s comp medical benefits based on “cause” of any workplace accident.

Workplace testing can be unfair – no doubt about that. It can also help prevent accidents. And, it can result in harmful consequences to some – perhaps too many. Unfortunately, until there’s a better way, it seems what we’re stuck with. And, NO, that’s not a justification.

 

Not at all, it's a statement on how inaccurate current testing methods are. They don't necessarily determine quantity used, frequency of use, or length of time since last used. In my opinion current testing methods only label people in one of two ways, a "pot head" or "clean".....

This was a poke at some fun, so don't be offended, but it's also a reflection on how inaccurate some of our programs are in the US on dealing with education about MJ..... also how some lingering belief systems are of those that lived through the "Reefer Maddness" years at the beginning of prohibition. The little winking smiley may have tipped some people off to a hint of sarcasm.


I think we agree on many parts of this, quite possibly we see it from two different life experiences.

 

Just to clarify one of the reasons I opened this thread...
I also thought that if there was a way to better measure THC levels in a easy, portable test like with alcohol one of several things could happen:
1) It could pave the way to legalization through a defineable standard easy to ascertain on the spot
2) it could pave the way for greater enforcement of current laws and make it doubly rough for current smokers

Either way, it is hard to tell what lawmakers would do with such a device in the long run.

 

They are on their way to mandatory drug testing for everybody anyways, one step at a time, so don't hold your breath waiting for legalization.

"Screw the 4th amendment, full speed ahead." (I think that's the new republican motto)

 

There is no way to link marijuana use to a given accident, unless there is some infallible witness testimony or video evidence of a person smoking within two or three hours leading up to the accident, and even then the link between the person being high and the accident is purely speculative. Like RooRshack said, there are plenty of people who can smoke a certain amount of marijuana and feel little to no effects from it. If one of those people were to smoke some marijuana and then have some sort of accident, there's no way to say for certain that the accident was caused by their impairment. I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible for marijuana impairment to cause a person to be more accident prone, but I can say with complete certainty that there is no way to link an accident with one hundred percent accuracy to any kind of impairment, especially marijuana. People are entirely capable of having accidents while completely sober, therefore the simple fact that a person has used a drug in the time leading up to said accident is not proof that the drug caused the accident. I believe the saying goes, correlation does not equal causation.

In the case of alcohol there is at least a test for the amount of alcohol in a person's system at any given time, since it can be tested for with a breathalyzer. This allows a much more accurate picture of the amount of impairment, but again, it is not perfect as it varies widely from person to person. Thus the correlation in this case is no causation either.

The simple fact is that there is no definitive test for marijuana impairment at a certain point in time like there is for alcohol. Even the shortest term test for marijuana, saliva, can go back at least a day, and much longer for a regular user. This is because of the unique nature of marijuana metabolites to be stored in the body's fat. From the moment THC enters your system, your body begins to metabolize it, and the resulting metabolites are stored in all of your body's fat cells. Over time, as your fat naturally breaks down, those metabolites are released into your blood stream and can then be tested for through blood, saliva, urine, or hair. For an every day smoker, even after multiple days of sobriety, these metabolites will continue to be released into even the saliva simply due to the body's natural breakdown of fat.

I think the problem here is that there are two opposing and both inherently wrong assumptions. One is that inebriation will for all people cause a loss in ability to function. The other is that inebriation will not cause a loss in ability to function for anyone. The truth of the matter is that both of these assumptions are nothing more that broad generalizations, and the reality of the situation can only be determined on a case by case basis. I think that simply the testimony of such a wide group of people that being high from smoking marijuana doesn't impair their ability to do anything is evidence that there is indeed a large group of people who are entirely as able to function after smoking marijuana as if they were completely sober. The opposite is also true. There is a large group of people who are not able to function properly after smoking marijuana, but to generalize all people in the second category fails to give anyone the benefit of the doubt and is thus a false statement.

It would be much more reasonable to test for marijuana in the case of a workplace accident if there was a test similar to the breathalyzer in determining current inebriation. However, there is no such test and the possibility of there ever being one is slim, due to the unique way in which marijuana is metabolized and those metabolites stored which I've explained above.

Tyrsonwood's statement was in fact entirely correct, and I quote

"On the flip side there's no way to directly link it to a given accident..."

There is no definitive way of linking marijuana use to an accident, even if you accept that being under the influence at the time of the accident is enough to prove causation. This is because there is no test for marijuana inebriation similar to the breathalyzer in its time frame. Even saliva tests will go back over 12 hours for even a light user, and proof that a person has smoked marijuana sometime within 12 hours of an accident is entirely irrelevant to the cause of the accident itself. There is simply no test which will show that a person is under the influence of marijuana. That is a fact and it is the reason why drug tests for marijuana in relation to any accidents should be considered irrelevant, not that they are, but the current system is deeply flawed.

For a great many people "a few tokes at a concert" is most certainly enough to show up positive on a urine test even over a month later. The system varies so widely that for some, a small amount of THC metabolite can stay in their systems for very long periods of time. This all depends on a person's individual rate of metabolism and amount of body fat among other things. Again the generalization that a small amount of marijuana will not show up on a drug test four weeks later is false, simply because it is not true for many people.

So in response to the thread topic, using all of the previously stated information, I think that if marijuana were legalized and stricken from employment drug screens the system would operate much more reliably. This is due to the inability to test accurately whether or not a person is under the influence of marijuana at a given time, as well as the lack of causation between inebriation and a given accident.

All in all though, I don't agree with the enterprise of employment drug screens because they're widely inaccurate at determining the time of inebriation for any drug, and what a person does in his free time should be of no concern to his employer. People should be monitored while they are at work for drug use or signs of inability to function. If a person is caught using drugs at work, then the employer should have every right to take action against him, or if he is found to have an inability to function at work then they should be allowed to take action. The simple fact that a person uses drugs should never be reason enough to cost him his job.

 

Everyone has the option to look for jobs that do not test or self employ.. Does it suck that marijuana metabolizes a lot slower than most of the other drugs on a 5 panel piss test? sure it does.. but it is what it is.. I wasted a workplaces hard earned cash by purposely failing a pre-employment drug test for a job i did not even want... I have never ever had to take a drug test for any job i have actually worked... and I plan on keeping that trend until I am self employed

 

I would agree, but only so I could keep the job and sabotage the company at every opportunity.

 

I feel so fortunate to have been corrected on so many points by one of such great knowledge and so many years experience.

 

I don't know if that's a pass at my age but I do have a great deal of knowledge and experience when it comes to drugs tests. I've read long and hard and I couldn't possibly count the amount of drug tests I've taken, both passing and failing. Anyway, I take the subject very seriously. The result of a drug test can have heavy consequences in a person's life and I want to do what I can to help people to be informed.

 

I'm not sure if anyone said it, but skimming, I see a lot of people saying there is no test for THC at any one time.

I feel the need to point out that this isn't quite true, you can test for currently active THC, and not it's metabolites (or test for it's active metabolites, not sure how this works, really) with a blood test. There are states that have laws specifically pertaining to stoned driving on the books, and instances where medical people have gotten in trouble. But tolerance makes the levels they've set pretty meaningless, 5 micrograms per decileter or whatever the level I read about don't mean shit, when you factor in tolerance. Some might not feel that, or ALWAYS be at a higher level than that, and some might be falling down at that point.