4 ms·

>Fifth, and this one may seem like a silly reason to most, the drug testing (for marijuana specifically) is a huge barrier of entry. From a safety perspective,

>Fifth, and this one may seem like a silly reason to most, the drug testing (for marijuana specifically) is a huge barrier of entry. From a safety perspective, it makes sense. But for better or worse, marijuana use is becoming more socially accepted while work places (and in particular trade jobs) are lagging behind the times. Removing a marijuana screen from standard workplace testing would help revitalize the employee pool. Perhaps (and I'm granting some leeway here) we don't yet have the tools or the data to understand well enough how something like THC affects motor skills like we do with alcohol, but someday I expect we will. Work places (particularly those with high safety concerns) shouldn't make any sacrifices just because something is socially acceptable. You can't show up drunk, and alcohol is more socially accepted than marijuana.

squeaky-clean 8y ago
We don't have accurate ways to test if you're high though. We can only test if you've done it in the past few days/weeks. Fire someone for showing up to work drunk, sure. But would you fire them for a bottle of wine on a Saturday night?
- gruez 8y ago
  >Fire someone for showing up to work drunk, sure. But would you fire them for a bottle of wine on a Saturday night? If alcohol was like THC (that is, it's impossible to determine whether you drank in the last hour or the last week), I sure as hell don't want people who test positive driving.
- tkxxx7 8y ago
  This is inaccurate. Oral tests are effective around 8-12 hours from use.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    Still too broad a range, smoking some weed at 7pm doesn't necessarily make you unsafe at 7am. Zero tolerance is unrealistic and unnecessary for most jobs that drug test.
    - PC_LOAD_LETTER 8y ago
      There's not another viable test though that can act on a shorter window than that. Companies aren't out of line for not wanting their employees to be working while under the influence of marijuana - the problem isn't that they're being too strict ('zero tolerance'), it's that they don't have a granular test that would suffice. That, plus marijuana is still illegal in most states. Whatever your personal conviction may be, businesses aren't in the business to turn the blind eye to illegal substance use. They're on the hook for liability.
      - nmcfarl 8y ago
        > plus marijuana is still illegal in most states NPR recently pointed out that if you include medical marijuana this is no where close to true with it being legal in 29 states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S....
  - exDM69 8y ago
    Oral tests are very inaccurate and the false positive rate is huge (can be more that 50% for some manufacturers, you're better off flipping a coin). To my best knowledge, oral tests are usually confirmed with urine and/or blood samples (at least that's the procedure if you test positive while driving here). So as far as I know, there isn't a reliable and accurate way of testing.
- alexbeloi 8y ago
  Using DUIs as an example, these cover things besides alcohol, can be prescription drugs, probably other things that impair motor function (IANAL). Roadside DUI test is a general test for motor impairment. BAC tests are a nice proxy for that in the case of alcohol, and a legally convenient one as they are precise and objective, but the police care (morally speaking) about your motor impairment not your BAC. tl;dr, we can already answer the question "is this person too stoned to drive?", roadside DUI test.
  - PC_LOAD_LETTER 8y ago
    Disagree. Motor impairment is one issue, yes, but so is mental impairment. People under the influence of drugs can have poor decision making, even if their motor skills are fine. Driving on meth is still driving under the influence, and those people would generally not have any trouble with a roadside gymnastics demonstration.
    - Clubber 8y ago
      Who's talking about meth?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
purplerabbit 8y ago
The point is not that you should be allowed to show up high. It's that drug tests unfairly discriminate against people who use MJ responsibly.
- verall 8y ago
  Precisely, and made even worse by the fact that you can take a bump or few on Friday and likely be fine by Monday, but smoke a joint and you're fucked.
  - dsnuh 8y ago
    <cough> https://urineluck.com https://urineluck.com <cough>
mancerayder 8y ago
Isn't much of workplace drug-testing related to lower insurance premiums? Or is that an overstated myth? I've heard this repeatedly, but haven't read anything definitive.
billmalarky 8y ago
Sounds to me like you're trying to find a rational answer when it's likely just politics. There's tons of (acceptable) prescription drugs that have a worse effect on performance than THC being in your system from the weekend before. Someone's glucose level being outside the norm would have a larger effect. > Work places (particularly those with high safety concerns) shouldn't make any sacrifices just because something is socially acceptable. Should it be illegal to be on the job while sick? Good luck getting that legislated.
- PC_LOAD_LETTER 8y ago
  > Sounds to me like you're trying to find a rational answer when it's likely just politics. Implying that compliance with the law and not wanting to be liable for damages isn't rational? That's "politics", after all.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ramblerman 8y ago
> You can't show up drunk, and alcohol is more socially accepted than marijuana. I think you misunderstood the MJ testing. MJ stays in the blood stream, and you can be caught by a random drug test on Tuesday for that joint you had on Saturday. OP was not, I think, arguing for working 'high'
drewmol 8y ago
>we don't yet have the tools or the data to understand well enough how something like THC affects motor skills like we do with alcohol, but someday I expect we will. We do have some understanding and data: very slightly, the most consistently measurable affect being minimally impared depth perception. Treating marijuana intoxication as a high risk imparment to motor function is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Relating the equation of motor function impairment caused by marijuana to that of alcohol or for that matter many other intoxicants (including a multitude of very commonly used pharmaceuticals and stimulants) sure seems a bit ignorant or uninformed to me. I'm not advocating marijuana use, especially when performing potentially dangerous actions that require attention and possibly urgent corrective action (driving, operating dangerous equiptment, performing surgery, etc.). But do consider there's plenty of professional athletes who have preformed some of the highest level coordination, precision and reaction time dependant functions of humanity while being under the influence of THC. Sorry to rant, but I think it's important to remember that people using alcohol cause an awful lot of harmful, deadly, and easily avoidable accidents. DUI's and similar restrictions are a direct result of that fact. I've looked for but have never seen evidence that shows an even remotely similar risk from THC consumption. If anyone is aware of data indicating otherwise, please share.

squeaky-clean 8y ago

We don't have accurate ways to test if you're high though. We can only test if you've done it in the past few days/weeks. Fire someone for showing up to work drunk, sure. But would you fire them for a bottle of wine on a Saturday night?

gruez 8y ago
>Fire someone for showing up to work drunk, sure. But would you fire them for a bottle of wine on a Saturday night? If alcohol was like THC (that is, it's impossible to determine whether you drank in the last hour or the last week), I sure as hell don't want people who test positive driving.
tkxxx7 8y ago
This is inaccurate. Oral tests are effective around 8-12 hours from use.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  Still too broad a range, smoking some weed at 7pm doesn't necessarily make you unsafe at 7am. Zero tolerance is unrealistic and unnecessary for most jobs that drug test.
  - PC_LOAD_LETTER 8y ago
    There's not another viable test though that can act on a shorter window than that. Companies aren't out of line for not wanting their employees to be working while under the influence of marijuana - the problem isn't that they're being too strict ('zero tolerance'), it's that they don't have a granular test that would suffice. That, plus marijuana is still illegal in most states. Whatever your personal conviction may be, businesses aren't in the business to turn the blind eye to illegal substance use. They're on the hook for liability.
    - nmcfarl 8y ago
      > plus marijuana is still illegal in most states NPR recently pointed out that if you include medical marijuana this is no where close to true with it being legal in 29 states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S....
- exDM69 8y ago
  Oral tests are very inaccurate and the false positive rate is huge (can be more that 50% for some manufacturers, you're better off flipping a coin). To my best knowledge, oral tests are usually confirmed with urine and/or blood samples (at least that's the procedure if you test positive while driving here). So as far as I know, there isn't a reliable and accurate way of testing.
alexbeloi 8y ago
Using DUIs as an example, these cover things besides alcohol, can be prescription drugs, probably other things that impair motor function (IANAL). Roadside DUI test is a general test for motor impairment. BAC tests are a nice proxy for that in the case of alcohol, and a legally convenient one as they are precise and objective, but the police care (morally speaking) about your motor impairment not your BAC. tl;dr, we can already answer the question "is this person too stoned to drive?", roadside DUI test.
- PC_LOAD_LETTER 8y ago
  Disagree. Motor impairment is one issue, yes, but so is mental impairment. People under the influence of drugs can have poor decision making, even if their motor skills are fine. Driving on meth is still driving under the influence, and those people would generally not have any trouble with a roadside gymnastics demonstration.
  - Clubber 8y ago
    Who's talking about meth?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

purplerabbit 8y ago

The point is not that you should be allowed to show up high. It's that drug tests unfairly discriminate against people who use MJ responsibly.

verall 8y ago
Precisely, and made even worse by the fact that you can take a bump or few on Friday and likely be fine by Monday, but smoke a joint and you're fucked.
- dsnuh 8y ago
  <cough> https://urineluck.com https://urineluck.com <cough>

mancerayder 8y ago

Isn't much of workplace drug-testing related to lower insurance premiums? Or is that an overstated myth? I've heard this repeatedly, but haven't read anything definitive.

billmalarky 8y ago

Sounds to me like you're trying to find a rational answer when it's likely just politics. There's tons of (acceptable) prescription drugs that have a worse effect on performance than THC being in your system from the weekend before. Someone's glucose level being outside the norm would have a larger effect. > Work places (particularly those with high safety concerns) shouldn't make any sacrifices just because something is socially acceptable. Should it be illegal to be on the job while sick? Good luck getting that legislated.

PC_LOAD_LETTER 8y ago
> Sounds to me like you're trying to find a rational answer when it's likely just politics. Implying that compliance with the law and not wanting to be liable for damages isn't rational? That's "politics", after all.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ramblerman 8y ago

> You can't show up drunk, and alcohol is more socially accepted than marijuana. I think you misunderstood the MJ testing. MJ stays in the blood stream, and you can be caught by a random drug test on Tuesday for that joint you had on Saturday. OP was not, I think, arguing for working 'high'

drewmol 8y ago

>we don't yet have the tools or the data to understand well enough how something like THC affects motor skills like we do with alcohol, but someday I expect we will. We do have some understanding and data: very slightly, the most consistently measurable affect being minimally impared depth perception. Treating marijuana intoxication as a high risk imparment to motor function is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Relating the equation of motor function impairment caused by marijuana to that of alcohol or for that matter many other intoxicants (including a multitude of very commonly used pharmaceuticals and stimulants) sure seems a bit ignorant or uninformed to me. I'm not advocating marijuana use, especially when performing potentially dangerous actions that require attention and possibly urgent corrective action (driving, operating dangerous equiptment, performing surgery, etc.). But do consider there's plenty of professional athletes who have preformed some of the highest level coordination, precision and reaction time dependant functions of humanity while being under the influence of THC. Sorry to rant, but I think it's important to remember that people using alcohol cause an awful lot of harmful, deadly, and easily avoidable accidents. DUI's and similar restrictions are a direct result of that fact. I've looked for but have never seen evidence that shows an even remotely similar risk from THC consumption. If anyone is aware of data indicating otherwise, please share.