Seattle Times: “It’s Time For Employers To Rethink Marijuana, Drug-Testing Policies”
-
December 17, 2012
A majority of Americans are now demanding we reassess our cannabis policies. As I argue in The Seattle Times, this reassessment should also include amending employers’ policies that sanction workers’ off-the-job use of marijuana.It’s time for employers to rethink marijuana, drug-testing policies
via The Seattle TimesVoters have declared that it is time to rethink our marijuana policies. It’s also time to rethink the practice of drug testing for pot.
The enactment of Initiative 502, which legalized recreational marijuana use in Washington state, is an ideal opportunity for employers to re-examine their drug-testing policies regarding employees’ off the job cannabis use. Those who consume alcohol legally and responsibly while off the job do not suffer sanctions from their employers unless their work performance is adversely affected. Employers should treat those Washingtonians who consume cannabis legally while away from the workplace similarly.
Programs that mandate the random testing of employees’ urine for alleged traces of drug residue are invasive and ineffective. They neither identify workers’ who may be impaired nor do they contribute to a safe work environment.
… A positive test result for carboxy THC, marijuana’s primary metabolite, provides little if any substantive information to employers. That is because carboxy THC, unlike most other drug metabolites, is fat-soluble and may remain detectable in urine for days, weeks or, in some rare cases, months after a person has ceased using cannabis. Most other common drug metabolites are water soluble and therefore undetectable some 24 hours or so after ingestion.
In short, a positive test result for cannabis does not provide any definitive information regarding an employee’s frequency of cannabis use, when he or she last consumed it, or whether he or she may have been under the influence of the substance at the time the drug screening was administered.
… Writing in the journal Addiction, investigators at the University of Victoria in British Columbia reviewed 20 years of published literature pertaining to the efficacy of workplace drug testing, with a special emphasis on marijuana. “[I]t is not clear that heavy cannabis users represent a meaningful job safety risk unless using before work or on the job,” they concluded. “Urinalysis testing is not recommended as a diagnostic tool to identify employees who represent a job safety risk from cannabis use.”
So why are Washington employers still engaging in it?
Read the entire text of the op/ed here.
35 Responses to “Seattle Times: “It’s Time For Employers To Rethink Marijuana, Drug-Testing Policies””
Leave a Reply
Cannabis should be treated the same as alcohol. The problem is the THC in testing shows use within 28 days, Alcohol 48hr’s.Ilost my job because I tested positive for cannaboids. I worked in a office.
[Paul Armentano responds: To clarify, carboxy THC -- an inert byproduct of THC -- can remain present in urine for days or weeks after past use. THC is not present in urine. It is detectable in blood, but has a more shorter half-life than carboxy THC.]
is the 20 year study a scientifically based study? Is is deemed reliable ? If so, why is Norml not using it to prod the FDA, DEA, Congress and President to include it for the basis of downgrading marijuana from schedule 1? Are there other studies by respected universities or country scientific groups?
11-COOH-THC is not psychoactive itself 11-COOH-THC being used to derive a “blood cannabis level”
I believe employers are still engaged in this practice because they get a reduced insurance rate for their company when they test! This will have to be addressed by the insurance commissioner. This grey area will be a money maker for law enforcement. they will try to give you a DUI just for having smoked not because you are impaired.
I realise this article questions the appropriateness of drug testing for cannabis use on several levels but is the real thinking behind this article that pretty soon a significant proportion of people in Washington (including those is responsible jobs) will test positive – because they expect a massive rise in cannabis use. This will sound bad to some people but if cannabis use is replacing use of over the counter painkillers or alcohol then the world may well be a much better place. One of the notions that needs to be disregarded by people is that more cannabis use means more harm – that is just a prohibitionist lie !
Like the DUID drugged-driving provisions of Colorado and Washington states’ recently-passed cannabis legalization measures,
employer drug testing ought to ONLY measure actual ACTIVE TetraHydroCannabinol / present performance impairment, NOT inactive metabolites from days / weeks / months past.
(There ARE on-the-spot field-sobriety tests that indicate actual THC,
but THESE are not as well-known, still new / novel and are more expensive to implement / change to from the zero-tolerance / zero-sense variety).
The only thing present regime of pre-employment and workplace testing does is steer cannabis partakers towards
far more deleterious alternatives, (alcohol, opiates, benzodiazepines, etc), having shorter metabolic half-lives and thus, tacitly-endorsing their dangers, (ALCOHOLISM, pill-toxicity, O.D. deaths), over the SAFER,
(but politically-discriminated-against), wonder herb.
Marijuana prohibition was never about impairment, abuse or addiction. There is no requirement in drug laws to show that a person is impaired, addicted or that they have caused any actual harm for them to be subject to arrest or other penalty.
It’s all about criminalizing a personal preference. After all, neither smoking nor substance addiction are, of themselves, illegal. If they were, perhaps half or more of our family and friends would be subject to arrest for their alcohol, tobacco and caffeine habits.
Drug testing is BY DESIGN a search for pot smokers.
An alcoholic can clean up in 8 hours.
A coke addict can clean up in 3 days.
A pot smoker like me takes 45 days to clean up.
And I am only talking urinalysis.
If you want to deal poker for Harrah’s, you have to take a hair follicle test that can go back 10 fucking years!!!!!!!! Why do they want to know if I smoke a joint 10 years ago? it has absolutely NOTHING to do with job performance TODAY or TOMORROW!!!!
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO TEST ANYONE FOR THE PRESENCE OF CANNABIS IN THEIR SYSTEM BECAUSE CANNABIS IS HARMLESS!!!!!!!!!!
People addicted to nicotine spend at least 30 minutes of the workday hitting up for their fix, probably more.
Apparently though, this doesn’t adversely affect their productivity the way smoking a joint over the weekend does.
Hell yes! I have been living this nightmare for my entire adult life.
I’m all for pot legalization but do we want to take a chance on having stoned employees in positions like cops, military, and pilots? I served 22 years in the military and quit smoking during my service as a condition to keep my job. I didn’t like it but I understand the military’s position.
An employer should have the right to set the conditions for employment. You have the right not to apply. If you eliminate testing there will be people who would abuse the privilege by being stoned at work, ruining it for responsible after work smokers.
Just like being drunk on the job is not a good idea, neither is being stoned on the job a good idea. I think most would agree.
Drug testing isn’t perfect but what other alternative do employers have that will detour use in the workplace?
[Paul Armentano responds: Employers can, and do, implement for cause testing rather than random, suspicionless testing. Employers can also test for active drugs rather than inactive drug metabolites. Either alternative would be an improvement.]
Mandatory drug testing isn’t the answer, why should someone have to give up their urine or hair as a condition for employment? With no probable cause of it being an issue? Employers can still fire employees for being inebriated at the work place, but employees will no longer be punished and/or fired for choosing to consume cannabis in their free time (in the same way it is currently with alcohol, we don’t disqualify you from employment because you choose to consume alcohol, but if you show up to work drunk you can be fired).
What tools other than unconstitutional and invasive drug tests do employers have? Common sense. You can still fire employees for failing to perform at work, due to substances or not, and you can still discipline workers for showing up to the work place under the influence of any substance. Saliva swab testing can detect recent use far better than urine or hair testing, but why test anyone without suspicion? Checking the pee of everyone who applies and telling some people to hit the road because they choose to consume one substance over the other is an unjust and unnecessary invasion of workers’ privacy.
RUT, in Ohio that’s BWC, workman’s comp that gives workplaces a discount for higher levels of drug testing. Random is the highest level a company can achieve and in this hard market pretty much any company is going to fall into this category just to save money. But they also get brainwashed into thinking pot smokers create a higher liability for their company and employees get brainwashed as well iwth periodic mandatory “trainings” which are online propaganda machines.
What will the Drug Test companies do? They can start selling Weed!!!
@Erik Altieri, Good logical answers. Thanks!
It’s time to boycott businesses that drug test in states where pot is legal.
Wouldn’t the increase in MJ’s legal acceptance increase companies’ risk of litigation from unfairly disciplined employees?
My concern is that it is okay for an employer to random test a person. Doesn’t that violate the 4th amend. Unlawful search. Suppose a cop knocked on your door and told you I am doing random searches of house in your area without a probable cause or warrants.Would you let them search your house? Do employers have more rights than the police dept.? This isn’t about your right to smoke pot. it’s about your personal freedoms and your right to self determination.
[Paul Armentano responds: To clarify, the 4th amendment protects against state-sponsored unreasonable searches, so these protections do not necessarily apply to drug testing programs administered by private businesses.]
It’s a good idea to end what was a bad idea in the first place. Norml help us with this please. I’ve worked so hard in my life and tried to be a good employee.
I can smell I lawsuit… Someone will be fired for a positive result. That someone will then sue, for being fired for no cause cuz the sh*ts now Legal commodity per the CO Constitution.
Won’t happen on a federal level but for sure on a state level.
What you do on your off hours should be your business. As long as it dosen’t effect your work.
it’s too bad that washingtons and colorados laws don’t have provisions to prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of marijuana use, like we do in AZ. That clause in our law is the only reason I still have a job now… i was fired for testing positive and then re-instated when i told them about the law
Stop drug test abuse!
It has become nothing more than a tool, sponsored and used, by the federal government to provide judgement of your soul and your existence to society. It is an excuse to punish people with no remorse because the federal government had declared many times that cannabis is their number one enemy.
@drifter- by your flawed logic we must all be drunk as sin at work all day defy day right? Come on man, you sound like an upstanding and reasonably intelligent person. So don’t spit the same asinine platitudes and propaganda that serve only as the problem here. There are real world solutions for determining current intoxication on virtually every substance out there.
Every* day, not defy. Auto correct got away with that one.
and another thing:
I am PROUD of the fact that I took my road test STONED OUTTA MY MIND in 1977 and I have NEVER caused an accident, and I have NEVER been cited for any infraction other than the the “typical monthly quota, jerkoff cop, gotcha while you were driving alone so there are no witnesses bullshit.”
I AM UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CANNABIS 100% OF THE TIME I AM BEHIND THE WHEEL.
DEAL WITH THAT!!!!!!!!
I don’t think that it’s any of their business what I do after work. A reasonable compromise would be to test for it if they thought that I was coming to work under the influence.
@ Anonymous, That’s the problem. If an employer thinks you’re under the influence, they can screen you and hold your job over your head so you cant refuse. Even traec amounts will be considered a confirmation to under the influence.
http://kdvr.com/2012/11/27/landmark-off-duty-pot-smoking-case-set-to-go-to-court/
There are thousands of psychoactive plants and substances on the planet. If someone isn’t impaired on the job by cannabis then most likely it will be something else. Maybe it will be coffee or some kind of prescription drug. 90% of people driving down the road are usually impaired or distracted by something or someone be it coffee, alcohol, the kids in the back seat yelling , loud music, cell phone ect.. So what’s the big deal? Allot of responsible people that use marijuana on their own time most likely will not use before or during working hours. I myself take my job very seriously and rely on firm concentration since I operate a machining center. I use marijuana during my off time to relax the same as one who has beer or a glass of wine. Policy is outrageously ignorant and intrusive. People must understand that alcohol is abused but ignored because it has been in our culture along time and has been glorified by the ones that manufacture it. Also it is a drug. The real issue here is the endless war on drugs that we all pay for that goes on and on and on.
So is that why the fed’s wount ok it so like ya can smoke it But yah cant get a job if ya do? so now it’s ez to get but harder to get a job WTF
Hello Fellow Canabis advicates @Mark I like what you posted very logical and great argument against drug testing for cannabis.
Ok you all know NORML needs money, so show your support and pledge to donate $10 or $20 dollars a month. That is only .33 to .66 cents a day. So don’t just talk the talk give genrously. Our war on Canabis prohibition is at it’s peek time. NORML is doing a GREAT job and they need our support. Where would we be without NORMl.
I would like to post a critical response to this article as part of an Ethics course I am currently undertaking, as such it is quite a bit longer than is usual for a blog – apologies in advance.
The principle claims of the article relate to the random testing of employees’ urine for drug residue as being invasive and ineffective.
The claim of invasiveness provides no specific indication on which grounds, however, the majority of opponents to this method of testing generally purport an employee’s moral right to privacy as the grounds against such testing. With a number of both legal and illegal drug residue reported to remain in the bloodstream for multiple days after consumption, they can remain detectable through urine analysis even though consumed outside of the working environment, thereby revealing information about an employee’s activity outside of work, activity which is deemed to be private.
Article 12 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), states that no one should be subject to “arbitrary interference with his privacy”. This highlighted a vague concept of privacy that has since been expanded on by many including Stanley Benn (1978) who proposes three specific notions of privacy including the notion that information provides power and control to the holder. Opponents of drug testing conceive it as a coercive and unacceptable method of gathering knowledge about employees (Desjardins & Duska, 2001 p.288). Nonetheless, Michael Cranford postulated that “to refuse an employer access to information regarding one’s capability of fulfilling the terms of an employment contract is to violate an employer-employee relationship” (1998) and that drug testing is merely another method by which an employer may gather information about a person’s ability to perform the position to which they are contracted, along with, for example, reference or education checks and as such does not exceed the privacy boundary of the relationship.
The second claim, that of ineffectiveness in identifying impaired workers and helping to contribute to a safe work environment has been supported in numerous articles. Desjardins and Duska (2001) uphold this claim on several grounds; that there are other more effective methods of testing for impairment; that not all jobs have the potential for harm and that drug testing and the resulting knowledge of drug use does nothing to actually prevent harm but is more about control of the employee.
If testing is an entirely random process there is indeed a risk that those employees whose performance is truly impaired will not be picked up by the testing. Performance impairment is seen as difficult to determine, one person may perform below the norm in an “unimpaired” state and another may perform above the norm in an “impaired” state. Whilst Desjardins and Duska concluded that random urinary analysis is rarely justified and effective even they concede that it can be used as an effective tool in deterring the casual user along with identifying those with a serious addiction (2001).
The moral considerations of employee drug testing focus on an employee’s rights to privacy versus an employer’s duty to protect their employees and their profits. It is tempting to use the argument that in order to prevent harm we are entitled circumvent the right of privacy (Moore, 1989, p.280) however, this could be seen as using the employee as a means to an end and along with the coercive nature of drug testing (refusal is likely to jeopardise employment) would be deemed morally unacceptable from a deontological perspective.
From a consequentialist perspective the action of drug testing can be deemed ethically acceptable if the consequence of the action will maximise good and minimise harm in relation to the alternative actions. If we consider an example whereby an employee under the influence of drugs in the workplace, whilst they themselves are happy and believe there to be no impairment, their colleagues consider their behaviour erratic and judgement impaired and fear working with them. Whether or not there is any resultant injury the consequence of not drug testing is more harm in the fear and concern of the colleagues, than the happiness of the employee under the influence. If that same employee, because of a regime of random drug testing, decides to no longer risk the consumption of drugs in the workplace, although they may feel they suffer because of this, the good to the organisation is greater.
Whichever approach one favours we must also recognise one’s right to life, a fundamental human right considered to supersede all other rights, as without life there is no need for any other right (Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 2012, p42-44). As such it can be inferred that an employee has an integral right to be protected from harm by his employer, and consequently the employer has a duty to prevent harm to the employee. The effects of working in close proximity with an employee who is under the influence of drugs can result in severe injury or death. In the South Australian territory alone, the government estimates that illicit drug use contributes to 3% of work related fatalities (South Australian Government Drug and Alcohol Services). And alcohol, though legal, is estimated to contribute to up to 11% of all of Australia’s work place injuries. The legality of the drug does not determine a person’s ability to function safely whilst under its influence.
I believe that another person’s right to privacy should not be exerted at the expense of my right to life or anyone else’s right to safety in the workplace. “There is no safe level of drug use” (Effects of Cannabis, 2011) with all drugs having the potential of unwanted and unknown side effects. That is why a growing number of employers around the world are still engaging in random urinary drug testing and why I believe that random urinary drug testing is neither invasive nor ineffective but a morally acceptable method of reducing an unnecessary risk in the workplace.
[Word Count: 946]
References
Alcohol and other drugs in the workplace. (n.d.). Retrieved December 30, 2012, from http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=153
Benn, S. I. (1978). Human rights – for whom and for what? In E. Kamenka & A. E. S. Tay (Eds.), Human rights (pp. 59-73). London, England: E Arnold.
Cannabis facts. (2012, January 25). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from
http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/drug-facts/cannabis#effects
Cranford, M. (1998). Drug testing and the right to privacy: Arguing the ethics of workplace drug testing. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(16), 1805-1815.
Declaration of human rights: Article 12. (n.d.). Retrieved December 27, 2012, from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12
DesJardins, J., & Duska, R. (2001). Drug testing in employment. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (6th ed., pp. 283-294). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Moore, J. (1989). Drug testing and corporate responsibility: The “ought implies can” argument. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(4), 219-288.
The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2012). Module 1: Moral rights. In 71203 Business ethics. Lower Hutt, NZ: Author.
This is really a useful info. Thanks for sharing.
@Kayle,
Then by extension, employers should be methodically and randomly testing for ALL DRUGS, maybe every employee should just be tested every day as a prerequisite to employ, and the employee should pay for the test as well, they should demonstrate proof of sobriety and free from all ‘drug’ substances like Nicotine, Alcohol, Caffeine, Antihistamines, Muscle Relaxants, Heart Medicine, Antidepressants, cough drops(menthol etc.), ADDT prescription meds etc., etc. because ya know, safety, and employers are really looking out for us. LOL