[wpcoe]

Employment-related tests do not prove marijuana impairment during working hours. i.e. A recreational user who never used it within eight hours of, or during, work is found unworthy of employment. I *totally* support firing folks (after maybe one warning with mandatory counseling?) who are impaired during working hours, but if they only use marijuana occasionally on the weekends, what's the issue? However, current tests do not distinguish between infrequent weekend use and chronic 24/7 marijuana use.

I think we'd agree that most people could/should/would be fired for showing up for work drunk and/or drinking on the job. If the test for being drunk only showed if the person had had a drink within the past 10 days, should that also be basis for firing/non-hiring?

If there were a minimally-invasive test developed that could pinpoint real-time (current) intoxication from marijuana (like the tests for alcohol intoxication), then *that* I would accept as acceptable for work-related testing.

PS: I have not used marijuana since pre-1983 when I entered a job with random, mandatory drug testing.

[unf0rgiven6262]

It seems like common sense legislation to me. Nobody should be prevented from being hired for using a legal substance off the clock. Of course showing up to work high should still be a fire-able offense. I'm sure business owners won't be happy though as their insurance premiums are likely to rise.

[airics]

Originally Posted by unf0rgiven6262

It seems like common sense legislation to me. Nobody should be prevented from being hired for using a legal substance off the clock. Of course showing up to work high should still be a fire-able offense. I'm sure business owners won't be happy though as their insurance premiums are likely to rise.

The argument would be that federally it’s illegal... they should legalize it nationally already.

[EA]

I am 100% for legalizing nationally. Need a more effective drug test that can test for immediate use.
It would suck to smoke some weed for pain relief and then 3 weeks later get hurt on the job and lose your benefits for failing a test.

[unf0rgiven6262]

Originally Posted by airics

The argument would be that federally it’s illegal... they should legalize it nationally already.

Agreed.

[Commander666]

Don't employers test for tobacco and alcohol?

[Packrat1]

It is a condition of employment to be a Firefighter that you do not use tobacco.

[EA]

Originally Posted by Packrat1

It is a condition of employment to be a Firefighter that you do not use tobacco.

They usually dip though.

[Commander666]

Originally Posted by Packrat1

It is a condition of employment to be a Firefighter that you do not use tobacco.

I guess an arsonist/fireman would be embarrassing, although that is not an uncommon thing.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by EA

I am 100% for legalizing nationally. Need a more effective drug test that can test for immediate use.
It would suck to smoke some weed for pain relief and then 3 weeks later get hurt on the job and lose your benefits for failing a test.

Which is what happens with most large Companies so it just isn't worth it. In another example they shut down an entire department and sent as many as possible back out the field in trucks but two couldn't go because of previous DUIs so they were let go. These DUIs were many years old. These are also very good paying jobs that can net over 100 grand a year.