More working Americans test positive for drugs

If, as I suspect, the bulk of this increase is due to marijuana positives, then I couldn't care less. As the article mentions is happening in Colorado, a lot of places here in Oregon (where state law permits both medical and recreational use) are dropping cannabis from testing (or ignoring positive results for the weed).

Industries that are under heavy Federal scrutiny must adhere to those standards. Nuclear Control Room Operators, for example must pass regular screenings no matter what State they are in.

Obviously being high at work isn't acceptable in most jobs, but in the majority of cases all that's needed is a policy requiring a test if there's a suspicion of being under the influence is sufficient. For certain jobs, however, it's just common sense that you can't wait until there's suspicion...by then it could be too late to prevent a very serious accident. Requiring that those jobs be held by demonstrated non-users might be a bummer for a weed smoker who would never think of coming to work stoned, but it makes sense for society's risk/reward calculation.

Perhaps that could change as technology advances and a quick, foolproof testing method for whether or not someone is under the influence can be put into place for those critical jobs. If you just blow into a tube, press your palm onto the pad, or whatever when you come to work every day, that would make any other testing redundant. If/when such tech is practical, I'd expect it to be used for those jobs anyway. But as things stand, I have no problem with requiring testing for certain kinds of work.

Testing positive for THC on Tuesday when the last use was Friday would not bother me. Showing up to work while high on THC would be just as bad as showing up high on Oxycodone.

And as far as I know, nothing on the short term horizon

Regardless of Marijuana being legalized, many businesses will not be able to keep insurance if they don't drug screen regularly. (Warehouses, construction, delivery services, etc.)

part of their compliance plan, he says.

Such technology, once practical and in place, would change the game...but it's a good ways off.

monitor your off-the-job time. If you got an STD while drunk at a party, no problem.

Do a spliff at that party and your ass is on the line.

We don't have the ability, legal or technical, to properly judge your ability to work with a hangover, prescription pills, tiny residual amounts of THC, or after a huge fight with your spouse and a talk with your divorce lawyer. So, we measure for those nasty drugs in your system.

the boss is monitoring fitness for duty, and the current technology only measures presence of most substances (excluding alcohol) not level of intoxication. Given the level of exposure a company has for injury caused by an intoxicated employee they really have no choice.

defining "fitness for duty" within the very finite limits of whether or not you have done illegal drugs.

.

Today I can test for you level of alcohol impairment, I cannot for cannabis. Those can only detect prior usage, not current intoxication level. The alternative is much more subjective.

it's just one of many things that affect job performance.

And since it's measurable, we measure it.

All we can measure is that there are byproducts present (used it sometime a while back). We can precisely measure blood alcohol levels. The alternative is the police style testing which is much more questionable.

marijuana? or someone driving a bus with your child on it? FWIW, I feel the same about alcohol as I do marijuana.

Obviously not if they were high at the time...but I'm generally willing to assume professionalism in such cases unless given reson to do otherwise.

It's kind of hard for me to answer the kid's bus driver question: I'm childless and really don't like children very much.

But yeah...I might not make the same assumption of professionalism for some barely-over-minimum-wage guy with a test-once-a-year CDL. This might fall into the category of job I talk about in some detail elsewhere in this subthread: those jobs for which it just makes common sense to try and hire only complete, demonstrable non-users. Jobs like nuclear power plant techs, air traffic controllers, etc. (to use a couple pretty extreme and obvious examples). School bus drivers might well be on such a list.

At least until tech to instantly and reliably determine if someone's under the influence becomes available...and it's my understanding that that's a good ways off.

I can tell you clients in the Electricity Sector are telling us it is becoming very difficult to find new people for things like Linemen due to the very high percentage who cannot pass a piss test.

Lefty didn't see that one coming, did they ?

other heavy industrial companies. She cannot fill all the jobs because people cannot pass a urine and hair test. She will post positions on facebook and people will always ask if they will be disqualified for marijuana.

If someone is looking for a job, they know that they will more than likely be drug tested.
Wouldn't you think it would be wise to lay off until after you get the job?

On a side note my company has a test upon hiring and the only other time you would get tested is if you are injured and need medical attention. That is required by the insurance company.
My policy with my crew is that if you do get injured, I give them the option of taking care of it using their own insurance so as to avoid the drug test or they can do it through the company.
Of course if it's something serious like if they lop off their hand or something that policy goes out the window.

My older daughter is in the medical field so was tested before employment, the rest of the kids are still younger and working school/college jobs, and did not mention that there was testing as they have changed jobs. I have not gotten a new job working for someone in many years, so have no personal experience.

I have a few contract guys (between 2 and 5 at any time) working for me at my own small business, and do not drug test people as they come in, as I expect that considering the level of work required, they have the good sense not to visit a customer site while impaired, smell of any intoxicants, or talk about it.

Is this a normal thing now? To test candidates for general employment? I only use nicotine and the occasional bourbon, so am not personally invested, but I am curious.

I was also randomly tested when I filled a supervisory position. Other than that it is not a regular part of our operation unless an agent is involved in an accident while operating equipment around aircraft.

I haven't asked any junior agents if drug testing is still part of our hiring process, but I am guessing it is.

And they have random drug tests all the time.