Question about marijuana and employment.

[Statistical]

So image tomorrow Congress decriminalized marijuana or even made marijuana 100% legal.

Some good high paying jobs require passing a drug screen.

(Edited from most to some to avoid confusion)

Wouldn't those employers simply require the same drug screen?

Wouldn't that be a defacto ban?

[Romulox]

1. I dispute the premise: "Most good jobs require passing a drug screen."

I've never worked for anyone who required a drug screen, and I have worked as everything from a dishwasher to a professional (and most things in between).

[Statistical]

6. Ok change the wording to "some good jobs require passing drug screen".

[Romulox]

26. I would've accepted "many". Certainly not "all" was my only point! nt

[EOTE]

9. +1. I've interviewed for a few jobs that required one, but I never accepted.

My last two jobs have been by far the best I've had so far and under no circumstances will they drug test any of their employees. If you do your job well, there's no reason why an employer should care what you do in your personal time.

[Romulox]

27. It reminds me of the old Groucho joke about not wanting to join a club that would have him...

The mentality behind requiring a drug test is antithetical to the sort of place I'd want to work. Which is to say that I agree with you 100%.

[etherealtruth]

2. Legal substances are screened differently

A toxicology screen could show that alcohol was ingested within the past 24 hours ... it becomes an employment issue if one is legally impaired/intoxicated at the time of the screen; why would pot, if legal, be treated any differently?

[Statistical]

4. Based on what legal premise?

Having poor credit isn't illegal but people are screened and denied employment based on credit report.

Having a prior felony isn't illegal but people are screened and denied employment based on criminal history check.

Having an "issue" in your background like being part of a milita isn't illegal but would result in denial of security clearance and denial of employment in jobs that require that.

So unless law specifically prohibits employers from screening for marijuana I would assume they would continue to screen for it legal or not.

[etherealtruth]

22. What about my post gave you the impression that I somehow believed in the practice

I am pointing out that one can conduct drug screens that include "legal" drugs ... (I will clarify here) the common practice is to act on levels that exceed certain thresh-holds for intoxication vs. detectable presence.

An example would be the brouhaha caused by the consumption of poppy seeds (in the early 1990's) .... which led to the increase in the threshold used to report heroin metabolites.

I think "random" drug testing (or scheduled) is ridiculous ... in my line of work I care if my co-workers are sober while working (I do not care how they spend their non-working time)

[Romulox]

28. ADA would be one angle...

If marijuana were both legal and prescribed, then denying a person employment based on a failed piss-test could well run afoul of the ADA. Of course, this situation does not obtain currently, as the federal government does not recognize any therapeutic value of pot, and therefore doctors may not prescribe it, nor pharmacists dispense it...

[tridim]

Legalization isn't going to happen that way.

But if it's eventually made legal on a Federal level, employer drug tests for legal substances would be inherently unconstitutional. It would also violate the EOE laws. Can you imagine people being fired (or not hired) because they take Advil? I can't.

That said, any employer can legally require their employees to remain sober during work hours.

[Statistical]

5. Do you have a cite for that?

Employer routine screen for legal things (poor credit, criminal background, failure to secure security clearance).

While some employers may decide NOT to screen for marijuana I would be interested in any cite or legal opinion which indicates they would be PROHIBITED from screening for it.

[FLDCVADem]

7. Same here

There are employers that fire people for smoking outside of work, and cigarettes are perfectly legal.

There are all sorts of things that are legal that will keep you from getting a job.

[tridim]

10. If that's really happening (fired for smoking at home) I'd file a lawsuit.

I don't have a cite, it's just common sense. However, getting fired for taking too many smoke breaks is legit.

I've worked for several large corporations and none of them tested for anything. Maybe I've just been lucky?

[FLDCVADem]

12. Here's a link to the story from 2005

http://www.uiowa.edu/~prslaw/courses/employ/smokingban.pdf

[Statistical]

16. There is no federal protection you could sue under. State law varies

http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/archive/2008/04/21/HR_Policies_and_Procedures_Employee_Smoking_Bans_Policy_Wellness.aspx

Can an employer prohibit smoking off duty?

Since smoking is usually the number one target of any wellness program, many employers would like to ban employee smoking entirely, even away from work.

Federal law does not currently block an employer from prohibiting an employee from smoking off duty. However, more than half the states have laws that do prohibit an employer from discriminating against an employee based on off-duty legal behaviors. Smoking, of course, is legal.

The best practice for implementing a smoking ban covering off-duty conduct—assuming your state permits a ban—is to have a specific policy that clearly makes the smoking ban a condition of employment as part of the employer's health and safety practices. And that notifies employees how the policy will be enforced and the consequences of violating the policy.

You might, Pilzner says, require a written statement: “I'm not smoking. and I know if you find that I do, I could be fired.”

-----------------
Another article

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHealth/could-smoking-cost-you-a-job.aspx

[Romulox]

32. Yeah, what is the legal theory under which you're suing?

:shrug:

[notadmblnd]

3. marijuana is pretty much the only substance they are testing for in my opinion

with a urine test, it is the only substance that stays in the system for any amount of time. Cocaine, pharmaceuticals and other illegal substances are out of your system within a matter of hours or days. Marijuana lingers because it attaches itself to fat cells and depending on how often one imbibes, can linger in the system for months. If it becomes legal, there will be nothing to test for.

[JuniperLea]

8. Most good jobs?

I've never been screened.

Unless you're driving a bus, flying a plane, or otherwise operating equipment that poses potential harm to yourself or others...

If you can't drink on the job, you shouldn't use pot on the job either.

I think some people have a very odd perception of what it is to be stoned... which is quite a bit different for different people.

[Statistical]

11. I edited the post.

Some good/high paying jobs require drug screen.

I know that virtually all govt jobs do and does every defense contractor position I have seen offered.

Maybe the "most" was based on my personal experience. I have completed a drug screen for every job I have worked at in professional level (excluding part time, entry level jobs when I was in college).

Still replace "most" with "some" and point remains.

[JuniperLea]

13. I know one person who was tested...

When he joined the Police Academy.

I live in So Cal, and I've been working directly for the heads of major corporations for over 20 years, ten of those years in HR and securities trading areas... and the guy who wanted to be a cop is the only drug test I've ever known... and I wrote contracts for people earning $40k to $600k a year.

I know people who have smoked every day for over 30 years... and you can't pick them out of a crowd in the workplace or elsewhere. A drunk, however, is another story.

[AngryAmish]

33. Steve Guttenberg?

[crispini]

29. In my experience, in the technology industry,

Tested once, not tested three times.

Although the most recent employer said (in their paperwork) that they required a drug screen and then they just didn't ask for it. Which I found interesting.

[Romulox]

30. Important point: "I think some people have a very odd perception of what it is to be stoned"

I agree entirely. Television and the movies tend to describe pot as both a psychedelic (if it is, it's only minutely so) or a dissociative (like PCP; pot is NOT this sort of experience.) People who've never tried it therefore have an extremely distorted view of the drug.

[WeDidIt]

14. Some places already fire employees if they test positive for nicotine

and nicotine is legal.

[goldcanyonaz]

15. We have random drug tests and mandatory yearly physicals. Meth is a big factor in testing.

The yearly physical requires a hair test, the random ones are urine only.

[Statistical]

17. I have only had to do hair follicle test once and that was for a govt job require a TS clearance.

[goldcanyonaz]

23. I work for the mines and they are very stringent in their testing. It's a very dangerous atmosphere

[Flaneur]

18. I reject any employer who demands invasive drug testing without cause.

[izquierdista]

19. That's why it's illegal in the first place

Capitalists can't squeeze productivity out of stoners. Now if pot were an upper and made you able to work 12-hour shifts no prob, then it would not only be legal, but advertised all over the place.

[tridim]

24. The pot I smoke is an upper.

I avoid pure Indicas unless I'm having sleep issues.

Have you ever worked in a restaurant kitchen? Ten years ago, half the people I worked with at Applebees were stoned all day long and they were as productive as anyone else. The walk-in cooler was the designated smoking room.

[EOTE]

35. Stoners aren't productive?

I work for an IT firm and the bulk of my coworkers are stoners. If the firm I worked at started drug testing, they'd lose at least half of their work force, certainly all of their best analysts would be gone overnight.

[Don Caballero]

20. Very good question

If weed was legal I would totally get high all the time. I would stop for a while to pass a whiz quiz but would show up to work everyday totally stoned. If it is legal your place of employment has no right to tell you not to get high.

[RadiationTherapy]

37. You are just so clever.

The way you represent the cliches of a pot head with legal access to weed. You would get 'totally' high 'all' the time. Cool.

[madokie]

21. I had one job where I was told we may have to pass a drug test if we get this one

first thing out of my mouth to the boss was who you gonna hire

[juno jones]

25. They drug screen at a lot of shitty jobs too.

Why anyone should care if the night cook at Del Rey Taco smoked a spliff after he got off work at that phantasmagoria, I have no idea, but some employers, especially corporate ones seem to want total control of their employees on shift and off.

We pretty much all smoke pot where I work. There is simply a tacit agreement not to do it before/during work.

[Romulox]

31. I always think "Oh Noes! I don't even need to bother APPLYING at Home Depot!"

:evilgrin:

[juno jones]

34. Me too.

It narrows the job search nicely. :evilgrin:

[Caliman73]

38. I would imagine the cook at Del Rey Taco might run into problems...

Having the munchies around all those tacos might affect inventory...:hide:

[mdmc]

36. yes

[tammywammy]

39. I wonder if security clearances would remaing the same

Meaning that those with security clearances would still be basically banned from smoking pot even if legal. Or if it would be classified along with alcohol.

Not that I would smoke pot if it became legal, did it many years ago a few times and have no inclination to do it again.