Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legal pot complicates drug-free work policies
AP ^ | 12/7/12 | KRISTEN WYATT and GENE JOHNSON

Posted on 12/09/2012 3:03:33 AM PST by GeorgiaDawg32

DENVER (AP) -- Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.

Businesses in Washington state, where the drug is legal, and Colorado, where it will be by January, are trying to figure out how to deal with employees who use it on their own time and then fail a drug test.

It is another uncertainty that has come with pot legalization as many ask how the laws will affect them.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: colorado; culturewar; dopersrights; drugs; marijuana; pot; potheads; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last
To: GeorgiaDawg32

There are and should be limits to what an employer demands of their employees in their off duty hours.

However, that being said, while a test can determine if someone has THC in their system, unlike alcohol, it cannot determine if it is enough to cause inebriation.

The best result might be a medical prescription that indicates how much of what kind of marijuana a patient can smoke when off duty, and still be functional at work. Most prescriptions are scheduled, not “as needed”, so this isn’t too unrealistic. Doctors would use a weight table, suggest the marijuana before, during or after a meal, as well as asking the patient about their own experience, how long a high lasts for them.


21 posted on 12/09/2012 5:34:42 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Im regards to all drug testing, whether pot is legal or not, states/feds should specify impairment levels.


22 posted on 12/09/2012 5:45:56 AM PST by umgud (No Rats, No Rino's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: umgud

It’s not that easy. Impairment, in the case of marijuana, is highly subjective. Those who use a lot soon lose much of the impairment of infrequent users. Likewise, body weight and food consumption, and just individual differences make a single standard difficult or impossible.

Finally retention in the blood is so great that someone who would have been “baked” when they had freshly consumed marijuana and for a few hours thereafter, will have close to those same levels, but be entirely clear headed, days later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thc

To make things even more confusing, there are dozens of still therapeutic, but not intoxicating, chemicals in marijuana as well. If someone is using marijuana for one or more of those, not for its THC, the type of marijuana used and the dosage will be considerably different.

For example, only one variety of marijuana seems to be very efficacious in reducing the damage from the blindness causing disease Retinitis Pigmentosa. So its users are far less interested in the THC level than in the other chemical responsible for this effect.


23 posted on 12/09/2012 6:12:55 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

You are aware that most current pot tests do not measure current state of “stoned” like BAC measures current state of “drunk”, right?


24 posted on 12/09/2012 6:53:15 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Yes, this will be very difficult. Right now in CA (prolly many other states), you can take a couple prescription vicodin at 7 pm, get stopped the next day and fail the drug blood test and be charged with DUI. MJ will be very hard to quantify.


25 posted on 12/09/2012 6:54:54 AM PST by umgud (No Rats, No Rino's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Some people inherit a slightly different gene set and they are unable to metabolize alcohol. They have a drink of wine in June and the alcohol is still in there come Thanksgiving.

Obviously the only way they can be alcohol free is to not ever drink alcohol in any form ~ not ever.

Then there is the far larger group who are unable to metabolize the aromatic hydrocarbons found in modern automotive paint ~

26 posted on 12/09/2012 7:25:48 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

If you smoke on the job...then I can drink.


27 posted on 12/09/2012 7:26:50 AM PST by Dallas59 (President Robert Gibbs 2009-2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
while a test can determine if someone has THC in their system, unlike alcohol, it cannot determine if it is enough to cause inebriation.

Impairment testing is a common sense solution to the problem.

Impairment Tests: An Alternative to Drug-Testing in the Workplace

While I'll argue the point that no one, not even your employer has any right to intrude on your privacy enough to determine what you do on YOUR time, I'll also argue they have EVERY right to determine whether or not your fit to do the job they hired you for.

Otherwise, they should be paying you 24/7 to follow their WORKPLACE policy.

28 posted on 12/09/2012 8:06:30 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

So what happens when you have a bunch of unemployable stoners?

It’s gonna come out of our pocket one way or the other.


29 posted on 12/09/2012 8:11:32 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

You’ve missed the point entirely, and no, that is not what I’m saying. And no, I don’t smoke.


30 posted on 12/09/2012 8:14:51 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
Idiots. Pot is a drug. Same as alcohol...you don’t come to work stoned or drunk. You do, your fired.

You're of course correct, the problem with pot however is that it takes much longer to leave your system .... 6 months or more depending on how the drug test is taken.

31 posted on 12/09/2012 8:20:53 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
You are aware that most current pot tests do not measure current state of “stoned” like BAC measures current state of “drunk”, right?

You are aware that THC in pot is stored in human body fat cells and according to studies can have detrimental effects years after a pot smoker has stopped smoking pot, including emotional outbursts for starters, don't you?

32 posted on 12/09/2012 8:22:51 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: veritas2002

THC is not stored in fat cells. The metabolites are what are stored in fat cells and the presence of those are what is detected in drug tests.

The “active” life of THC is only a couple/few hours.


33 posted on 12/09/2012 8:26:07 AM PST by imfleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

So you’re conflating long-term negative effects with under the influence. OK.


34 posted on 12/09/2012 8:27:17 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
However, that being said, while a test can determine if someone has THC in their system, unlike alcohol, it cannot determine if it is enough to cause inebriation.

I don't believe this is an accurate comparison. Just because .10 is "legally drunk" in some states doesn't mean that a person who blows .06 into a testing device isn't drunk or impaired. I've seen people become completely snookered after two glasses of wine. No way they'd blow .10 into a tester, yet they were drunk.

I've also seen people who can drink an awful lot, blow .10 into a testing device and appear to be perfectly sober. (They're what you might call "functional drunks.")

So any test for THC to test the "level" of inebriation would by nature be terribly flawed the same way an alcohol test is.

35 posted on 12/09/2012 8:28:52 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

MJ doesn’t stay in a human body for one or two months. It’s the metabolites that are detected in drug tests, not THC.

THC itself has a very short shelf life.


36 posted on 12/09/2012 8:30:28 AM PST by imfleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
So you’re conflating long-term negative effects with under the influence. OK

No, it's not a "long term effect" if it's stored in fat cells and released into the system continually over time while a pot smoker continues to smoke pot.

37 posted on 12/09/2012 8:30:44 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

“Seems pretty simple to me.
The job requires that you not use ________(pick a drug, or all of them).
Failing a drug test is cause for dismissal.
Put it right there on the Application.”

I predict that it will be only a matter of time before the “legal pot” states begin passing laws that state that employers may not discriminate against employees for “legal use” of marijuana during off-hours.

We may even see laws that bar employers from using drug testing altogether, or restrict such testing to those that can indicate “current impairment” (as distinguished from casual off-hours use).

What if your employer was able to test YOU for off-duty alcohol use?
Would you pass?
(BTW, I -would- pass, because I don’t drink and have never been drunk. Don’t use drugs, either, never did)


38 posted on 12/09/2012 8:31:05 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: imfleck
THC itself has a very short shelf life.

Perhaps you'd like to read This Article on THC Storage in Fat Cells and try again.

39 posted on 12/09/2012 8:34:41 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

“You are aware that THC in pot is stored in human body fat cells and according to studies can have detrimental effects years after a pot smoker has stopped smoking pot, including emotional outbursts for starters, don’t you?”

Please cite the “studies” you’re referring to, ‘cause I think you might be confusing some facts.


40 posted on 12/09/2012 8:34:45 AM PST by imfleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson