[Smokin' Joe]

Now, if they want to drug test a current employee as a condition of continued employment if they suspect that the employee IS HIGH AT WORK, then it might be reasonable, but otherwise, it is none of their business if an employee likes to spark up off duty, especially in a state where it is legal.

Because retention of metabolites and active ingredients in marijuana lasts so long, how will you determine in a non-subjective (quantifiable, repeatable) way what levels constitute intoxication?

Keep in mind the alcohol analogy. I have seen drunks with a B.A.C. well in excess of .20 who seemed 'a little off' but were clinically determined to be fully loaded.

There are hardcore users who give the appearance of being conversant and functional, but upon closer examination and testing prove otherwise.

Will the claim be made that some can 'handle their weed' better than others?

I see fertile ground for lawyers to sprout, but the issue should be resolved.

I also think, every employer should be allowed to retain the right, agreed to upon upon hiring, to have an employee tested in the event that employee is involved in an accident (and the employee should have the option to send a sample to another lab if they so desire).

Otherwise, as an employer, why would you want the liability exposure?

One last thought: Just because something is legal, that does not necessarily mean it will be universally regarded as desirable, or for that matter, right.

[Wolfie]

I remember an interview with a large worldwide American company where they asked an HR executive why they only drug tested American employees. Her response was that only the Americans would put up with it. Land of the Free, indeed.

[fr_freak]

Because retention of metabolites and active ingredients in marijuana lasts so long, how will you determine in a non-subjective (quantifiable, repeatable) way what levels constitute intoxication?

Keep in mind the alcohol analogy. I have seen drunks with a B.A.C. well in excess of .20 who seemed 'a little off' but were clinically determined to be fully loaded.

That is precisely why ongoing drug testing for marijuana is a pointless intrusion into an employee's private life. A positive result could be because the guy smoked a joint 3 weeks ago and not since. A place like Walmart has no legitimate reason to be concerned about an employee who got high 3 weeks ago as long as it was not during work hours. As far as I know, only Americans are sheep-like enough to allow themselves to be treated this way, as if an employer owns us like slaves or cattle. No other country that I know of does this.

The alcohol comment actually is an argument AGAINST this hyper-paranoid drug testing binge that Americans are on, because no company that justifies drug testing for marijuana could justify NOT checking for signs of alcohol abuse. So why not breathalyze every employee as they clock in? I'll tell you why - because they never made a movie called "Booze Madness" that showed drunk people raping and pillaging in a schizophrenic rage, that's why.