[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.

[Smokin' Joe]

First off, no one is getting tested every day.

But if the metabolites remain in the system for three or more weeks, there is no way to tell when the person smoked the joint/bowl/bong hit. What's more, the drug and the effects are still present to some degree, regardless of when it was taken.

By definition, the person is affected while on the clock, while they are driving, shopping, whatever, they may not be as affected as when they initially took the drug, but the person who overdid shots of booze last night, went home and got a couple of hours sleep and drives to work with a .08 or higher BAC is still considered DUI. And yes, there are people (chronic heavy drinkers) who do that.

You would prosecute the alcoholic for driving over the limit, but decry the idea of a limit for pot smokers.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

Nor does it make sense to have people making the sorts of decisions and operating any equipment which might lead to injury or death if they are under the influence of other mood and capability altering drugs.

The pre-hire tests screen for drug usage. Random and post-accident tests do the same.

If the employer can make non-smoking (tobacco) a condition of employment, they sure as Hell can demand their employees show up straight and sober, and have the means to check. If, as an employee, you are doing what you said you would when hired, there is an incredibly small probability that you will test positive.

Otherwise, there are jobs which don't test, which don't pay as well as a rule, but which will be open.