Posted on 01/04/2019 10:48:24 AM PST by nikos1121
A 2018 survey of employers across the U.S. found that 5% are considering removing marijuana from their workplace drug testing panel in the next 12 months[1]. Perhaps more frightening is the number of employers who are on the fence about the removal of marijuana from their panels – a shocking 23% of employers from the same survey. At first glance, removing marijuana from the panel may seem like a good idea – but is it really?
Aren’t There Pros to Removing Marijuana From my Testing Panel?
Undoubtedly, an employer could identify pros in deciding to stop testing for marijuana in their workplace. The removal of marijuana might bring down the costs of drug testing – with fewer marijuana positives comes faster hiring and positions fill quicker.
Perhaps the biggest perceived pro to dropping marijuana from workplace drug testing is the freedom that employers have to hire more workers. The most common complaint seen in the media about workplace marijuana testing is that it rules out an ever-growing class of potential employees. An associate professor of economics, Abigail Wozniak, recently stated:
(Excerpt) Read more at currentcompliance.org ...
Stats show pot smokers have significant employment issues from lower productivity to lower quality to much higher rates of absenteeism.
Not exactly the best and brightest.
Get run over by a co-worker who has a hangover and still has .08 in their blood, nobody cares????
If someone went on a bender the night before, isn’t that perhaps similar to someone who smoked some weed the night before too?? Why the righteous indignation about one, but not the other?
“Get run over by a co-worker in a forklift who has been smoking crack, bad.
Get run over by a co-worker in a forklift who has been smoking weed, good.
Kind of undermines the entire rationale for drug testing in the first place.”
Commercial pilots need not be tested for marijuana; they don’t tend to use it.
Alcohol is their big problem due to the stress of flying long hours.
.
Was the employer held to be negligent for not doing alcohol testing - or is the article author (ahem) blowing smoke?
Snoop Dog. Soul Plane.
They call it “dope” for a reason.
Nobody calls it “smart”.
Remove marijuana from the drug test list...and many employees will spend their lunch hour “eating lunch” in their car (out in the company parking lot).
Expect to refill any company vending machines daily.
If that's the case let's just euthanize the bunch of them. Better hope you don't develop any pain inducing illnesses because doctors are afraid to prescribe pain relieving opioids. And if you had a child that has epileptic seizures, well it's survival of the fittest and the panel may decide your child didn't make the cut.
“screening for people that engage in recreational is screening for undesirables and losers”
+1
If an employers' only means of detecting these is a pee test, they have much bigger problems.
I interviewed with an advertising agency right after cannabis was decriminalized in my state. The woman on the panel mentioned they only had to drug test employees who would work on the government contracts, so they looked for volunteers among their existing staff who were willing to be subject to random testing. She said they couldn’t attract talent if they excluded drug users entirely.
“I’d hire a person that uses marijuana but never drinks before I’d hire a person that drinks but never uses marijuana, all other factors being equal.”
Having hired lots of professionals, I’d prefer somebody who doesn’t do any drug.
I don’t see any difference. Marijuana is illegal, DOT, FAA.
“one of which is a second level manager at Microsoft”
Well, that might help explain what went wrong with WIN 10.
Just curious. Here the route of use is still probably through smoking, what is the route of entry out there, eating it?
Or your urologist...
The author is full of manure regarding Allgeir v. MV Transportation Inc.:
“we agree with MV that, upon application of KRE 403 and KRE 404, the admission of past alcoholism or addiction is generally not admissible against a defendant or employer as substantive evidence to prove negligence or negligent hiring when unrelated to causing the injury to the plaintiff, and that sound public policy compels this result. In this case, however, the evidence was admissible as relevant to the impeachment of Caldwell’s credibility because she lied in the recent past about her alcoholism on her employment application, not to show that she likely was responsible for the accident because of her past alcoholism.” - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-supreme-court/1670567.html
“In short, marijuana use is on the increase, but is also a high cause of injuries, loss time, absenteeism and poor work effort.”
You do know the Pothead jihad on FR you are provoking daring to say anything negative about marijuana? Get ready to be cited for unproven “anecdotal” evidence.
Thank you for a logical and well-thought-out post regarding marijuana use.
What these drug warriors fail to see is that their work to keep the evil weed illegal is an IDENTICAL social engineering experiment to anything the moonbats do. Normalizing aberrant behaviour is exactly the same as vilifying different choices in recreation.
Once again, it’s about CONTROLLING OTHERS! Provided no one else is endangered, where is the problem? “Drugs are bad, mmmkay” doesn’t work when everyone from school teachers and districts, to your doctors are pushing behaviour altering substances on anyone acting anything other than totally docile.
A weed that literally grows anywhere and helps a lot of people is “BAD”, but various substances can be advertised on TV and radio with disclaimers about side effects including death is just fine, “because drug company!”
It’s all nonsense. I’m glad I don’t smoke the stuff, but it can and does help some folks. LEAVE THEM ALONE and MYOB!
Looks like politicians are not getting the profits they were expecting from their pot investments. They need to create more demand because the pot farmers aren’t profiting because the permiting costs are killing them.
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.