comment: >
  
  I feel like almost everyone agrees with this.
context: Just a side note: I had a job as a medic mostly on construction sites and it involved both pre-employment and post-injury drug tests. It’s not just a weed test. Meth, and especially coke, are also very common to find, and I’d say I found non-negative results for coke maybe 60% as often as I would find them for weed (in a recreational legal state). The reason is obvious in that construction workers know they’re likely to get tested at unpredictable intervals due to injuries, so more choose things like coke that are out of their systems fast. >
  
  No one seems to be pointing out that we are testing for THC-COOH a metabolite of weed that happens to be fat Soluble and why it stays in the human body for so low. No other drug on the 5 or 10 panel is tested this way. You can do a blood test for Delta 9 THC but it's not detectable within 48 hours. >
  
  If there was a test that existed that could identify whether you were still under the influence of weed as opposed to just having some in your system, would you be opposed to that test being run? >
  
  In this very hypothetical hypothetical, are all drugs being treated the same (or at least are the users of least intoxicating not being disproportionately punished? Is each drug detectable for the same length of time? >
  
  That's not really relevant to my point. I am asking if such a perfect test existed, would OP be averse to being tested for marijuana before being allowed to work, regardless of any other drugs test. i.e. is the issue that they are testing for marijuana in the first place, or is the issue that the testing being used is an imperfect indicator for inebriation? >
  
  I didn't mean to sound dismissive of your question. I just didn't think giving an answer one way or another would change the conversation.
  So let me answer your question: no, each drug acts as it does in reality. And no, punishment is not the same: If you have traces of legal drugs but are "under the imit" there is no punishment. If you are found to be "over the limit" on a legal substance, you get fired or sent home until you are sober. If you are found to have an illegal substance you get fired and reported to the cops. >
  
  I'd accept this in a heartbeat. Pretty good as a wish list. I would imagine it would allow for a lot more welcome room for reasonable discretion perhaps. >
  
  I enjoy cannabis, and I’m thrilled that legal states are slowly getting closer to my area. However, as someone who works in a technical capacity (not patient-facing) and takes long breaks from cannabis from time to time, I can tell you that having THC in your system absolutely impairs you beyond the acute phase of intoxication.
  Now. It isn’t a night-and-day thing. You can definitely function at a high level with THC in your system. But when it comes to certain professions (pilot, surgeon, etc), I don’t want to take even a 5-10% reduction in cognitive ability, because when the shit hits the fan, you’ll need all your faculties. 
  Where I do agree with you is the general drug screening for regular-ass jobs. Cashiers, accountants, etc etc. No reason to discriminate against cannabis users there. But for professions involving safety hazards… yeah I’m ok with it. And say this as someone who has smoked acres of the stuff in my time. >
  
  Salutations. 
  I am a GSP with a degree in safety management.
  I am all for Marijuana being removed from job hiring screenings. 
  However. Should an accident occur I believe in a full drug screen. Reason being since we don't have enough data to determine if its a safety factor or not due to it not being federally legal. 
  However. We can observe a 12% increase of fatal crashes on the stoner holiday 4/20
  This indicates to me that while there are functional stoners even the most experienced stoner can over indulge and get hurt. >
  
  So to start, I am in Canada so I acknowledge right off the bat that things are a little different here, however...
  
  Weed is legal in the whole country for 19+ 
  Drug testing for jobs is illegal EXCEPT when working in vulnerable persons sectors and high-risk installations (e.g. nuclear power plants, etc.)
  
  You aren't prevented from having a job if you smoke weed, you are prevented from working on specific projects. Those projects by and large involve working in and around people/children who would be less likely to be capable of saving themselves from danger if you made a mistake due to residual drug effects. It takes marijuana much longer to metabolize out of your system, which means by its very nature you are unable to claim you are 100% "sober" (even if you aren't feeling any effects anymore), so insurance companies won't cover any accidents in which the person who caused the accident doesn't present a clear drug panel. 
  Case in point: an accident occurred on one such job site in Ontario where someone driving a mini-crane carrying a slab of granite accidently dropped it on another worker, killing him instantly. Despite the fact that safe practice dictates for this very reason that no one walk beneath a hanging slab (so by that logic the worker who died was "at fault"), the driver of the mini-crane was tested and it came out that he had been drinking and smoking weed the night before. The legal argument is made that having even small residual amounts of drugs in your system could have SOME effect on your reaction time/decision-making abilities, and that split-second difference COULD be the difference between life and death. In this case, the burden would be on you to prove that there's ZERO chance that the residual drugs effected the driver's abilities, and there just isn't a way to prove that. Hence, zero tolerance policies. 
  I suspect the marijuana-vs-other drugs issue will change over time when more studies are done that can indiscriminately prove the effects are gone within however many hours/days. But until such a time, those tests are there for a reason. >
  
  
  You can drink alcohol 6 hours before work and no one bats an eye
  
  Well, this isn't true. If the alcohol is still in your system, and it comes out in a drug screening, it can cause you to fail the test. And especially for jobs involving heavy equipment and / or operating a vehicle, testing positive for alcohol in a drug test will cause you to fail the test.
  Rightfully so, since alcohol in your system means you're still being affected on some level.
  The problem with weed is that it can be difficult for most test to distinguish between recent use and the sort of residual presence that could still be there a week later. This is also one of the big reasons why there's such an issue with pot legality in general. The means to test for its active presence in DUI situations still leaves a lot to be desired.
  The big problem is that weed is not universally legal in the US, but varies in its legality from state to state and is still illegal federally. That means that companies are within their rights-- even in a state where it's legal-- to deny employment based on weed use.
  What needs to happen is two things:
  1) a test needs to be developed that's capable of identifying when someone is actually under the influence of weed, and after that
  2) the federal prohibition against weed needs to end
  But until #1 happens, I'm okay with it being illegal. Just as with alcohol, we need to be able to reliably prohibit people from casual use in situations that could endanger other people or themselves. As it stands, I live in an area where weed is easy to acquire, and I smell it coming out of cars all the time. Sorry, but I'm not okay with that. Regardless of what some potheads say, weed does cause changes in perception that can negatively affect reaction time, decision making, and judgment, and those are things that shouldn't be influenced when someone is driving a vehicle. >
  
  Law enforcement doesn't do urine tests to determine intoxication. They use blood tests for drugs.
  Urine tests do nothing to test for intoxication because they're not actually testing for intoxication in the first place. They're testing for the metabolites, ie what your body turns the psychoactive compound into after it has been denatured and is no longer psychoactive.
  I have no issue being tested by blood to see if I'm intoxicated while driving. I have a big issue being tested for past use when I am sober, and losing my job for something legal I did on my own time.
  Source: have been convicted of DUI-Drugs, got a blood test at the county jail/police station. >
  
  
  I have a big issue being tested for past use when I am sober, and losing my job for something legal I did on my own time.
  
  Welcome to a country of at-will employment.  You can be fired for liking the Red Sox more than the Yankees.  It's terrible and needs to change, but workplace drug tests are one of the smaller symptoms of it. >
  
  I think more people are terminated for failing drug tests than for sport team preferences. >
  
  At Will employment means people are terminated for whatever the hell the manager wants to terminate for.
  With some exceptions, companies don't have to terminate you for a failed drug test.  
  Honestly, that's what happens when a country won't protect its workers. >
  
  I am going to go beyond your position OP and argue that ~~routing~~ routine drug screening should be dropped in all cases, for all types of employment. The issue is not that marijuana sticks around for longer than other drug metabolites, the issue is that our drug tests are flawed in the context of employment.
  Put simply, recreational drug taking in and of itself is a matter between an individual and law enforcement. If an employee is convicted of a drug related crime then an employer should be free to fire them, but we don't allow vigilante justice and firing people for the suspicion of crimes (or at least we shouldn't). A drug screen cannot possibly demonstrate that a law has been broken; the person might use prescribed marijuana or have been injected with cocaine as a local anaesthetic.
  Where drug use is the concern of an employer is where it leads to impairment of the employee's ability to do their job. This is of course grounds for disciplinary action or even firing. However at present with the exception of alcohol we have no tests for drug-induced impairment. It is thus impossible to say whether a positive test for drugs has resulted in impairment of the worker during work time.
  It seems to me that the impairment itself is the issue, and that can be grounds for disciplinary action without any need for a drugs test. Someone who comes into work excessively tired and falls asleep or makes lots of errors would be reprimanded or fired, and they would of course pass a drugs test. Does that logic make sense?
  On a different note, I also believe that the benefits of routing drug screening are negligible in terms of improving workplace safety, as demonstrated by the lack of excess problems in places where such screening is illegal. However the damage is high: screening can be used as an excuse for not hiring people, and it is open to significant opportunity to discriminate against those on prescription medication who may well be protected as disabled but will in practice struggle to fight against a failed drugs test.
  Does my argument persuade you at all? >
  
  But but prescription drugs, no eyes batted!! Seattle legalized weed in 2012 and employers still test here. Ntm, people are still in prison for charges relating to marijuana. It’s all political/$$$$$$ nonsense. >
  
  Not quite the same thing. I'm on a prescription drug to stop my heart from beating too fast. If I were to not take it and then drive a car it would put myself and others at risk. Arthmas inhalers are prescription drugs etc. >
  
  Funny, I have a medical marijuana card which means it’s a prescription yet I could still not be hired in certain fields because of THC in my system. The Prescription didn’t help me at all with that. Technically caffeine is a mind altering substance yet we allow high school students to guzzle it by the gallon if they want to. It’s all about the dosage. It’s still impossible to test inebriation with pot which is the kicker. >
  
  It isn't legal on a federal level. They have also mandated certain jobs can still test for safety reasons. You can choose a job that doesn't care. >
  
  This doesn’t really challenge my view. I stated that it’s legal in my state, which I believe should act within its own legislation, and not the federal governments. “Pick a job that doesn’t test” is a silly response. Safety reasons doesn’t hold, as it will detect marijuana I smoked 10 hours ago… doesn’t mean I’m under the influence on the clock >
  
  
  Safety reasons doesn’t hold, as it will detect marijuana I smoked 10 hours ago… doesn’t mean I’m under the influence on the clock
  
  That is precisely the problem: it would give even recent users "plausible deniability". If no employers were allowed to have rules against it, someone who is actually still under the influence on the job could just claim that they smoked/consumed it 10+ hours ago, and get away with it. 
  I agree for jobs where this is inconsequential, but for jobs where the safety of many is paramount, employers just cannot take that risk. >
  
  Why is this a bigger problem for pot than it is for alcohol? Surely someone could drink before a shift as easily as they could smoke, why aren't employers testing for alcohol use before you clock in? >
  
  It's not?
  Any inebriation is unacceptable and they drug test for that both randomly and after incidents on site. Or, that's what my brother has to do at the waste water plant. >
  
  Right, but the point is that those tests, if someone drank half a bottle of vodka the night before, vs took a delta 9 gummy, only one of those is going to show up. The issue is not having a rule against any sort of inebriation on site, the issue is using tests which don't actually provide you with that information, and punishing someone for doing something that has not caused harm to anyone else. >
  
  The issue is that there is no alternative. Sure, the test picks up Semi-false positives, but your alternative is having no method of enforcing a no-inebriation rule for marijuana. At that point, your de facto policy for inebriation becomes "no inebriation, unless it's marijunana".  That outcome is worse than "please don't smoke the day before coming to work, because it can throw a false positive" - especially since everyone in that job knows the risk of a pop quiz exists. >
  
  OR, and hear me out on this, you could wait for an employee to give you cause, to test them. I know, what a wild idea that you employer might give you an ounce of respect, prior to violating your privacy. 
  After all, if the issue is inebriation, then surely there are going to be signs that an employee is inebriated on the job. It's not really a secret when someone shows up to work High. 
  I mean, should everyone have breathalyzers fitted on their cars because if we don't then we're allowing people to drive drunk? >
  
  It’s not an invasion of privacy if it’s a condition of employment. >
  
  This is a non-sequitur, something can still be an invasion of privacy, while being a condition of employment.
  If Burger King started requiring home searches, and anal cavity inspections prior to hire, that wouldn't be an invasion of privacy? >
  
  That is not by the tests design but just the reality of the sort of drug that weed is compared to other drugs (cocaine, alcohol, PCP). 
  For construction, being inebriated at work is a big deal. It assigns lilability around heavy machinary, power tools, etc. which can lead to big injuries (including death) that a company would normally need to pay out. They do not need to pay out if the person was inebriated. 
  Unfortunatly, weed tests are how you said. We don’t have another way to know if you were smoking a joint right before you jumped on the forklift and hit someone vs. if you did it the night before. 
  People who smoke weed can easily inform themselves of this. They choose to take this risk if they want to enter a line of work that involves (comparatively) a high amount of injuries and deaths. 
  Why would a company not want to prevent this? They honestly do not care if you did smoke weed the night before they aren’t choosing a test like that on purpose or because they don’t like a stoner lifestyle. They chooss the test because it is the only avaliable, they choose it because being inebrated may cause injurys and deaths of other workers that they should not be lilable for. >
  
  I think you're missing OPs point. The guy who smokes weed the night before is not inebriated at work, yet they are subject to different rules for consumption due to lack of accurate testing. But poor testing shouldn't place weed in a class separate from other drugs, including alcohol, that we can test for intoxication more accurately. And simply blaming the limitations of the test is not a good enough answer.
  Obviously being intoxicated by any drug at work is a huge problem. OP isn't arguing that at all. >
  
  The point is there is no way to test for that. 
  If there was a rapid test that could tell whether you are high or not. They would likely use that instead. They don't care if you smoked 2-3 days ago. But there is no test like that. So they have to use what they got.
  In general someone who is high on weed during work hours is a bigger liability then firing someone who smoked 2-3 days ago and no longer high. They have to choose between 2 bad options. Treating everyone who smokes weed as permanently high is the least bad option. >
  
  Treating everyone who smokes weed as permanently high in a state that legalizes weed is borderline discriminatory. The burden of proof should lie on the accuser, if the accuser can not prove that you were high when the incident happened then that should not be applicable in court. That'd be similar to if a cop checked your credit card bill and saw you had bought alcohol 3 days ago therefore they determine you were drunk driving. >
  
  The emphasis is on preventing accidents not protecting the rights of pot smokers. You can always choose not to smoke pot. If your bus driver is high as a kite and you get injured as a result. The fact that his rights as a pot smoker were protected won't make you feel any better. >
  
  And if that bus driver was not high as a kite and the accident is simply a freak accident and he gets fired and black listed as a driver and doesn't receive any workers comp because he smoked weed 3 days ago, also wouldn't make me feel very good. Also ignoring people's right to a fair trial in the name of public safety is a slippery slope of an argument. >
  
  It all hinges on do they have a reliable method to test people whether they are high at the very moment.
  From what I understand with weed that is very difficult.
  If throughout  United States you have 1000 fatal bus accidents in a year. Of those 500 had weed in their system. I think that is more than enough reason to drug test. Regardless of whether they were high at the time or what. Because ultimately we can't predict everything so we have to use precedence to help guide us. >
  
  If you can’t even tell the difference between a high person and a non high person then what does it matter? >
  
  If statistically the fatal accidents often involve a person with weed in their system. We can lower the number of fatal accidents by lowering the number of drivers with weed in their system. 
  It's real simple. You have 1000 fatal accidents or 1/10,000 rides. You install strict anti marijuana measures. It falls to 500 or 1/20,000 rides. You say good job and keep on trucking. >
  
  
  We can lower the number of fatal accidents by lowering the number of drivers with weed in their system.
  
  Yeah, you could probably also do that by firing any drivers that have ever gotten a speeding ticket in their life. It being statistically effective doesn't mean it isn't overstepping their bounds.
  
  It's real simple. You have 1000 fatal accidents or 1/10,000 rides. You install strict anti marijuana measures. It falls to 500 or 1/20,000 rides. You say good job and keep on trucking.
  
  Is there any evidence of this large of drop in any industry from specifically marijuana testing? >
  
  I'm all for people being able to smoke weed casually without risking their livelihood (or imprisonment/fines) but my main concern is the effect being under the influence can have on your ability to perform.
  There was one study done on a group of 10 pilots - so yes, this is a small study that should be repeated for reliability and on larger numbers - which indicated that pilots who smoked weed were still affected 24 hours afterwards. And at the 24 hour point, "only one reported any awareness of the drug's effects." So your performance could be negatively affected without you even realising it.
  So before we allow a free-for-all when it comes to weed and work (and also things like driving), I would like to have more accurate tests, and if possible, a way to prevent the effects of weed to last past, say, 12 hours. Or make it more obvious to the imbiber that they're still affected if they are. I don't know if this is possible, but until it is, as annoying as it may seem, I think drug testing should still include THC.
  The one area I would be prepared to compromise on is pre-employment, or at least, on the presence of THC in a pre-employment test being an automatic rejection. If someone meets your criteria to work at certain jobs (where no lives are on the line) while testing positive for THC, then maybe they should still be allowed to do the job. But of course, there's liability and insurance issues, which mean it's currently easier to reject applicants who test positive. >
  
  Unless a test can detect impairment at that moment and is performed for cause, it shouldn't be performed at all. >
  
  That's just a limitation of the kind of testing we have available. Blame biology. If I was an employer who dealt with heavy machinery or any regular work hazards, I would need to know my employees are not out of their wits on the job. You can absolutely be high on Marijuana to a degree that it impairs motor function and response times, therefore it needs to be included in drug tests. Yes it really sucks that one of the least harmful recreational drugs out there happens to also stay in the body so long, but that's just the way life is. I have no doubt there are stoner scientists working hard to find better testing methods, but these are the best bang-for-your-buck type tests available which means they will continue to be used by most businesses. >
  
  If we didn’t drug test employees thing about all the jobs that would be lost in the drug testing industry. And think of all the venture capitalists who will have to make money by providing a value to society instead of monetizing the human condition. >
  
  Everyone here seems to be forgetting that fatigue is FAR more hazardous for the performance of high risk professions (driving, construction, piloting, surgeon).
  I know a lot of people that use cannabis to ensure they have a good rest every night and for a lot of them, it's the only thing that works.
  I would rather have someone well rested with barely any residual effects over someone that was mandated they can't consume something on their personal time and thus, is fatigued every day at work.
  You can't reliably test for fatigue, but it's the silent killer of a lot of negligent deaths. That's also probably because their employers are over working them to the point of exhaustion.
  That's the corporate overlord reality of our society these days though. >
  
  I say this as someone that supports legalization:
  It's a legitimate demand to limit hiring to an employee that isn't regularly breaking a federal law. >
  
  You can fail a drug test for THC without breaking federal law because federal law doesn’t appear to ban all forms of THC since they legalized hemp. Δ-8 and Δ-10. 
  But also, federal law has lots of issues. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SoulofZendikar (3∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  That was not intentional. Oops
  I just like using proper Greek characters when applicable >
  
  So it sounds like you'd also be in favor of preventing people who are already dumb on their own, regardless of whether they smoked a joint last month, from having those jobs too?
  Everyone keeps defending a system for reasons that don't even apply to the situation. >
  
  That's like the whole point of the resume and the interviews etc >
  
  What if you smoke a half hour before the interview and get the job? >
  
  Many insurance companies provide better rates to a company because they require pre-employment, random, and injury drug testing.
  The same is true for smokers as well.  Your business likely can get better rates if they have a 'no smoker' policy as well.
  It seems unfair to me, since most people don't smoke weed at all.  That a company should care to go lax on this, which would raise the rates on everyone so that a minority can do some drugs which are federally illegal. >
  
  i don't believe that op is suggesting to get rid of drug testing altogether but rather adapting them by state to fit the legality of drugs. in states where marijuana is legal, it should not be present on drug screenings. alcohol isn't present, even though it's just as much, if not more, of an inhibitory drug than marijuana is. also, i think you might be surprised by how many people smoke pot lol >
  
  Yeah I know what he's saying.  It doesn't really change my argument at all.  
  He thinks it's unfair he cannot smoke weed because employers will test for weed.
  I find it unfair that my employees might have to pay hundreds of dollars more per year for insurance, because a minority of people want to smoke weed.
  It doesn't matter to me how many people smoke weed, it is not a majority of people. >
  
  The point is that you are a weed smoker. They don't want stoners in dangerous jobs. It's too big of a risk.
  Look at it from their perspective. Would you employ somebody who unnecessarily takes drugs that put the lives of himself and others at risk?
  You're complaining that it's difficult for stoners to get past the measures put in place to stop stoners. >
  
  
  someone who unnecessarily takes drugs
  
  Why are we passing judgement here? Who’s to say the guy smoking weed is doing it “unnecessarily” (whatever that means) and not because he has crippling chronic pain, for example, and needs a way to get relief? Recreational and medicinal weed still show up as weed on a drug screen. >
  
  
  Why are we passing judgement here? Who’s to say the guy smoking weed is doing it “unnecessarily” (whatever that means) and not because he has crippling chronic pain, for example, and needs a way to get relief? Recreational and medicinal weed still show up as weed on a drug screen.
  
  Did you read the post? He repeatedly refers to partying, smoking joints, other recreational substance use, laws for recreational use and didn't mention once that people who legitimately need marijuana for medical use could be wrongfully sanctioned, which is the best argument he could've made. Medical use didn't cross OPs mind. >
  
  The point is the employer can’t distinguish. Not really important the details of this post. Issue is the practice on the aggregate. >
  
  They can distinguish with a blood test for THC versus a urine test for non psychoactive THC-COOH. Law enforcement does the blood test for THC because they have to legally prove intoxication. Employers don't have that legal burden, so they go for the cheaper route, which proves past use.
  They're enforcing company policy on employees off time. That's the issue. It's not simply about testing to see if someone is high at work. If that's all it was, it would be blood tests only. >
  
  Don't think I'd be too keen on having a pothead brain surgeon thanks. While there's plenty of jobs you can do as a regular smoker, it does make you dumber so anything with a level of responsibility it's best not. 
  Plus someone with a responsible job, but then smokes weed, like it's not exactly demonstrating conscientiousness is it? >
  
  Presumably you would only allow yourself to be operated on by a surgeon that doesn’t drink, then? >
  
  They almost never drink, and if they do it's very light and occasional. Alcohol can cause one's hands to shake. Neurosurgeons as a general rule are very focused on their work. >
  
  Would you approve of a brain surgeon who uses cannabis in a very light and occasional way that does not impact on their work? >
  
  Probably wouldn't be any the wiser TBH. But from what I know of surgeons I would be seriously surprised if they did it, and if their colleagues caught them they'd be out pretty quick.
  They tend to be pretty serious about their work. >
  
  Ok so you have some moral consistency.
  Would you be ok with a test for alcohol that showed up if a neurosurgeon had been drinking any time in the last week, and then firing them if they were positive? >
  
  OP doesn’t have to make the compelling argument, the commenters do >
  
  !delta
  OP changed my position. I hadn't considered the unfair consequence of the fact that cannabis shows up for a long time after usage compared to other substances. Perhaps it would be better to analyse hair samples so that all substances can be measured longer after usage.
  So while I agree it's unfair, I don't believe it's fine to consume cannabis if you have a job that requires concentration and overall good mental and physical health. >
  
  This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
  Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
  If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  marjiuana can affect your reaction speed and thoughts, so its a valid way of checking if something compromised your thinking while you had an accident.
  for jobs its more a can you keep your shit together enough to do your job, if you can't be bothered to stay of drugs before a job interview how can they trust you to do important stuff.
  its less a legal thing and more a does this person meets basic competences thing >
  
  No reason this would necessitate supporting a system that treats someone who smoked a joint three weeks ago the same as someone who is getting stoned in the car on the way to work every day. Come on. >
  
  random drug tests might preclude it,  but for a job interview or an accident they are realistic red flags >
  
  You are nuts if you think someone who smoked three weeks ago because they're prescribed weed as a painkiller for a chronic work injury or something is any less qualified for any job than you are. Sorry, bud. No offense meant either. The system you're defending doesn't give a single shit when or how much cannabis was used, just that it was used at all. 
  You got a good and FAIR way of testing people that doesn't ignore those who abuse the most common drug, doesn't detect those on heavy narcotics unless they're currently high, and doesn't for absolutely no logical reason disproportionately discriminate against people who use the most mild of drugs, many of whom are doing so at the behest and supervision of a medical doctor? Because then you can come talk to me about what's prudent and who's worth discriminating against for employment purposes for certain jobs. >
  
  if you have a doctors note then simply present it to your employer,   with legal drugs an employer doesn't have to actually do anything,  unless its mandatory company policy,  and starting work when you know the medication you use is forbidden is just a dumb move.
  also 95.5% of all drug tests are negative, so its not like the vast majority doesn't know how to deal with it,  you are basically using 4.5 % of the people then narrowing that down to people who are proscribed marijuana by a doctor and not just using for enjoyment,  then narrowing it down to people who can't quit for a few weeks to deal with a job interview.    making the actual  population affected by drug tests negligible >
  
  Would be nice if what you were saying were true. There's no legal protection for me, even with a doctor's note, to get me out of the consequences of failing a weed test for employment purposes. Sure, some employers might choose or have the discretion to choose to make an exception for someone with a doctor's note, but nobody in my state at least is compelling them to do that and many are explicitly clear that they do not do that. I am so grateful and blessed that I established a career in a field that generally treats people like human beings who deserve fairness and that I did so long before I developed a chronic illness through absolutely no fault of my own, for which cannabis is a much less severe, intoxicating, or debilitating option for relief than anything else.
  But hey, nice try. You painted a nice portrait of a world that would be certainly fairer than this one. >
  
  that employers can be discriminating on technicalities isn't actually a drug test problem its an employers problem,  they could fire you for being 30 seconds late if they wanted to,   or under a number of other medically prescribed drugs if they have a "drug free policy", 
  but that's a company policy based rule,  not a legal one.   
  and the primary issue you have isn't a drug test one its a treats people like human beings one, which even abolishing drug tests won't fix >
  
  Just because it's legal doesn't mean you can be under the influence performing a job. It's legal where I live but there are laws governing usage such as driving if you're pulled over.
  There are kits available to help determine if it's still in your system to avoid failing a drug test. >
  
  But that's the issue. There can be no THC in your system and you can still fail a urine drug test because they don't actually test for THC, they test for the compound your body makes while processing THC.
  You can pass a urine test while high and fail one while sober. It's not about testing for intoxication at all. It only tests for past use. >
  
  I grasped the concept. I take edibles and had to do a drug test. I used a home kit to detect any THC. Once out of my system I took the screening drug test and passed. >
  
  This doesn't work for random drug tests, which is the issue. Someone can never be high at work and yet still be fired for it. >
  
  I was replying to pre-employment not random. 🙄 >
  
  Do you want a pot smoker as captain of an oil tanker? Driving train hauling dangerous chemicals through your town? Driving your kids to school in a bus?  
  Maybe somethings are unfair, but why should that stop us from acting in the interest of public safety where we can? >
  
  Yes. I would have zero concern about any of these people smoking pot in their off hours. In fact, I would much rather they smoke pot than drink alcohol in their off time as alcohol correlates more with dangerous behaviors and mental health issues than marijuana. >
  
  Where’s this assumption that pot smokers don’t also drink come from? >
  
  That assumption is not present in my comment. I would rather they smoke pot than drink. This implies the prior assumption "IF I had a choice." It does not imply that there is always a choice in the real world. 
  It also doesn't imply everyone does one or the other.
  It is just a limited context example of contrast. >
  
  So, legal in your state does not mean you can hold specific jobs and do weed. For instance to hold an FAA repair licence you have to be part of a random screening program that includes marijuana. But to take it a step farther. Even in Mass where it is fully legal to use it, the law states that employers may still choose to screen for it for a number of reasons. 
  But I digress. #1 just because it has been 10hrs since you smoked it and you feel fine does not mean it is not having an effect on you. #2 do you really want a pot head repairing your airliner, performing surgery, working with radioactive isotopes, or operating a nuclear power plant? >
  
  "A pot head" no, but would be fine with someone who partakes infrequently. The crux of the matter is there is no distinction in these tests while for other drugs, like alcohol or cocaine, you can be heavily addicted and pass with flying colors. So seems unfair to occasional weed consumers. >
  
  And because there is no way for a test to tell the difference between someone who uses it often and someone who uses it infrequently.... Then excluding people who use it from the task at hand would be the only real solution.... So we are right back at pre-employment checks for all. It is a simple choice, if you want to work one of those jobs choose not to use. If you want to use, find a job that it is not an issue for. >
  
  While I disagree with that being the only solution for recreational users, its also unfair for people using medical marijuana for pain management, anxiety, or whatever other medical conditions not well treated with traditional medicine. >
  
  A good compromise could be to change test to saliva. It can detect up to 3-4 days instead of 1 week >
  
  There is no other way to know if someone is on marijuana while on the job so ... >
  
  Urine tests don't test if someone is on cannabis while on the job, but that's what employers use. Blood tests do test if someone is on cannabis while on the job, and employers don't use blood tests.
  It's not actually about if you're high at work or not. >
  
  Soo what is it about? >
  
  Insurance costs, avoiding "liability," and control of peoples' lives. >
  
  I agree you should lose workmen's comp because of an action taken which couldn't have caused the accident.  If you got high a week ago, that doesn't affect your ability to use a ladder today.
  for being employed, An employer is making the decision to employee you based on whether or not they believe you will be a good employee.  If you break the law, that probably means you are not going to be a great employee, but that is hardly the only factor they consider.  If you got drunk 6 hours before the job interview, that absolutely would affect an employers decision to hire you (unless you were super effective at hiding your hangover).
  The fact that Massachusetts made it legal doesn't really matter at all.
  My understanding is that many employers are not concerned with testing positive for Marijuana.  As long as you are negative for the other 4 and don't lie about your marijuana use, some will care and some will not.  
  Its probably a technological limitation.  What I want to know is if you smoke everyday.  If you are high all the time and you are just washing dishes or something, that is likely affecting your ability.  If you smoke once a month I couldn't care less.  If the test can't tell the the difference that's a problem and I have to work with imperfect information. >
  
  
  My understanding is that many employers are not concerned with testing positive for Marijuana. As long as you are negative for the other 4 and don't lie about your marijuana use, some will care and some will not. 
  
  Maybe true in some professions, but in construction it's generally the case that the test is used as retroactive justification for punishment. If you're involved in an accident the first thing many employers do is require a drug test. If anything shows up, you're toast. >
  
  While I agree in principal a private business can have whatever requirements they want for employment to work for them. Plenty of job’s definitely do not need a college degree to do the work but do it anyway. It’s more or less a weeding out process >
  
  My husband is a truck driver , he has to obstain from everything, even alcohol most of the time bc if he fucks up he literally will kill ppl. We used to be big stoners before he got into that field but quit together when he decided to start driving professionally. It sucked at first but now its just a non issue. Anyways there aren't any tests out there that can tell the difference between smoking the night before and a week ago. While I agree testing should be outlawed in professions it doesn't matter (retail jobs for example) we absolutely need them for jobs where people are in situations where they could seriously harm themselves or the public. I know I want the person driving a huge semi to be sober when I'm in the car with my two kids on the highway, or the man building my house. >
  
  I've worked in mfg for decades and in my personal experience the stoners are the worst. They don't care if they are on the clock working around dangerous machinery. They get high right before work, on break and lunch and even in the bathroom. They deliberately crash machines to get out of working and still get paid. They are lazy and disrespectful. If I'm the company spending upwards of $10M on a machine I don't want them around. The stoner thinks they are all great until someone's head gets crushed or someone ends up in a pit of molten steel (both happened). Then it's all the companies fault. On top of that the company always gets stuck footing the bill for 'rehab' so the idiots get to keep their jobs when they screw up. Then they come back to work and continue to use. >
  
  I can say that I believe it has to do with insurance premiums. Insurance rates for contruction companies is much higher if you choose to not employ random drug tests or testing for marijuana. The employers I have talked to don't care about the fact that people smoke it, they are just trying to keep their insurance costs low. >
  
  Great to see the employers actually caring about work safety. If there's no price tag attached they wouldn't care >
  
  I think you misunderstand. That particular company provides bonuses to all employees and pays fair wages. Everything they do is designed with safety in mind. You can't show up to work inebriated whether it's alcohol or drugs of any kind. I'm saying on a personal level they don't mind marijuana. On a business level, they would rather the money not go to paying insurance premiums but be redistributed back to the employees. >
  
  Your right the problem is they have to much power and they can even fire you for drinking 2 days ago. >
  
  Gotta wait for the boomers to die, it’s a generational thing. >
  
  Not every job does now and some test for certain drugs but leave out Marijuana. Depends on the position. Some employers still don't want anyone doing any type of drug working for them for safety reasons, financial security etc. By no means do I believe everyone who smokes weed is a financial threat, but some employers/industries don't want to take that chance. >
  
  Yeah there are a lot of corporate jobs when you are making reports and sending emails that still test and that is so dumb. My gf works for Disney fully remotely and they made her test. So unnecessary. But if you are dealing with heavy machinery, or maybe transportation, then I have to say I understand the testing. Good thing I am a lawyer and drug testing is pretty non-existent in my field. I guess we all lowkey know the field is full of addicts and degenerates lol. But to be real, I work with traumatized populations and victims of torture and if I couldn’t spark up when I got home after work my mental health would be significantly worse. I agree you should be able to smoke on your downtime. We just need someone to have a marijuana test that shows if you smoked the past 5-6 hours. >
  
  I know someone who worked for a major drug testing company. Cannabis is indeed getting removed from the testing pool in some scenarios. 
  I think cannabis is fine to include in the test but let the employers decide if they care about the result or not. In my white collar job, the reason for testing is because the company takes out an insurance policy on each worker in case of fraud or malpractice and the insurer requires certain standards be met in order to be insurable. >
  
  I live in Europe. This practice is an insane privacy violation and doesn't happen here at all afaik. >
  
  
  Then there’s injuries. If I get injured on a job, I’m automatically subject to a drug test. So, I fall off a ladder, and the joint I smoked last night will screw me out of workmen’s comp or possibly a lawsuit.
  
  Each state has different laws for Worker's Comp, however I believe in many states it's not all or nothing in regards to getting compensation while testing positive for specific drugs. For example, instead of getting 100% of your compensation, you could get 50% if you tested positive for pot at the time of your accident. A Worker's Comp lawyer in your state could give you specifics, but the notion that it's all or nothing isn't always true. 
  Sauce: union ironworker that has organized worker's comp seminars for other trades people in Missouri. >
  
  I say that all drugs should be tested it would make sure that no one is on drugs and they can tell if you have a drug that is medical so they can allow you to have a better time on said drug >
  
  Jobs will stop testing when Insurance Companies tell them they can stop testing.  Until then, their workman's comp insurance isn't going to cover injuries of weed smoking employees who were impaired on the job. >
  
  I think this is a widely popular opinion >
  
  The fact that weed is still in your system 4 days later is exactly a reason to test for it in work with risk of injuring yourself and others, such as construction work. Your cognitive skills are lowered for days after smoking weed, so you have a higher risk of causing an accident at work. >
  
  Weed is still Federally illegal, if your job is subject to Federal regulations not smoking weed is part of it. I know a number of MA workplaces that no longer test for weed. >
  
  Mine excluded weed. It's a factory. There's a supervisor who's a felon. At some point you gotta face reality. >
  
  Many companies that do test dont give a shit. When I was applying for my current job after I accepted my offer they said I need a physical and drug test, I told them explicitly “I would just like to be up front that I do occasionally smoke cannabis and I Will test positive”, and my bosses exact words were “Oh I don’t give a shit about that” >
  
  
  I believe this is unfair, especially in my state of Massachusetts, where it’s 100% legal for adults 21+.
  
  It's not though. It's still federally illegal.
  
  But if I drank alcohol the night before, there’s no way to tell, and nobody cares. Very much a double standard.
  
  You could certainly still get in trouble if you're actively under the influence and there are tests for blood for alcohol. For weed they don't really exist, so you run into this problem of "no weed in your system" is the only real way to confirm you didn't just smoke some. 
  It's not a good solution, but it may be the best they have (or so they believe). >
  
  "100% legal" shows you don't know how law works. It's illegal federally and your state simply quit enforcing it. you state has absolutely no choice in whether it is actually illegal or not. Talk of state "legalization" in media is misleading because so many folks don't know how the federal system works and choose to use incorrect words to describe what's really happening, simple decriminalization. >
  
  If it's legal in the state, then I would agree. >
  
  The fact that it can still be tested means the residual is still in your blood stream, and is a dive roll whether you are still affected by it. >
  
  Yeah, this has never made sense and makes even less sense now.  My state will be 100% legal legal come July. >
  
  If a private business prefers someone who doesn’t use married iguanas, tough. That’s their choice. Also for a federal position it’s still illegal. >
  
  Your argument is in the wrong place. You need to convince insurance companies that it should be okay. As long as employers pay for insurance, and the insurance gives a better rate for a drug-free workplace, those workplaces will have drug free policies. I'd be a fool to run my company without that testing, as illogical or unfair as it may seem. >
  
  For most jobs, yes. But if you're operating heavy machinery or working constrictions, it's different. It's just unfortunate that weed stays longer than other substances, but that's not the fault of the legal system. >
  
  They have a “California” test. I took one, recruiter straight up said “as long as you aren’t doing anything hard you’ll be fine” >
  
  As a union worker you should be well aware of  federal money on projects  Weed is still not allowed on the federal level, so testing is mandated for insurance.  This would also include federal trade zones,  military installations and government buildings, utility plants, airports, hiways, hospitals projects with tax incentives.  It does not have to be on all of those but it can be there. >
  
  Those were just a few examples. I’ve been on regular jobs that had no federal funding. Like hotels. >
  
  Umm, captain? Why does the cockpit smell like weed? >
  
  I think I’m California it became illegal to test for weed >
  
  Weed smokers will smoke at work quite often, which in a dangerous job is NOT ok. If you cant wait a week to piss clean, that means you probally have a higher chance of doing this. Just detox, man.
  And you are taking that chance with randoms. Cant follow the rules? Then you are a dangerous employee. Weed also impairs for way longer than you think. Took me 3 days to feel clear headed after quitting. >
  
  That’s not true at all. You can’t openly assume guys are ripping bong hits on the job. >
  
  Insurance is the driving force in many decisions.  Until it becomes federally accepted, don't count on changes.