comment: >
  
  Would you approve of a brain surgeon who uses cannabis in a very light and occasional way that does not impact on their work?
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. >
  
  Just adding on here re: the alcohol portion. I live in Australia so it's slightly different, but we did random drug and alcohol testing at my old workplace. Office workers were okay to be under 0.05 (our legal BAC limit) but if you were in manufacturing/warehouse/logistics/etc. you had to be 0.00. It really depends on the type of work you do and the acceptable level as to which you can function safely and effectively.  Drugs obviously were a hard no. >
  
  I assume you mean at a 0.00. Under would be a negative value >
  
  Ah, yes, sorry! I rewrote the comment a few times on mobile so I missed correcting that. I will amend now. >
  
  Unless a test can detect impairment at that moment and is performed for cause, it shouldn't be performed at all. >
  
  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? >
  
  In a hospital setting, the first "cause to test" could be the death of a patient. >
  
  I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean to say that different jobs may require different levels of testing, then I would agree, But I would argue in those sorts of jobs, random drug testing would be far more effective than pre-employment testing.
  After all, pre-employment testing is only really likely to catch weed, while random drug testing is more likely to catch all sorts of drugs, which last for a far lesser time in the body. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  How drug testing by an employer is legal at all in the US is crazy to me as a German.         
  Like... Even for jobs where you could argue its important it does not make sense. A friend of mine is an ICU nurse, he smokes weed almost after every shift because he otherwise can't cope well with people dying and needs to switch off. But he's the best nurse in the icu and constantly gets the highest rating in his evaluations.       
  Even if you get injured you don't take one if it's not obvious that you were intoxicated.          
  So like.. My response is that your view should change in that it does not matter which drugs you include in pre employment drug tests, the fact that you have to take them at all is discriminatory and derogatory as fuck. What you do with your free time is literally none of your employers business as long as you show up and you are able to do the job.    
  Edit: so I looked it up and apparently the employer can order drug tests but only from strong suspicion I.e. You smell like alcohol, seem intoxicated etc. And even then you can choose the doctor. >
  
  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? >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  … apparently didn’t cross your mind either. Which is why I pointed it out. You’re the one calling it unnecessary >
  
  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.