If I Test for Marijuana, I Won’t Have any Workers Left

If I Test for Marijuana, I Won’t Have any Workers Left

Last time I noted the faulty logic of the argument to stop testing for marijuana when it becomes legalized in Canada. Continuing on the path of arguments surrounding marijuana testing due to impending legislative changes, I wanted to touch on another common misnomer.

If I test workers for marijuana, I won’t have any workers left

This is simply not true!

EVERYONE does not use marijuana. According to the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey–Mental Health (CCHS–MH), only 12.2% of Canadians aged 15 or older (3.4 million) used marijuana in the past year. This leaves you with nearly 88% of Canadians who are not regular marijuana users. Depending upon your circle of friends, or your current circle of employees, this might seem like a low number, but it’s the best number I have. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the survey was not accurate and use is higher. Even at DOUBLE the numbers, the bulk of the population are not active users.

I want to be very careful and state that I DO NOT think marijuana users are unemployable. What I do think, is that if someone is choosing to regularly use marijuana than they should not be working in a safety sensitive environment. And on the flip-side, if someone makes the choice to work in a safety-sensitive environment, then they also need to make the choice to not abuse alcohol or use drugs.

Companies who do not test for drugs in their safety sensitive workers tend to attract workers who know this. Their workforce may have failed drug tests for other companies, but know that it won’t be a barrier at this company.  Because of this, companies may perceive that a significant % of the working population are regular drug users, when really their workforce is not a statistically accurate sampling of qualified workers. Their % of drug users tends to be elevated because there are no drug testing measures in place.

If companies test for marijuana, it may push safety-sensitive workers to not regularly use the drug and it will attract more workers who are not regular marijuana users and drug users in general. Drug testing is not magic. It is not a magic button that stops worksite impairment. It will not stop all workers from using drugs, but it does help to mitigate risk. It is a proactive step in asserting yourself as an employer who believes in a safe workplace.

Do not make the decision to drug test based upon the fear of losing your entire workforce.

Next time I will discuss if we should only test for recent marijuana use, therefore only oral fluid testing, not urine testing. This is probably the biggest point of contention surrounding the top of marijuana testing. There are mixed opinions. I don’t know if there is a right or wrong answer, but I will provide my perspective.

As always, feel free to comment. Feel free to disagree with me, I just ask that if you do, please do so in a rational and respectful way. I would love to hear your opinion on the topic.

George Fail

Senior Electrical Supervisor at Siemens Energy

7 年

Impairment is exactly that and any level of impairment should never be tolerated and the legalization of Marijuana will increase the number of work related injuries, increase employers WSIB contributions and then more people will be out of work. Stop this nonsense and do not legalize this potential inadvertent killer of society and industry

James S.

Principal Engineer @ Verizon

7 年

Why wouldn't marijuana be treated just like alcohol since both are legal? You cannot drink on the job, you cannot use marijuana on the job. Seems pretty cut and dry.

Robin Campeau, RSE

Senior Operations Executive with extensive experience building revenue and enabling business growth

7 年

Personally I do not believe it is so simple as to test or not to test. IMHO I feel the first question is what are we testing for? Usage or sobriety? To say that someone whom used marijuana (when/if it becomes legal) a week ago cannot work in safety sensitive position today simply makes no sense to me. I will not spend time arguing about tests for illegal substances, quite frankly I am not interested in having a law breaker working for me. Currently in Alberta we have a limit on alcohol that is half of what constitutes impairment (0.04 vs 0.08). People who pass this test are eligible for work in safety sensitive positions. I would suggest that when/if marijuana becomes legal we will need the same type of cutoff point. The question becomes what constitutes impairment rather than is it detectable. Further, I would think once the impairment level is decided upon that like alcohol a cutoff level be established (ie: half that of legal impairment). The hard part is that science and legislation has not yet caught up. I suspect we will not be finding any quick solutions.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Rachel Rae的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了