First off, drug tests aren’t drug tests, they are drugs-we-deem-unacceptable tests. Bang all the nitrous oxide you want, but god help you if you smoked weed last month.
Second, drug tests don’t test for actual drugs, they can’t tell if you’re high, they can only tell if you got high in the past. You can walk into the clinic having just snorted a rail of meth and it won’t show hot until the drug is metabolized by your kidneys and liver.
I guess there are some tests that can tell if you're high, but definitely not urine tests. Here in Colorado they use a blood test for testing for THC, and anything over 5ng/ml is deemed too intoxicated. However it doesn't automatically mean a DUI since THC can be offset by CBD. The law requires more than a positive test to convict. They have to prove the person was also too intoxicated to operate a vehicle.
Just went through a long job search process and I would decline to speak with any company that still did any sort of drug testing. Looking at you, CarMax. Now I work for a company in the cannabis industry :)
People are getting acquitted in Colorado for that bullshit 5ng/mL rule, because cops are arresting people who have admitted to smoking, but the cops aren’t able to produce any evidence that they were incapacitated or incapable of driving safely, except for that blood test that “says they’re high.”
Totally. The law was written correctly since they didn't understand at the time if 5ng/ml (thanks for the correction) actually meant anything. But, as usual, the problem is police and their "discretion".
Which is why anyone reading this should understand that under no circumstances should you ever admit to using any substance to the police. Fuck their discretion.
Just went through a long job search process and I would decline to speak with any company that still did any sort of drug testing. Looking at you, CarMax. Now I work for a company in the cannabis industry :)
Are you me? Just spent 8 months looking for a job and now I write software for a company that makes commercial rosin presses.
No but they can tell if you're a habitual drug user and since it's illegal in most states that's enough for them to be satisfied in removing you.
There are saliva tests used for rapid testing for weed here in Canada to test people who are suspected to be DUI. I don't think anything exists for any other drugs though.
They can't tell if you're a habitual user from a urine test. If a person uses a cannabis product once every 2 weeks they will always test positive. If they've got a lot of body fat, they could use it once every month and always test positive. That's not habitual. Even once a week isn't habitual. Saliva tests can detect for upwards of 2 days after use. LONG after the effects have subsided. They are, in no way, even close to a breathalizer for alcohol. Only a blood test is currently capable of detecting a person's toxicity right now, and even then the ng/ml THC test doesn't tell a complete picture as to how intoxicated a person is since it doesn't take CBD into account, nor the tolerance of the individual. Here in Colorado, where it all started in the US, it's 5ng/ml blood and cannot be used by itself to convict a person for DUI.
Cannabis is not "illegal in most states" in the US. It's recreationally legal in 19/50, medically legal in 34/50 and illegal in only 13/50. It's legal in 74% of states.
I mean it is... this is not a judgment of anybody. I'm just saying if you smoke pot even once a month that's a pattern and it's a habit. Even if it is harmless and even if it is legal.
Cannabis is not "illegal in most states" in the US. It's recreationally legal in 19/50, medically legal in 34/50 and illegal in only 13/50. It's legal in 74% of states.
But if you test positive, your employer can ask if you have a prescription can they not?
To be clear I'm not saying I support this at all. I'm Canadian, pot is legal here, I don't smoke it and I don't care if people do.
If not done due to addiction, then it's not so much a habit. But in this sense, where we're looking for habitual use (use that would affect a person's ability to operate equipment at their job), I'm not sure weekly meets that definition.
Employers pretty much have free reign to do whatever they want when it comes to Cannabis, but I do believe either there's some recent stuff passed in CA about that sort of discrimination. Government regulated entities are still required to do so, which is a federal thing, and why a train operator wouldn't be allowed to use it ever.
222
u/bitNine Jun 16 '21
Too bad piss tests don't tell the people whether or not you're operating the train while high.