A Colo court rules

[Racket_Man]

That even though that state now has laws in place for Medical marijuana use, that those who have VALID medical use cards can be fired for failing a drug test.

and it seems that Washington state courts have also ruled in this direction.

SO what is the purpose of having a drug with legal and perscriable status if those who truely need it have for valid medical reasons can be persectued/fired under the old system????

Double standard maybe???? or the law has not really caught up with the times????

[lordlundar]

Double standard maybe????

Not at all. Just because it's legal does not mean an employer has to retain them. It's no different than showing up intoxicated for work despite only drinking off working hours. You can still be fired for it.

[Panacea]

That even though that state now has laws in place for Medical marijuana use, that those who have VALID medical use cards can be fired for failing a drug test.

Employers don't want workers who are impaired, especially if they run heavy machinery or deal with sensitive information. You can also be fired for failing a drug test if you have opiates on board and a valid prescription for Vicodin.

If I, as a nurse, take a controlled substance within a certain timeframe before work (6-8 hours usually), then I must call in and take a sick day, even if the medication has worn off and I am "not" (or don't think I am) impaired. If I get hit with a random drug test and there are controlled substances in my system, I will get a chance to explain but I'm still subject to disciplinary action by the hospital and maybe even action from the Board of Nursing.

This happened to a friend of mine. She had a lot of chronic pain and had taken Vicodin for years for it. She had developed tolerance, so impaired judgement really was not much of an issue, and she never took it right before or during work.

One day the narcotic count for Vicodin was short. The hospital demanded a drug test of everyone who was working that day (I wasn't working that day, so I didn't fall into the dragnet, thank goodness). Several people came up positive for opiates, but because my friend was known to use them chronically, the hospital decided she did it and notified the Board of Nursing. She had to fight for both her job and her license. Since the hospital really couldn't prove she was the one who took the missing meds, they didn't fire her. But the BON didn't stop; once a complaint is filed they HAVE to investigate.

She was telling me about the situation and told me she'd talked to their investigator and that the investigator had been drilling her about her prescription records.

Me: Wait a minute. Did you GIVE them that information?

Friend: Well, no. She called my pharmacy. Then she asked me about them.

Me: She had no right to do that. That information is HIPAA protected. She needed to get a warrant for that information.

Friend: What's the big deal? I have nothing to hide, and once the Board clears this up, the hospital will back off.

Me: The Board of Nursing is NOT your friend! Their job is to protect the public, not you, when issues of chemical dependency come up. Don't answer any more of her questions without a lawyer. They're going to try and push you into a chemical diversion program, and if you weren't the one who took the drugs, that's not fair. They haven't investigated any of the other people who popped dirty on their drugs screens, and they should be.

She listened to me and kept her license. I don't know if she took the missing meds or not. I do know she didn't get due process or get treated fairly.

[Greenday]

So? If you have a disease that's so debilitating that you have to smoke weed for it, clearly you aren't in a physical state for working.

Plus, the stuff already mentioned in this tread by other people.

[bara]

Im not a doctor, but certainly they can tell by the test if its a trace amount or an amount that someone should be concerned with. If its a trace amount that can be explained by someone who has a prescription I dont see why a big deal is made.

I would also find it less likely that someone who has a prescription would steal anyway. Not impossible of course.

[Andara Bledin]

There are several issues at work, here, and most of them are bullshit.

One thing to remember is that testing positive for having smoked marijuana says nothing about whether the person was impaired at the time of testing, only that the employee had smoked sometime in the last two weeks if a urine test was used. A blood test (almost never used) would only show within the last few hours, and would also indicate impairment.

But impairment was never the issue. His employer (Dish Network - he was a phone operator) made no claim that he was ever impaired.

There's a major disconnect between federal and state laws regarding the legality of marijuana, and the states have been doing a major disservice to all of their residents by failing to disclose that despite the states in question having decriminalized the activity, it's still not actually a lawful activity, which would render it protected, as with off-duty smoking or drinking.

I feel really sorry for this guy and the thousands of others who have learned the hard way that they can be fired, fined, and even jailed for something that has been touted as "legal" in their jurisdictions.

[Gravekeeper]

There are several issues at work, here, and most of them are bullshit.

One thing to remember is that testing positive for having smoked marijuana says nothing about whether the person was impaired at the time of testing, only that the employee had smoked sometime in the last two weeks if a urine test was used.

I was going to say, the hang time for marijuana in your system is reaaaally long.

[HYHYBT]

it's still not actually a lawful activity, which would render it protected, as with off-duty smoking or drinking.

I'm glad you mentioned (tobacco) smoking. Judging from past threads on this site, companies *can* fire or refuse to hire smokers. Wrong as that is, it's logically consistent that they could do the same for marijuana users.

Setting that aside, it at least ought to depend on the job. Answering the phone shouldn't be nearly as strict about what medications you're on as nursing or operating heavy machinery.

[Andara Bledin]

Companies in places where off-duty, lawful activities are protected cannot do so. California is not one of those states, so it is perfectly legal for the place I work to discriminate against smokers. Thankfully, this sort of arbitrary discrimination is being legislated against, slowly. I do recall that one state had a statute that not only protected a person from engaging in lawful off duty activities, but also protected an employee who chose to not engage in the same (employee fired for not being a team player because he didn't hit the bar with the rest of the crew on Friday night).

[Greenday]

If its a trace amount that can be explained by someone who has a prescription I dont see why a big deal is made.

Here's my experience having done toxicology. With drugs like marijuana, a lab will set a minimum level which will determine the difference between having walked through a cloud of weed smoke and actually smoking it. If you are consistently smoking weed as a prescription, the levels are going to be a ton higher than trace amounts.

[Duelist925]

Here's my experience having done toxicology. With drugs like marijuana, a lab will set a minimum level which will determine the difference between having walked through a cloud of weed smoke and actually smoking it. If you are consistently smoking weed as a prescription, the levels are going to be a ton higher than trace amounts.

Is your experience with blood tests, or the urine tests most companies spring for?

Because a blood test will show actual intoxication or impairment--whereas a urine test only shows that you've used it once in the past two weeks or thereabouts.

If the issue is impairment, the urine test is utterly useless. If you don't want your employees impaired by THC, then really only a blood test is effective.

[Greenday]

Is your experience with blood tests, or the urine tests most companies spring for?

I've done both blood and urine.

[Panacea]

Im not a doctor, but certainly they can tell by the test if its a trace amount or an amount that someone should be concerned with. If its a trace amount that can be explained by someone who has a prescription I dont see why a big deal is made.

You have to look at it from an employer's perspective. If you are positive, you were mostly likely impaired at some point. Substance abuse (not use) is known to decrease productivity and increase costs. The assumption is automatically made that if you are positive for a substance, you are a liability to productivity. The onus is on the employee to show otherwise, and there's a fire now and ask questions later in many industries . . . especially those involving dangerous machinery.

Blood tests can test for the concentration of the substance. Urine tests simply detect the presence of the substance.

Here's my experience having done toxicology. With drugs like marijuana, a lab will set a minimum level which will determine the difference between having walked through a cloud of weed smoke and actually smoking it. If you are consistently smoking weed as a prescription, the levels are going to be a ton higher than trace amounts.

Bingo! If you have a blood test, and know the concentration of the substance, you can at least infer how long it's been since the substance was ingested based on metabolic rates . . . . assuming the user is honest about dose and time of ingestion.

This is crucial in the case of the blood alcohol level.

Because a blood test will show actual intoxication or impairment--whereas a urine test only shows that you've used it once in the past two weeks or thereabouts.

If the issue is impairment, the urine test is utterly useless. If you don't want your employees impaired by THC, then really only a blood test is effective.

THC stays in the urine for up to 30 days. Employers don't care about concentrations. Pot is illegal; if you use it, they don't want you working for them. Bottom line.

[Andara Bledin]

THC stays in the urine for up to 30 days. Employers don't care about concentrations. Pot is illegal; if you use it, they don't want you working for them. Bottom line.

Except that it's not illegal. It's also not lawful, and that is the crux of the matter. It's a fuzzy middle ground that nobody is really taking the time to explain.

Also, the whole "if you have it in your system, so you were impaired at some point" line of thinking is kind of bullshit. If that's the way things are, then everybody who ever orders a drink at the corner bar should be fired for "being impaired at some point." After all, alcohol stays in your blood far longer than marijuana, plus it causes greater impairment.

[gremcint]

So? If you have a disease that's so debilitating that you have to smoke weed for it, clearly you aren't in a physical state for working.

Plus, the stuff already mentioned in this tread by other people.

I can't believe I'm the first person to question this. So if someone has chronic pain is prescribed marijuana and takes it exactly as directed and comes to work sober every day they shouldn't be allowed to work? even if it's an office job where they sit all day and aren't doing manual labour? so someone who's sick has to choose between working to pay for the US's atrocious health care bills and not working so they can take pain medication their doctor told them too?