Alcohol is tested for at the same time as the other drugs, in my experience.
I once had a boss that used to say “I’d never hire anyone who could pass a drug test.”
Now that I’m an employer, I must say, I really don’t care what my employees do at home. No one has offered me lower insurance rates for testing, and I wouldn’t do it anyway. Like I said up thread, I’m fortunate enough to be able to refuse employment with companies that test. I know others might not have that option. I use marijuana 3 or 4 times a year, so I really don’t have a reason to complain if my employees do also.
No, you really can’t use tobacco anymore either if you are looking for employment in certain health care companies.
And I am not talking about a Smoke Free Workplace policy, which is becoming common, I am talking about NO tobacco use at all, even at home.
If you answer ‘yes’ to the tobacco use questions on your job application, the application goes to further. And they are including tobacco screening in the pre-employment testing. Since smokers are not a protected class companies are allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices.
This is just one article, I can find more if needed. Like these:
It is becoming more common in hospitals and health care businesses. It is supposed to be about practicing what you preach but coincidentally it saves these companies money on health care costs too.
In the US employers can install many conditions on employment, and unless you are part of a legally protected class, it’s just fine.
Well, I feel for tobacco users- that’s what pot smokers have been facing for decades.
I’m gratified to see some parity in how things are handled, even it’s more restrictions rather than more freedoms.
But still, as it stands now, *nearly all *tobacco smokers can work without problem in their chosen fields.
(There likely is a job out there that tests for alcohol- no need to google it. It’s the tiny rare exception.)
Varies by state, some are more restrictive. Colorado isn’t- employers can pretty much do what they want here.
I’ve never personally seen one like that. All the testing I’ve been subject to was the standard 5-drug panel.
The company I work for tests for alcohol.
The one at my workplace tested for both, using the DOT guidelines for alcohol (which I think is .04).
I know a nurse who was tested for alcohol pre-employment. She was told that if she drank the night before, she would test negative. Seems they’ve had people show up at 9 a.m. over .08!
If anyone is interested, this gives some details on what I was talking about upthread, where Ohio essentially penalizes workplaces that do not do drug testing: https://www.ohiobwc.com/employer/programs/dfspinfo/dfspdescription.asp
I understand your attempt at the analogy. The desire to do the drug is similar. With respect to the effects of the drug, pot probably has a milder effect than alcohol, a larger effect than caffeine. The fact that it is legal to consume alcohol on your own time but not legal to consume pot on your own time is part of the reason why any pot use is grounds for dismissal while one can drink off hours and remain employed.
My company tests for alcohol as well as the other drugs when screening. Certainly being impaired at work is a more legitimate issue for the employer, regardless of the kind of work. Sometimes the effects of the drugs in question are not considered “impairment” for some kinds of employment. Does not change their federal legality.
It does have the effect that people who used to be able to get a beer with lunch now can’t risk it. Have to save the beer for happy hour. There can be the occassional office party that has a keg, but those are reserved for end of the day events, often on Friday.
You do have a legitimate point that alcohol test results tie directly to impairment - blood alcohol level is related to how impaired you are at the time, and goes down as the body processes it out of the system, while pot screening can detect prior usage that does not reflect current status, whether you are impaired or not. The legality of pot is part of the reason this difference in approach is considered more acceptable. Also, America’s polarism with respect to the acceptability of pot use.
Certainly one can get in trouble for other things. I know a guy fired supposedly because of use of prescription medication that was from his wife. He was in the process of being swapped from subcontractor to main contractor, and the pre-employement screening turned up a hit on pain meds. He had back problems, and used meds in the medicine cabinet that his wife had left over from some prior incident. He was terminated. (At least that’s the story he told.)
More likely, certainly not. They’re probably not as likely as someone abusing pain meds, certainly not as likely as someone abusing heroin or meth. They are probably similar to alcohol use, which is to say many people can consume some and continue with life as normal and be straight for work. Some people have problems and become consumed by their drug use.
OK now this may be a stupid question, but what is the status of nootropics - are they considered ‘soft’ drugs? They can enhance mental and cognitive performance (some of them anyway), some can give you a mild high but can have weird effects on the brain as well.
What is the criteria that companies use to determine the drugs they do not like? Does smoking pot make the user more violent, deranged or aggressive? I can understand hard drugs like cocaine and heroine are severely damaging, but there are OTCs that can do damage too. What about someone pumped up on testosterone supplements and caffeine?
It is very common in Australia, almost universal in the mining industry
Here’s what pisses me off about drug testing… If I smoke a joint at night to control anxiety and get a good nights sleep, I am not eligible for employment. If I have a prescription for Ativan , not only am I eligible for work, but I can pop them all day while I am working. If I am hungover at work after drinking with the boys the night before, that’s fine, but if I smoked a joint last week on my day off…no job for you.
I play a lot of sports with paramedics and jail guards and smoke with them. They don’t have to worry about it because of their union policy of no drug testing. One way or the other I don’t care because I don’t see the harm in marijuana use, but it seems a little silly that I can’t be a janitor or hand out small tools from a cage and use marijuana in my off time but a paramedic can.
Well, of course there’s a bit of a difference between mining jobs and cubicle jobs. But still, it perplexes me.
I’m not aware of any drug testing in Oz workplaces. But then, I don’t live in a mining town.
Anywhere other than the mining industry where it’s common?
The places I’ve worked it’s been a urine test for the 5 or whatever drugs, then a breathalyzer for alcohol.
If you work all day on the blue sky mine
(There’ll be food on the table tonight)
I’m not sure how common it is in the U.S. - outside of certain industries and jobs where they screen everyone as a gate (Home Depot drug tests all applicants). I didn’t have to drug test for my last job, nor did my husband - I did for the job before that one, but during my employment there they stopped - and they only did it as part of the pre-employment screening.
Sorry, I just have to get this out.
MOTHERFUCKER I JUST DELETED MY POST!!!
Take 2:
Most companies are relying on the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988to define what they screen for.
The Act does not list specific drugs. It says “controlled substances”, which includes pot, because pot is illegal at the federal level, even though some states are carving out state-level legalities. It also includes cocaine, methamphetamines, barbituates, and opiates. Prescription drugs are covered as well, though typically they are looking for versions of the above drug classes.
Alcohol is often tested because it causes impairment of judgement and abilities, and people are sensitized to it via drunk driving campaigns, etc. Legally, if a substance causes impairment, the company can be liable if they knowingly allow an impaired employee to do a job and someone is injured.
If nootropics are non-controlled substances, legal to own and take, then they are not covered by this Act, and will not likely be part of a list of drugs that are screened for by drug testing. However, if these substances cause behavioral mental state changes, one can still be subject to discliplinary and even legal action for your behavior, regardless of the legality of the substance. If someone gets “pumped up” on testosterone and caffeine and goes around yelling at people or getting abusive, other company policies may come into effect, including arrest for assault.
The thing is, pot is still federally illegal, even if it is legal for the state or legally covered by state prescription laws. That is an issue to take up with federal legislators about the criminality of pot.
If you take an Ativan without prescription and it is discovered by testing, you can also be fired. Because Ativan is a controlled substance, you might also be subject to legal prosecution. That would be the same situation as smoking pot - it is illegal use and you test positive.
That is interesting. I guess you should study and become a paramedic.
Ultimately, attitudes towards marijuana in this country are slowly shifting away from criminalization. Right now, there is a strong dichotomy of views, and so federal laws are still strict. Ultimately, what needs to happen is enough of an attitude shift in this country that pot use becomes legal, something like alcohol use.
If that were to happen, companies would still be allowed to screen for pot use as part of employment. However, the impetus to do so would be weakened. Alcohol blood tests can determine how you were affected at the time*, something that marijuana testing currently does not screen. Shifting attitudes with respect to marijuana use would shift the need to find a way to screen for pot impairment rather than any past use. Primarily, that would be driven by law enforcement, related to motor vehicle operation. It would also carry over to workplace screening.
*There may be some variability in the effects of blood alcohol level, but it is much more closely tied to current intoxication than anything associated with pot currently is. It is useful enough for use in screening motor vehicle operation.
Oh hell yes.