Now, more than ever before, the drug testing industry has a vital role to play in
workplace safety. As trends move progressively toward the legalization of recreational marijuana, the general public tends to believe words like, “harmless” and “safe.”
While we all seem to find common ground in recognizing that marijuana use at work is as irresponsible as on-the-job alcohol use, there are properties unique to marijuana that, combined with popular marketing messages, create misunderstandings about just how “safe” and “harmless” this substance proves to be.
F
or those who are invested in legaliza- tion efforts, defenses of marijuana are not typically confined to the
virtues of the plant, but tend to go boldly and directly to the challenge of an em- ployer’s right to drug test. The leap may seem extreme but it is our reality. We must have answers to these challenges because the focus has been wrongly placed from an employee’s right to enjoy a safe and drug-free workplace to the fellow-employee’s unfettered right to use drugs. These are two of the major issues that hang in the balance of our industry. But it should not be viewed as a para- digm of drug-free vs. drug use; it is the harsh reality of safety vs. risk and loss. And safety, being paramount to the con- versation of employee drug use, should be where our focus lies when it comes to the marijuana conversation.
www.datia.org
One example of the rhetoric regard-
ing drug testing employees is found in an interesting case where a Colorado cannabis hash-oil cartridge store owner, Todd Mitchem of
O.penVAPE, with- drew plans to drug test employees under intense pressure and criticism from peers within the industry and industry giants such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Te Drug Policy Alliance. In early 2014 critics called Mitchem’s decision to drug test employees, “drug war ignorance,” stating further, “it’s ineffective, inefficient and degrading, and is no replacement for adequate management and employee supervision. It’s the tool for [those] who don’t have the skills to run a company.” Mitchem reversed his decision in order to refrain from “doing serious brand damage and losing (sic) respect with their key
customer base” (Te Federalist Papers vis Te Daily Caller News Foundation). Mitchem’s intent as an employer was safety, however he was lauded for chang- ing his decision to fall in line with the greater goals of the marijuana industry, one of which is to discourage any drug testing that is not directly related to the Department of Transportation (DOT) federally mandated compliance. To put it bluntly we’ve become much
entangled in the weeds of Weed. Will employees comply? How much THC is too much? How long until the drug test result will be negative? What is “impaired” and what do we do without exact mea- surement standards? Tere are a thousand questions and more. Tese are important issues, yes, and we will continue the con- versations, research, data collection and fact-finding; however, when it comes to
datia focus 9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76