ince 1988, the “Myth Machine” has churned out some prety interesting lines that I hear on a regular basis. Tese rumors are generally based on
a misunderstanding of technology, or are just the repetition of bad information. Tis article hopes to dispel some popular
myths, based on industry experience with urine, oral fluid and hair testing, and in turn, will help you and your clients beter understand the testing options.
Random testing isn’t necessary if
a pre-employment testing policy is in place.
This is a common misconception among
customers. What they don’t realize is that according to the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, nearly 10 percent of full-time workers are substance abusers. Said another way, 68.9 percent of the estimated 15.4 million drug users in the United States are employed either full or part time. Certainly some of these individuals are working in areas where pre-employment testing doesn’t take place. It is also safe to assume that some of these individuals have been able to manipulate their usage paterns to avoid detection or to adulterate the specimen that they give during the pre-employment test. Random drug testing programs offer a deterrent that causes employees to pause when faced with the choice to make a bad decision. While random testing might not always deter addicts, it offers organizations a means to detect use. Te deterrent value is the most obvious benefit of a random test because the employee doesn’t know when it’s coming. Tis can prevent dishonest employees from avoiding, diluting or substituting their specimens.
www.datia.org
An employer cannot prohibit
the use of medical marijuana at the workplace. Tis is certainly a hot topic in our current environment of relaxed
state laws pertaining to marijuana use. Fortunately for employers who want to keep marijuana users out of the workplace, federal law still classifies marijuana as an illegal substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act and, as such, protects employer rights to terminate employment due to marijuana usage in some states— whether it’s medical OR recreational. Te preeminent case occurred in
Colorado, and involved a quadriplegic employee who used medical marijuana to control seizures, and who was terminated by DISH Network for failing a random workplace drug test. In 2011, the county court dismissed the employee’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated and should have been protected under Colorado’s Lawful Activities Statute (section 24–34– 402.5). Tat statute protects employees from being terminated for lawful use of marijuana outside the job, where the use does not affect job performance. Te county court, however, sided with the employer, stating that Colorado’s Medical Marijuana Amendment only protects an individual from prosecution under state statute but does not make the act “lawful activity.” On appeal, the judge determined that
federal law takes precedence over state law regarding marijuana, and Colorado’s Supreme Court followed suit. Te Court referenced Gonzales v. Raich (545 U.S. 1(2005)), which stated that “the Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is a conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail.” Because marijuana consumption was not “lawful” under federal law, Colorado’s Supreme Court sided with
datia focus 27
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