How Marijuana Can Get You Fired Even If You Never Use It

[Katelyn Baker]

There's a lot to say about drug testing.

For years, it's been a hot topic of debate between employers and workers, many of whom feel that drug tests violate their right to privacy. Employers, on the other hand, are concerned about liability - and are willing to ruffle some feathers in order to make sure their employees are not operating equipment or endangering anyone while under the influence.

But with marijuana becoming legalized in several states, and probably several more over the next couple of years, drug testing reformers are gaining momentum in their crusade to see change. Not only is there a new debate over how and when employers will adapt new screening rules and techniques to account for marijuana now being legal in certain areas (yet still illegal under federal law), but new research has found that one of the more popular ways for testing employees is, and has been, flawed.

A recent study published in Nature has a rather simple, yet fully comprehensive title: Finding cannabinoids in hair does not prove cannabis consumption. The short and sweet of it all? People who have failed drug tests because there was evidence of marijuana use found in hair samples may have been false-positives.

"Hair analysis for cannabinoids is extensively applied in workplace drug testing and in child protection cases, although valid data on incorporation of the main analytical targets, ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THC-COOH), into human hair is widely missing," the study reads.

"Our studies show that all three cannabinoids can be present in hair of non-consuming individuals because of transfer through cannabis consumers, via their hands, their sebum/sweat, or cannabis smoke. This is of concern for e.g. child-custody cases as cannabinoid findings in a child's hair may be caused by close contact to cannabis consumers rather than by inhalation of side-stream smoke."

In a nutshell, researchers found that simply being around cannabis - by handling buds, or simply walking through a puff of smoke - is enough to trigger a false-positive during a hair follicle drug test. An individual may have not used any cannabis, or not used it for some time, and still fail the test.

That, obviously, is a big problem.

Not only have some people undoubtedly found themselves unemployed as a result of false-positives, but others may have lost their government benefits, or even lost their children as a result. There are a ton of other ways in which failed drug tests can go on to essentially ruin lives, from sending someone to or back to prison if they were on probation or parole, to students getting kicked off of athletic scholarships. There's a lot of leeway for things to go wrong with these tests.

Of course, there are still other methods of testing out there, like urinalysis and blood tests. Those may come under more scrutiny at some time, and with the findings about the flaws of hair analysis tests, it may be time to take a step back and rethink drug testing procedures on a bigger scale, considering the severe consequences that can come as a result of failing.

The researchers from the Nature study even note that.

"Not over-interpreting THC or THC-COOH findings in hair is of utmost importance in child protection cases, but also in the context of work place drug testing and any forensic application," the study concludes. "Practitioners who work with results of hair analysis should be aware of these limitations and the severe consequences false conclusions could entail."

Again, there are definitely reasons that some employers would want to subject employees to drug testing. If you're operating heavy machinery, or driving company-owned vehicles, then there's a vested interest in making sure someone is not a habitual drug user or under the influence.

As we've written about previously, even in states where marijuana has been legalized, employers can still fire you for cannabis use. So, it's not like everyone is in the free and clear - the federal government still has work to do on this issue.

But be wary of these types of tests, and know that if you're being subjected to one, there's a chance you could trigger a false-positive. Especially for those of you who may be around cannabis, but don't use it - there could be serious consequences if your employer, or drug testers, aren't careful.

News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: How Marijuana Can Get You Fired Even If You Never Use It
Author: Sam Becker
Photo Credit: Christopher Furlong
Website: Cheat Sheet

 

[OlderGrower]

Agreed and they need to get off their lazy asses and get with the program, I am sick of living in a legal state yet worrying I could loose my job because I take 1 to 2 hits per weekend for pain relief.

 

[BrokrnEyes]

Problem is there is a vested interest in maintaining the status quo oh when it comes to drug tests. Just as employers use the threat of a drug test to keep their employees in line, which is a psychological tactic, drug testers use the same principle on employers. If I am a drug tester provider, my chief goal is to go to an employer and tell them I can weed out any " no good druggies " in their office/workspace for a modest fee. The employer has all of their employees submit samples, be at Hair, urine, saliva, what have you or risk termination. I then take those samples and test them. If I find a positive, even a false positive, I return the results to the employer and the employee or feels vindicated for having spent all that money on the drug test. He fires the employee which is really no skin off of my nose, and then tells all of his fellow employers what a good job my lab does and I get more work. in other words, positives or false positive equal returning and New customers for me and my lab. The biggest threat to my operation however, are the statistics that prove how poor these tests truly are and so logically I downplay the false positive issue which is been known for several decades ( for example, eating a poppyseed muffin will give you a false positive for testing for morphine or heroin.

Drug testing is a logical branch of the whole anti-drug establishment which has become a very lucrative business for police, prisons, drug testers, politicians looking to ride the moral bandwagon by claiming to be " tough on drugs " and every other secondary industry that has risen up ever cents the war on drugs began. In fact, I would not be surprised in the least if this new finding would be used by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo oh you get people to distance themselves from drug users such as cannabis smokers even if it's for medicinal use. This separation in turn creates animosity towards pot smokers because now the employee feels that association or even simply walking past someone who happens to be smoking could in peril their job.

Furthermore, unfortunately these secondary industries those sprouted up against drug use or so well off because of the war on drugs, even though charge the public is concerned it's failed orderly, that these industries will lobby the government to maintain the status quo oh sure that they can continue to reap the benefits. In short, there is a secondary industry that drug testing is a part of that insidiously uses American citizens Who use drugs, as a cash crop and until our government starts doing the right thing, what many other governments have already begun doing ( which is strange, concern that this is a so called Christian nation… ) drug testing and those who benefit from it financially will not go away anytime soon.

 

[Slowpuffer]

There's a lot to say about drug testing.

For years, it's been a hot topic of debate between employers and workers, many of whom feel that drug tests violate their right to privacy. Employers, on the other hand, are concerned about liability - and are willing to ruffle some feathers in order to make sure their employees are not operating equipment or endangering anyone while under the influence.

But with marijuana becoming legalized in several states, and probably several more over the next couple of years, drug testing reformers are gaining momentum in their crusade to see change. Not only is there a new debate over how and when employers will adapt new screening rules and techniques to account for marijuana now being legal in certain areas (yet still illegal under federal law), but new research has found that one of the more popular ways for testing employees is, and has been, flawed.

A recent study published in Nature has a rather simple, yet fully comprehensive title: Finding cannabinoids in hair does not prove cannabis consumption. The short and sweet of it all? People who have failed drug tests because there was evidence of marijuana use found in hair samples may have been false-positives.

"Hair analysis for cannabinoids is extensively applied in workplace drug testing and in child protection cases, although valid data on incorporation of the main analytical targets, ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THC-COOH), into human hair is widely missing," the study reads.

"Our studies show that all three cannabinoids can be present in hair of non-consuming individuals because of transfer through cannabis consumers, via their hands, their sebum/sweat, or cannabis smoke. This is of concern for e.g. child-custody cases as cannabinoid findings in a child's hair may be caused by close contact to cannabis consumers rather than by inhalation of side-stream smoke."

In a nutshell, researchers found that simply being around cannabis - by handling buds, or simply walking through a puff of smoke - is enough to trigger a false-positive during a hair follicle drug test. An individual may have not used any cannabis, or not used it for some time, and still fail the test.

That, obviously, is a big problem.

Not only have some people undoubtedly found themselves unemployed as a result of false-positives, but others may have lost their government benefits, or even lost their children as a result. There are a ton of other ways in which failed drug tests can go on to essentially ruin lives, from sending someone to or back to prison if they were on probation or parole, to students getting kicked off of athletic scholarships. There's a lot of leeway for things to go wrong with these tests.

Of course, there are still other methods of testing out there, like urinalysis and blood tests. Those may come under more scrutiny at some time, and with the findings about the flaws of hair analysis tests, it may be time to take a step back and rethink drug testing procedures on a bigger scale, considering the severe consequences that can come as a result of failing.

The researchers from the Nature study even note that.

"Not over-interpreting THC or THC-COOH findings in hair is of utmost importance in child protection cases, but also in the context of work place drug testing and any forensic application," the study concludes. "Practitioners who work with results of hair analysis should be aware of these limitations and the severe consequences false conclusions could entail."

Again, there are definitely reasons that some employers would want to subject employees to drug testing. If you're operating heavy machinery, or driving company-owned vehicles, then there's a vested interest in making sure someone is not a habitual drug user or under the influence.

As we've written about previously, even in states where marijuana has been legalized, employers can still fire you for cannabis use. So, it's not like everyone is in the free and clear - the federal government still has work to do on this issue.

But be wary of these types of tests, and know that if you're being subjected to one, there's a chance you could trigger a false-positive. Especially for those of you who may be around cannabis, but don't use it - there could be serious consequences if your employer, or drug testers, aren't careful.

News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: How Marijuana Can Get You Fired Even If You Never Use It
Author: Sam Becker
Photo Credit: Christopher Furlong
Website: Cheat Sheet

I'm a retired truck driver, and I that was the #1 reason for me taking early retirement in 2004. I didn't and still don't understand why my off duty time is not my time to do what I like, and personally, pot was my choice. Employers don't need to worry about cannabis, if we're not using it driving down the road !! They do need to be concerned about hard drugs. I can drink till the wee hrs. of the morn. and go to work !! LOL !! If it wasn't so serious, I'd just fu---ng laugh !! As long as the drivers aren't smoking while working, then it's none of their business what they do when they go home !! We do need to test for cannabis, but a test that reveals my being stoned at time of test, not testing for what I consumed two wks. ago !! i'm 73 now and would consider going back to driving, but can't take the bs, random drug tests. And, by the way,' I use no other drugs,' !! 30 yrs. of accident free service !! Keep on truckin !!