Medical pot creates workplace dilemma - Users say it's private but employers may not agree

[Bozita]

POSTED: NOV. 2, 2009
Medical pot creates workplace dilemma
Users say it's private but employers may not agree
BY KATHLEEN GRAY
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER


Steven Karapandza says his use of prescription marijuana to help ease the pain of daily migraine headaches is none of his boss' business.

He never smokes pot on the job. He doesn't come to work high, and he gets his work done without fail, he said.

"In my mind, it's like any other medication," said Karapandza, 28, a Sterling Heights resident and cell phone repairman. "You wouldn't go up to your boss and tell him you've got a prescription for Vicodin."

Karapandza is among 5,108 Michiganders registered as medical marijuana users since a new law passed last fall by voters took effect in April.

Another 2,092 people have been approved as caregivers. About 1,100 applications have been denied under the law that permits marijuana prescriptions for pain relief among people who are chronically and terminally ill.

For employers, the issue is less clear-cut than the way Karapandza sees it.

"It's hard enough to run a business," said Kurt Sherwood, an attorney with Miller Canfield, a big Detroit-based law firm that held a seminar last week addressing employment issues, including medical marijuana. "I can see this creating a nightmare scenario."

Test? Hire? Fire? Medical Pot Users Stump Employers

Employers are facing tough issues as they try to navigate the state's fledgling medical marijuana law, such as the difference between "smoke" and "ingest."

Or whether company policies on drug testing still apply in a state where 63% of voters approved a new law last fall allowing medical use of marijuana.

more...

http://www.freep.com/article/20091102/NEWS06/911020354/1318/Medical-pot-creates-workplace-dilemma-for-many-employers

[kestrel91316]

1. Simple solution: legalize it. Then make rules about being under the influence at

work, with obvious consideration if it's medically prescribed.

[kestrel91316]

2. Simple solution: legalize it. Then make rules about being under the influence at

work, with obvious consideration if it's medically prescribed.

[Codeine]

3. I've had employees show up reeking of weed.

That shit smells to high heaven, a fact most stoners don't seem to realize. I honestly don't give a damn if they use it (we don't test) but I can't have people showing up to work with that odor rolling off of them.

Just eat the shit or something.

[timo]

4. I cant allow it

I couldnt allow it, we load big trees with heavy equip, its a total no go for me, because I am often underneath the tree directing loader drivers where to stack, it's a rough place to work, I cant have someone stoned even with the doctors scrip, it could cost me or other people their life, cant have it!!

[Bozita]

5. What do you do with employees on prescription drugs?

Seriously.

The most "stoned" I've ever been has been on legal prescription drugs.

[vadawg]

6. in my job if you are on scripts that can effect you, then you go home

no one is allowed on the job with anything in their system, if you get caught you are gone...

[Bozita]

7. How do they determine which legal drugs do that and at what dosages? Is there an employee guidebook

... or something?

Seriously. How does the worker know?

[vadawg]

8. with us you report all medicines to the occupational health nurse

she then advises you if you can work, and if you can to be aware for any side effects and to report them. If you cant work you go home, if you cant drive they take you home. Its better to be safe than sorry. With alcohol its the same thing any scent or suspicion of alcohol and you go home and are written up..

[Occulus]

34. Because you're law enforcement. Duh. But does your department test for steroids as well?

We all agree that police, firefighters, EMTs, etc., and etc. should be drug tested. Those whom we depend upon for our lives or our safety of course should be clear of mind, on and off the job. I should note here that some of these jobs- doctors and firemen, for example- are often "on call". There are very sound and valid reasons for testing persons who are employed in those positions. Anything involving public safety or commercial vehicle operation should be held to stringent substance use regulations.

What the OP is complaining about, and quite justifiably, are the more ordinary jobs that don't necessarily require a great deal of skill to perform, that do not place the safety of the public into the hands of someone who regularly uses any particular drug, or that don't require direct contact with the public (7-11ish store clerk, computer tech at Best Buy etc., fast food employee). Why should someone working in a call center or some such be tested for any particular drug? After all, the legality of the drug itself here is not really what's at issue, because corporations are not required to report drug use terminations to authorities as drug related (thank God for that!). What is at issue is the right of a nonpublic entity to require submission of bodily fluids as a condition of employment.

Let's take this a step further: what if a company were to forbid employees from using a legal product, to the extent that other family members' legal use will get them terminated? How would you feel about that?

[vadawg]

35. yup steroids as well, legality makes a difference, but anything that alters perception

is an issue for an employer whether legal or not, though i suspect that illegal stuff is a much bigger issue even for the most mundane jobs out there..

[Occulus]

38. "anything that alters perception"

"though i suspect that illegal stuff is a much bigger issue"

See, those two statements directly contradict each other, simply because there are so many more mind-altering prescription drugs available (beyond painkillers) than there are commonly used illegal drugs (each with more potential side effects than the actually illegal drugs have). I suspect there are also more users in hard numbers of legal, mind-altering prescription drugs in the US than there are illicit drug users. I can't prove that, but given the plethora of television and radio and print (and internet) ads I see for prescription drugs, I think my suspicion has some foundation.

Should employers require employees to notify them of the use of any and all prescription drugs, on penalty of immediate termination if involved in an accident?

[vadawg]

40. you know that if you are on scripts and you have an accident due to them

then there can be ramifications especially if they say dont drive or operate machinery etc, but once again if you have a script then that is different from illegally smoking pot or popping oxies, not sure if you cant see the difference between the criminal act of illegally taking drugs and legally taking drugs and how an employer might look differently at that situation..

[hootinholler]

44. Dude, if you're standing under a lift then you're either stoned or stupid.

Seriously, it matters not what the operator's state of mind is. You have no business standing under a load being lifted.

-Hoot

[Life Long Dem]

9. I can't allow it because I have no experience with pot.

I just know that one time I ate all those brownies from the evidence room I thought I was "dead"! So dead I had to call 911. And it looked pretty weird as a cop in a police station calling 911, but then again I was dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwfe5lH1n9Q

[JonLP24]

13. .......

:rofl: :rofl:

I can't believe that's real. :rofl: Unbelievable.

[TransitJohn]

10. Urinalysis and anti-pot stance in the workplace

It's all about maintaining corporate insurance profits. If you are involved in a workplace mishap or accident, and come up hot for having been stoned a couple of weeks ago, your employer's insurance company can avoid paying out a claim!

[EndersDame]

17. I am pro legalization but if you show up to work high or drunk you should pay for your mistake

Alcohol and other drugs don't stay in your system that long where as pot does. This is a serious dilemma that employers who make a commitment to provide a safe work environment face if they want to have grounds to fire some one for showing up under the influence.

I am pro legalization but this is a serious question that just should not be dismissed. As I have stated below I used to work with power tools and lifting heavy things with Americorps and would refuse to work if some one showed up to the jobsite high.

I hated it but when I had a prescription for vicodin I had to work in a clerical position for my and my coworkers safety.

[EndersDame]

11. I was assigned to do Clerical work when I was perscribed vicodin

I worked for Americorps lifting Heavy Things and operating Power tools. I would refuse to work if some one came to work high on medical marijuana or regular prescription drugs

[vadawg]

12. this is the one thing i have not seen in any of the threads here tonight

why do the pro pot people think that other people would want to work next to someone who was using drugs any drugs. I for one dont want to put my life on the line by having the guy next to me out of his face on whatever his drug of choice is whether its pot, meth ot booze.

[JonLP24]

14. If you're under the influence on the job

even legal booze then you shouldn't be on the job drunk or high. However free time is a different issue.

You haven't seen it? I've been saying it up and down you should be sober when you report to work. Good god.

[EndersDame]

15. If some one showed up to work stoned , how could you prove their postive

test result was from last week or this morning? Alcohol and other drugs don't stay in your system that long where as pot does. This is a serious dilemma that employers who make a commitment to provide a safe work environment face if they want to have grounds to fire some one for showing up under the influence.

I am pro legalization but this is a serious question that just should not be dismissed.

[JonLP24]

20. Saliva test might be the most useful

It can detect from an hour to 24 hours, not within an hour but from 1-24. It may not be the best because if someone did use exactly 24 hours ago the strong effects may be long gone but it is likely to detect recent use. Urine testing doesn't exactly test current use. Say you haven't used anything before that day or within a few hours.. you can pass a UA and be high at the same thing. The reason for that is because it hasn't processed to your urine yet. Nothing is exact, not even breathalyzers so I don't have all the answers. I'm just saying those that happen to use substances of whatever kind should not use them on the job especially if it is very dangerous. I have no answers how to catch them.

[EndersDame]

23. That is a good alternative

One kid showed up to the job site drunk. HE of course was fired but they had to still give him a UA so that he could not come back and sue them. I would imagine employers would be antsy about liability and doing everything by the book. I am for the responsible use of marijuana alcohol and prescription drugs.Hopefully as medical marijuana becomes more prevalent in our society people will figure out new and more accurate ways to measure and test for sobriety.

[vadawg]

18. good god, notice how i said that people dont want to work with drug users

whether they are sober or not, employers dont like drug users especially if they are using drugs that dont have severe outward signs. What you dont get is that people have problems working with drunks, stoners and junkies because no matter how much you might say you never work stoned theres always the chance that you will come to work one day and that will be the day that someone gets hurt. Its a percentage thing that the employers have to play, and the odds are that it will happen one day..

[JonLP24]

22. I know some people don't

Others or some other people don't care as long as they are not using while on the job. It's a percentage thing that someone uses legal booze could show up to work and hurt someone else on the job but the UA doesn't catch them.

[vadawg]

25. yup to me it dosent matter what you are using, it endangers me for you to come to work stoned

all i got to say is if a piss test can weed people out pre hire then i am happier than if i had to wait until someone turns up stoned. Though i understand that people do con the tests and then may still turn up stoned but i gotta figure a lot of full time users are not going to even take the test anyway, thereby disqualifying themselves from teh start..

[JonLP24]

26. "it endangers me for you to come to work stoned"

I'm not or anyone around here is disputing that. I'm glad you're happy they use a UA to "weed" those people out and disqualifying quality workers along the way even though some habitual drinker that *could* show up to work drunk even though there is no pre-test to "weed" them out.

[vadawg]

27. yeah im happy they weed them out because if your using then your not a quality worker

you would end up being a liability, got no problem with people who have used but you have to decide if you want to use or do the job and if you still want to use then i dont want you next to me...

[JonLP24]

29. And the guy that gets hammered Friday night is an ok guy?

This may surprise you but there are many people that happen to use cannabis and do a very good job at work. They just don't get high at work which is what you're so hung up about.

Frankly I don't think you understand the effects. Alcohol is a much harder drug then cannabis and many other downer drugs that are legal and many that are prescribed.

[vadawg]

30. nope im hung up on the fact its illegal, and i can understand people not wanting illegal behaviour

around their place of business, now you may say the guy only does dope away from the place of business, but how many people do you know who bring their shit to their jobs, mayby sneak out at lunchtime etc. As to the effects i think i understand the effects all to well and i get to see the results of drug and alcohol abuse every day...

[JonLP24]

31. Now changing the subject to the legality again

You originated the discussion about percentages and showing up to work high and weeding out all of them even the ones that use recreational because there *could* be one that shows up to work high and hurts someone and I bring up that alcohol is a legal drug that you if you're intoxicated you could hurt someone at work and you have nothing for that. You can also bring a bottle of liquor and "sneak" out during lunchtime and take a few shots. You're all over the place and I'm done.

[vadawg]

33. nope im saying that if you are a stoner, junkie or drunk, the chances are you are going to come to

work at least once out of it, same as most people who drink will at one time or another drive a little bit buzzed, now you keep shying away from the legality of it but that is a big part, people dont want to work with people who are doing drugs, same as they dont like working with drunks. The same rules apply to both in as much as if you are drunk you get sent home and written up (alcohol is legal) but if you are stoned you are fired (dope is illegal), now im not sure if you dont understand the concept of legal versus illegal but its prettyimportant when you are dealing with companies and their liabilities...

[JonLP24]

37. I didn't "shy" away from it

In fact I engaged the issue with you when you changed the subject discussing the dangers of hiring a cannabis user. Like I said, alcohol is a harder drug so those who happen to use it on the job are very likely to get someone hurt but you're ok with a write up notice and the ability to come back to the same job and hurt someone while users on less harder drug like cannabis get fired on the spot. In fact you seem to encourage such an unfair practice of weeding out quality workers(don't give me the BS about cannabis users are not quality users) that happen to use on their free time. I know you're going to repeat about chances while since alcohol is legal the chances are higher that someone is going to get hurt at work by someone who happens to be intoxicated on the job.

Ok since you're insisting that it is illegal(I know the concept of legal and illegal :eyes:) I'll say I disagree that it should be illegal. I blame the unconstitutional Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 that was campaigned for based on racism, fear tactics, and rejected research. I also blame Nixon for all the current laws today and starting the "drug war". Now I stressed before marijuana is a misdemeanor in most states, decriminalized in some so therefore it is not a very big of an illegal issue and they don't have anything that determines if they are into armed robbery, assault, or some other violent criminal behavior that truly is a liability.

[vadawg]

41. dosent matter if you think it should be legal or illegal, its illegal at the moment

therefore companies have to look at it differently than a legal drug, thats just the facts of life. I agree that not all pot users are losers but like any group there are losers in the group and whether you like it or not the losers are the face of the group and another reason employers dont want to employ them.

[JonLP24]

42. So is jaywalking and a wide variety of crimes

There is no reason to test for prior use which doesn't indicate current use if you're not using a variety of methods to see if they are breaking other laws. Especially for one that is so minor. The loser meme is propaganda and most people know it's bullshit and if some companies use that as another reason that's their own problem.

"dosent matter if you think"
I'm giving you my opinion and I know they aren't going to stop drug testing because I'm here bullshitting about it on a message board or change the marijuana laws. I'm just here telling you what I do think which I think is what message boards are for.

[vadawg]

43. yup i get that, and im telling you what i think though we may differ

but i gotta say that the loser meme may be propaganda but it sticks, the majority of the population see stoners as the losers of society as seen by just about every TV show ans movie, and personally i only deal with lifes losers anyway so all the stoners i see are hardly the best people on the planet

[Occulus]

36. .

.

[boppers]

16. A place I used to work for had an interesting solution:

30 day window after a failed drug test, and then, another test.

If you couldn't keep clean for 30 days, the assumption was that you couldn't go for 30 days without being stoned to some degree, and were likely a workplace danger. If you *could* keep clean for 30 days, that was evidence that somebody wasn't an addict (or as much of one).

Might not be of much use to Karapandza, though, as it sounds like his withdrawal headaches are being self-medicated by setting himself up for future headaches.

[Quantess]

19. But, does workplace pot create a medical dilemma?

:smoke:
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Cleita]

21. BS.

Users of MM are counseled not to use it while working or driving or any reason that you wouldn't drink and drinking on the job is frowned on it most workplaces. MM users need to use the same common sense and bosses only need to worry if a worker seems to be under the influence and if it's affecting his job performance. Believe me I've worked with plenty of Valium users on the job and as far as I'm concerned that drug should be treated the same as alcohol and pot.

[EndersDame]

24. One kid showed up to the job site drunk

He was fired of course but before they could officially do it they gave him a UA so he would not come back and sue them . The problem with marijuana is you can't tell if they smoked the morning or last week. I can sympathize with employers who are committed to safety at the work place and worried about liability . I am for the responsible use of marijuana alcohol and prescription drugs.Hopefully as medical marijuana becomes more prevalent in our society people will figure out new and more accurate ways to measure and test for sobriety.

[freeplessinseattle]

28. It doesn't mess ya up as much as Imitrex

which a lot of migraine sufferers take while at work. If they can't go home there is no option. Work is affected as badly or worse just from the migraine itself, trust me, no matter how much a person tries to "power thru".

Some jobs, though, a person shouldn't be working under the influence of migraine, Imitrex, or pot. Limits life even more for migraine sufferers but that's the breaks. I have to be self-employed bc of my migraines, I feel bad enough that my clientele have to be indirectly effected by my pain. I feel bad for those that don't have that option.

[EndersDame]

32. I was waiting tables and had a migraine one night

I had to work until I could get some one to cover my shift and I even had to pay them to make the money I was going to make that night!

[freeplessinseattle]

39. must've been hell, so sorry! then to stress about bills, how fun

and I bet hardly anyone really understood-if there's no blood, puke or coughing, what's the prob?

[mdmc]

45. --