Comments
Anaxamenes t1_jd4xbxl wrote
Part of the problem is it’s still schedule 1 at the federal levels. Any business that accepts money from the federal government has to test for it. So healthcare is a big one because almost all of them take Medicare reimbursement. It’s not that simple because of its schedule 1 classification.
WomenAreFemaleWhat t1_jd52q43 wrote
This is not entirely true. My last job had federal contracts. They were drug testing for incidents until they had a tech get fired. She tested positive after she was drug tested when another employee poked her with a dirty needle. They were already hemorrhaging employees because it was a shitty place so they decided to stop.
Per the 1988 DFWA they are required to have a drug free workplace policy for companies for a contract of 100k or more. However, it does not require testing. Employers would love for you to think that because they may get benefits as far as insurance is concerned but they are not required to drug test. My friend was working at Microsoft and had to quit smoking weed because he was going to work on a federal project. Some places have more lax requirements or may test for it less if the employee has nothing to do with the contract. Its possible specific contracts may have such a provision but it isn't a matter of law, or in every federal contract. The feds leave enforcement up to individual companies.
Anaxamenes t1_jd6kyga wrote
We only test at the beginning or if there is an accident/injury. Every other hospital I know does as well. It could be out of an abundance of caution, but Medicare is big business.
DeadpanWords t1_jd67otw wrote
I haven't been drug tested at the major hospital chain I worked for, and I'm a nurse. They were certainly getting federal money.
Toolazytocreate t1_jd7cqhz wrote
We can’t afford to lose you. That’s the honest truth.
DeadpanWords t1_jd8nzzy wrote
More like they can't find too many people who want to work for them and their turn-over rate is increasing.
Anaxamenes t1_jd6kn48 wrote
Not even when you were hired?
Notexactlyprimetime t1_jd72fg2 wrote
UW system does not drug test nurses. VM didn’t, maybe they do now that they are owned by CHI. Island Health RN contract has explicit language bargained in that forbids pre employment and routine drug testing. But no Medicare has nothing to do with if healthcare companies drug test. It’s all individual policy.
Anaxamenes t1_jd86zet wrote
But the policy is likely because of Medicare. I talked with the head of our Human Resources department about it specifically and it’s because we accept federal funds as a hospital. Now the place I work is in Oregon and I haven’t looked into OHAs stance on the matter but would assume it follows Oregon laws regarding marijuana.
Notexactlyprimetime t1_jd8nkg7 wrote
I get your theory there but it just doesn’t pan out in practice. There are many healthcare networks that don’t test nurses and they all contract with Medicare and CMS. It seems the test or not to test is purely due to organizational preference.
[deleted] t1_jd6kt51 wrote
[removed]
Expensive-Recipe-345 t1_jd6fa83 wrote
Not totally accurate. I work in healthcare and my entire hospital system does not test. We get Fed money for all kinds of stuff.
Anaxamenes t1_jd6ki09 wrote
Not even when hired? We test at the beginning to show we do it and then only again if there is an accident/injury.
Expensive-Recipe-345 t1_jd6lki8 wrote
Nope. Nurses Union and Doctors Union oppose it and testing never seems to come up.
Anaxamenes t1_jd8777h wrote
That’s crazy. I just had this discussion with our director of Human Resources and it’s because we accept federal funding. Perhaps it’s our abundance of caution but everyone in the room knows it may be causing additional strain on finding good employees.
strangehitman22 t1_jd5wi9q wrote
Yep, I work at a telecommunications company that takes federal funding, we can't smoke weed deposite it being legal on the state level
Anaxamenes t1_jd6krdg wrote
It’s weird they won’t let you if it’s a non-safety related position. Most places now where it’s legal know they won’t have as many good candidates if they continually test.
strangehitman22 t1_jd7jo6q wrote
Probably is a safety thing, we sometimes operate heavy machinery
Anaxamenes t1_jd86mqn wrote
That’s it then, more safety related positions will them and require people not partake.
friedcat777 t1_jd5adim wrote
>mittee Votes to Protect Marijuana Users From Discrimination When Job Hunting
​
That would be the quickest, easiest way to deal with the hiring part but it doesn't address the problem of when there is some kind of accident at work does the employee get fired when they pee hot for weed? That and I'm not sure how this will affect jobs that have federal rules in place but you can't address all the problems all at once so at the very least this should be good for a good chunk of workers.
​
And truth be told I'm not sure that employers wont be happy about this as didn't much of this drug testing business start from insurance companies for employers?
r428713 t1_jd6e13n wrote
I think part of the logistical issue is that a lot of places use the tests for like 5 or 7 different drugs at once, most of which include pot.
No_Concentrate9935 t1_jd4j85v wrote
I think this is good. I NEVER thought I would use cannabis, but I currently use it for pain and for better sleep w my Drs blessing. It works better than opioids and is less dangerous.
adescuentechable t1_jd4jcv1 wrote
It's neat, but it only applies to applicants, so it's basically useless. Employers will still be able to fire you for testing positive after you're hired.
dr_g89 t1_jd4mzee wrote
Can we get the right to grow legally at home now? I just saw that one failed to get through committee again.
iJeffwuh t1_jd4ocso wrote
You see how much taxes they brought in? Don’t think they will allow that lol
diarrheainthehottub t1_jd4zyz0 wrote
Home brewing hasn't hurt the alcohol industry. One plant is a lot of work.
iJeffwuh t1_jd51dy1 wrote
I’m by no means an expert, but I imagine they still get a lot of money on taxes with home brewing, where as with plants, wouldn’t it be easier to get starters without buying?
Regardless, I think it’s easy to say there is no motivation to allow growing.
riannaearl t1_jd5gl80 wrote
They'd still get plenty of taxes from grass as well. Like the other user said, one plant is a lot of work. Personally, I'd try growing just for fun, but would probably fail, and end up back at the weed store. No big deal in my eyes. Especially since retail prices are pretty reasonable.
Iwashmufeet t1_jd5wale wrote
It's way easier than you would think
riannaearl t1_jd5y6kj wrote
It's not super difficult, but it also isn't super easy to grow something dispensary quality at home without the right equipment. In that case, a lot of folks home growing will throw in the towel because it's cheaper to just go to the store and buy an 1/8th for 20-45 bucks than to get all of the gear that helps attain high quality bud. Some will go nuts with it, and I'm here for that! Show me your sweet grows! But most of us will keep hitting up the store, because it's convenient.
lifesong35 t1_jd9ny9u wrote
Grow outdoors, been doing it for 30 years, even developed my own strain for W. Washington. Hell of a lot of work, it is a great hobby. Such diversity working with seed.
riannaearl t1_jda1uif wrote
Hell yeah, that's what's up!!
cloudlvr1 t1_jd6tu2g wrote
Exactly
[deleted] t1_jd6xv21 wrote
[removed]
scough t1_jd5owfo wrote
I could have my info mixed up, but I think WA was the only recreationally legal state to not allow home grows. This state's tax system is so beyond regressive that they couldn't afford to lose money to people growing at home.
dr_g89 t1_jd6gco1 wrote
We are 😢
zer04ll t1_jd68ocp wrote
Permit only and they can come search your shit when ever
Thosetowhoevilisdone t1_jd4tm6i wrote
Still a felony to grow a single plant of your own
kvrdave t1_jd51x4v wrote
Preach! It's ridiculous.
[deleted] t1_jd53tuk wrote
[deleted]
dragonagitator t1_jd5bfyj wrote
I used to work for a place in NH that required drug testing to be hired and they simply didn't test for marijuana. It wasn't even legal in NH but it was in every bordering state and Canada so they realized it was pretty dumb to enforce.
KittenKoder t1_jd5hyw6 wrote
A step in the right direction, but we need federal law to catch up to us before this will be of much use.
Zinrockin t1_jd7ve7v wrote
Won't be enacted until 1/2024 but still it's good our government is doing things that make sense. To the other side of the argument, they can still fire you for being high at work and you have to be legit enough to pass a interview so I'd imagine you'd have functional smokers applying and holding jobs in 2024.
[deleted] t1_jd4gzrk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd6rgdb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd877qk wrote
[removed]
Deprecitus t1_jd4i64k wrote
Idk man, I feel like that's something that employers should know about. Idk.
yeah_oui t1_jd4in5z wrote
Do employers ask about alcohol use? Tobacco?
iJeffwuh t1_jd4on79 wrote
Tobacco has become common with employer provided health care. I have had to take a test in order to not pay $50 a month tobacco fee. I could see that happening with alcohol some day once our society accepts it’s worse for us than pretty much everything else people worry about.
ZimofZord t1_jd4tpcy wrote
When it becomes an issue and affects your work.
Deprecitus t1_jd4iv02 wrote
In my experience, those other drugs aren't used as frequently or in the same way as this one. But to answer your question, it might be valid for some people to know.
Reasonable_Lunch7090 t1_jd4k066 wrote
Alcohol abuse is rampant and completely normalized all over the world what are you talking about? If I want to drink gasoline in my time off why is that any of my employers business?
Deprecitus t1_jd4rklx wrote
It shouldn't be normalized.
Reasonable_Lunch7090 t1_jd4slpw wrote
Unfortunately I can't use logic to dissuade you from a position that you didn't get to logically in the first place.
Deprecitus t1_jd4tglw wrote
Alcohol and marijuana are substances that can influence an individual's ability to process information and think.
An employer who operates in a field where it is important to always be in full control, might not want someone who uses these substances.
I'm not sure what about that is awful of me to think.
If you want to do those things, cool. Don't tell your employer about it and keep it to after work / weekends.
I know way too many people who work buzzed or high and it's kinda terrifying based on what they do.
Reasonable_Lunch7090 t1_jd4vtcf wrote
The conversation isn't about people using drugs while working and the bill doesn't protect that behavior so you bringing it up here is not relevant. If someone smokes weed or gets drunk on a Saturday does that mean their ability to work on Monday is impeded? Why do you operate under the assumption that using the aforementioned must also include abuse and usage while working?
What other things are you advocating that employers know about our personal lives? If you have a porn addiction should your employer know? After all it could impact your work ethic and you could create problems by indulging at work.
Your opinion is that using weed is an immoral act and you are creating a post hoc justification for it that does not stand up to scrutiny. This is why you do the very typical thing of moving the discussion to be about using drugs on the job and not off the clock.
Deprecitus t1_jd4wiqd wrote
Things like this can easily bleed into work.
If I was an employer, I wouldn't want employees with a higher risk of any kind of bad behavior.
I am pro decriminalization for most drugs. Weed is fine. People should be free to do it. If it affects work, it can be a problem. That's it.
Reasonable_Lunch7090 t1_jd4wmor wrote
Thanks for addressing none of the questions posed to you in my previous comment, have a great day.
shponglespore t1_jd6m1sk wrote
You know employers don't actually own their employees, right?
yeah_oui t1_jd4jagt wrote
Just...what?
Deprecitus t1_jd4jfkb wrote
I guess it's more akin to cigarettes in use than alcohol, just with a much different effect.
ith-man t1_jd4p12z wrote
So anyone who does any recreational drug on their own time, from alcohol to marijuana should not be allowed to work?
No one is saying there are gonna be surgeons stoned hot boxing the O.R. Though don't look into how many surgeons are alcoholics by statistic, you will never go under the scalpel again...
Deprecitus t1_jd4rxx3 wrote
Didn't say that at all. Just think that the employer might want to know is all.
ith-man t1_jd5bjik wrote
They're religion too I suppose, make sure all availability to discriminate is checked.
fallenfromglory t1_jd6t3ud wrote
What topics are off limits for an employer to you?
Deprecitus t1_jd7the9 wrote
That's a good question.
I feel like your religion or sexual orientation wouldn't affect work performance at all.
Basically anything that doesn't impair your judgement should be fine.
[deleted] t1_jd5bk2h wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jd5bnix wrote
[deleted]
notorious1212 t1_jd4lovq wrote
Yep, everyone walking around out there blazing down like snoop dogg. Goddamn druggies.
DerekL1963 t1_jd4pwos wrote
>In my experience, those other drugs aren't used as frequently or in the same way as this one.
Wait, what? What planet are you from where alcohol isn't used as frequently or in the same way as cannabis?
Deprecitus t1_jd4rrsh wrote
I don't think I worded it right.
People that I know generally drink alcohol during special occasions or like when they go out to eat or something. You know?
People that I know that use marijuana treat it more like a cigarette, where they need one every hour or so.
DerekL1963 t1_jd4shpb wrote
>I don't think I worded it right.
<facepalm> No, the problem isn't how you worded it. The problem is you really don't know much about the world beyond your bubble... let alone how different your bubble is from the rest of the world.
Deprecitus t1_jd4synj wrote
In my experiences, people say that it's not addictive and then can't go more than a couple of days without it.
I wouldn't want, say a crane operator, under any kind of influence. Sounds dangerous.
DerekL1963 t1_jd4te40 wrote
>In my experiences
I thought we just established that "your experience" is... not at all representative of the real world. (And that you don't seem to be aware of this.)
Deprecitus t1_jd4triu wrote
I'm extremely aware that my life experience is different to literally every other person's experience.
I have yet to meet a single person who can just stop smoking and not have withdrawal symptoms.
dragonagitator t1_jd5axz6 wrote
You don't know a representative sample
30% of Americans drink every day
Deprecitus t1_jd5c80k wrote
That's too many.
dragonagitator t1_jd5cwj7 wrote
It's literally medically recommended to drink every day.
Deprecitus t1_jd5d1zi wrote
Studies like that change and contradict one another all the time.
I've read studies about coffee being a cure for cancer and also causing cancer.
shponglespore t1_jd6mamq wrote
More recent studies say there's no amount of alcohol that's not bad for you. But that's really beside the point of this thread.
dragonagitator t1_jd5b191 wrote
30% of Americans drink every day
ith-man t1_jd4ob0r wrote
Never met a functioning acloholic before eh?
Deprecitus t1_jd4s06h wrote
I have and it's awful. One of my best friends is and he needs serious help.
TazerLazer t1_jd4x029 wrote
Doesn't this kind of defeat your whole point? People with a drug problem will have a drug problem regardless of the drug.
vgtblfwd t1_jd4io4a wrote
It’s legal now. These sort of mores ought to evolve with the times.
snowmaninheat t1_jd8agc7 wrote
>It’s legal now.
No, it's not. It's still illegal per federal law. You are violating federal law each time you use cannabis. A better way of putting it is that you don't risk criminal penalties for using it, but that doesn't make it legal.
Granted, the vast majority of people in WA couldn't (and really don't need to) give two shits, because the discrepancy between federal and state laws doesn't affect their daily lives.
I know it sounds like I'm splitting hairs now. But for those of us who work in compliance for federally funded institutions, we get a lot of people who misunderstand these nuances because of blanket statements like that.
I'm not saying things should be this way (in fact, I'm a strong proponent of federal legalization, and once I quit my job I'll probably partake), but they currently are, and it's misinformation to say otherwise.
Deprecitus t1_jd4jpty wrote
I'm all for decriminalization of most drugs. I just think that an employer should be able to take any negative effects into account when hiring I guess.
Synasaur t1_jd4le89 wrote
Assuming someone has “negative effects” because they use drugs is kinda shitty.
TazerLazer t1_jd4wnom wrote
People are impaired when they take mind altering substances. An employer can fire you for coming into work drunk, and I don't see why coming in to work high should be any different. That being said, I do think it's a bit silly for an employer to weight being a weed user any differently than being a drinker. But... it's not like employers don't take drinking habits into account when making hiring decisions. If you tell your employer about how you like to party on the weekend and get smashed all the time, they are well within their right to not offer you the job. I'm not sure why they should be required to treat alternate drug use differently.
Synasaur t1_jd5463f wrote
Drug tests show positive even when the person isn’t impaired is the problem. What you do outside of work, on private property, is not any of your employees business.
shponglespore t1_jd6mh18 wrote
For one thing it's different because there is absolutely no test that can determine whether an individual is high.
Deprecitus t1_jd4s7rb wrote
Any form of impairment can negatively affect a job. Depending on the job, it could be more or less severe.
juiceboxzero t1_jd4xu61 wrote
The operative word here is "can", as opposed to "does". If their job performance actually does suffer, then fire them for substandard performance. The reason their performance is substandard isn't relevant. Measure performance and manage people accordingly.
Synasaur t1_jd53zgm wrote
Not only that, but drug tests show positive even when the person isn’t actively impaired.
juiceboxzero t1_jd56gjy wrote
Yup. Measure outputs not inputs.
bbw-enthusiast t1_jd4pkj3 wrote
if your job doesn’t have any major liabilities i don’t see why it’s an issue. and if there was a way to test people on the spot like alcohol it would make an even stronger case for employers to mind their business about workers’ personal lives.
Deprecitus t1_jd4rvgx wrote
Same. If it won't affect anything then your employer shouldn't care.
Alcohol can be pretty obvious though.
Cucumber_Basil t1_jd4mfhi wrote
Why?
[deleted] t1_jd4s190 wrote
[removed]
ShawnParksPost t1_jd4jpyj wrote
It would make more sense to me to prohibit employers from testing for it, rather than allowing the test and prohibiting the use of those test results as a basis for the decision not to hire someone. I think trying to legislate the reasons why people make decisions is a bad idea.