quote:
Post legalization, the person can explain away a positive drug test (urinalysis) after an accident by saying they smoked recently but they were not under the influence when it happened. Pot is legal and with no way of knowing if they were stoned when they killed or injured somebody, they get off free and clear. That's not OK.

1. Making weed legal does not mean employers don't have to require their employees to stay drug free. Colorado employers, for example, can still deny people employment based on marijuana usage, despite it being legal there. So your argument doesn't hold up.

2. I knew you were going to make that argument, which is why my post began with this:

quote:
What about a coworker with a prescription for pain pills who abuses them on the job? Where's your oxycodone breathalyzer, so you can test them in real time? Out of all of the legal substances that exist that can be abused with or without a prescription, alcohol is the only one I'm aware of that has a real-time breathalyzer type test (i.e. no blood work).

3. If you're concerned about holding someone accountable for injuring or killing someone, then, as other posters have pointed out, there are tests that can be taken and used to determine if someone is high, but they just don't have instant results. Employees who operate machinery are already subject to drug tests in most workplaces, especially after an accident, so administering a test will be nothing new anyway.

Besides, how do you expect new tests to come out if marijuana is never legalized? What company is going to invest in a product that has no use? It's silly to think that this type of test won't be developed very soon after legalization

quote:
The 24 hour urinalysis creatine test you mentioned earlier is fine but how do you administer it on the side of the road to someone suspected of DUI?

1. Field sobriety tests still exist
2. They don't drug test for marijuana now for a DUI, so what makes this any different? We're back to the "you don't think people smoke and drive now?" argument.

This post was edited on 12/19/14 at 12:26 am

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by reverendotis

the jawbone of an arse

Member since Nov 2007

4871 posts

Posted on 12/19/14 at 1:06 am to efrad

quote:
Colorado employers, for example, can still deny people employment based on marijuana usage, despite it being legal there.

Everything I have read implies this is legally unresolved and constantly being challenged to some degree everywhere marijuana (medical & recreational) has been legalized.

One HR website that lists dozens of court cases with different rulings.

quote:
but they just don't have instant results

They need to depending on the circumstances and at the very least, they need to be specific enough to determine how stoned someone is at the time the test is administered. I saw Colorado has a threshold established similar to BAC which implies a method to test this on demand exists and is being used or is at least available.