Marijuana testing of job applicants is barred by NYC

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/nyregion/marijuana-drug-testing-nyc.html

by daegloe • 7 years ago

136 132 7 years ago

loteck• 7 years ago

Should cannabis use should be treated any differently by societies or governments than alcohol use? I'm struggling to come up with any exceptions.

spaceheretostay• 7 years ago

Given that cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol, both to the person having cannabis and to those nearby them, I think it should be treated very differently indeed! Alcohol use is responsible for like 90,000 deaths per year in the USA and cannabis close to 0 (there may be some related car accidents, I don't know, but no direct deaths and far fewer related ones).

Cannabis should be far more acceptable to use in modern society than alcohol. Persons having cannabis are much less likely to cause violence than those with alcohol, and are much more likely to think calmly about ways to improve the world.

I can think of 1000s more reasons why cannabis should be treated differently than alcohol by our governments and societies!

lainga• 7 years ago

It has secondhand smoke problems (like tobacco) which alcohol does not

codezero• 7 years ago

THC has many more delivery methods than smoking leaf.

Edibles. Tinctures. Vapes. Salves.

Your argument isn’t very informed.

mises• 7 years ago

Thank you for pointing this out. We decided years ago that people shouldn't be involuntarily exposed to smoke, which is carcinogenic and psychoactive. People were fine with it for tobacco, because smoking isn't really "cool" any more. Now all the young, "cool" people want different rules so they can smoke whenever and wherever they want to.

anonytrary2• 7 years ago

It should definitely be treated as more benign than alcohol. Cannabis not only doesn't impair you as much as alcohol (e.g. balance and coordination), it's also much safer. The LD50 for alcohol is of the same order of magnitude as the amount you need to get blackout drunk. The LD50 for cannabis is orders of magnitude higher than the amount it takes to put you to bed.

The exception here is probably with edibles. It would be far easier to OD on marijuana by ingesting concentrated edibles than it would be to OD on alcohol by ingesting shots. The irony is that edibles are probably a safer way to ingest cannabis (e.g. compared to smoking the flowers) assuming you take a normal dose.

dzhiurgis• 7 years ago

It really depends, but I feel less able to focus mentally with ANY weedover than DECENT hangover.

Can feel effects even 2 days after smoking, not that they matter much more developing. Gathering client requirements day after smoking is near impossible.

Not even sure why lethal dose matters here. Did you mean half life?

Edit: cannabis half life is anywhere from 1 to 10 days. Considering caffeine's 5-6 hours and fact people usually stay away from coffee after 3PM - it's very realistic to feel cannabis for days after use.

grenoire• 7 years ago

"Cannabis not only doesn't impair you as much as alcohol (e.g. balance and coordination), it's also much safer."

Safer, sure. But man, I can tell you many instances where I definitely took a good 40-IQ hit after smoking. Definitely impaired!

briandear2• 7 years ago

I suppose the differences in psychoactivity might be relevant. Alcohol has generally a predictable intoxication curve while as marijuana can have quite variable effects at a given dosage. Basically, I might argue that marijuana’s “safe” dose is harder to quantify. However, that being said, they should perhaps be treated equally and certainly ought to be a no factor when it comes to employment screening for non safety sensitive positions.

leggomylibro• 7 years ago

I think the main difference is in testing; alcohol disappears in days, cannabis in weeks-months.

If your question is, "can we trust Z to show up 20 days a month", an alcohol test might not be a bad one. If your candidate can't be sober for a pre-defined period of a few days, that might merit following up on.

But let's be honest, the laws requiring these tests are usually pork-barrel horseshit anyways.

xorfish2• 7 years ago

Alcohol can be detected in hair for up to 90 days.

ovi256• 7 years ago

If alcohol was invented today, it wouldn't be approved for sale, as it's a Group 1 carcinogen.

rjf724• 7 years ago

Your comment is ambiguous here, but this ban is giving marijuana special treatment. It's completely legal to test your employees for e.g. alcohol use and refuse to hire them if they do use it. By taking away the ability to even test for marijuana, it gives marijuana use a special status.

locklock• 7 years ago

There's a difference between these tests (has this person smoked weed at any point in the last month, roughly?) and breathalyzer tests (is this person currently drunk?)

Showing up to work drunk vs. showing up to work two weeks after smoking weed are relatively different scenarios, to say the least.

asdff5• 7 years ago

The impairment is really just acting goofy more than anything, and if you are conscious of that fact you can put on sunglasses and non one would be any the wiser, as no random person will know how goofy you normally act. I'm not convinced it really affects reaction time significantly, based on my anectdata from gaming, playing sports, and going for runs.

briandear2• 7 years ago

This is sensible. As long as the safety sensitive professions are exempt from the ban (as they are in this proposal,) this is good policy.

flukus• 7 years ago

The problem is differentiating current intoxication/high, which is obviously bad in most jobs from someone who had a joint Saturday night two weeks ago, which has no impact on there work.

culturestate• 7 years ago

There are some situations where even being high at work isn’t really a problem, as long as you aren’t too high.

Almost every retail job on earth, for example. I wouldn’t care if my cashier was high as long as they can function.

baroffoos• 7 years ago

Operating machinery should probably be tested but if you are working an office job I don't see why it matters. If someone is impaired enough that it matters you will see it without a test.

petre• 7 years ago

It doesn't matter if your sensitive professional was intoxicated more than a day ago in his/her free time and is perfectly apt to operate machinery during work hours.

blackflame70003• 7 years ago

The drug test is pretty flawed since the fat solubility of THC metabolites makes it stay in your body exponentially longer than harder drugs. Not sure why downvotes, its a fact google it.

maze-le• 7 years ago

I don't know about THC, but I've been tested positively for Amphetamine before and didn't take it or any medication that is a structural derivate of it. This is a problem that is not very well known, even doctors rarely know how unreliable drug tests can be. Amphetamine-derivates for example have one of the highest percentage of false positives: ~15% -- a lot of molecules in your body have a structural similiarity with the metabolites of the substance.

If you are ever tested positively for an Amphetamine-like substance, and you know you didn't take it -- you should insist on a second test right there on the spot.

Fezzik3• 7 years ago

There are many types of drug tests. Rapid tests are not super reliable. Lab tests are. We call expert witnesses that do lab tests of urine samples as witnesses all the time... over a multi-decade career, one of our main lab supervisors has overseen the testing of 2 million+ UAs, and they have had one proven error that was due to faulty calibration of an instrument. I would love to see contrary evidence.

icelancer• 7 years ago

People test positive for all sorts of amphetamines because the test is a joke, overly broad, and unreliable to boot as you pointed out. Anyone who has asthma-related medication is a lock to fail, especially if they take pills like Bronkaid.

King-Aaron3• 7 years ago

An example of this, the people who work fly-in-fly-out in the mining industry in Australia are routinely tested for drugs and alcohol, so if you've smoked pot up to three weeks before you could lose your job.

But, there's rampant amphetamine abuse in the industry among workers, because that metabolizes in a matter of hours-days as opposed to weeks. So the anti drug policy that bans workers from using cannabis on their time off has had the inverse effect of increasing harder substance abuse.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/ice-the-drug-of-ch...

Abishek_Muthian• 7 years ago

Few days back a lady reported on reddit that she stored clear pee in an off brand 5 hour energy bottle and put it her vagina before interview for maintaining temperature[1]. It apparently got struck and medical intervention was needed.

I guess she must have got the idea from people who have been successful earlier with such attempts, so perhaps the test security at jobs aren't fool-proof.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/bbbzpt/tifu_by_puttin...

Gibbon1• 7 years ago

Piss tests for women are utterly demeaning. In a perfect world we'd throw all the people involved in prison.

jack_pp• 7 years ago

Are you implying it's less demeaning when it happens to men? If so, what's your reasoning?

YayamiOmate• 7 years ago

Be careful what you wish for.

Note that those who take them or are even forced to, are involved too. ;)

close04• 7 years ago

for women

Because the procedures are different for men and women or just the principle of it? It's a common test for medical related issues, is it different for drug testing?

asdff5• 7 years ago

Taping it to your inner thigh also works just fine....

perfunctory2• 7 years ago

"I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices"

In that case I want to have the power to determine my own job acceptance practices. I want my hiring manager to take a drug test too. After all, I don't wanna end up working for a drug edict.

The asymmetry of employer/employee relationship is just astonishing.

dymk2• 7 years ago

That's not really asymmetrical, in the same way that e.g. wage information is. You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired) the same way they can refuse to take your test (and you refuse to work for them).

That being said, I believe that weed usage not being comparable to alcohol usage outside of the workplace doesn't make sense. I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines.

perfunctory2• 7 years ago

You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired)

In idealistic world where everybody has the same leverage - perhaps. In real world refusing a job is a luxury most cannot afford. It is asymmetric precisely because negotiation positions are widely unequal.

krageon• 7 years ago

Knowing of plenty of places where absolutely nobody has to take drug tests to get hired, I fail to follow the line of reasoning that it makes sense at all. Could you elaborate?

loeg2• 7 years ago

Nothing else stays in your system nearly as long as marijuana metabolites. Testing is only going to catch really frequent users, and what, you don't think you're not going to notice if that makes them unable to do their job?

stordoff• 7 years ago

I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines.

Why? Why is it any of my employer's business what I do outside of work?

_Schizotypy2• 7 years ago

Can you explain what pharmacological properties of a substance makes a drug "hard"? This is defined nowhere in literature.

auiya2• 7 years ago

I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines.

I think you would be shocked to learn how many of your co-workers take prescription opiates and amphetamines, and aren't punished at all for it.

King-Aaron3• 7 years ago

After all, I don't wanna end up working for a drug edict.

I know it's a tongue-in-cheek comment, but this is part of the stigma needs to end too. If they wanted to have a toke with some friends at a bucks night the week before or some such, and then have it detected on a test, that doesn't really mean they're a drug addict...

arvinsim2• 7 years ago

A person who is an occasional user and a drug addict are two very different people.

TuringNYC• 7 years ago

I once had a midsized startup doing something very similar to my small startup try and recruit me aggressively, they sent an NDA to sign and said i couldn’t even speak to interviewers until I did. (Consider how dangerous this is given the similar products.)

I told them I’d sign the NDA if all my interviewers also signed one from me, nice way to end the discussion.

My point is, if there is something you don’t like and it isn’t common, a way to decline is to decline the job. If it is a widespread practice, and unfair, then we need legislation.

eikenberry• 7 years ago

"I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices"

Like only hiring whites, or blacks, or Christians, or felons, or gays, or people who went to Harvard? Really, the government doesn't regulate this kind of thing at all. Companies can do whatever they want.

mruts5• 7 years ago

They occasionally do, but it’s not really worth it. Companies have different needs and it would be pretty absurd if the government was trying to ensure that there was ethnic diversity in, say, a stereotypical hip hop music video.

ramblerman• 7 years ago

Well of course it's asymmetric. It's a transaction with money flowing in exactly one direction. You are of course free to not take the job on your end.

I actually like the NYC law and think it is reasonable regulation, but your argument makes no sense (imo).

nefitty• 7 years ago

If the employer is not totally screwing the employee over, hopefully there's a near equivalance of labor for money. Human labor is one of the most valuable products, so yes money may be flowing in one direction, but value is flowing in both.

bko2• 7 years ago

I want my hiring manager to take a drug test too.

You can choose to work in an organization that has strict testing policies, including the hiring managers. Or you can ask your recruiter to take a test. I'll admit its a weird request, but considering the commissions on finding an employee are so high (1 to 2 months annual salary) and tight labor market, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it. I would take a drug test for much less. I don't see the asymmetry here.

crankylinuxuser• 7 years ago

"I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices"

So... how about skin color^W^W culture fit test?

Or, perhaps there's some hidden classifiers that out protected statuses that can be used in AI/ML interviewing black boxes? By the time someone sues, the ML logic will have mutated with more input thus invalidating the previous decisions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/02/26/artificia...

Long story short, hiring practices need to be transparent AND understandable. Because right now we're going down a very bad path.

AlexTWithBeard2• 7 years ago

hiring practices need to be transparent AND understandable

It's easier said than done.

Can you, for example, think of a transparent and understandable way of telling a cat from a dog?

mruts5• 7 years ago

Are you saying that you shouldn’t be able to consider skin color in movies or tv shows? Because that would be pretty ridiculeous.

mruts5• 7 years ago

Astonishing? They own the means of production, you are the means of production.

But let me give you an example of how these sort of laws have severe unintended consequences:

In some states it is illegal to ask a potential hire if they have a felony. The reasoning was that this would force employers to be less discriminatory. The result? More discrimination of black people and lower wages. Why, you might ask? Because the less information you have as an employer, the more you are going to rely on the information you do have: what the applicant looks like, how they act, etc. Also the wages are lower becauase you have to price in the risk of them being a felon.

Employers should be able to choose whoever they think is best through whatever metrics they want. After all, it’s their business, and hiring and firing who you want is absolutely integral to freedom and free markets. And laws imposed by the government just make things worse, and more discriminatory.

Let’s say a teenage boy who looks like a stoner wants a job at WalMart. He’s not a stoner though, he just has long hair or whatever. If WalMart could have made him pee in a cup, they would have hired a dependable and honest employee. But because they can’t, they judge him on his hair and don’t give him the job.

zelon882• 7 years ago

If you're hiring for a $10 job you get what you pay for.

This is the asymmetry the OP of this thread is talking about. Employers want to screw the applicant on wages, paying him market value for his "specifications" rather than paying what the job is worth to the company.

Did you expect gentlemen and scholars to apply for warehouse jobs at Wal-Mart? Do you really think it's right to practically push your job positions to halfway houses and then discriminate against felons?

One man's wasteful spending is another man's prosperity. You get what you pay for.

BubRoss• 7 years ago

Bullseye - I was going to say the same thing. The imbalance and asymetry of information and investment is a huge problem.

Companies want information from you that they won't share. They have economies of scale with many employees, yet employees have one source of income. Employees might relocate while the company just readies a desk.

I would say that a company that wants a drug test should give me the results from the management chain as well as HR.

thr0waway192333• 7 years ago

I'm one of tech leads for a company that doesn't really deal with anything that sensitive but routinely drug tests, I'm convinced it's just a way to get rid of employees they don't want. I have failed the drug tests 5 out of 5 times with substances significantly more frowned upon than cannabis and have yet to receive anything more than a chuckle when being handed the results while at the same time I've seen multiple others fired on their first offence. Go figure.

zulln• 7 years ago

Have you been offered any help based on the results? Not saying that you are in need of it, but if you fail drug tests for work it seems reasonable enough to suspect abuse/addiction.

thr0waway192333• 7 years ago

No, I believe they don't want to be seen to be acknowledging the clear difference in treatment. And there is little doubt I am an addict, I'm just able to keep it under control to where it doesn't affect my work or relationships.

marvin• 7 years ago

Huh. That’s a disturbing example of selective enforcement, seemingly by design. Another good reason to legalize some drugs, IMHO.

bko2• 7 years ago

Assuming there is some correlation between illegal substance use/abuse, the test could be used to identify people with underlying issues that affect their work. No one really cares about your personal life, just use that as a proxy for your ability and risk mitigation. If it doesn't affect your work and you are a strong performer, the test results are not enforced. I think this is a reasonable response.

dsgriffin• 7 years ago

Not from the U.S (assuming you are) and don't know how it's employed exactly, but don't most states there already have at-will employment where they can get rid of people for no/very little reason anyway?

AlexTWithBeard2• 7 years ago

They can get rid of people for any reason, not for no reason.

In real life things are even more complex: in case of a bitter divorce an employer will have some trouble trying to convince a judge that they fired a programmer because he didn't like classical music. And then programmer's attorney will present his version of events with some racial twist added...

P_I_Staker• 7 years ago

Yes and no. In theory, they don't need a reason. In practice, they're concerned about lawsuits, politics, and unemployment insurance.

First of all, if you sue (and you can for a number of reasons), that means litigation, even if frivolous. Secondly, most orgs don't like giving person(s) the power to fire for no reason (politics / abuse potential). Finally, unemployment insurance is a big cost; if you get "fired for cause" their rates don't go up (this systems a joke, but that's a story for another day)

So, contrary to what you might think, and people will claim on the internet, it can practically be quite hard to fire someone. You just can't sue because you got fired fired for no reason, just for other stuff (eg. discrimination)

WhyKill• 7 years ago

This is 100% the reason why drug testing in the workplace exists. There is no other reason other than safety for heavy equipment users. If you don't work in a dangerous place drug testing is punitive.

dalbasal2• 7 years ago

Is there any general legislation relating to arbitrary restriction/intrusion/inquisitiveness of people's personal life?

For a random example, can employees be required to share their workout schedule, or fitbit data?

Is drug testing specifically legal?

lotsofpulp2• 7 years ago

You can reduce the employer paid portion of health insurance premiums and then have the health insurance company reimburse the employees that share their health data, and then the employer reimburse the health insurance company for these rebates.

In my experience, you already get $20 to $40 per month for going to the gym a certain number of times or doing a certain number of steps per month.

dalbasal2• 7 years ago

That would be a workaround though, no? Ie, you're sharing this with an insurance company, not an employer.

What law(s) would this workaround be working around? Ie, would it be illegal to make sharing this data (regardless of insurance) a condition of employment. I don't mean specific that are covered by other laws (discrimination, medical privacy), just an arbitrary thing an employer might want to know/control about an employee's personal life.

xorfish2• 7 years ago

It seems it is legal in the US. Most of the developed world forbids them.

In Switzerland there are some exceptions for people who may operate trains or buses, but even then, the test has to be performed by a doctor and the employer only gets told if the employee is able to perform the task or not.

dev_north_east• 7 years ago

Is drug testing common in the US? Here in the UK, outside of certain fields, I've never heard of it and would laugh if I were asked to.

benwad• 7 years ago

It's never happened to me (I'm in the UK) but I know people who have worked on big public-sector projects where they require that everyone working on it is subject to random drug tests. Network Rail was one example.

danaliv• 7 years ago

Depends on the industry and the class of job. In software and white collar work in general it’s almost unheard of. Go farther down the class scale and it becomes very common.

anonu• 7 years ago

In every bank job I started in NYC I had to take a drug test before I started. Anecdotal... But white collar jobs still do it.

I'm also pretty sure most government jobs require it periodically.

numbsafari• 7 years ago

If your job requires a security clearance... random testing is a real thing. Same with the medical industry.

If you work in a safety critical, or security critical role, then there is randomized testing as well as pre-employment testing. This can be especially frustrating if you work as a contractor in those industries...

sametmax3• 7 years ago

Do they test only marijuana or alcohol, anti-depressant and cocaine as well ?

auiya2• 7 years ago

Yes it is common in most states. This will probably shock people who have never traveled outside the major metro areas of the west coast.

asdff5• 7 years ago

Typically if you drive or operate equipment you are tested regularly. Otherwise you only encounter pre employment tests and that's only found with entry level jobs. Anything above entry level, they are hiring for your past performance and don't care what you need to do during your free time to keep up your groove.

syntaxing• 7 years ago

I'm kind of curious, is it common for software engineers in the East coast get drug tested? I'm a MechE and I almost always get tested.

dsfyu404ed2• 7 years ago

Depends on the industry. There's a lot more software jobs in non-software industries (defense, finance, etc) on the east coast so the proportion of developers tested is going to be higher.

MiddleEndian• 7 years ago

I am a software engineer Massachusetts and I was tested when I interned at Intel in Hudson, MA, perhaps because I would be going to their factory on occasion. Never anywhere else, including at a defense company.

As an intern I wasn't really in a place to turn down a test, but letting a company examine my bodily fluids is pretty insane.

Simulacra• 7 years ago

This sounds like both a good and a bad thing. Of course if you’re going to be operating heavy machinery, or something where lives are at risk, you should not be on any drugs. But if you’re sitting as an office worker, or cashier at Diane Reed, I think drug testing is a waste of time

Marijuana testing of job applicants is barred by NYC

Related Stories