\t\tD.C. Council Bans Pre-Employment Marijuana Testing\t 1BY <span style="margin:0px;font-family:inherit;">TOM ANGELL </span>ON <span style="margin:0px;font-family:inherit;">DECEMBER 4, 2014</span>BUSINESS, MARIJUANA NEWS <div style="margin:0px 0px -1.857em;font-size:12px;font-family:inherit;color:rgb(61,61,61);">On Tuesday the District of Columbia Council unanimously passed legislation to bar employers from drug testing potential workers for marijuana prior to making a conditional job offer. While the new law, once signed by the mayor, will not stop businesses in the nation's capital from testing for marijuana once someone is on the job, it will prohibit them from using a potential employee's marijuana use as a factor in determining whether to make a job offer. “The citizens of the District voted for Initiative 71, to legalize marijuana, and this bill will protect citizens who legally smoke marijuana but are then subsequently penalized for it through loss of employment opportunities,†said Councilmember Vincent Orange, who sponsored the legislation. “The bill aims to prevent the loss of a job opportunity for job seekers who have used marijuana prior to receiving a job offer but it does not remove an employer's right to prohibit the use of drugs at work or at any time during employment.†The need for the bill points to a widening gap in how marijuana is treated in society: Even though criminal laws are rapidly being reformed, with voters approving full legalization in four states and Washington, D.C. and possession decriminalized and medical use allowed in many more, discrimination in the form of drug testing by private employers is still relatively widespread. Grant Smith of the Drug Policy Alliance testified to the Council that the bill “represents a natural next step in eliminating stigma and punitive policies toward marijuana use.†Malik Burnett, also of DPA, told Marijuana.com in a phone interview that the legislation “will cause businesses to have to respond and reconsider the way they do their drug testing policy.†He said that his organization and other advocates would continue to work with the Council to expand upon and improve the new law, perhaps by barring the use of urine tests altogether. “Urine drug screens inappropriate way to measure people's drug use,†he said, pointing out how marijuana metabolites can be detected in urine up to 30 or 40 days after the last use. That means the practice has virtually nothing to do with detecting impairment on the job. Beyond that, Burnett said employers who use random drug testing - for any drug - are wasting time and money while unnecessarily discriminating against people who may get high on their own time but who still perform their jobs soberly and effectively. People's “drug use outside of the work environment should not play factor in whether they can be employed,†he said. Employment decisions should be determined instead by the “ability of the individual to do their job†regardless of whether or not they happen to use drugs at home. Five states - Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and Rhode Island - already have laws that seek to protect medical marijuana patients from losing their jobs due to legal marijuana use. </div>
Okay...gonna admit I didn't really read that, kinda skimmed, but if that's legit, congrats DC... I, personally, think the whole employment drug testing in the US is a massive invasion of privacy... Now they need to tackle the randoms...
Seems like there is a lot of funny business behind that piece of legislation but It's a great leg-up for our capital.
Personal invasion for sure....Also not fair that marijuana pretty much takes the longest to get out of your system compared to the harder drugs....a drug user i would guess would be easier to get job through a drug test then some one who consumes pot on a regular basis. Grats D.C...thats like a weight off your shoulders.
Legalized for recreational use in our own capital yet states still have it illegal in most places. retarded
I know I am going to get quite a bit of flack from my opinion, but I don't really support this at all. I don't like the idea of forcing businesses to change the way they screen for their employees. Employment is an agreement signed upon by both parties, and, as such, both parties should have the ability to accept or deny these terms willingly. This goes against that idea. Obviously this should not apply for things such as race or sex. But deciding to hire those who choose to imbibe such substances should be up to the business you are applying to. If you don't like it, then apply somewhere else. That is why it is so important to continue to have a well funded medical cannabis program in states where the population votes for recreational use. Oh boy, I'm going to get blasted for this. But so be it.
not blasted but... you have an obvious fallacy in your logic. if marijuana is indeed considered legal, then an employer has no justification for testing a potential employer. by your rationale one could be tested for any substance and denied employment based on that. would it be ok for an employer to deny people employment based on tests for legal, prescribed medication?.. i'd say 80% of american work-force would be laid off then this law is just to prevent a bunch of unnecessary lawsuits from people denied employment because of *legal* substance use. just like it happened with tobacco in the 80's or 90's.
An employer doesn't need justification. They are allowed to dictate the terms upon which someone is hired. Whether or not the substance is legal has nothing to do with it. As I said earlier, as long as it's not breaking any discrimination law, an employer can do whatever pre screening or post screening test they want to. Employment is, as I said in my last post, an agreement between two entities. As such, an employer is within their right to ask a potential employee to be tested for whatever substance they wish before employment. If the employee does not agree, then no contract is entered into by either party. You do realize there are employers all over the country that test for alcohol as a pre employment requirement, right? You bring up medication as a point to strengthen your argument, but what you don't seem to understand is that there is a big difference between prescribed substances and recreational substances. That is exactly why I said what I said about medicinal programs in states where cannabis is deemed recreational. Your logic does not hold, as the two are entirely different. They exist in a dichotomy; either the substance is prescribed, or it is not.
has nothing to do with the "prescribed" status.. more important if it's legal or not. if an individual can consume the substance legally, then denying them employment is very risky territory for employers. plus as an employer why would you want to test someone for a legal substance (it costs a lot of money).. and risk a potential lawsuit after? i never disagreed that an employer can test for any substance, but it doesn't mean they should. and no i do not realize there are employers all over the country testing for alcohol during pre-employment. never heard of it until right now. again, i am pointing out that this law is aimed to avoid lawsuits from potential employers... like in Colorado, Cali, etc.
Of course it doesn't. But realize you were the one to compare being tested for prescribed substances to being tested for legal substances. And it really isn't risky, at all. The piece of paper that a potential employee signs agreeing to a pre-employment drug test covers them legally in the event of a subsequent lawsuit. That's the entire reason they have you sign that in the first place. Because if something happens later on that has to do with the said legal substance, they can be held liable if they failed to adequately protect it's employees, in part, by administering a pre-employment drug test. Obviously this is where we disagree. I am against the idea of the Government dictating hiring practices of private businesses. Is it unfair? It can be. But just because you may be a responsible user doesn't mean everyone is. There certainly are. Granted, it usually pertains to positions that deal with heavy and/or specialized machinery. But that does nothing to dilute my point. That may be. But in America, you can sue anyone for literally anything. It's up to the judges to decide whether or not your case has merit. That's the entire reason the system exists. I believe the negatives of a bill such as this far outweigh the potential positives. I believe in laissez faire (to a degree) when it comes to the interactions between private business and the Government, and I believe this bill interferes with this idea. In a perfect world things would be different, and we would not need to discriminate against the responsible users by virtue of the irresponsible ones. But alas, we do not, and alas, we must.
that was overly long.. so coming down to the point what are the negatives of this bill? that government butts in too much on the interaction between employer and employee? ... i don't see that as a problem. not in this case.
Yeah I'm confused. So you feel it be fair that employers screen for alcohol? How about cigarettes? Because surely an addiction to either one can effect job performance.
That is one of the negatives. And a large one, at that. But it goes deeper than that. I believe this bill may, if passed, end up hurting responsible drug users more than it helps. Because I know if I were an employer that was forced to skip the pre-employment drug screening, I would come down harder on the other end. Would it be logical to assume that an employer, denied his right to a pre-screen, would be more aggressive when it comes to drug testing after an employee is hired? I can very easily see not only an increase in randomized drug tests, but an increase in the sophistication of such tests. Remember, this is about liability. It's worth it in the long run for an employer to do everything they can to make sure they are protected, should they ever be brought to court. Preventing them from administering a pre employment drug test is taking away a layer of that protection.
THIS BAN MEANS NOTHING Tell me the last time you were drug tested BEFORE YOU WERE OFFERED THE JOB NEVER! is the answer you are looking for. Employers CAN and still WILL offer you the job, under the agreement that you PASS a drug test. ONCE YOU ARE OFFERED THE JOB, YOU ARE NO LONGER "PRE" employment. And from that point it becomes a criteria you have to meet in order to actually get the job. Not sure why everyone on here thinks this is some huge leap for stoners in DC. Did any of you even read the article ?
I feel it's fair to let private business have the ability to test for whatever they please. After all, if you sign the release agreeing to the test, then on some level you must be comfortable with it as well. As I said earlier, if you don't like it, then look for employment somewhere else.
i did it i did compare it for an obvious reason.. today employers typically test for certain pain killers and anti-anxiety medication in addition to some party stuff and mj. some are considered illegal (prescribed) some illegal. it doesn't have anything to do with the point i was making, so fine... let's not compare it to medication. you do not sign an agreement to which drugs/substances you will be tested. if you get tested for a legal substance, and get denied employment because of that it is much different then if you got denied employment because of an illegal substance. as an employer you are almost guaranteed to have a lawsuit on your hands, if you decide to start testing people for legal substances. but yes, it's your decision. i only disagree about testing for legal substances. as mentioned before, if an employer tests a person for using a legal substance the chance of something having merit in court is much higher. these cases already took place... so why add anymore? is it a bureaucratic move? maybe. but it does nothing negative for the employer, imho
huh? no. Read the article. the article says you cannot be drug tested before you receive a conditional job offer. I have never been drug tested before receiving a job offer. I'd wager that very very few people have. This whole thing literally means nothing. Read the article again.