86 replies to this topic

[dfve]

bubblepeak said:

Excellent in depth information.

http://www.planetgan...read.php?t=7913

HI,

i'm goin thru the pain of a job search that will require a drug test....here is some good info i found that I'm sure will be of interest...
Kindly,
dave:nono: http://www.passadrug...s_id=2&x=26&y=9

[irekid420]

yeah you can do all these things like get a perscription try to tell them or you can just buy a drink like every one els

[dfve]

irekid420 said:

yeah you can do all these things like get a perscription try to tell them or you can just buy a drink like every one els

and the drinks really work?
seems like there are a few conflicting feeling re:
that method

[Nailhead]

poppie said:

If a person wants to subject him/herself to all the tricks of the trade for getting a clean pee test so be it. It's hard work but can be done. Bottom line is that any good job is gonna want a pee test. Some lower paying jobs don't care about it. Right now it's about what your willing to accept.

Hopefully we will shortly have legal protection in employment, which is what Im waiting for to get a driving job eventually. Luckily I'm retired and have my pension until things change. I was up front with my last employer and told him I was a patient, which was ok with him as long as I didnt medicate at work (an RV dealership).

Personally, I think Calif will have protection for patients very soon.....:hippie:

If you are referring to the ASA sponsored bill AB 2279 to protect medical marijuana patients from drug testing, (mentioned in this thread), you might want to re-read the bill.  "Safety sensitive" jobs, such as driving jobs, are exempt, so you won't be protected under this bill.

I also disagree that lower paying jobs don't care as much, I think that's backwords.  The higher paying the career, the less an employer is going to give a crap about what you do in your personal time.  Drug tests have very little to do with safety on the job site, they have more to do with showing the employee who is in charge.  Lower paying jobs have more rules, it makes it easier for them to fire someone they don't like.  Higher paying jobs are typically more performance focused. - At least that's my experience.

I am worried about the "safety sensitive" part of the bill, depending on how you read it almost any job can be considered "safety sensitive".  But the bill wouldn't have any chance at passing without that exemption, so even if it's an imperfect bill at least it's moving in the right direction.

[prophet]

If an employer is going to discriminate to you because he/she thinks you will steal or something, you could always get bonded

[joutdhc]

try to talk to your boss and explain your situation, if that doesn't work out there's always fake pee ;)

[Pure Kush Anyone?]

4 years ago when I applied for a job at Best Buy and I was basically accepted onto thier satff temporaily.  I completed their employee orientation and training, but had one obstacle left; the drug test. Everything was set for the job all I had to do was pass.  Now I'm a daily smoker so it was not an easy task and at that point I had not yet obtained a Dr.'s recommendation for Cannabis.  Long story short, Best Buy sent me to a company that drug tests where I took a urine sample with no "maskers"  just trying to get lucky I guess, or I was just nieve at the time.  About two days later, I got a call from the piss test dr, not from best buy. And the Dr. asked me if I had any prescription for marijuana.  At the time I had to say "no" of course, which sucked. He then told me, " well sir I regret to inform you that you had tested positive for THC and we will have to notify your employer."  So I am just wonering if at that point I did have my rec and supplied it to the testing company, what coulda happened?  N E Wayz just wanted to share my experience for everyone else. :plane:  The lab Dr, def didnt ask if I had a script to marinol, he said mj I specifically remeber that tho.

[dfve]

uh, someone pm'd me a couple days ago n i forgot who, i wanted to call back...but weed tracker somehow "lost the messages" try again???

[peepeeclean]

Fivi1, on 25 February 2007 - 08:05 PM, said:

Hi everyone,
I'm curious to know if anyone has had any problems with the drug testing hiring procedures? I'm looking to change jobs in the near future however, I've noticed that a lot of companies want to drug test. My biggest concern, is not getting the job because I failed a drug test. I do carry a medical marijuana card and do no other drugs. I am not looking into cheating the system by using silly gimmicks to pass a test. But was wondering if there is a legit way of perhaps showing my card to the drug test agency,  or speaking to my future employer about it? Thanks for your help and I look forward to hearing from you. :smile2:

Wow, living in a state that where pots not legal we have always had to take the old fashioned route around drug testing. This is a great question and why there are not more post baffles me. These are serious issues that smokers face that pertain to life, liberty and the pursuit of ones ability to pay their bills. no work, no money, no money, no notta. I would have to say it's probably better to keep some things to yourself and circumvent.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[mikebig 9078]

fake pee

[badco]

i guess drugs is not the best way to describe cannabis-meds is what i call it imo

[MedMar]

The Arizona Senate passed House Bill 2541 Tuesday afternoon, giving employers more protection in their drug testing policies when it comes to dealing with employees using medical marijuana.

If signed by Gov. Jan Brewer, this bill will go a long way in protecting employers and avoiding a lot of potential problems, said Joseph Clees, an employment attorney with the Phoenix law firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC.

For years, Arizona employers have not been required to comply with the state’s drug testing statute, designed to reduce employers’ liability if followed properly. Now that medical marijuana is legalized in Arizona, employers have been wondering how they are going to deal with medical marijuana users.

Proposition 203, which legalized medical marijuana, prohibits employers from using a positive drug test as a definition of impairment, said Dave Smith, Arizona vice president of member services for the Mountain States Employers Council.

Employers were scratching their heads, wondering how they would be able to show how an employee high on medical marijuana is impaired.

House Bill 2541 now defines impairment.

“This law defines impairment and then brings this safe harbor protection, shielding employers from legal liability if they are acting in good faith based upon that definition of impairment,” Smith said. “This bill helps define impairment at work with quite a bit of specificity.”

The bill doesn’t amend the medical marijuana law, he said, but amends the safe harbor protections in Arizona’s drug testing law.

“It’s high time that Arizona employers take advantage of the new protections offered by the drug testing statute,” Clees said.

The definition of “good faith” now includes the following:

    * Observed conduct, behavior of appearance.
    * Information reported by a person to be reliable, including a report by a person who witnessed the use or possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia at work.
    * Written, electronic or verbal statements.
    * Lawful video surveillance.
    * Records of government agencies, law enforcement agencies or courts.
    * Results of a test for the use of alcohol or drugs.
    * Other information reasonably believed to be reliable or accurate.

The definition of impairment includes an employee’s speech, walking gait, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, actions, movements, demeanor, appearance, clothing, odor and irrational or unusual behavior, Clees said.

Impairment also can be defined when an employee is negligent or careless in operating equipment or machinery and shows a disregard for the safety of himself or other employees, he said. It also can be defined by an accident, disruption in the production or manufacturing process, and injuries to the employee or others.

Smith said this new law will be beneficial for employers.

“It helps employers define what impairment is,” he said. “Then if they’re acting in good faith, it shields them from legal liability.”

Read more: Arizona Senate passes drug testing bill related to medical marijuana | Phoenix Business Journal