It is important for employers to be aware of the similarities and differences between marijuana and alcohol positive tests. This article discussed the ramifications in detail. What follows are those points specifically related to the differences between marijuana and alcohol testing in the workplace.
As cannabis legalization spreads in the U.S., many employers are grappling with the question of how to keep their worksites safe.
In other words, cannabis use is on the rise, but not enough time has passed for a clear consensus about testing to emerge, let alone a clear set of best practices.
As a result, many employers are still wondering whether (and how) they should test their employees for cannabis use.
For states where recreational cannabis use is legal, there’s a temptation to draw a comparison to alcohol — another legal intoxicant — at least as far as employer testing is concerned. And that comparison holds to a point.
Like alcohol, cannabis can slow reaction times and impair judgment, which could present safety issues in the workplace.
“The use of marijuana will cause impairment in pretty much anybody at certain doses,” said Anderson. “Similar to alcohol, we know their response times will be impaired. They’ll decrease.
“The reasonable thing for an employer to assume is that they are a risk factor if there’s any recent use at all, [of] either alcohol or marijuana. And then the same goes for opioids and benzodiazepines and other drugs.
Cannabis intoxication can negatively affect performance and productivity. So as with alcohol, employers in most states who suspect their employees are under the influence of THC are within their rights to request a drug test.
But this is where the alcohol-cannabis comparison fails when it comes to the practicalities.
There are simple ways to test for alcohol intoxication content in real time. But currently, there is no test for cannabis intoxication that provides instant results.
Also, there’s typically a clear cutoff for determining alcohol intoxication — a blood alcohol content of more than 0.08% renders one too intoxicated to drive, for instance, and many employers have a zero-tolerance policy for alcohol that demands total sobriety during working hours.
But the ability to measure cannabis intoxication with this level of precision doesn’t exist; a test will return only a positive or negative result. The results are neither instantly available nor a clear reflection of the subject’s current level of sobriety.
“The difficulty when comparing alcohol to marijuana is that we don’t have a cutoff point that indicates when impairment begins in an individual,” Anderson said. “There’s no legally determined cutoff point, and the testing that we implement to determine whether or not marijuana is present in the system does not have any value for acute usage or recent usage, with the exception of newer technology coming forward.”
It’s no wonder, then, that so few employers have a cannabis testing policy in place: “The National Safety Council surveyed 500 employers, and 1,000 employees at those employers,” Rhine said, “and less than half of them even had a cannabis policy.”
Even when the technology to more accurately measure cannabis intoxication arrives — and it is coming — it still doesn’t make sense for a company to model its cannabis policy after alcohol policy.
The benefits of a cannabis testing program absolutely outweigh the costs for many employers. For one thing, testing improves the overall level of safety at a worksite, as evidenced by the rising rates of post-accident intoxication.
The positivity rate for post-accident marijuana testing rose 9% from 2021 to 2023, using the current testing methods available, Rhine said. Allowing intoxicated workers into a worksite where physical safety is an issue opens employers up to major liability.
“Any employer who’s currently doing drug testing should not be doing so without a policy in place,” Anderson said, “and any that are not doing drug testing and have any level of risk or safety in their work environment should be doing drug testing and should also have that policy in place. Without that, there is a high level of exposure.”
But as Rhine explained, a good corporate cannabis policy should adhere first and foremost to all applicable laws, which may vary wildly from state to state. We know state law will. And if you’re under some sort of federal supervision, then you have to consult both of them.”
“Any employer that’s going to develop a policy obviously needs to do it with their legal counsel taking the lead,” Anderson agreed.
The Bigger Picture
In fact, a good corporate cannabis policy should comprise at least three factors.
The first is testing. — it must in all cases adhere to state and national guidelines.
The second pillar of a strong cannabis policy is education. A corporate cannabis education program should emphasize the known biological effects of cannabis intoxication — and the resulting safety risks.
That overall culture of safety is the third and, potentially, most important factor. Testing for cannabis use should be motivated by the push to reduce accidents and injuries, not by moral judgment.
“It applies to anything — a culture of safety,” Rhine continued. “It doesn’t matter if it’s marijuana, alcohol, what have you. Ultimately, what this comes down to is that the person that’s impaired is either going to get hurt or they’re going to hurt somebody else … That’s what everybody’s trying to stop in our world.”
James P. Randisi, President of Randisi & Associates, Inc., has since 1999 been helping employers protect their clients, workforce and reputation through implementation of employment screening and drug testing programs. This post does not constitute legal advice. Randisi & Associates, Inc. is not a law firm. Always contact competent employment legal counsel. To learn more about workplace impairment, Mr. Randisi can be contacted by phone at 410.336.0287 or Email: info@randisiandassociates.com or the website at randisiandassociates.com
