Cannabis testing and its effects on Amtrak hiring

[Devil's Advocate]

What you say makes sense. But I would add that inexpensive and easy to use BAC detection (saliva strips or breath) is readily available, but I don't know if any solid studies back up their accuracy.

Somebody bought me a consumer "breathalyzer" as a gift but the packaging inspired no confidence that it would do a better job than a passive drink per weight over time chart.

 

[PVD]

I've seen the strips as well, they are very inexpensive, but like I said, I have no knowledge of their accuracy.

 

[cirdan]

Okay, but stoned railroaders have demonstrated that they're not capable of keeping it off the clock. How would you feel if your child was a passenger on the Colonial?

This is true. Quite comparable to many heavy drinkers who always say . I know my limits . One more won’t do any harm . Of course I’m still capable of driving home .

And about 99.5 percent of the time they are absolutely right and this breeds the attitude that they are doing nothing wrong

 

[Ryan]

This is true. Quite comparable to many heavy drinkers who always say . I know my limits . One more won’t do any harm . Of course I’m still capable of driving home .

And about 99.5 percent of the time they are absolutely right and this breeds the attitude that they are doing nothing wrong

Clearly we should prohibit them from drinking on their own time as well.

Okay, but stoned railroaders have demonstrated that they're not capable of keeping it off the clock. How would you feel if your child was a passenger on the Colonial?

What part of "as long as I'm unimpaired before I go on the clock" are you incapable of understanding?

 

[cirdan]

Clearly we should prohibit them from drinking on their own time as well.

What part of "as long as I'm unimpaired before I go on the clock" are you incapable of understanding?

To me its a question of trust.

If an employee believes that one more glass will not impair his judgement, then he may be at risk of taking that glass even after having checked in for work. There is at least one known case of a serious accident involving several deaths having been caused by an engineer who turned up for work sober but found a way to drink without being observed.

If a person has a problem with substance abuse and thinks he is strong enough to still be able to make judgemnents, then that person is not too be entrusted with the safety of others. period.

Sadly, most alcoholics do honestly believe they can control it and that they know their limits, just as most serious cannabis users believe a small quantity will not impair their judgement.

 

[alpha3]

As some above mentioned, I believe, as far as Cannabis is concerned, that it all boils down to level of impairment. There is, as yet, no standard for pot users, and that's really the problem, though the more states that legalize it, I think that will soon have to be determined. But as cannabis-tolerant I am, I don't care to be put in danger by any drunks OR stoners.

BAC has a standard of impairment, and even though some drinkers may indeed be unaffected by certain levels they are still subject to that standard and being fired or arrested. Some jobs have stricter BAC standards as well.

But alcohol leaves the body rather quickly, unlike cannabis that can be found in hair follicles and such for quite a while. But where will the impairment level be measured? Urine? Hair? Blood? Is someone impaired if cannabis found in their hair? I doubt that but I'm not the expert. Until a medium of measurement is determined and a standard is set I think it'll be business as usual - testing positive by urine or hair, whatever, is going to mean trouble for the person.

I know in the airline I worked for before retiring, if you damaged anything, planes, any equipment, any 'incidents' with collateral damage or bodily harm, it meant instant drug test. If you refused, you were gone, and if it returned positive, you were a goner. Plus, some jobs were additionally subject to randoms, and some folks were caught that way.

 

[cirdan]

As some above mentioned, I believe, as far as Cannabis is concerned, that it all boils down to level of impairment. There is, as yet, no standard for pot users, and that's really the problem, though the more states that legalize it, I think that will soon have to be determined. But as cannabis-tolerant I am, I don't care to be put in danger by any drunks OR stoners.

BAC has a standard of impairment, and even though some drinkers may indeed be unaffected by certain levels they are still subject to that standard and being fired or arrested. Some jobs have stricter BAC standards as well.

But alcohol leaves the body rather quickly, unlike cannabis that can be found in hair follicles and such for quite a while. But where will the impairment level be measured? Urine? Hair? Blood? Is someone impaired if cannabis found in their hair? I doubt that but I'm not the expert. Until a medium of measurement is determined and a standard is set I think it'll be business as usual - testing positive by urine or hair, whatever, is going to mean trouble for the person.

I know in the airline I worked for before retiring, if you damaged anything, planes, any equipment, any 'incidents' with collateral damage or bodily harm, it meant instant drug test. If you refused, you were gone, and if it returned positive, you were a goner. Plus, some jobs were additionally subject to randoms, and some folks were caught that way.

I understand it’s no different on the railroad . If you cause or possibly caused an incident , even relatively minor , the first thing that gets tested is your alcohol and drug Status . And if you read accident reports , even for relatively minor incidents , such test data is always published for all individuals with any power of decision or influence over the situatuon

 

[lordsigma]

There’s no doubt this issue is affecting hiring and it’s complicated. Certainly the equivalent of a BAC test for usage that can differentiate between casual users that consume on their own time with sufficient time to sober up before work and those going to work impaired is going to be required before the status quo can change. As more states legalize pot the industry is likely going to be forced to come up with a solution. Probably going to be a decent business venture for someone to come up with something!

 

[Asher]

The lack of a way to test the level of impairment for Marijuana users and abusers effects us all In more ways than one. The lack of people available for hire in a lot of job markets because of the use of marijuana is backbreaking. It actually forces us to release qualified employees and hire far less qualified personnel.

 

[Just me]

As some above mentioned, I believe, as far as Cannabis is concerned, that it all boils down to level of impairment. There is, as yet, no standard for pot users, and that's really the problem, though the more states that legalize it, I think that will soon have to be determined. But as cannabis-tolerant I am, I don't care to be put in danger by any drunks OR stoners.

BAC has a standard of impairment, and even though some drinkers may indeed be unaffected by certain levels they are still subject to that standard and being fired or arrested. Some jobs have stricter BAC standards as well.

But alcohol leaves the body rather quickly, unlike cannabis that can be found in hair follicles and such for quite a while. But where will the impairment level be measured? Urine? Hair? Blood? Is someone impaired if cannabis found in their hair? I doubt that but I'm not the expert. Until a medium of measurement is determined and a standard is set I think it'll be business as usual - testing positive by urine or hair, whatever, is going to mean trouble for the person.

I know in the airline I worked for before retiring, if you damaged anything, planes, any equipment, any 'incidents' with collateral damage or bodily harm, it meant instant drug test. If you refused, you were gone, and if it returned positive, you were a goner. Plus, some jobs were additionally subject to randoms, and some folks were caught that way.

That is how it was at my job. If you had an accident, a drug test was required. If you refused the test, you were gone. If it returned positive, you were a goner. However, if you asked for "help" BEFORE there was an incident, your employment continued. Although it was never said specifically, it seemed like they were drug tested within 3 months after an accident. We also had it where some blood pressure medications and some body enhancement compounds caused positive test results causing 2 people whom I considered friends to lose their jobs.

 

[cirdan]

My understanding is that certain cannabis-based products with (probably low) THC content, such as for example pills for alleviating rheumatism, do not cause any impairment or other effects commonly associated with cannabis. I wonder if taking such increases the risk of a positive test result.

 

[alpha3]

However, if you asked for "help" BEFORE there was an incident, your employment continued.

Yep. It was the same with us; I made a co-worker friend of mine apply to our medical office for this, after I smelled strong alcohol on his breath several times while working together. He did put in for it, grudgingly, didn't like it, and it strained the friendship. Ironically, soon after this, a manager caught the smell too, pulled him in his office and was ready to fire him. He kept his job because he'd already asked for the 'assistance program.'

 

[MARC Rider]

Times sure have changed. When I was in college (circa 1974), I had a summer internship at an agency that will remain nameless of a state that will remain nameless. Pretty much every lunch, our entire work group, including the manager, went to lunch at a nearby tavern where all were served large "schooners" of Genesee Cream Ale. I don't think anybody got drunk or anything, I think most people just had one glass, but beer at lunch is a lot less tolerated now.

Then, in another agency that shall remain nameless where I worked, the senior manager kept a bottle of distilled spirits in his file cabinet and would occasionally invite co-workers to an on-site "happy hour." I stopped by once or twice, but usually didn't because I needed to get home, and I was driving in any event. I don't think those events got too rowdy, either. The Christmas parties were another matter, though. Also, on a business trip to a state that will remain nameless, but is famous for unlicensed distillers, I was the designated driver because I was on the wagon at because I was taking a course of medication that was incompatible with the consumption of alcohol. Our senior manager overindulged during a night of what passed for bar-crawling in a small state capital that will remain nameless, and he ended up in the back seat of the station wagon I was driving, not quite passed out, but pretty close. But for all that, I never noticed any drunkenness on the job or impaired performance of my colleagues due to drinking, though, as I said, the Christmas parties were another matter. Anyway, it's a good thing that they didn't have a hair follicle test for alcohol, because if they did, I think half (or more) of the staff would flunk it, straight-up.

By the time I got to EPA in 2000 things were very different. We were pretty much dry, and nobody I knew had beer or other booze for lunch. The only alcohol allowed on site was by permit from high management and restricted to beer/cider and wine, and this was only for stuff like Christmas or retirement parties. We would still go out for Happy Hour after work, but always off-site. I attended, but always with the northbound MARC and Amtrak schedules in mind.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Same for me Joe, and I'll not name my Department but the City was Washington DC!

In the 70s and 80s drinking @ Lunch was common among my Co-Workers, and after Work and on "Special Occasions".( Happy Hour often lasted a long time @ places where most of my Co-workers drank after workwhich were close to Capitol Hill, which meant lots of Capitol Hill types were in attendance also.)

Also while on Travell Status, lots of my Associates were heavy drinkers, including me in the 70s and early 80s!( lots of "Ladies Drink Free" and 3 for 1 Happy Hours in those times!)

Since I didn't drive to/from Work( Bus and Train), and never on the Road after drinking, I was fortunate to never have had any problems with DUI.

By the time I Retired and left DC, drinking was far less noticeable among my associates, which made for a much more pleasant Workplace.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

When my career started drinking at lunch was common. Holiday parties came with open bars. We had wine bottles on desks, flasks in drawers, gift exchanges that were 90% alcohol, and ice chests full of beer provided as appreciation for completing important projects. All of that feels like it was ages ago now. On the one hand alcohol is a lot less tolerated around the office, but on the other hand I seem to hear a lot more slurring by WFH resources. What a weird world we live in these days.