Mia C Hazle1,2, Kevin P Hill1,2, Laurence M Westreich3. 1. Division of Addiction Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
Introduction: This article proposes a workplace cannabis policy paradigm that encompasses rapidly changing laws and regulations, legally defensible drug testing policies, and the needs of particular workplaces. Numerous states have now decriminalized medical or recreational use of cannabis, although U.S. federal law still defines cannabis as a Schedule I substance with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. For employers and employees, the confusion generated by this contradiction is exacerbated by the widely varying effects of the available cannabis delivery systems, the primitive and cumbersome drug testing protocols often used in workplace settings, difficulties in measuring cannabis-related workplace impairment, and a rapidly changing cultural ethos regarding cannabis. Although other articles have addressed many of the broad theoretical constructs, there exists little practical guidance on how workplace drug programs should address cannabis use by employees, both on the job and during off-hours. Materials and Methods: Research for this review was performed in the PubMed/National Library of Medicine database. Discussion: Cannabis use is associated with cognitive deficits, motivation problems, and perceptual distortions, so employers have a legitimate interest in preventing on-the-job impairment related to cannabis use. Similarly, employees have a legitimate interest in behaving as they wish outside of the workplace, as long as that behavior does not affect their job performance. Relevant statues and case law on the subject of cannabis in the workplace reflect different legal models across jurisdictions, in addition to legislators and judges' attempts to manage this tension between employer and employees. Conclusion: An effective workplace cannabis policy must fit into a larger workplace drug and alcohol policy. It should be constructed with a collaborative effort of addiction professionals, labor attorneys, and human resource professionals. Only then can the ultimate workplace cannabis policy comply with relevant laws, protect workplace safety and productivity, and support employees while remaining flexible enough to adapt to changes in the legal environment.
Introduction: This article proposes a workplace cannabis policy paradigm that encompasses rapidly changing laws and regulations, legally defensible drug testing policies, and the needs of particular workplaces. Numerous states have now decriminalized medical or recreational use of cannabis, although U.S. federal law still defines cannabis as a Schedule I substance with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. For employers and employees, the confusion generated by this contradiction is exacerbated by the widely varying effects of the available cannabis delivery systems, the primitive and cumbersome drug testing protocols often used in workplace settings, difficulties in measuring cannabis-related workplace impairment, and a rapidly changing cultural ethos regarding cannabis. Although other articles have addressed many of the broad theoretical constructs, there exists little practical guidance on how workplace drug programs should address cannabis use by employees, both on the job and during off-hours. Materials and Methods: Research for this review was performed in the PubMed/National Library of Medicine database. Discussion: Cannabis use is associated with cognitive deficits, motivation problems, and perceptual distortions, so employers have a legitimate interest in preventing on-the-job impairment related to cannabis use. Similarly, employees have a legitimate interest in behaving as they wish outside of the workplace, as long as that behavior does not affect their job performance. Relevant statues and case law on the subject of cannabis in the workplace reflect different legal models across jurisdictions, in addition to legislators and judges' attempts to manage this tension between employer and employees. Conclusion: An effective workplace cannabis policy must fit into a larger workplace drug and alcohol policy. It should be constructed with a collaborative effort of addiction professionals, labor attorneys, and human resource professionals. Only then can the ultimate workplace cannabis policy comply with relevant laws, protect workplace safety and productivity, and support employees while remaining flexible enough to adapt to changes in the legal environment.
Authors: Catalina Lopez-Quintero; José Pérez de los Cobos; Deborah S Hasin; Mayumi Okuda; Shuai Wang; Bridget F Grant; Carlos Blanco Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Eva M Shipp; Susan R Tortolero; Sharon P Cooper; Elizabeth G Baumler; Nancy F Weller Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2005 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Jian Li; Timothy A Matthews; Liwei Chen; Marissa Seamans; Constanze Leineweber; Johannes Siegrist Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 3.390