I looked over this one initially, but I feel bold enough to speak my mind. Feel free to give me an ethics lesson if you feel necessary. Urine drug screen (the more common drug screen for employment) is kind of a BS method of "gauging a person's caliber" IMHO. Cocaine metabolites are eliminated from urine 3-4 days after last use. Metabolites from both commonly prescribed opioid analgesics (oh and heroine) are eliminated anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. However the metabolite tested for in Marinol/marijuana will be present in urine anywhere from several weeks to over a month after last use. And despite any of the substance's elimination time, their intoxicating effects last even shorter.
So theoretically someone could get ****** over a wreckless weekend bender on some hard-hitting, heavily-impairing, even life-threatening drugs and test clean for work on Thursday. Whereas somebody smokes some weed on the 1st of January and can potentially be screwed middle of February. As far as person 2's employer knows, they were high the day of their test.
Now I definitely don't practice or condone the use of illegal drugs, especially before work, but I've known people to be rejected from employers
because of THC in the urine. I feel bad for them, these quality people who would have been true assets to their companies. If you think I'm crazy, look at the next IVDA testing positive for H/crack/THC versus the next patient positive for just THC. And don't tell me not to judge, we humans are imperfect and it's in our nature.
What needs to be developed are statistically validated methods of empirically measuring acute impairment on a particular substance, similar to a breathalyzer for EtOH. If the drug has been proven to benefit a person with a certain symptom or condition, and it is available as prescription to help such a person, I consider it wrong to punish somebody for using it within their MD's instructions.