Nurses with Medical Marijuana Cards.

[fltopp1]

A new topic for you all to consider; is it legal in your facility for nurses to have medical marijuana cards and of course that use them. Anyone have experience with a nurse testing positive and not fired?

[elkpark]

toomuchbaloney said:

employers may practice the search and seizure of employee urine at any time they please and may punish the employee for any perceived violation of the employers rules. the employees have no rights in this matter. they may not refuse. it doesn't matter what the laws are surrounding any substance they test for. the employers are entitled because they have a financial risk involved which supersedes any individual rights of the employee.

(Employers are allowed to do this because, in the process of getting hired, we all signed, voluntarily, a statement saying that we agree to abide by the policies of the employers, including their drug-testing policies. We voluntarily waived our rights.)

[toomuchbaloney]

elkpark said:

(Employers are allowed to do this because, in the process of getting hired, we all signed, voluntarily, a statement saying that we agree to abide by the policies of the employers, including their drug-testing policies. We voluntarily waived our rights.)

Yup, pretty much. If you want employment in the USA you must sign away some of your rights to privacy to the corporate master.

[Asystole RN]

There is not a single non-government employer that can conduct a search and seizure, especially not bodily fluids, without your consent.

That being said, we do not work retail, we are not construction workers, we are licensed healthcare workers that petitioned our state, and by extension the public we serve, for the privilege to serve them so we have special considerations.

[Asystole RN]

A nurse was just hired at one of my jobs and was immediately terminated because he popped positive for THC. Had a medical MJ card too.

State law

[MunoRN, RN]

Asystole RN said:

A nurse was just hired at one of my jobs and was immediately terminated because he popped positive for THC. Had a medical MJ card too.

State law

That's not necessarily a state law vs federal law issue, someone applying to my employer would also get immediately terminated if they were positive for benzos or opiates, even with a valid prescription making it legal under both state and federal laws. For nurses, state and federal laws have nothing to do with it, employers can ban medications regardless of their legal status.

[MunoRN, RN]

fltopp1 said:

I have been diagnosed with PTSD due to combat in Iraq. I take two different meds to keep me what I call "happy". I have been taking these meds for a few years now and am dealing with patient direct care everyday. I also have a medical maijuana card but do not use it due to my position as a nurse. Are you stating I am impaired to do my job because I take these meds? thats ludicrous! I also know medical staff who do use marijuana recreationally and do their jobs better than other staff who are as far as I know using no meds in question. I am not stating there are no one who are effected by taking meds, but if you are making a general statement you couldnt be more incorrect.

My original post was regarding MEDICAL marijuana card holders. Not recreational users. And I find it interesting that anyone who uses marijuana is all categorized into one giant crockpot (pun intended) category.

I absolutely agree that recreational use of marijuana should not be a basis of employment, if you cant' do the job then you can't do the job, high or sober it makes no difference, that should be the standard we use.

What employers will argue is that there are studies that show employees who use benzos and opiates, even as prescribed, are more likely to have errors or injuries while on the job, I do agree that those studies are flawed in that they never measured the rate of non-medicated injuries or errors in this same group.

The argument that I think we need to avoid, because it's ridiculous, is that the adverse effects of these medications are less dangerous if the medication is used as prescribed vs if it's not, it makes no difference; if someone takes 10mg of oxycodone and they have a prescription, the adverse effects are absolutely no different than if they don't have a prescription.

[Cdavid469]

I am going to go ahead and bump this old topic. There are a few pivotal issues at play and it is still very uncharted territory in most regards. One, lets clear up this state and federal law debate, nursing is not currently, nor has it ever been a federally governed entity, it is overseen by the individual states, with concessions for pacts being made by several states. So, simply put, nursing is governed at a state level, so unless you're a federal employee the state vs federal issue is nullified. Consuming marijuana, and subsequently testing positive has long been erred in proving intoxication, it is reserved that this only proves consumption, and not intoxification. Washington has stated, similarly to other states thus far, that testing positive for marijuana does not indicate misconduct, or disbarrment, but employer policies precluding the aforementioned use would be intact until further regulatory guidance is deemed appropriate. Basically, Washington is saying you're free to smoke, so long as it is not on the job, and be allowed to practice nursing, but there is no protection at current for your employment status, if you willingly partake in forbade activities. They have gone further to say that the law is essentially in it's infancy and that no case has yet been presented for consideration, but in due time expects to see and make a ruling on such a case. The need for more accurate testing, i.e. testing that proves intoxication, not consumption, is going to paramount in any further decisions. Current testing seeks the metabolite THC coo, which is present in the urine, for long after the psycho active effects of the medication/drug have worn off. If a test were developed to determine actual intoxification, as is the case with most other testing, then it would be more black and white, and much easier to say a positive test indicates misconduct, which cannot be stated with the current standards.

[roser13, ASN, RN]

Do we really need to restart this thread?

[toomuchbaloney]

roser13 said:

Do we really need to restart this thread?

You are welcome to ignore it and not participate.

[klone, MSN, RN]

Cdavid, you raise some good points. One thing to remember, though, is that like many states, Colorado is an "at-will employment" state. In most states, employers can fire, or not hire, anyone for any reasons (with the exception of a few protected classes). So even if the federal government makes marijuana legal (which I do suspect will happen within the next decade), individual employers can still create and uphold their own policies, including termination for THC metabolites detected in a person's system, irrespective of the level detected or whether the person is under the influence or not.

[db2xs]

Which ... is why really, we need better regulated cannabis products and more robust research.

THC is the cannabinoid that makes you "high." CBD has already been scientifically proven that it works great for pain and seizures and other things, and it does not make you "high."

[GPSteiner]

absolutely, they tested positive for a substance that was on a do not use list deemed by the hospital/facility they work for. Definitely will get disciplined, if the act was against client i.e. stealing pt's drugs and using them, termination is more likely, but in Florida nurses get help and as long as they follow contract rules by a certain agency, they only get a slap on the wrist. I'm not the biggest fan of the IPN