Mandatory drug testing for pilots

[conehead]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cannabis-drug-testing-workplaces-1.4687200

[Moon The Loon]

My HUGE worry is second hand MJ smoke. Living in an apartment building where people smoke on balconies, we often get whiffs of the stuff.

How does one protect oneself from that?

[conehead]

True.  It’s everywhere.  Yesterday I saw 2 separate instances of people driving while smoking a joint.

[MD2]

Very sad state of affairs.

[thor]

Now It seems more often that I get a whiff of that aromatic skunk weed while I'm driving.

[J.O.]

If the feds want to bring in mandatory testing for safety critical jobs (like pilots), they're going to have to enact legislation that addresses the concerns of the Supreme Court when they ruled it was unconstitutional to do random testing without cause.

On 6/3/2018 at 5:23 AM, Moon The Loon said:

My HUGE worry is second hand MJ smoke. Living in an apartment building where people smoke on balconies, we often get whiffs of the stuff.

How does one protect oneself from that?

I suspect it takes more than a gentle whiff of it at a rock concert to show up on a blood test.

[Guest]

On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 6:23 AM, Moon The Loon said:

My HUGE worry is second hand MJ smoke. Living in an apartment building where people smoke on balconies, we often get whiffs of the stuff.

How does one protect oneself from that?

Second-hand ’toke’ could make you fail a workplace drug test: U of C study

 

CP, The Canadian Press

Updated: February 5, 2018

A woman smokes marijuanaon Parliament Hill on 4/20 in Ottawa, Ontario, April 20, 2017.

ShareAdjustCommentPrint

It looks like Canadian Olympic gold medallist snowboarder Ross Rebagliati may have been right all along.

Rebagliati, the first Olympic gold medallist in Men’s Snowboarding at the 1998 Winter Olympics, was initially disqualified after THC, the main ingredient in marijuana, was found in his system in a drug test.

The decision was eventually overturned since cannabis wasn’t a banned substance, but Rebagliati maintained the positive drug test was the result of second-hand smoke.

Now a study from the Cummings School of Medicine at the University of Calgary seems to support his claim.

“This study points to the Ross Rebagliati hypothesis — there is a possibility that it is entirely possible to have THC levels within a non-smoker from just being exposed to smoke in a closed area,” Fiona Clement, the principal author of the study published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal Open, said Thursday.

The study found THC is detectable in the body after as little as 15 minutes of exposure, even if the person is not actively smoking it. Findings suggest anyone exposed to second-hand smoke in a poorly ventilated room, including a kitchen, basement, or living room with the windows closed, will test positive.

It can take between 24 and 48 hours for the THC to clear from the system and Clement said that could be particularly problematic for employees who work in jobs where there is a zero-tolerance drug policy.

“Those who are not smoking can test positive in blood and urine tests for THC to levels that would lead to failing drug tests in certain areas depending on the limit that’s adopted,” Clement said.

The research suggests the chemical composition of second-hand marijuana smoke is similar to that of tobacco, although differences in the concentrations of the components vary.

Clement said mirroring public health legislation to protect workers and the general public from second-hand tobacco exposure would be appropriate for marijuana as well.

“As we move toward legalization in July, there will be a need to develop bylaws or regulations about where people can smoke, and really this evidence feeds into the same kinds of regulations that we have for tobacco smoking, so no smoking in restaurants or public places,” she said.

Clement points out that people who inhale second-hand marijuana smoke have reported getting high, and that could also mean they are legally impaired when behind the wheel.

The federal government’s plan to legalize marijuana by next summer moved a step closer this week after the proposed legislation received final approval in the House of Commons.

It now moves to the Senate, where Conservative senators are threatening to hold up passage of the bill, which could derail plans to have a legalized pot regime up and running by July.

[DEFCON]

Someone is either impaired or not when they report for work.

Why should anyone be banned from using a 'legal' intoxicant on their time away from the job?

Pure madness in my view.

It's more than ironic that the regulator is comfortable looking the other way when it comes to meals, breaks, and rest requirements, but are ready to take immediate action against casual pot smokers even though there's no evidence to back up their 'fears'.

 

 

 

 

[boestar]

When it comes to Pot there is no difinitive measure for impairment.  in your blood?  Err on the side of safety.  you are impaired.

 

[DEFCON]

Naw, that's draconian overkill.

If the government is going to push this sort of thing I'd prefer they catch everyone in their net that's in a position to cause harm of any kind to others including medical personnel, judges, lawyers and especially politicians..

For instance; as I recall; when it's all added together as many as a hundred thousand people die, or are seriously harmed each year in this Country because of medical screw-ups. Why has there been no call for mandatory drug & alcohol testing on the caregiver group?  

[Guest]

Defcon: I would like to see where that number came from.  Even the Star as recently as 2016 only claimed  https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/26/one-in-18-canadians-suffer-from-preventable-hospital-errors-report-finds.html

Quote

“The death might be due to the harmful event or it could equally be due to a patient who is at higher risk of dying because he or she had more complex conditions.”

Of the 138,000 patients identified in the report, 17,300 — or one in eight — died while in hospital.

 

[boestar]

one in 18 Canadians is like 2,000,000 Canadians

[AAS]

The company I work for use to have random drug & alcohol testing. I consulted a laborer lawyer friend. He at that time told me that the random drug test could not give a level of impairment only that there was a trace of drugs. 

The case law involved Entrop VS Imperial Oil. 

“Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

In Canada, differences in the law have emerged between random alcohol testing and random drug testing and between the unionized and non-unionized sectors as a result of the decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd.³  ("Entrop") andImperial Oil Ltd. v. Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 900⁴  ("Imperial Oil"). 

In Entrop, the Court of Appeal was required to assess whether an Ontario Board of Inquiry had correctly interpreted the applicable human rights legislation when it decided that random alcohol and drug testing was discriminatory.  The Court determined that the Board's decision regarding random alcohol testing was incorrect and overturned it, on the basis that random alcohol testing by way of breathalyser measures present impairment and produces immediate results without impinging on an employee's right to privacy.  However, the Court went on to say that automatic termination as a result of a positive test result would likely be found to contravene human rights law if the need for accommodation had not first been explored. 

The Court in Entrop determined that random drug testing, however, even for employees in safety-sensitive positions, could not be justified and that the decision of the Board of Inquiry in this regard was correct. 

In Imperial Oil, the primary issue that a labour arbitrator was originally asked to consider was whether the employer's random, unannounced alcohol and drug testing policy was reasonable.  The Arbitrator did not consider the issue of alcohol testing because the employer's practice in this regard had gone unchallenged by the union since 1992.  However, the Arbitrator adopted the "Canadian model" regarding drug testing and found that random drug testing is not permissible since the methods of testing currently available, either urinalysis or buccal (oral) swabs, are highly intrusive and incapable of measuring present impairment in a timely way.  The Arbitrator further concluded that such testing was not reasonably necessary to accomplish an employer's goals of maintaining safety or promoting deterrence of drug use.  The Court of Appeal for Ontario eventually opted to defer to the Arbitrator in this regard and did not overturn his award.

As a result of the decision in Imperial Oil, random drug testing can generally only be performed in the unionized context as part of a rehabilitative program for employees with a proven drug or alcohol dependency.  Often such arrangements are imposed in lieu of termination of employment and are agreed upon by the employer, employee and union in the form of a "last chance" or "return to work" agreement.  However, where a drug and alcohol policy requires automatic return to work testing in every case, it could be viewed as unreasonable and/or contrary to Canadian human rights law.  Furthermore, in circumstances where there is no evidence of dependency or abuse, but only a positive drug test, it is unlikely that an employer can impose random, unannounced return to work testing”

 

Should be fun to watch this play out. 

[J.O.]

The law courts aren’t the only concern for someone who has long lasting cannabinoids in their blood stream. Civil courts could end up being a much bigger nightmare.