EVERY demographic has increased its support for marijuana legalization since 2005

Yesterday we revealed The Top Ten “Reefer Madness” Stories of 2011.  Today we continue our Year-End Retrospective with a look at the biggest news stories of scientific research into cannabis, public opinion polls on legalization, and statistical research on cannabis consumers.  We call it The Top Ten Cannabis Science Stories of 2011.  Tomorrow we’ll continue with The Top Ten “Stupid Stoner Stories” of 2011 and Friday we conclude with the The Top Ten People in Cannabis of 2011.

The Top Ten Cannabis Science Stories of 2011 (audio mp3)

10. The Carbon Footprint of Cannabis

Cannabis Karri reported on a study that measured just how much electricity we’re using to grow cannabis indoors.

A new report conducted and published by Even Mills, PhD, a respected and long time energy analyst along with Staff Scientists at the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory has concluded that Americans spend an amazing 1% of the entire national electricity consumption, or the equivalent of the output of seven large power plants on growing cannabis.

Since medical marijuana use has become so much more popular, and most of those states do not have a dispensary program, many more people are learning to grow marijuana indoors. The 20 terawatt-hours per year that marijuana growers use is due to the bright, often 24 hours a day lighting and an air change rate 60 times higher than a norml home. Even a modest indoor garden can have the same energy consumption rate of an entire data center. Since indoor cultivation of cannabis is a necessity to hide operations from authorities and others the energy bill to growers is about $5 billion each year. That extra energy to produce American cannabis is equal to the energy consumption of an extra 2 million average US homes. It also, unfortunately, produces greenhouse gas pollution equal to 3 million cars according to the new research.

9. Pot smokers are thinner and smarter than average

We have all suffered through jokes about cannabis consumers being fat, stupid couch potatoes.  So it was a joy in 2011 when two international studies found us to be thinner than our non-toking counterparts…

“We found that cannabis users are less likely to be obese than non-users,” [researchers said]. “We were so surprised, we thought we had [made] a mistake. Or that our results were due to the sample we studied. So we turned to another completely independent sample and found exactly the same association.”

…and smarter, too!

A new British study finds … men with high childhood IQs were up to two times more likely to use illegal drugs than their lower-scoring counterparts. Girls with high IQs were up to three times more likely to use drugs as adults. A high IQ is defined as a score between 107 and 158. An average IQ is 100. The study appears in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

None of this means taking up pot smoking is going to shed points and boost IQ.  It does mean that some popular stereotypes about us are completely unfounded.

8. Two-thirds of patients surveyed substitute marijuana for prescription medications

Many a medical marijuana activist can tell anecdotes of patients who’ve reduced or eliminated their need for opiate pain killers by substituting cannabis.  This year, Berkeley Patients Group surveyed their patients and found two-out-of-three had done just that.

In an anonymous survey, 66% of 350 clients at the Berkeley (Calif.) Patients Group, a medical marijuana dispensary, said that they use marijuana as a prescription drug substitute. Their reasons: Cannabis offered better symptom control with fewer side effects than did prescription drugs.

Those with pain symptoms said that marijuana has less addiction potential than do opioids. Others said marijuana helped to reduce the dose of other medications.

Speaking of the addiction potential of opioids…

7. Oxycontin is five times the “gateway drug” as marijuana

Prohibitionists have been using the “Gateway Drug” scare for years to frighten the public about legalization.  Despite every study blowing the concept out of the water, it still resonates with a large segment of the voters.  So I decided to take a look at the data to find out which drug is really the one with the greatest correlation to hard drug use, and it definitely wasn’t cannabis!

We cross-referenced the NSDUH numbers based on whether someone had ever tried marijuana. We found that only 1.5% of people who have toked became monthly cocaine users. For ecstasy, crack, meth, heroin, LSD, and PCP, less than 1% of the people who’ve tried pot are using those drugs regularly. Meanwhile, 2.9% of the people who’ve ever tried an legal analgesic (pain reliever) are regular cocaine users. For ecstasy, crack, and meth, more than 1% of who tried analgesics are regular users. People who tried analgesics are more than twice as likely as people who tried pot to use heroin regularly and three times more likely to use LSD regularly.

But if opponents want to cling to the idea that we should do everything in our power to stop someone from smoking that first marijuana joint, lest they become illegal drug addicts, then it is time to prohibit Vicodin, Lortab, Lorcet, and Oxycontin, those powerful legal opioid pain killers. The first Vicodin/Lortab/Lorcet leads to almost three times the risk of becoming a non-pot illegal drug user than the first joint and almost the same risk as smoking a joint every month. That first Oxycontin is more than five times the risk for drug abuse than the first joint.

6. Drug testing is still unreliable, inaccurate, unnecessary, invasive, and counter-productive

We drug test our citizens when we suspect they’re committing a crime, when they’re applying for a job, when they’re going to school, and when they’re in an accident.  Yet drug detection for marijuana is so unreliable and unscientific that its use is an affront to all free people.

First it is the “drug dog” that police and courts believe are akin to infallible scientific instruments instead of animals with instincts to please their human masters.

The accuracy of drug- and explosives-sniffing dogs is affected by human handlers’ beliefs, possibly in response to subtle, unintentional cues, UC Davis researchers have found.

The study, published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition, found that detection-dog teams erroneously “alerted,” or identified a scent, when there was no scent present more than 200 times — particularly when the handler believed that there was scent present.

Next it is the “drug lab” that may mishandle as many as one in ten tests.

An Indiana state lab wrongly reported 1 in 10 marijuana cases as positive, including some that were deliberately manipulated, an audit report indicated.

The audit’s findings showed errors in about 200 of 2,000 marijuana tests reported to law enforcement as having positive results, the Star said. This includes about 50 results the report said were consciously manipulated by lab workers.

Part of the justification for testing us for employment is workplace safety.  Yet, in medical marijuana states where tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens are legally using cannabis, we’ve seen drastic declines in workplace danger.

Prior to the beginning of the medical marijuana program [in Oregon], workplace injuries and illnesses that contributed to a lost workday stood at 3.4 per 100 full-time workers; in 2009 that rate is 2.3 per 100, a decline of 32%.  No-time-lost injuries and illnesses declined 40%, from 3.5 to 2.1 per 100.  Fatalities are down from 3.3 to 1.9 per 100, a drop of 42%.

These declines occurred while the medical marijuana patient registry grew by an average of a little more than 50% per year.

Another egregious use of drug testing is to make it a requirement of citizens seeking welfare assistance.  Florida’s law to do just that has been blocked while its (un-)constitutionality is determined, but in the time it was in effect, it cost Florida more than it saved.  It also found that welfare recipients were less likely to turn up positive than the general public.

The Department of Central Florida’s (DCF) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed.

DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test out of his or her own pocket and then the state reimburses him if they test comes back negative.

Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

Finally, the unintended consequences of drug testing became more apparent.  When marijuana is the drug that is the hardest to conceal on a drug test, people will turn to drugs that are easier to conceal.

As I looked at the data, I noticed that in the span from 2005 to 2011, the positive test rate for marijuana for all workplace drug tests (pre-employment, random, and post-accident) declined 20%, from 2.5% of approximately 2.4 million tests to 2.0%.  That’s about 12,000 fewer cannabis consumers who were caught by a pee test.

Meanwhile, oxycodone positives have increased 96% for all urine testing, although these tests are administered about one tenth as often (280,000) for oxycodone as for cannabis (2,400,000).  This despite the facts that while marijuana metabolites may be detected in urine for weeks, oxycodone metabolites are flushed from one’s system in two or three days.  Furthermore, random positives for oxycodone (1.20%) are almost twice as great and post-accident positives for oxycodone (1.80%) are nearly three-times greater than pre-employment positives for oxycodone (0.65%), which suggests to me that the pre-employment screens don’t work very well at keeping oxycodone users out of the workplace.

5. For past two years, more Americans arrested for marijuana than all other drugs combined despite arrest protection for America’s One Million Legal Marijuana Users

When somebody mentions “The War on Drugs”, remind them what we’re really talking about is a “War on Marijuana”.

Nationally, there were 1,638,846 drug arrests reported to the FBI, with 52.1% of those arrests for marijuana charges.  Last year, 51.6% of all drug arrests were for marijuana, showing a slight increase in marijuana as the majority of all drug arrests.  The last time marijuana made up a majority of the “War on Drugs” was 1985, when 55.6% of all drug arrests were for marijuana.

Keep in mind that these annual marijuana arrests continue to climb even as we reduce the number of marijuana users eligible for arrest in the medical marijuana state, users who grow and use the most marijuana.

Between one to one-and-a-half million people are legally authorized by their state to use marijuana in the United States, according to data compiled by NORML from state medical marijuana registries and patient estimates.  Assuming usage of one-half to one gram of cannabis medicine per day per patient and an average retail price of $320 per ounce, these legal consumers represent a $2.3 to $6.2 billion dollar market annually.

4. Drug Czar claims medical marijuana makes more young people smoke pot, despite fewer teens smoking pot

A popular refrain of the Drug Czar is that by calling marijuana “medicine”, we lead young people to think it is less dangerous, and therefore, use goes up.

“Emerging research reveals potential links between state laws permitting access to smoked medical marijuana and higher rates of marijuana use,” said Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy. “In light of what we know regarding the serious harm of illegal drug use, I urge every family – but particularly those in states targeted by pro-drug political campaigns – to redouble their efforts to shield young people from serious harm by educating them about the real health and safety consequences caused by illegal drug use.”

Except that medical marijuana’s been around on the West Coast for over a dozen years.  Between 2003 and 2009, as more states have adopted medical marijuana, nationally the rate of monthly teen use is on the decline.

In fact, eleven of the thirteen states that had medical marijuana as of 2009 saw declines in teen marijuana use, and the five that added it after 2003 saw double-digit declines.

From 2003 to 2009 in California, monthly teen use is up only 0.26%.  In Colorado, teen use is up 3.77% in that time frame.  Yet Wyoming, a state without medical marijuana, saw the greatest increase of 5.18%.  Furthermore, looking back before 2003, to 1996 and 1998 when the West Coast legalized medical marijuana, teen use is lower now than then.

3. The people really, really want to ask the President about the legalization of marijuana that half of them support

This year, the esteemed Gallup Poll finally recorded half of the US population in support of legalizing marijuana.

Gallup reports that the 50% nationwide support for legalization also represents the first time support has outweighed opposition.  Only 46% of Americans believe marijuana should remain criminalized, with 4% undecided.

Support for marijuana legalization remains greatest in the Western states (55%) and majorities support legalization in the Midwest (54%) and East (51%).  Only voters in the South still oppose marijuana legalization (44%).  Men still support legalization at a much greater rate than women (55% vs. 46%).

Support is also greatest among younger Americans (62%), Democrats (57%), and liberals (69%).  However, support for legalization has increased even in demographics generally opposed to legalization.  Compared to Gallup’s poll last year, support increased 4% points in the South, 12% points in the Midwest, and 6% points among 50-64, but fell 1% among 65+.  Support rose 6% points among Republicans, and 4% points among conservatives. Marijuana legalization is becoming more popular with just about everyone.

President Obama, seeking input from the people on policy questions, was stunned once again to find…

On the “We the People” petitions site of Whitehouse.gov, as of this writing, NORML’s “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol” petition is #1 by a long shot.  It has garnered over 42,000 signatures.  It needed 5,000 signatures in 30 days to generate an official response from the administration, a figure it had topped in just over three hours.

And when he asked for videos from citizens on policy issues, another stunning result…

The top question, submitted by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, garnered 13,842 votes – over 1% of all votes cast (people could vote for more than one question).

As a police officer, I saw how waging the war on drugs has cost a trillion dollars and thousands of lives but does nothing to reduce drug use. Should we discuss legalizing marijuana and other drugs, which would eliminate the violent criminal market?

Of the 193,060 people who voted more than 7% voted for the LEAP question.  That’s about one in fourteen people who took the time to Ask Obama.

2. National Cancer Institute drama over anti-tumoral effects of cannabis

A very high-profile battle over scientific integrity played itself out on the webpage of Cancer.gov, the government’s site for the National Cancer Institute.  It began when the site surprisingly updated its summary page on cannabis and cannabinoids.

The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. [9-11] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats.

Then it appeared that somebody pressured NCI to revise its update to better align with the government’s prohibition of cannabis.  The paragraphs above were removed and replaced with:

The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. Though no relevant surveys of practice patterns exist, it appears that physicians caring for cancer patients who prescribe medicinal Cannabis predominantly do so for symptom management.

Then NCI updated the “clinical studies” portion of the website to again highlight the anti-tumoral effects:

One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.

Decreased incidences of benign tumors(polyps and adenomas) in other organs(mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas)were also noted in the rats.

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumorangiogenesis and metastasis.

Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death.

1. Colorado’s 5ng/mL per se DUID bill dies again as new research backs higher thresholds for regular users

We tackled drug testing above in #6, but this story takes #1 for showing how science and the scientific method can actually beat back prohibition.  Colorado had proposed a 5ng of THC per milliliter of blood (5ng/mL) per se DUID, meaning: if you test positive on a drug test above 5ng/mL, you’re automatically guilty of DUI, whether you were impaired or not.

Naturally, many medical marijuana patients in Colorado complained that they are such frequent and heavy users of cannabis that they would never be under such a threshold.  Furthermore, most of them have developed a tolerance to cannabis’ effects that allows them to drive under its influence without impairment, much as we understand an “until you know how [Pill X] affects you, do not drive or operate heavy machinery” warning on a pharmaceutical.

The “pot critic” of Denver’s WestWord, William Breathes, decided to become the experiment by abstaining from cannabis use under controlled conditions.  After sixteen hours and a night’s sleep, upon awakening, presumably clean and sober, Breathes was tested at 13ng/mL.  This anecdotal report, splashed all over the Denver media, was also backed up by the latest scientific research:

It concludes: “A threshold of 2-3ng/ml THC as an indicator of recent drug use (i.e, smoking within the previous 6 hours) as recommended by Huestis et al appears to be valid only for occasional users. Heavy users might exhibit measurable cannabinoid concentrations in blood, even if the last cannabis use was more than 24 hours ago.… Therefore, cannabinoid concentrations in heavy users’ blood from a later elimination phase might not be distinguished from an acute use of an occasional user.”

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2010-11-19.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

1. Michele Leonhart, nominee for DEA administrator, vows to step up raids against medical marijuana states
2. New drug tests emerge to detect metabolites of K2, Spice, and other synthetic cannabinoids
3. Principal suspends middle schoolers for posting pro-marijuana signs in school
4. Soldiers busted for breaking into dispensary claim they did so to destroy the marijuana
5. Activists urge calls to New Jersey legislature to repeal restrictive medical marijuana rules

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Urb Thrasher and Urb Age Designs

• Rockin’ Friday: Hognose – “Weedbilly”

CelebStoner.com Entertainment Report with Steve Bloom, co-author of Pot Culture: The A-Z Guide to Stoner Language and Life

• Tim Lincecum’s World Series win, Tampa Bay Bucs receivers and DUI, Zach Galifianakis smoking pot on Bill Maher show

NORML Newsmakers

• Filmmaker Doug Ross on new documentary, “It’s a NORML Life”

Few things about the marijuana issue inflame me more than workplace and student drug testing.  I’m still trying to imagine how, if you had a time machine, we could visit Thomas Jefferson and the other hemp farmers discussing our Bill of Rights and explain to them in America of the future, employers routinely seize citizens’ urine to determine their fitness for employment and discriminate against them if hemp shows up in their system.  I think Ben Franklin would actually LOL.

Of course we all know that cannabis metabolites show nothing about one’s current impairment and will remain in one’s system for weeks or months following cessation of use.  We’ve talked about the perverse incentive this creates to use alcohol and other toxic addictive drugs that clear from one’s system in two to three days.  And now, this information from the American Psychiatric Association leads me to better understand why we’re seeing such an uptick in prescription drug abuse.

Medical News: APA: Drug Test Results Often Flawed – in Meeting Coverage, APA from MedPage Today.

NEW ORLEANS — That poppy seeds can lead to false-positive results on tests for opioid abuse is not just an urban legend, researchers said [at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting last May].

Another example is that most standard drug tests don’t screen for the opioid drug oxycodone, as well as a handful of other opioids including methadone and fentanyl, noted Smith, who conducted the research while he was at Boston Medical Center.

Opioid tests screen for morphine and codeine, which are two of the most common metabolites of many — but not all — opioids. They’re not metabolites of oxycodone, methadone, fentanyl, tramadol (Ultram), and buprenorphine (Subutex, Suboxone), Smith said.

Similarly, only certain metabolites of benzodiazepines are detected on most assays. That means diazepam, nordiazepam, and oxazepam (Serax) will be detected, but alprazolam (Xanax), lorazepam (Ativan), and clonazepam (Klonopin) aren’t frequently screened.

In their review, the researchers found that drug tests generally have a sensitivity of 90% to 95%, and a specificity of 85% to 90%. These numbers are a “pretty good basis” for making clinical decisions, Smith said, but that means “one in 20 [tested patients] are going to have inaccurate results, and those are more likely to be false positive than false negative.”

Many substances aside from poppy seeds cause these false-positives. Cold medications can give a positive read on amphetamines, as can bupropion (Wellbutrin) and tricyclic antidepressants.

Sertraline (Zoloft) and oxaprozin (Daypro) can alert physicians to a benzodiazepine problem when there is none.

The HIV medication efavirenz (Sustiva) can come up as a positive for marijuana use, and dextromethorphan, rifampin, and quinolones could show as an opioid problem.

There is a Jackson’s Food Store – a gas station / convenience store chain out West – that is two blocks from my home.  I walk my dog there every day as I pick up my fountain Diet Coke refill for lunch.  I’ve gotten to speak with most of the employees about marijuana – my pot leaf hat leads to lots of these conversations.  One of the kids pumping gas there is a sweet young man who is a migraine sufferer whom I’ve told would be a shoo-in for a medical marijuana card.

Then one day recently I notice that there are a whole bunch of new workers.  I find out that the store had come up $1,800 short in an audit, so in response, Jackson’s was drug testing all their employees.  Three employees admitted to occasional marijuana use and now they are unemployed.  There is no evidence that any of them were filching cash from register and since the firings the shortages from the till haven’t ceased.  But Jackson’s feels better, I guess, for having some scapegoats to blame.

Ironically, the one young man who could really use medical marijuana still has his job.  ”I only toke a tiny bit and only if the pain is just unbearable,” he told me, “because I just can’t lose this job – I have to take care of my wife and kid.  Luckily I hadn’t had a bad migraine for a few weeks, so I was able to pass the test.”  Even if he had a medical marijuana card, his job wouldn’t be protected.  My wife, a migraine patient herself, volunteered that her regular use of cannabis has turned what used to be weekly migraines to seasonal migraines – maybe four a year – and when they do come, they are moderate and not “drill a hole in my head” painful like before.

Now some would say, “Well, they knew the rules on drug testing; they don’t have to work there.”  Keep in mind that Portland, Oregon is suffering some >10% unemployment.  And then try to imagine your life if finding aspirin or ibuprofen or acetaminophen or naproxen in your system meant the end of your job and you have a splitting headache.

If you smoked a joint last week, in eleven states you're as bad as a drunk driver.

From the Obama Administration’s recently released National Drug Control Strategy (hat tip to NORML reader Glen):

Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws [ONDCP]
State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Therefore, few drivers are identified, prosecuted, or convicted for DUID. Law enforcement personnel usually cite individuals with the easier to prove driving while intoxicated (DWI) alcohol charges. Unclear laws provide vague signals both to drivers and to law enforcement, thereby minimizing the possible preventive benefit of DUID statutes. Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver’s body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.

Here are the states President Obama would like to emulate:

1. Arizona: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.
2. Delaware: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites.
3. Georgia: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 12 months upon conviction.
4. Illinois: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 12 months upon conviction.
5. Indiana: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 60 days upon conviction.
6. Michigan: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 93 days upon conviction, vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days.
7. Nevada: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites.
8. Ohio: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 72 hours in jail, up to 6 months upon conviction, 6 month to 3 year license suspension.
9. Pennsylvania: DUID for cannabis metabolites, amount unclear.
10. South Dakota: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites for persons under the age of 21.
11. Utah: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 48 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

Nine of the fifteen states cited have “zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites”.  What this means is that if the inactive (read: non-impairing) THC metabolite (THC-COOH) is detected in the urine of a driver, that driver is impaired in the eyes of the law.  (There are actually 17 states that have per se DUID laws, but Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin exclude metabolites of cannabis.)  Nevada and Ohio have 15 ng/ml levels which are very low; most workplace pre-employment screenings set the initial screening limit at 50 ng/ml.  At the confirmation level of 15 ng/ml, the frequent cannabis user will be positive for perhaps as long as 15 weeks.

Of course, faithful NORML readers and most of the public know that cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in the urine for up to 100 days or longer for a regular cannabis consumer and up to fifteen days for the casual consumer, even after quitting cold turkey.  Metabolites in urine don’t tell you a driver is actually impaired, they tell you someone used cannabis, but not when.  Even the US Department of Transportation admits that a positive test for drug metabolites is “solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment during a focal event.”

Cannabis metabolites are funny things; they don’t eliminate from the body in any predictable fashion. In fact, when you think about it, a metabolite is produced when the body metabolizes, or breaks down, a substance.  The presence of metabolites for THC tells you the body has already broken down the THC!  You could actually call a urine screening for metabolites a non-impairment test!

Now some of these laws do have per se standards for actual THC in the blood and you could argue that is a more realistic determinant of current impairment, but do you think most cash-strapped city, county, and state police are going to use an expensive, invasive blood test when a cheap urine screen is available and more likely to get them a conviction for DUID?

These per se DUID “zero tolerance” laws are nothing but discrimination against cannabis users, plain and simple.  Metabolites for every other drug, legal and illegal, are eliminated from the body much quicker:

• PCP (“angel dust”) = up to 2 days detection.
• Cocaine (and “crack”) = up to 2-3 days detection.
• Opiates (heroin, oxycontin, etc.) = up to 1-2 days detection.
• Amphetamines (meth, speed) = up to 1-3 days detection.
• Barbiturates (Seconol, etc.) = up to 3 days detection.
• Benzodiazepenes (Xanax, Valium, Clonopin, etc.) = up to 2-3 days detection.
• Alcohol (Budweiser, Jim Beam, Reisling, etc.) = you can actually be considered unimpaired with current blood alcohol levels up to 0.08%, so long as you pass the roadside sobriety test!
• Cannabis (marijuana, hash, pot) = up to 7-100 days detection.

So you could smoke some dust, snort some coke, shoot some smack, and pop some pills at the party Friday night, and possibly be considered an unimpaired driver by Monday (you could even have a couple of drinks before you got pulled over), but if you smoked a joint last month, in eleven states you could be going to jail and losing your license for endangering the public on the roadways.

These “zero tolerance” laws are criminalizing an entire population – cannabis users – for molecules in their bodies that have nothing to do with impairment or driving ability.  Can you imagine the uproar if police harassed drivers based on the melanin content of their skin… whoops, never mind.

We have a drug test here at NORML... "Do you recognize this leaf?"

You know my story about the idiocy of corporate drug testing for marijuana denying millions of otherwise qualified individuals from pursuing gainful employment.  Prohibitionists often like to claim that American workplace productivity would suffer if pot smokers were in the workplace… but how much productivity have we thrown away by forcing talented individuals to take lesser employment simply because the job they’re qualified for requires no inactive marijuana metabolites in their urine?

Here’s another take on the issue posted recently under a pseudonym at AlterNet:

To start, the fealty to drug testing is impractical and may prove untenable. We live in a society that proclaims its citizens “innocent until proven guilty.” Yet we have accepted routine drug testing for the sake of political and moral expediency. Who is being protected? Other substances are far more insidious; the vodka someone imbibes every morning would not disqualify them for a job, nor would two packs of cigarettes daily and the ensuing chronic bronchitis. Both however, will interfere with job performance. We assume responsible usage until there are signs of gross negligence; shouldn’t marijuana be held to the same standards? Testing for marijuana is particularly invidious, the drug stays in the system longer than other drugs, and a positive test could target one as a drug user, regardless of actual usage.

What’s your story on drug testing and employment?  Tell us in the comments and I’ll re-tell them on a future episode of NORML SHOW LIVE.

London, Aug 10 (ANI): A new study has revealed that stress and dieting can lead to a positive cannabis test long after the drug was last used.

Lead researcher Jonathon Arnold, from the University of Sydney in Australia, says that the main psychoactive ingredient of cannabis tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is instantly absorbed by fat cells and over the next few days is slowly diffused back into the blood.

During the study, Arnold and colleague Iain McGregor exposed THC-laden fat cells taken from rats to the stress hormone ACTH.

The researchers found that the hormone increased the speed of release of THC from the cells.

They later injected rats with 10 milligrams per kilogram of THC (equivalent to a person smoking between five and 10 cannabis cigarettes, depending on their strength) every day for 10 days.

Two days later, they injected a third of the rats with ACTH, deprived another third of food for 24 hours, with the rest as controls.

They found that rats that were not given food had double the blood level of THC acid, a metabolite of THC, compared with the controls.

The other group exposed to ACTH also showed a statistically significant increase in THC acid levels.

Paul Armentano has been documenting the science of how long-term cannabis users can fail a cannabis screening up to 100 days after ceasing cannabis use, and that people can pass many cannabis screens and then fail one.  So many people who are on probation or parole have cannabis screening as a part of their sentence and so many go back to prison when the failed cannabis screen turns up.  These people often insist that they have stopped using cannabis, but prosecutors contend that the failed test, especially after passing a few tests, is evidence of the re-initiation of cannabis use.

The science Armentano has documented shows this clearly is not the case, but until now there has been no understanding of why the levels of detectable THC and metabolites rise and fall so dramatically in the former user’s blood and urine.  This research begins to unravel that mystery and shows us that stress and diet may have much to do with it.  The research has not yet been replicated in humans, but this gives scientists a clue to study further.

My not-so-scientific analysis?  If you’re trying to pass a drug test, stop smoking pot for a few weeks, chill out, and eat a Twinkie.

[Or how your donations to NORML helped a Los Angeles woman avoid five months in a cage after failing nine consecutive urine screens for marijuana while on probation. -- "R"R]

At NORML’s Aspen Legal Seminar this past June I presented on the topic of cannabis pharmacokinetics and explained how an understanding RE: the science surrounding the metabolism and absorption of cannabinoids could be a valuable tool for defense attorneys. Recently I put my theoretical knowledge into practice as an expert witness in a federal evidentiary hearing in L.A. federal court.

At issue: defendant was under three years federal probation (probation period to expire on 8/13/09); defendant had a string of NINE consecutive failed UAs for carboxy THC beginning on 10/27/08 running through 1/08/2009. On four of the nine tests, defendant’s carboxy THC levels were HIGHER than they had been on the previous test. When the samples were normalized, defendant still failed all nine tests. Feds were willing to let the 10/27/08 test slide, as defendant showed a medical marijuana recommendation, but considered all eight positive tests thereafter to be evidence of new/continued use and a probation violation. Defendant alleged she had NOT used cannabis since 10/27/08 and that all the the positive tests since that time were residual (evidence of the use prior to 10/27/08). Feds brought in a toxicologist with 39 years experience who alleged that the string of positive tests as well as the spikes in the defendant’s test results could “absolutely not” be from residual use and instead were indicative of new drug use. Feds asked for 5 months prison time and additional three years probation.

That’s where I came in.
I was initially brought in by the L.A. federal public defenders office as a consultant to this case to explain the facts surrounding carboxy THC, half-life, trends in detection, etc. During this consulting I presented the defenders office with documented evidence that:

1) Carboxy THC is an inactive, lipid soluble metabolite with a slow excretion pattern. Clinical studies have documented that chronic users who have abstained from the drug may test positive for levels of carboxy THC metabolites for durations of time ranging from one month to 100+ days.

2) Because of this variable and long range of detection, there is a consensus in the scientific literature that the detection of presence of carboxy THC in urine, regardless of quantity, is not an accurate indicator of the time of past cannabis exposure.

3) Studies have documented that carboxy THC levels can periodically spike in urine during the terminal elimination phase regardless of the re-initiation of cannabis use. Researchers have commented that this phenomena is to be expected with the persistence of lipid soluble metabolite, and acknowledge that this phenomenon “makes it problematic to determine whether positive results are indicative of new drug use or reflective of previous cannabis exposure,” and “might tend to confuse the proper interpretation of results.”

Three days before the hearing the public defender asked me if I would fly to L.A. and take the stand to present this evidence and challenge the state’s toxicologist’s testimony. I agreed to do so, saying I would elaborate on the findings stated above, and not speculate on the defendant’s actual test results. The attorney said that the state only had to show a preponderance of the evidence (51%) in support of the allegation that her client was still using cannabis, and that chances are we would lose regardless of whatever evidence we presented.

We presented roughly eight separate scientific studies to the judge and discussed them at length in court. We even presented a chart illustrating how THC-COOH levels rise and fall irrespective of use during the terminal elimination phase. The state objected vehemently to my inclusion as an expert, and tried to argue that normalized samples (normalization is a fairly new technology) do not rise and fall in a manner similar to non-normalized samples. This statement, like most everything else they had to say, is false, and fortunately I had the studies with me to prove it.

The judge ruled on the case three days later and to the disbelief of the prosecution, she determined that the state had NOT met its 51% burden to establish that the defendant had continued to use cannabis while on probation — despite the NINE positive tests! She rejected the state’s demand for prison time and additional probation. The defendant will now complete her probation, as scheduled, on 8/13/09.

The public defender was ecstatic and now wants to similarly challenge all of her clients’ alleged ‘probation violations.’ She said that she had never thought there was even a chance that attorneys could successfully challenge a positive UA for cannabis — much less a series of them. (Clearly the state didn’t think it was possible either, as their expert’s arrogance and black-and-white testimony did them no favors.) I was thrilled to be able to assist her both as an consultant and as a witness, but even more thrilled to see my understanding of the cannabis-science and theory be put successfully into practice.

In short, a little understanding of the science can go a long way.

If folks weren’t in Aspen and would like a copy of my ppt presentation, feel free to contact me off-list [at paul'at'norml.org]

Sheriff Gene Mitchell said a Huntsville teenager, who gave birth to a child in a bathtub at a Lawrence County residence, has been arrested after the child tested positive for marijuana.

Mitchell said Kimberleigh Ann Duffey, 19, 6313 Marsh Ave., Huntsville, has been arrested for chemical endangerment of a child.

“We were notified by the Lawrence County Department of Human Resources after the positive test,” Mitchell said.

He said the child was born at a residence in Lawrence County near the Trinity community in December. The sheriff said DHR has take custody of the child.

“It’s a reckless and selfish act for a mother to use drugs while pregnant,” Mitchell said.

Duffey is being held in the Lawrence County Jail on bail of $15,000.

OK, so we separate a newborn infant from her young mother for “chemical endangerment” from a chemical that is non-toxic and not proven to cause serious harm to the infant.  Cannabis has been used since the dawn of time by expectant mothers for relief from the nausea of morning sickness and treating general pain and is safer than anything else she could take for the same symptoms.  And why do you suppose the woman was giving birth at home in a bathtub instead of a hospital; could it be that she feared hospital staff would detect the marijuana and take her child?

This is one of the most popular subjects I’ve reported on the Stash (see: http://stash.norml.org/mom-booked-baby-born-with-marijuana-in-system/, up to 47 comments already) with dozens of mothers in fear of losing their babies because they smoke a little weed.  According to “The Physician’s Guide to Laboratory Test Selection and Screening”:

Pathophysiology

Meconium (the dark, tarry material passed from the neonate’s rectum in the first days after birth until milk or formula-based stool appears) is the specimen of choice for assessing in utero exposure of the neonate to maternal drug abuse

• Meconium is preferred over urine for testing
• Meconium documents multiple use over an extended period of time, covering the last 4-5 months of pregnancy
• Urine testing can only indicate drug use over the last 1-10 days, depending on the drug

Cannabinoid (marijuana)

• Negative effect on attentional behavior and on visual analysis/hypothesis testing
• No effect on global IQ

Now compare that to the effects it lists for cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and benzodiazepenes, which include “intracerebral hemorrhage, small neonatal head size, reduced birth weight, fetal death, ADHD, tremors, and seizures” for the infant and “complications during pregnancy, premature labor, and ruptured uterus”.

Is society or that infant better off being put in foster care and having the young mother go through life branded as a “drug criminal” and “child abuser”?

Here it is for your reading pleasure…

Recently, an RV manufacturing plant in Goshen, Indiana, made headlines because they had drug tested all 120 of their employees and found that nearly a third of them tested positive for some illicit substance.

What caused the company to drug test all of their employees? Was there a rash of accidents? Had productivity dropped significantly? Were there increasing incidents of absenteeism and illness? Did a supervisor notice any drug use occurring at the plant, or notice an employee obviously under the influence of drugs?

No. The only reason the plant spent the time, effort, and money to test their employees was due to a police tip that there was a drug problem at the plant. In other words, there was no reason for the company to believe they had a drug problem.

You would think that running a manufacturing plant with one third of your employees working under the influence would lead to some obvious problems. You’d be right. The problem is that a positive drug test does not indicate that a person is under the influence of drugs. It only indicates that a person has done drugs in the past.

The methods of drug testing have evolved over the past decade. Once, businesses, schools, and government could only test a person’s urine. These tests are so easily defeated that the tests only detect whether you’re too dumb to fool the test. But new methods of testing the blood, saliva, and hair have made fooling a drug test much harder.

With the urine test, evidence of past use of cocaine, amphetamines, and other hard drugs can be detected for up to 48 hours after use. Thus, a worker testing positive for these drugs could have ingested these substances on a Friday evening and be completely sober for work on Monday. Likewise, a person seeking a new job need only abstain from these substances for three days.

Ironically, the one drug with the lowest potential for abuse and harm, marijuana, remains detectable in a person’s urine for 14 to 45 days. It is odd to consider that for two employees passing a urine test, one may have been abstaining from smoking pot all of last month while the other may have been smoking crack all of last month up until three days ago.

The newer testing does a better job of detecting drug use; some tests can indicate the use of any illicit substance for up to three months prior to the test. However, all that means is that problem drug users who wish to go straight and re-enter the workforce have a longer wait before they can apply for work. Without gainful employment, how much harder is it for a recovering addict to stay sober?

There must be a good reason for American businesses spending up to $1 billion dollars per year on drug testing. One of the usual reasons for this expenditure is workforce productivity.

However, when independent researchers analyzed the statistics on drug testing and productivity, they found some surprising results. According to The Committee on Drug Use in the Workplace (CDUW) assembled by the government’s own National Institute of Drug Abuse, “The empirical results suggest that drug testing programs do not succeed in improving productivity. Surprisingly, companies adopting drug testing programs are found to exhibit lower levels of productivity than their counterparts that do not.”

How could a company actually lose productivity by drug testing workers? CDUW suggests four possible reasons:

1) Drug testing is expensive. Tests cost around $50 per worker. A congressional committee estimated that the cost of each positive result in government testing was $77,000 because the positive rate was only 0.5%. Then there’s the costs of administration, medical review, follow-up tests for positive results, treatment or discipline for the worker, or searching, hiring, and training a new worker.

2) Drug testing lowers employee morale. An overwhelming majority of workers find drug testing to be an invasion of privacy. They consider drug testing unfair when it is only detecting prior use, not current impairment. They find it profoundly unfair that these tests do not consider the abuse of alcohol, which is a more significant factor in workplace safety and productivity. The lowered morale causes employees to show less loyalty to a company, not work as hard, and good workers may seek other jobs with non-drug testing firms.

3) Drug use may actually increase productivity for some people. The CDUW found that moderate use of drugs or alcohol had either a positive effect or no effect on worker productivity. Numerous studies have found that moderate marijuana use actually increased productivity. Furthermore, marijuana users who are treating pain, cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, arthritis, migraines, or even depression are much more productive than they would be without treatment.

4) Drug testing may lead marijuana smokers (by far the largest segment of the drug using population) to using harder drugs. Since most workplaces still choose the cheaper urine testing over the other tests, marijuana smokers may instead use harder drugs or alcohol, all of which are flushed quickly from the system. Marijuana’s low addictiveness allows a casual user to remain healthy and productive, while the high addictiveness of the harder drugs make it more likely for the person to slip from casual use to the severe abuse that causes the illness, absenteeism, safety risks, and low productivity the drug tests were meant to alleviate in the first place.

Another excuse offered for drug testing is workplace safety. We don’t want to have drug-impaired workers operating heavy machinery, public transportation, or any other industry where safety is of paramount concern. Of course, this reasoning falls flat when we recall that drug testing does not detect impairment. But perhaps one could assume that someone who has used drugs in the past may be more likely to use them on the job and endanger fellow employees and the public.

Unfortunately, the data do not support that assumption. Many companies have used some form of impairment testing, a system that does not test for drugs, but rather hand-eye coordination, concentration, and reaction times. Those companies that have used these systems have found that severe fatigue and illness, not drug or alcohol use, are the most common causes of workplace accidents.

One added advantage of these tests is that they do reduce the level of workplace accidents. Workers are much more accepting of impairment tests, as they do not violate privacy and are perceived to be fairer than drug testing. Plus, the impairment tests are much cheaper to administer and they actually detect the problem that drug testing does not — worker impairment.

The final nail in the coffin of any workplace drug testing argument is the fact that casual drug users (once per week or less) are just as likely to find employment and hold down a job as their non-drug using counterparts. Our drug testing regime has not kept casual drug users out of the workplace at all, and those users are not adversely affecting productivity, safety, or their own career goals.

Businesses and government aren’t the only entities routinely testing for drugs. Our schools are now testing our children for evidence of illicit drug use. In a series of controversial rulings, the Supreme Court has steadily added to the number of our children being drug tested.

First they allowed students to be tested for cause; if a student was suspected of using or possessing drugs on campus, he or she could be tested. Next they ruled that students involved with extracurricular athletics could be tested randomly, citing the need for safety in potentially dangerous sports activities.

Most recently, the justices have decided that students in any extracurricular activity, from band to chess club, could be tested randomly. Justice Clarence Thomas expressed the opinion of the slim 5-4 majority stating that children involved in after-school activities voluntarily give up some of their rights to privacy.

Many of the same issues of safety and productivity are raised in support of drug testing students, and they are met with the same evidence found in the workplace: no significant differences in accidents or performance are found between schools that drug test and those that do not, nor between students who pass drug tests and those who fail.

However, with the student population there are other arguments that are stated: we need to send a message to students that drug use will not be tolerated and we need to provide incentives for students stop using drugs.

This argument also falls flat when confronted with the evidence. A federally-funded study in 2003 of over 76,000 students in almost 900 schools found no correlation between drug testing and student drug use. Kids were just as likely to use drugs at the drug testing schools as the non-drug testing schools.

Moreover, just as workplace drug testing has the unintended consequence of lowering morale and productivity, school drug testing has its unintended consequences. Kids who might be falling in with the wrong crowd are discouraged from joining the after-school sports or clubs that would provide a healthier environment. Kids already enrolled in extra-curricular activities must sacrifice their privacy and discover that their word and their achievements are not trusted.

Of course, like workplace drug testing, there’s the added expense of operating such a program, a cost that weighs heavily against chronically insufficient school budgets. The cost of one positive drug test result could have bought new instruments for the band, computers for the classroom, or equipment for the team.

Further compounding the futility of all drug testing is the fact that there is no perfect drug test. Every test gives a significant amount of false-positives and false-negatives. Many common over-the-counter medications can show up as an illicit drug. Cold tablets containing pseudoephedrine may be detected as amphetamines (speed). Cold remedies with dextromethorphan can register positive for opiates (heroin). Naproxen/ibuprofen-based pain relievers give positives for cannabis (marijuana). Nasal sprays sometimes indicate for MDMA (ecstasy).

Even some common foods can cause a failed drug test. Poppy seeds that you ingest from muffins or bagels can register as heroin. Large amounts of riboflavin (vitamin B-2) and perfectly legal (and incredibly healthy) hemp seed oil can register as marijuana.

Then of course there are many prescription drugs that can lead to a false positive. Amoxicillin, the antibiotic most prescribed for those allergic to penicillin, can show up as cocaine. Many asthma medications register as ecstasy or amphetamines. Even in the absence of these pharmaceuticals, some medical conditions can register a false positive. Kidney infection, liver disease, and diabetes can all lead to false positives for cocaine, ecstasy, opiates, or amphetamines.

Worst of all, you may fail a drug test through no fault of your own. A small fraction of people excrete larger amounts of certain enzymes in their urine that may produce a false positive. One researcher hypothesizes that the higher levels of melanin (the pigment producing cell) found in darker-skinned people may lead to positives for marijuana, because melanin and THC metabolites share a similar molecular structure.

For every false positive there is a person who has suffered the indignity of the accusation, the suspicion of family, co-workers, and friends, the threat of job loss or school suspension, and the burden of proving themselves innocent of a crime they did not commit. For every false negative there is the time, money, and effort wasted failing to discover someone who is actually using drugs.

But beyond the obvious futility and waste involved, there is one superseding argument against drug testing: it is un-American.

Our Founding Fathers laid out our basic liberties in the Bill of Rights. Drug testing violates at least two of our most sacred liberties.

Our 5th Amendment lays out two basic legal concepts: that we cannot be compelled to testify against ourselves and that we are innocent until proven guilty. Drug testing assumes that you are guilty until your body proves you to be innocent. Being compelled to provide urine, hair, saliva, or blood is a testimony against yourself. The Founders were clearly against compelling the citizenry toward self-incrimination; they had seen the results of tyrants using these techniques throughout history. It’s a shame our courts haven’t been as wise.

Our 4th Amendment is the basis for our right to privacy and freedom from government investigations and seizures without warrant and probable cause. Drug testing is certainly an invasion of privacy; it’s hard to imagine how a stranger watching you urinate isn’t an invasion of privacy. If there is no probable cause to believe you have committed a crime, there is no good reason to seize your bodily fluids.

Sadly, courts have decided that going to work or school is a voluntary activity, that you exchange some of your expectation to privacy in getting a job or an education, and that employers and educators are not the police or government. It’s hard for me to imagine how work or education is truly voluntary; I guess that homelessness and ignorance are a viable choice in their minds; a choice I think would lead to more drug abuse, not less.

For many people, there is no choice but to swallow their pride, surrender their rights, face the embarrassment, risk the false positive, and take the drug test. Almost half of all employers perform some sort of drug testing. The farther down the socio-economic scale, the more likely a worker will face a pre-employment drug test. Around 36% of financial, business, and professional services test their new hires, compared to more than three-fourths of manufacturing and more than 60% of wholesale, retail, and other services. Yet rates of illicit drug use remain fairly constant among all segments of society.

The cash-strapped schools are less likely to be testing for drugs. In 2003, some 19% of schools had drug testing for cause, only 5% tested student-athletes, and only 4% tested participants in all extra-curricular activities. But for the student at these schools, unlike the worker, attendance is compulsory and there aren’t many other options available. Their choices are to either avoid all extracurricular activities (which can be determining factors in college selection and future career) or suffer the same risks and indignities as their parents in the workforce.

Drug testing is but one of the many failures in our government’s war on casual drug users, and its failure to achieve its stated goals is one of the easiest to prove. Fortunately, many companies are coming to recognize this fact — rates of workplace and school drug testing have declined steadily since 1990. But there remains a federal government with a strong inclination toward abrogating the rights of citizens to look “tough on crime”, and many industries that stand to gain from increased drug testing.

Personally, I just try to imagine what possible argument could have convinced hemp farmers Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to pee in a cup in order to get a job.

Washington, DC: Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY), along with Reps. Peter Defazio (D-OR), Jean Schmidt (R-OH) and Lee Terry (R-NE), has introduced legislation in Congress to criminalize the production and sale of any commercial products intended to influence drug test results, such as diuretic teas or chemical adulterants. The bill, H.R. 858, is now before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

As introduced, the proposal would “prohibit the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment in interstate commerce of products designed … to produce a false or misleading outcome of a test for the presence of a controlled substance.”

More than a dozen states have enacted similar laws.

Of the tens of millions of workplace drug tests performed annually in the United States, an estimated 90 percent are urine tests, which may be influenced by dilution or adding an adulterant to the sample. Over the past decade, numerous commercial businesses have marketed commercial products promising to influence drug test results, including herbal teas and substitute urine.

via Congressman Introduces Bill Criminalizing Products Designed To “Defraud” Drug Tests – NORML.

Sad to see one of my own Oregon Congressmen introducing this (sadder still to see him teaming up with “Mean Jean” Schmidt of Ohio!), but Oregon is one of the states with a similar law.  This makes for brisk business across the state line in Vancouver, Washington, where a certain headshop owner advertises, “Hey, Portland, I got what you’re looking for…” on late-night mixed-martial arts TV shows.

This sort of legislation won’t have much effect, by the way.  I don’t know how you criminalize a diuretic tea – even here in Oregon we have “health detoxifier” products, not meant to be used to flush your body of any detectable metabolites, no sir, but only for personal well-being, you see, wink wink, nudge nudge.  Lawry’s Adolph’s Meat Tenderizer makes an excellent adulterant for carboxy-THC (THC-COOH) – will your crusade rid us of tender juicy beefsteak?  Cranberry juice is a good way to flush your system – are you going to put those two guys in the cranberry bog out of work, too?  Then there’s always your clean friend or relative willing to supply you with some pee.  Will pee trading become criminalized?

Just do the right thing and end workplace drug testing altogether.  They are doing nothing to create a truly drug-free workplace:

According to the federal Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), seventy percent of illicit drug users age 18 to 49 are employed full time.

So long as you have OTC remedies in every receptionist’s desk, three-martini lunches for the execs, and smokers’ shelters for the line, your workplace ain’t drug free anyway. 

These urine tests’ primary accomplishment is identifying marijuana users, because the hard drugs’ metabolites are water-soluble and flush out of your system within a couple of days, but marijuana’s metabolites are fat-soluble and stay in your system for days or weeks.

Recent drug testing data compiled by Quest Diagnostics indicate that more than 60 percent of all positive workplace drug tests are for marijuana only. Because urine tests detect a metabolized by-product of marijuana and not the drug itself, pot-smokers may test positive days or even weeks after using it. By comparison, cocaine – the second most commonly detected drug – typically will wash out of the system within 48 hours.

So this weekend’s pot smoker will be out of a job if you test him next Friday, but this weekend’s crack smoker will pee clean by Tuesday.  The only thing you accomplish with a pre-employment drug metabolite test is finding a pot smoker who can quit for a couple of weeks or beat your urine screen.

A 1994 study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded, “Despite beliefs to the contrary, … [there exists] no evidence from properly controlled studies that employment drug testing programs widely discourage drug use or encourage rehabilitation.”

Trust me on this one – once that negative pee test is revealed and the job offer is signed, we’re blazing one up that night in celebration.

Marijuana users are safer, more responsible, better-educated, more productive, more loyal employees than the ones who drink, trust me (we don’t call in sick with hangovers) – many small firms got my skills at a bargain simply because they respected my privacy.

In addition, a 1998 study by the Le Moyne College Institute of Industrial Relations of 63 “high-tech” firms found that pre-employment and random drug screening procedures resulted in a significant loss of worker productivity and appeared to create “a negative work environment” for employees.

There are some jobs I had when I was younger, like field work, dishwashing, and burger flipper, where I think productivity would increase if the workforce could take toke breaks.  Sometimes it may be the only way to summon enough dignity to put on the paper hat and nametag.