I'm going to say that it depends on the job. As I stated earlier in this thread.....cdl drivers are NOT exempt with a medical mj card in any state! DOT says so and has published multiple statements that just because states are legalizing does not mean a cdl driver is not tested for marijuana anymore or that a med card means it's ok. It's still illegal on the fed level.
Here's proof.....and this is what I used to recently brief my cdl drivers.
DOT "Medical Marijuana" Notice
I understand that the case I quoted originally was for a production controller that whipped out an mj card not a driver. However your statement sounded all encompassing that mj cards exempt hot tests for mj.....and that just ain't true
I don't know how it would extend over to a person with a CDL, because no ones gone to court over it yet post Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Mktg., LLC.
It's important to point out that the DOT's policy on drug use is the typical mindless bullshit that makes zero sense but people support because reasons. What drugs can't you use under a CDL while not at work? Basically all Schedule 1 drugs. Schedule 1 drugs are drugs so hard to make money off of commercially that they get a number 1 next to them. Anyway, the DOT goes on to make exceptions, well, sorta. You can't be on amphetamine. But you can be on the legal version of it if a doctor says yes sir, he's good. They also have a shit ton of grey area. Some drugs are always good, some are bad sometimes and some are satan himself (marijuana).
So anyway, the best policy with anything .gov related is to sit back, laugh and continue on with your life. Because most of it is made up. And the parts that aren't made up are created via agendas.
Another very important thing that most conveniently forget or pretend isn't the actual subject: most people when talking about prescription marijuana are not talking about at work use. And virtually no one is talking about at work use while operating the big trucks. Why and how the "you can't be high while you drive a 100 ton off road dump truck" comments continuously get brought up as if that is the only point that needs to be made, case closed, is beyond me.
I suspect a better policy is if a person actually thinks at home / private use of MJ is bad they probably should have their license revoked because they are so beyond lost that they are the problem. I'm at the point now where I stopped caring what the feds say about MJ so long ago I don't even bring up the fact that it's comically a schedual 1 drug, despite the fact that by definition it is in no way. I'm not a federal worker either, plus I don't even use it so I don't have a pony in the race besides supporting liberty - which is a lost art.
Outside of DoD and DOT mandates, testing was only as common as it used to be because the feds pushed it so hard under the "
Drug-Free Workplace Act", and insurers jumped on the bandwagon.
Companies (even ones with Fed contracts) are slowing unwinding their testing policies, especially in tech where it greatly reduces the pool of applicants -- even non-using prospects find peeing in a cup objectionable, and it's a seller's market.
Some real insane case law came out of that act and it was during the drug war heigh late 80's early 90's. The TLDR of all the case law is if you take drugs you are automatically bad in every way humanly possible. Obviously alcohol is an exception as it's the king of drugs that are abused so no one wants to f*** with it. It's like the Chuck Norris of substance abuse. Not even SCOTUS is turning that rock over.
If any of this case law went on to say you have to be straight edge or your fired - hell, I'd understand these morons for once. But they never do this. They ignore the important parts and main offenders and demonize the shit that's easy to bash. Case law for simpletons.
We have millions of people in jail, and tens of millions of people who've permanently lost rights over a plant, and people still pretend that the prohibition is/was or could be a good thing.
Rapture, take me away. Or take the people who think it's a good thing away. Baby Jesus please.
Not a 4th Amendment violation, you have no constitutional right to a job. Sorry.
I don't like it either, but it's now SOP everywhere.
It's not a 4A violation but in some places it is an American with disabilities act (or similar local law and or ADA and local and or ultra convoluted combination of other things) violation to jerk people around who use it legally under supervision of a doctor. And this is the direction it's heading more and more. The liability aspect of finding out an employee uses off duty with a prescription is not worth finding out in a lot of cases. Now that employer has to get that under tight lock and key and for what gain? Just to be nosey a**h***s about an employees private health care? Talk about f***ing creepy, not to mention they are now laying on a hand grenade if that shit ever gets out of HR and into the work environment.
I've noticed recently that several employers in my field have stopped testing for MJ period. because if they find it, they don't want to even begin to start asking questions because of all the land mines laid out in MA. And no one wants to be the 1st moron to pull off an ADA violation to fight with an employee about legal off duty use of a medication. Employers should not be asking ANY questions about medications that do not directly show during work.
It is a slow battle though. I'd say at least another decade till it's blown over mostly.