Smoking Weed Occasionally and Working in a Lab

[Tortaspie]

I'm going to be a medical laboratory scientist soon and I occasionally smoke weed (I'm talking once a month maybe). I'm not a pothead or anything like that I just like to do it to relax every once in a while. Of course I would NEVER go to work high or anything like that because I know that's not right, I just know that it can stay in your system for several days after using it. This is something I'm sure a lot of people do but they probably don't admit it. What do all of you think about it? My main concern is the potential random drug tests that some hospitals conduct. Kind of ironic because part of my job would be conducting drug tests...I'm not a hypocrite though because I don't think THC is a big deal as long as you don't use it all the time.

As an MLS you really have no contact with patients at all unless there is a phlebotomist lacking and you're called upon to draw blood. Kind of a touchy topic and was just wondering what all of you think.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[flapjack3d]

I dont think you'll be getting drug tested, if that's what you're wondering. But you could ask around or read your contract.

 

[LizzyM]

What do you think will happen if you test positive for weed? Are you willing to risk losing your job? What might be even worse would be to be written up and have something in your file that might be disclosed in a LOR written at your request. Not having that letter could be harmful, too.


There seems to be a lot of risk associated with casual use when you are in a job that includes random drug testing.

 

[WingedOx]

yeah, risk vs benefit.

If your job is one where they test you once when you start and that's it then smoke all you want. If it's random you REALLY have to ask yourself if the consequences are worth the occasional bowl.

 

[Howlin_Radio]

It can stay in your system for more than a few days depending on how much your smoking and the frequency. Don't smoke leading into the job, expect a drug screen. Not a good idea to smoke anyways

 

[Womb Raider]

Just get into the habit now of not smoking. If it's really just occasional as you say, you won't miss it that much. Despite what you may believe, you don't "need" weed to relax, and you'll naturally find other ways once you stop. Imagine having to explain to future employers (or med schools) why you were fired from a job if you got caught with a positive drug test.. It will be a consequence that follows you for the rest of your life.

Med schools (and medical governing bodies) take these kinds of things very seriously because, IIRC, past history of drug abuse is the strongest predictor of future drug problems.

 

[9909]

What I suggest you do is stop for a month until its out of your system (which should be easy if you only do it once a month), and after a while working there you can decide if it is safe.

This is anecdotal. But I will say that I worked for many years as a Research Technician at arguably the top medical research/academic institution in the US and never once was drug tested in 7 years, nor was any one I worked with.

 

[NickNaylor]

Ultimately the question is of risks vs. benefits. As an undergrad student, the risks of drug use - especially relatively infrequent use - are pretty low. I would be shocked if you were randomly drug tested in a research position, though this is something you can likely find out with enough research. Even if you're caught, it's unlikely that you would have any legal ramifications from your use. I don't think an institution is interested in getting into the business of calling the cops on everyone that tests positive on a random drug screen. More likely, you'll just be dismissed from your position.

With your pattern of use, a urine drug screen is unlikely to be positive for more than a few days.

 

[JustAPhD]

Smoking weed "maybe once a month" vs risking your job if you get tested.


Not seeing the hard choice here.

 

[LizzyM]

What I suggest you do is stop for a month until its out of your system (which should be easy if you only do it once a month), and after a while working there you can decide if it is safe.

This is anecdotal. But I will say that I worked for many years as a Research Technician at arguably the top medical research/academic institution in the US and never once was drug tested in 7 years, nor was any one I worked with.

Don't the feds now require recipients of federal funds (such as big research universities) to have policies about drug use that could lead to getting tested either randomly or because someone reports you as presenting reasonable cause for concern. Don't give someone an opportunity to screw you over.

 

[ortnakas]

Don't the feds now require recipients of federal funds (such as big research universities) to have policies about drug use that could lead to getting tested either randomly or because someone reports you as presenting reasonable cause for concern. Don't give someone an opportunity to screw you over.

I think this is the case-- I used to live in one of the places where recreational marijuana is legal, and human resources sent many employee-all emails making it abundantly clear that it was still against hospital policy, and that testing positive would still be a fireable offense.

Risk vs. benefit, OP. You're probably unlikely to be tested OP, but the repercussions would be highly unpleasant. Only you can decide if it's worth it.

 

[rocklobstr]

I think this is the case-- I used to live in one of the places where recreational marijuana is legal, and human resources sent many employee-all emails making it abundantly clear that it was still against hospital policy, and that testing positive would still be a fireable offense.

Risk vs. benefit, OP. You're probably unlikely to be tested OP, but the repercussions would be highly unpleasant. Only you can decide if it's worth it.

I don't really understand the logic of institutions with this policy. If weed is legal in that region, then the policies for marijuana use should be analogous to the policies for tobacco and alcohol use. It's a bit ridiculous that someone can abuse alcohol (or smoke cigarettes) and go unpunished, while someone else can be fired for smoking pot once a month. I'm not necessarily pro-marijuana, but I think that institutional policies should be updated to correspond with the current legislation.

Obviously still avoid smoking if you think you may get drug tested. It's just not worth the risk unless you are confident that you will not be tested.

 

[haaaaaaaaaaveyoumetted]

FWIW My post-grad job is in a hospital lab with no patient contact and I had a required drug test for it, but no random ones. I'd just stop if I were you because you really don't want to risk any black mark that could harm your future

 

[LizzyM]

I don't really understand the logic of institutions with this policy. If weed is legal in that region, then the policies for marijuana use should be analogous to the policies for tobacco and alcohol use. It's a bit ridiculous that someone can abuse alcohol (or smoke cigarettes) and go unpunished, while someone else can be fired for smoking pot once a month. I'm not necessarily pro-marijuana, but I think that institutional policies should be updated to correspond with the current legislation.

Obviously still avoid smoking if you think you may get drug tested. It's just not worth the risk unless you are confident that you will not be tested.

Some hospitals do not hire tobacco smokers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/02/11/no-smoking-for-some-hospital-employees-even-on-days-off/
It is legal to discriminate against smokers in this way.

 

[rocklobstr]

Some hospitals do not hire tobacco smokers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/02/11/no-smoking-for-some-hospital-employees-even-on-days-off/
It is legal to discriminate against smokers in this way.

I was including these types of policies when I said that the policies should be analogous to each other. Sorry if that wasn't as clear as I meant it to be. I think it is totally fine to ban both for employees, but not one or the other (where marijuana is legal). But this raises the question of whether or not edibles should be legal, as edibles arguably do not have many of the same health consequences as smoking marijuana. In this case, the marijuana would be more analogous to alcohol IMO.

 

[LizzyM]

I was including these types of policies when I said that the policies should be analogous to each other. Sorry if that wasn't as clear as I meant it to be. I think it is totally fine to ban both for employees, but not one or the other (where marijuana is legal).

If the ban is on marijuana and tobacco but not alcohol? Is that okay? what about alcohol, caffeine, marijuana but not tobacco?

 

[kb1900]

I don't really understand the logic of institutions with this policy. If weed is legal in that region, then the policies for marijuana use should be analogous to the policies for tobacco and alcohol use. It's a bit ridiculous that someone can abuse alcohol (or smoke cigarettes) and go unpunished, while someone else can be fired for smoking pot once a month. I'm not necessarily pro-marijuana, but I think that institutional policies should be updated to correspond with the current legislation.

Obviously still avoid smoking if you think you may get drug tested. It's just not worth the risk unless you are confident that you will not be tested.

Don't you know? Alcohol to cope is ok but weed is not in our society

At least in the eyes of the (some) law(s)

 

[rocklobstr]

If the ban is on marijuana and tobacco but not alcohol? Is that okay? what about alcohol, caffeine, marijuana but not tobacco?

I was just editing my response above to bring up a similar question.

"But this raises the question of whether or not edibles should be legal, as edibles arguably do not have many of the same health consequences as smoking marijuana. In this case, the marijuana would be more analogous to alcohol IMO."

I think that the main issue to consider is the potential for adverse health consequences. Smoking marijuana has the potential to be much worse for one's health than taking it orally. Therefore, I think that edibles are much more analogous to alcohol or caffeine, all of which can be okay in moderation.

Another difficulty arises in that it is difficult to test whether or not someone smoked or ingested marijuana. This could be used as an argument for banning both pot and tobacco regardless. However, the same argument could be applied to alcohol/caffeine and moderation. It can be difficult to asses whether someone has a beer or two on their day off versus binge drinking.

I guess the main difference between smoking cigarettes and the rest of these activities is that smoking cigarettes is seen as universally bad for one's health, whereas the others can be viewed as okay in moderation (and in the case of pot, the method of intake).

 

[NotYou20]

In my state (and maybe nationwide), you have to be notified of random drug tests upon agreeing to employment and thereafter can only be tested if they have reason to believe you're under you're high at work. You should be able to find the relevant Hr laws in your state. Your employment contract might have something in it too.

That being said, not doing illegal things is safer than doing illegal things.

 

[rocklobstr]

Some hospitals do not hire tobacco smokers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/02/11/no-smoking-for-some-hospital-employees-even-on-days-off/
It is legal to discriminate against smokers in this way.

I read that article, and they raise some good points. I agree with trying to improve health, but it's a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line for discriminating against legal activities for hiring purposes?

 

[rocklobstr]

In my state (and maybe nationwide), you have to be notified of random drug tests upon agreeing to employment and thereafter can only be tested if they have reason to believe you're under you're high at work. You should be able to find the relevant Hr laws in your state. Your employment contract might have something in it too.

That being said, not doing illegal things is safer than doing illegal things.

I think a lot of hospital based jobs will drug test on hiring and reserve the right to randomly drug test you afterwords. I don't know about the notice laws though. Either way, IME, unless you're giving people a reason to test you afterwords, you're probably in the clear. And I definitely agree, its much safer to not do illegal things.

 

[Goro]

Some companies have a no smoking policy that applies to home and work. meaning, if the boss finds out you smoke at yhome, you get fired. Companies have a stake in hiring and keeping healthy workers, and keeping workers healthy.

Some hospitals do not hire tobacco smokers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/02/11/no-smoking-for-some-hospital-employees-even-on-days-off/
It is legal to discriminate against smokers in this way.

 

[Psai]

Some hospitals do not hire tobacco smokers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/02/11/no-smoking-for-some-hospital-employees-even-on-days-off/
It is legal to discriminate against smokers in this way.

I just interviewed at one of those places and they made you sign a form saying that you don't and won't smoke.

 

[NotYou20]

I think a lot of hospital based jobs will drug test on hiring and reserve the right to randomly drug test you afterwords. I don't know about the notice laws though. Either way, IME, unless you're giving people a reason to test you afterwords, you're probably in the clear. And I definitely agree, its much safer to not do illegal things.

That could be, I've never had a job in a hospital. In that case, op should know for sure that random tests are possible and change his habits accordingly

 

[Tortaspie]

Some companies have a no smoking policy that applies to home and work. meaning, if the boss finds out you smoke at yhome, you get fired. Companies have a stake in hiring and keeping healthy workers, and keeping workers healthy.

This is the dumbest thing ever, considering other things that a person could do to be unhealthy like being overweight, ect. Don't get me wrong, I thing cigarettes are horrible, but I believe a person can be a great employee even if they smoke or do unhealthy things at home. What's next... Not being allowed to ever have a drink?

 

[flapjack3d]

This is the dumbest thing ever, considering other things that a person could do to be unhealthy like being overweight, ect. Don't get me wrong, I thing cigarettes are horrible, but I believe a person can be a great employee even if they smoke or do unhealthy things at home. What's next... Not being allowed to ever have a drink?

It's not about being a good employee. Insurance costs go up if you employ smokers

 

[intangible]

Medicine remains a conservative field, even if it is the unspoken norm.

I know that you probably think your private time is yours to handle, but the reality is that as a physician, there comes a point in your career where you can no longer compartmentalize your personal and professional lives.

Would you hire someone that showed up to your office stoned? Admissions committees can and will see it that way, unfair as it is.

 

[samac]

Dude don't be dumb. Just stop now. You're risking your medical school career here.

And might as well get in the habit of not now, in medical school they can drug test you whenever they want.