# Drug Testing



## Guest (Nov 6, 2019)

So I plan on applying for an electrician job at Amtrak soon. I am aware of the drug testing methods used. I used to smoke weed up until 2 months ago and I don’t plan on using any drugs again in the future. With that being said, I know hair tests will show anything used within the last 3 months. But some people say it can test back as far as 6 months. Would I be safe to apply for the job in the 4-5 month period of being clean or should I wait longer than that? Again, I am drug free and I look forward to working for Amtrak, however I do not want to blow it on something silly like failing a drug test. Any advice is appreciated!


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 6, 2019)

I'm going to be really blunt here. If you truly are "clean" then you would have never used anything. Rule G, which is the drug and alcohol rule, is strictly enforced with random tests. If you test positive for anything, you're done. Say goodbye to your job. 

Now, with that being said. IF you stay true to your word of not using anything, wait until the 6 month mark that you haven't used anything. They DO take hair samples from you! I worked at the call center and they took hair from me. Which is legitimately a desk job. If you test positive for any drugs then the chances you get hired at Amtrak are zero and any other railroad are almost zero as well. 

I wish you luck, but the RR is no place for any drug use. So I strongly urge you to stay away from anything that would make you fail a test.


----------



## daybeers (Nov 6, 2019)

I agree with AmtrakBlue that 6 months should be the minimum. You don't want to risk it and get burned by not being able to get hired by _any_ railroad. However, I stand by my opinion from another topic here:


daybeers said:


> This might be a "hot take" (strong opinion) for this board, but IMO the federal substance requirements for cannabis are silly. I understand there is no surefire way to check if one is under the influence of something other than alcohol except a blood test, which are unreliable at best and can't detect for very long after ingestion, but what about someone who is an alcoholic? Federal agencies will most likely never find out. Someone who likes to have a bit of weed to calm down after a hard day's work is very similar to someone who likes a beer after work, but the former is illegal and the latter legal. Truly silly, but this is also not the topic to get into detail on all that.


AmtrakBlue, I can't believe Amtrak _hair_ tested you, or even tested you in the first place, for a job in the call center. You didn't have any safety-related duties, correct?


----------



## SarahZ (Nov 7, 2019)

daybeers said:


> I can't believe Amtrak _hair_ tested you, or even tested you in the first place, for a job in the call center. You didn't have any safety-related duties, correct?


I work in the office of a large production facility. Even though those of us in customer service, accounting, etc. don't work in the plant or shipping departments, we were still required to undergo a drug test and physical before we were hired.

I believe it's an insurance requirement. If you work for X company, which has to follow various federal and state requirements for safety, you have to undergo Y tests. They likely don't make exceptions based on the area of employment.

We also have to sit through OSHA training whenever there is an accident in the plant (which is rare, thankfully). I've been there for nearly five years and have only had to attend one training session.


----------



## daybeers (Nov 7, 2019)

SarahZ said:


> I believe it's an insurance requirement. If you work for X company, which has to follow various federal and state requirements for safety, you have to undergo Y tests. They likely don't make exceptions based on the area of employment.


That makes a lot of sense. Makes you wonder how much companies & organizations, namely in the transportation sector, spend on testing per year.


----------



## Asher (Nov 7, 2019)

Testing for Marijuana seems strange since its legal in a lot of states. I know it's a Federal law. I dont know if it's true, people say that places that legitimately sell it, also have something that mask the use of it, otherwise, I don't know how people stay employed. I'm in a program with a company I do work for that require a random test for one of more employees every so often. I've had to take a urine test 3 times. They call and tell me to go now to a test lab. I don't know their employees, but, I'm beginning to think I'm being used.


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 7, 2019)

daybeers said:


> I agree with AmtrakBlue that 6 months should be the minimum. You don't want to risk it and get burned by not being able to get hired by _any_ railroad. However, I stand by my opinion from another topic here:
> 
> AmtrakBlue, I can't believe Amtrak _hair_ tested you, or even tested you in the first place, for a job in the call center. You didn't have any safety-related duties, correct?



Who?  

I actually laughed when the HR rep told me that. I had known her for some time so she understood why I laughed. But yes, no safety duties at the call center.


----------



## daybeers (Nov 7, 2019)

Acela150 said:


> Who?
> 
> I actually laughed when the HR rep told me that. I had known her for some time so she understood why I laughed. But yes, no safety duties at the call center.


 Wow, I can't believe I got that wrong! I wrote that at the end of a long day. Sorry bout that!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 7, 2019)

Since my name was brought up, I’ll chime in. Every job I’ve been hired for, whether temp or perm, for the last ?10?plus years, I’ve had to do a drug test. Most of these jobs were at financial institutes. So, safety was not the reason. I believe it’s common, at least in large corporations, for new employees to be tested regardless of the work they do


----------



## dlagrua (Nov 7, 2019)

Drug testing has become commonplace in the work world. While they can have a calming effect, many drugs dull your senses. Employers want to hire those that are alert and efficient at their responsibility.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 7, 2019)

The problem with merging precise chemical testing and zero tolerance employment rules is that something as innocuous as visiting a rock, rap, or hip-hop concert while off duty can get you fired and potentially ruin your career. Even if you never rolled, lit, smoked, or ate anything you're still going to test positive on the lab screen.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Nov 7, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> The problem with merging precise chemical testing and zero tolerance employment rules is that something as innocuous as visiting a rock, rap, or hip-hop concert while off duty can get you fired and potentially ruin your career. Even if you never rolled, lit, smoked, or ate anything you're still going to test positive on the lab screen.



Or walking down the streets of New York City. I smelled it quite a bit on my last visit.


----------



## PVD (Nov 7, 2019)

Considering the wider acceptance of both medical and recreational usage, that will be an increasing problem. Even many (not all) of the people who struggle with the concept of wider acceptance of recreational use accept some medical uses...


----------



## I like rolling hotels (Nov 7, 2019)

Another thing to think about is that depending on exactly how the lab does the test they may report a positive for THC when all you have used is (now legal nationally) CBD oil.


----------



## keelhauled (Nov 7, 2019)

Last winter I lived in an apartment with several people who smoked copious amounts of marijuana. I certainly breathed plenty of secondhand smoke, and passed the one urine drug test I was administered by my employer.


----------



## SarahZ (Nov 30, 2019)

dlagrua said:


> Drug testing has become commonplace in the work world. While they can have a calming effect, many drugs dull your senses. Employers want to hire those that are alert and efficient at their responsibility.


The problem with this "logic" is that the effects of marijuana dissipate after only a few hours but can remain in your system for a few weeks.

This would be like punishing someone for drinking a Jack & Coke on their day off. I don't see why it's socially acceptable to go to the bar and get drunk every payday, but someone takes two hits of the devil's lettuce, and everyone clutches their pearls.


----------



## neroden (Nov 30, 2019)

Yeah. Companies are going to have to end cannabis testing, it's just a pity it's moving so slowly.

The federal government is going to be forced into full legalization pretty soon. I'm not sure how long it's going to take, but when an outright majority of *Republicans* surveyed supports legalization, the government position is untenable and will not last.


----------



## iliketrains (Nov 30, 2019)

SarahZ said:


> The problem with this "logic" is that the effects of marijuana dissipate after only a few hours but can remain in your system for a few weeks.
> 
> This would be like punishing someone for drinking a Jack & Coke on their day off. I don't see why it's socially acceptable to go to the bar and get drunk every payday, but someone takes two hits of the devil's lettuce, and everyone clutches their pearls.



ROFLMAO!


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 30, 2019)

At one point in my life (Jimmy Carter was still in the White House) I was railfanning the old Galveston Lift Bridge when the bridge operator offered me a toke of his "stuff"...I declined his hospitality. Shortly (a few days) thereafter, a barge loaded with acrylonitrile hit the bridge on a foggy night and exploded, damaging the lift span severely (it would be replaced a few years later). Now this operator was not on duty during that accident, but I think that it speaks to an overall prevailing lackadaisical attitude. The tug captain was navigating by radar and the operator had told him that the bridge would be open, and it would have been...had she not chosen that moment to take a quick bathroom break.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 30, 2019)

Is there no practical method to measure active cannabis intoxication? Most of the debate seems to be focused on self-harm relative to other recreational drugs, but if you're driving/working high you may as well be driving/working drunk. I'm not threatened by cannabis usage but I also don't think it should be tolerated in risky situations.


----------



## SarahZ (Nov 30, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Is there no practical method to measure active cannabis intoxication? Most of the debate seems to be focused on self-harm relative to other recreational drugs, but if you're driving/working high you may as well be driving/working drunk. *I'm not threatened by cannabis usage but I also don't think it should be tolerated in risky situations.*


Agreed. It's too bad there isn't a way to measure it similar to the way you measure Blood Alcohol Content.


----------



## RSG (Nov 30, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Is there no practical method to measure active cannabis intoxication?


Not really, no. At least not yet. The states which have legalized marijuana (and let's be clear, all but one have done so via voter initiative, so there hasn't been a lot of advanced planning or forethought on the issue) have struggled to determine what defines intoxication, and more importantly, impairment.

This is particularly true when it comes to physiological tests, since many don't deliver consistent results. In addition, there is no set standard for what chemically determines impairment, as it can vary from person to person. Even regular consumers of alcohol will challenge impairment based on blood alcohol level, but the test and the standard has become so ingrained and intertwined with stigma that few dare speak aloud of any differences between individuals and their personal capabilities.

So states like Colorado are attempting to approach the issue from a different angle and do cognitive-based testing for those suspected of both cannabis and alcohol use. In addition to looking for the usual characteristics such as dilated pupils, there are other tests that law enforcement is using to determine whether a particular individual should not be operating a motor vehicle---or be left in control of their own person.

On a side note, the incidence of impaired driving and related accidents have increased since recreational marijuana was made legal in Colorado. Insurance rates, as a result, have also increased.


----------



## Alice (Dec 1, 2019)

This goes back a long time (60s). There was a study (don't recall how rigorous it was). The idea was that why a truck driver or airline pilot was impaired didn't matter, what mattered was that they shouldn't be on the job just then. It required base testing of reflexes, attention, and such using something similar to a video game. Then it would be given again at intervals and results compared. People "flunked" it by being drunk, but also ill, or on "do not drive or operate heavy machinery" medication, or having a fight with their spouse that morning. It wasn't pursued more at the time because of the expense. Remember this predated Pong, it would be more practical today.

I agree with the concept that a measure of impairment is a better goal than relying on presence or absence of a laundry list of chemicals.


----------



## Barb Stout (Dec 1, 2019)

Alice said:


> This goes back a long time (60s). There was a study (don't recall how rigorous it was). The idea was that why a truck driver or airline pilot was impaired didn't matter, what mattered was that they shouldn't be on the job just then. It required base testing of reflexes, attention, and such using something similar to a video game. Then it would be given again at intervals and results compared. People "flunked" it by being drunk, but also ill, or on "do not drive or operate heavy machinery" medication, or having a fight with their spouse that morning. It wasn't pursued more at the time because of the expense. Remember this predated Pong, it would be more practical today.
> 
> I agree with the concept that a measure of impairment is a better goal than relying on presence or absence of a laundry list of chemicals.


When you say Pong, do you mean that computer game that "simulates" ping pong or something else?

There are many reasons why people work/drive impaired, like you say. Most people are running around fatigued anyway due to many different reasons. However, as someone who lives in a wait and watch state in terms of recreational marijuana, the fact that the incidence of impaired driving and related accidents have increased (and therefore, insurance rates) since recreational marijuana was made legal in Colorado does give me pause.


----------



## Alice (Dec 2, 2019)

Yes, the Atari game.


----------



## Katibeth (Dec 4, 2019)

From about 1993 or 1994, for every temporary agency, temp job, or permanent job I had, I was drug tested. While I was an "office worker," I worked for a wide variety of corporations, including as a secretary to the financial VP of a company that incinerated stuff to a plant manager for FDA regulated company to documentation and/or training for an FDA regulated company. Not only does the temp agency give you a drug test, but in some cases, so does the company where you'll be working. The FDA regulated companies drug tested everyone when starting followed by random drug tests at any time and for as many years as you worked for them. I heard that if you failed a drug test, it was instant termination. Drug testing is extemely common and definitely not worth risking your job.


----------



## neroden (Dec 11, 2019)

Barb Stout said:


> When you say Pong, do you mean that computer game that "simulates" ping pong or something else?
> 
> There are many reasons why people work/drive impaired, like you say. Most people are running around fatigued anyway due to many different reasons. However, as someone who lives in a wait and watch state in terms of recreational marijuana, the fact that the incidence of impaired driving and related accidents have increased (and therefore, insurance rates) since recreational marijuana was made legal in Colorado does give me pause.


I am fairly sure that is a spurious correlation, I.e. a coincidence. Impaired driving and crash rates have been increasing in MOST states including the prohibitionist states. There is something else going on... maybe the demise of drivers ed, who knows. Fewer and fewer people on the road seem to take driving seriously.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 11, 2019)

neroden said:


> I am fairly sure that is a spurious correlation, I.e. a coincidence. Impaired driving and crash rates have been increasing in MOST states including the prohibitionist states. There is something else going on... maybe the demise of drivers ed, who knows. Fewer and fewer people on the road seem to take driving seriously.


The increase in traffic may also be a factor. In fact, my wife and I were just talking about the Washington to Baltimore drive on I-95. I used to do it pretty frequently in the mid to late 1980s when I was going to graduate school part time. Back then, if you avoided the rush hours, 95 was the easy part of the drive. The beltways at either end were the stressful parts. 

Last year, I drove down to work for the first time in my 19 years of working in DC to pack up personal stuff from my office, and the drive on 95 (at 5:30 AM) was a stressful mess. And that was the part where the traffic was free-flowing. Then I got to 295 in DC with the stop and go traffic.  I've done 95 a couple of other times off-peak, and while the traffic flows well, it's crazy, especially the trucks, although the 4-wheelers driving like they're on the Grand Prix circuit don't help much either. When I go down to the Washington area, I usually take US 29. Even though there are some lights in Montgomery County, the traffic is more manageable. I think it's a fair hypothesis that even sober people's driving skills have declined, and the traffic environment is worse than it was in the past and getting even worse.


----------



## neroden (Dec 13, 2019)

Drivers ed basically ended in the 1990s, so everyone younger than me did not get it. Then of course there are drivers getting older and losing skill, and nobody ever takes refresher courses, so I am quite sure the average driving skill level has been dropping since drivers ed was ended in most school districts.


----------



## PVD (Dec 13, 2019)

We still have a few down here, but not like it used to be. The big plus was/is the ability to get a full license at 17 insted of 18, as well as the insurance discount. I think the defensive driving courses are pretty popular, since they can save a good chunk of change, but at the same time, there are dangerous distractions like phones that didn't exist like they do now.


----------



## RSG (Dec 13, 2019)

neroden said:


> Drivers ed basically ended in the 1990s, so everyone younger than me did not get it. Then of course there are drivers getting older and losing skill, and nobody ever takes refresher courses, so I am quite sure the average driving skill level has been dropping since drivers ed was ended in most school districts.


My hometown school district still offers drivers education, and some places, like most school districts in urban Colorado, have never had it. The skill testing in order to receive a license didn't change in those places where it wasn't a rite of passage. Enter the for-profit driving schools. One of the memories of looking through the Denver phone book in the library when I was growing up was the amount of driving schools--a completely foreign concept to my younger self--in the Yellow Pages, including enterprises such as the Sears Driving School ("Use your Sears Card") and the Montgomery Ward Driving School.



PVD said:


> We still have a few down here, but not like it used to be. The big plus was/is the ability to get a full license at 17 insted of 18, as well as the insurance discount. I think the defensive driving courses are pretty popular, since they can save a good chunk of change, but at the same time, there are dangerous distractions like phones that didn't exist like they do now.


Many states are now going to a graduated license model, with privileges that increase over time and phasing in the elimination of restrictions, most notably the prohibition of multiple passengers--especially those not related to the driver--for those without an unrestricted license.

Insurance companies and technology have also played a role. Only the affluent can afford to insure a teenage driver without evidence of an approved training or safety course, particularly if the vehicle insured isn't a clunker. Many insurance companies will only give their best rates to those drivers who consent to an OBD module in the insured vehicle which measures speed, braking deployment and overall driving patterns. The continuing education in this model is via feedback in the form of possible lower rates for changes in driving behavior (or possibly policy cancellation for persistent violations).

Anecdotally, the younger drivers I've observed are generally conscientious and follow most established rules-of-the-road, including proper use of turn signals (a big pet peeve of mine). As a pedestrian, I've almost been hit twice in the past month, and neither driver was under 25.

The drivers most likely to cause a problem seem to be those who are new to the local area (especially from where aggressive driving is the norm), those with showoff vehicles (and it's no longer sports cars as it was when I was growing up), and those who experience most of their life inside a vehicle (not only the salesperson closing deals while driving, but amateur beauty operators, amateur social workers to friends and family, and drivers who are focused first on their mobile entertainment system).


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Dec 13, 2019)

neroden said:


> Drivers ed basically ended in the 1990s, so everyone younger than me did not get it. Then of course there are drivers getting older and losing skill, and nobody ever takes refresher courses, so I am quite sure the average driving skill level has been dropping since drivers ed was ended in most school districts.



My girls were born in the early 90’s. Both took drivers ed at their respective high schools. So, no, drivers ed did not end in the 90’s.


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2019)

AmtrakBlue said:


> My girls were born in the early 90’s. Both took drivers ed at their respective high schools. So, no, drivers ed did not end in the 90’s.


It may be just New York State that he is talking about.


----------



## Alice (Dec 15, 2019)

When I was in high school a long time ago, we had two driving classes. One was daily full semester bookwork only. It covered enough to get a learner's permit along with general best practices and defensive driving (a necessary component to driving in LA). It was a regular elective class ending in a grade on your report card. The other was after school, not every day and not all semester. It had a simulator and then on-the-road practice after you passed the simulator. The simulator was not very sophisticated. I remember it could measure things like how many feet ahead you signaled a turn, and whether you used the clutch more-or-less at the right time. But I also remember the car's clutch didn't feel or behave anything like the simulator. Maybe that is why we had seat belts before they were in most private cars?

I see a lot more bad driving than I used to, especially in cities. I think part of it is heavier traffic. That doesn't just give more opportunities for collisions, I think it also puts people in a lousy mood and I think lousy moods contribute to lousy driving. I also see people who treat lane stripes like suggestions. Some seem to think a yellow light means rush through now. Again, that could be traffic. Lights used do a complete green to green cycle in 60 seconds (at least where I grew up), now it can be several minutes if you brake at a yellow.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 15, 2019)

Back in Pennsylvania, circa 1970, when you were 16, you were eligible for a "Cinderella License," which basically meant, you couldn't drive after midnight without a 21+ year old chaperone in the car with you. This converted to a regular license at age 18. If you passed an approved driver ed class, you were eligible for the full adult license at age 17. The Philadelphia School District did offer drivers ed, it was a half year, once a week in class and once on the road (with 4 students switching per road trip.) Not a whole lot of driving practice, but it did the job. After all these years, the one thing I remember from the instructor was, "Just because the speed limit sign says 40 mph, that doesn't mean you_* have*_ to go 40 mph."


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 15, 2019)

Alice said:


> I see a lot more bad driving than I used to, especially in cities. I think part of it is heavier traffic. That doesn't just give more opportunities for collisions, I think it also puts people in a lousy mood and I think lousy moods contribute to lousy driving. I also see people who treat lane stripes like suggestions. Some seem to think a yellow light means rush through now. Again, that could be traffic. Lights used do a complete green to green cycle in 60 seconds (at least where I grew up), now it can be several minutes if you brake at a yellow.



I agree that the amount of traffic has gotten crazy. I recently saw a movie made in 1980 that included a scene of a car arriving at LAX (the airport). At first glance, I thought they were filming at some backcountry small-city airport, the traffic was so mellow, then the long shot showed the exit signs for Century Blvd. I couldn't see any long shadows that may have indicated they were shooting at 5 AM in June or something, there are a lot of cars on the road, it's just that the traffic at the airport was lighter than it is today. (Also amusing was that the characters were being picked up at the arrivals for TWA and Eastern Airlines. Also, that the car could just park in front of the arrivals hall, and there were no annoying PA announcements, "For security purposes...")


----------



## drdumont (Dec 15, 2019)

I took Drivers' Ed in High school, in the Antediluvian age - about '62. Classroom time was after school, and across town in another school. (?). Road time was in lieu of gym class for 6 weeks. I got little time behind the wheel of the '61 Rambler as the teacher knew I had been driving since I was 13, ferrying my Grandfather around. So I usually napped. Most days consisted of one of the students driving around and stopping at a burger joint. 
The teacher had a brake pedal and an ignition switch on his side, no dual wheel.


----------



## Asher (Dec 15, 2019)

MARC Rider said:


> I agree that the amount of traffic has gotten crazy. I recently saw a movie made in 1980 that included a scene of a car arriving at LAX (the airport). At first glance, I thought they were filming at some backcountry small-city airport, the traffic was so mellow, then the long shot showed the exit signs for Century Blvd. I couldn't see any long shadows that may have indicated they were shooting at 5 AM in June or something, there are a lot of cars on the road, it's just that the traffic at the airport was lighter than it is today. (Also amusing was that the characters were being picked up at the arrivals for TWA and Eastern Airlines. Also, that the car could just park in front of the arrivals hall, and there were no annoying PA announcements, "For security purposes...")


The top photo was typical of when I worked for United Airlines at LAX. The second photo was traffic I faced driving to work. Third photo, Traffic now, I think drivers are pretty good now, I'll admit some irritate me at times, but, all in all drivers do pretty well considering everything


----------



## pennyk (Dec 15, 2019)

We are assuming that the Guest's question about drug testing has been answered. We are also assuming that the Guest who posted the question was not interested in Driver's Education in the last century or traffic at LAX. We will be locking this thread at this time. If any members want to continue the discussion about Driver's Education and/or LAX traffic, please do so in the AU Lounge. Thank you.


----------

