Cannabis testing and its effects on Amtrak hiring

[jpakala]

For years 50,000 people died per year owing to drunken driving. It's down some but will it rise owing to other impairment from what people now legally use? A stupid wedding planner and bride put marijuana into reception refreshments and with some guests sent to the hospital the story made the papers.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I think the issue is whether people can control when they use their choice of intoxicant. Would you be ok with the government dictating that people in transportation jobs not be allowed to use alcohol at all?

YES!

 

[cirdan]

For years 50,000 people died per year owing to drunken driving. It's down some but will it rise owing to other impairment from what people now legally use? A stupid wedding planner and bride put marijuana into reception refreshments and with some guests sent to the hospital the story made the papers.

That's just plain stupid.

If you have people's consent I can sort of understand, but to put in something without them knowing is outright irresponsible and amounts to poisoning.

 

[flitcraft]

No question there needs to be a better test for marijuana than the current ones, which don't detect impairment. A lawyer friend of mine used Washington-legal marijuana products during her cancer chemo, and as a result needed to take taxis and Ubers to and from work for several months after her chemo (and marijuana product usage) ended, because she was paranoid about getting busted and losing her law license. Of course, she never would have driven during her medical marijuana usage, but even though she knew she wasn't impaired in the slightest weeks later, she still worried about testing positive.

For those who think that any marijuana usage ever ought to disqualify prospective Amtrak workers on safety grounds, would you also agree that those with driving infractions--speeding tickets, unsafe lane changes, etc--also ought to disqualify folks from Amtrak employment? Both suggest poor judgment, both violate the law, and neither indicate current impairment of judgment. Of course, banning folks with driving infractions from Amtrak employment would be a non-starter, but it is absolutely consistent with barring those with hair follicle tests that indicate exposure to marijuana products in the past few months.

I don't use the stuff myself, though I dabbled with it in the 6O's, but I think the demonization of pot is irrational when we don't similarly demonize unsafe behavior more generally. I agree that intoxicated drivers need to be punished for creating risks on the road, no matter what their impairment is caused by, and that railroad workers can't use substances that interfere with their good judgment on the job, whether legal or otherwise.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

I think the issue is whether people can control when they use their choice of intoxicant. Would you be ok with the government dictating that people in transportation jobs not be allowed to use alcohol at all?

You do know a CDL holder BAC is half of a non-CDL holder. If you can drive at less than .08 , a CDL holder has to be at less than .04 BAC. That restriction is enforceable even if I am on Vacation, driving a POV, retired but with a valid CDL. In effect the government is severely limited the amount of Alcohol currently permitted.

The government say zero drugs, therefore no levels of drugs in your system is permitted.

If you want to enjoy your dope, your not working in the transportation business. Simple choice.

Again the use of drugs might prevent some for gain employment, it not the reason Amtrak is having issues hiring people.

 

[cirdan]

For those who think that any marijuana usage ever ought to disqualify prospective Amtrak workers on safety grounds, would you also agree that those with driving infractions--speeding tickets, unsafe lane changes, etc--also ought to disqualify folks from Amtrak employment?

How about from driving a bus?

Would you agree to banning people with infractions for dangerous driving from driving a bus that can carry dozens of passengers, potentially including children?

I'm not talking minor things here like parking infractions or being fractionally over a speed limit but genuinely dangerous driving such as skipping red lights, dangerously changing lanes and other stuff that can cause serious accidents.

And if they shouldn't drive a bus, why should they be allowed to operate a train?

 

[daybeers]

If you want to enjoy your dope, your not working in the transportation business. Simple choice.

I don't understand this way of thinking. Should this apply to alcohol as well, or no because there's a reliable test for current intoxication level?

Again the use of drugs might prevent some for gain employment, it not the reason Amtrak is having issues hiring people.

It's certainly one of the issues.

There is absolutely no difference between using cannabis while off-shift and using alcohol while off-shift. Once a reliable test for current intoxication level is common and once cannabis is legalized federally, the DOT rules should be amended.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

I don’t drink alcohol when I am available to work. My schedule is completely unpredictable. If I am not at the house, my employer can and does give me random drug and alcohol testing.

Cannabis is very much different than alcohol. The effects and duration is not well known at this time. Having a test will be help, but duration of the effects, and long term issues are not well known.

Sure you could fine someone who is impacted by the drug testing who wants to work in the transportation business. That individual who want to work at job with drug screen, will have to be clean. Stop using and wait six months. Then apply. Worried about a hair follicle test, get a hair cut. Last one I did only require a 1/4 inch from the scalp.

The rules may change, but today it’s zero tolerance.

 

[Anderson]

I think the issue is whether people can control when they use their choice of intoxicant. Would you be ok with the government dictating that people in transportation jobs not be allowed to use alcohol at all?

I think the issue here isn't "Would [we] be ok with the government dictating that people in transportation jobs not be allowed to use alcohol at all?" so much as it is "Would the transportation sector survive such a mandate?" (I suspect the answer is "Yes, but not at the current pay levels.")

The other issue that I would raise is that, seeing as marijuana has become state-legal in a lot of places (but not federal-legal) and is being used as a medically-prescribed substance in some cases there needs to, at a minimum, be a grace period for "You probably used before you put in for this job, so we're going to test again in a few weeks and you won't be able to continue training beyond a certain point until you come up clean" or "We're going to test you; a positive test means you don't continue, but we'll keep you in the mix for the next class if you can test negative then".

 

[cirdan]

The other issue that I would raise is that, seeing as marijuana has become state-legal in a lot of places (but not federal-legal) and is being used as a medically-prescribed substance in some cases there needs to, at a minimum, be a grace period for "You probably used before you put in for this job, so we're going to test again in a few weeks and you won't be able to continue training beyond a certain point until you come up clean" or "We're going to test you; a positive test means you don't continue, but we'll keep you in the mix for the next class if you can test negative then".

Some people use methadone legally and have it prescribed by their MD.
Some people use mood-altering substances legally prescribed by their psychiatrist.
Even anesthetics are legal (obviously) but if you have received any then you shouldn't be doing certain activities for a period.
Just because something is legal and prescribed or even administered by a health professional does not mean it is safe for the people who use it to be in control of trains or other equipment in which the safety and lives of others depend on their decisions.

 

[Anderson]

Some people use methadone legally and have it prescribed by their MD.
Some people use mood-altering substances legally prescribed by their psychiatrist.
Even anesthetics are legal (obviously) but if you have received any then you shouldn't be doing certain activities for a period.
Just because something is legal and prescribed or even administered by a health professional does not mean it is safe for the people who use it to be in control of trains or other equipment in which the safety and lives of others depend on their decisions.

This is true, but I would note that I was (generally) directing the issue at pre-hiring use/consumption. After hiring, you've got a different story, but before someone even applies for a position they shouldn't be expected not to comply with a higher (safety-related) standard of conduct which might apply in the future.

[Also, the marijuana testing process effectively acts as a total bar to consumption, not a bar to consumption within X hours/X days of working a sensitive job. There is little, if any, evidence that if someone smokes a few joints on the first day of a week-long vacation they'll present an elevated risk of causing an accident when they get back to work.]

 

[Qapla]

There is little, if any, evidence that if someone smokes a few joints on the first day of a week-long vacation they'll present an elevated risk of causing an accident when they get back to work

Just to be fair ... is there any evidence that if someone smokes a few joints on the first day of a week-long vacation they won't present an elevated risk of causing an accident when they get back to work

 

[Ryan]

Just to be fair ... is there any evidence that if someone smokes a few joints on the first day of a week-long vacation they won't present an elevated risk of causing an accident when they get back to work

No. But their drug test is going to pop positive anyways. That's the exact heart of the issue, there isn't a way to chemically measure impairment like there is for alcohol where there is a direct correlation between BAC and impairment level (ignoring the pain of driving with a hangover).

 

[MARC Rider]

Again the use of drugs might prevent some for gain employment, it not the reason Amtrak is having issues hiring people.

Not necessarily true. Having drug tests that are too strict relative to the actual requirements of the job reduces the pool of qualified people who can be hired. Also, I suspect the job announcements weren't as explicit about the policy regarding drug uses as they could be. Thus people who really don't have a drug problem, but might get flagged by a hair follicle test could apply, and get accepted, only to fail the drug test, thus wasting everybody's time and slowing down the onboarding of needed employees.

"Transportation workers" covers a wide range of jobs, from OBS, ticket and customer service agents, janitors, etc., as well as drivers, pilots, operating crew and mechanical crew. Some jobs may require more strict enforcement of antidrug policies than others. With current testing technology, urine tests would probably be sufficient for most outside of actual operating crew, and even for them, a clear urine test would be as closes a humanly possible to a guarantee that the person is intoxicated at the time of the test. Og course, a rapid and reliable field sobriety test would be best.

 

[MARC Rider]

You might find this interesting:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35550333/
Apparently, legalization of recreational weed in Washington State is not associated with increase in alcohol, painkiller, or tobacco use, with the exception of e-cigarettes, at least among young adults.

 

[MARC Rider]

For years 50,000 people died per year owing to drunken driving.

Total motor vehicle deaths peaked at around 50,000 per year during the period 1965-1975, but the current figures are more like 35,000 to 40,000, and that's with a larger population. Although a large fraction of these were undoubtedly due to drunken driving, it's still only a fraction.

Also of note that, relative to total population or vehicle miles traveled, the fatality rate has been consistently going down. Thus, one's chance of being killed in traffic is lower than it's ever been.

Another interesting observation is that there was a sharp drop in motor vehicle fatalities during the Second World War (fuel rationing), and the period 1972-1978 (1970s energy crisis) and 2007-2011 ("Great Recession"). I guess maybe having a total World War, or at least a real bad depression/recession might help reduce traffic deaths more than banning cannabis or drunken driving.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Total motor vehicle deaths peaked at around 50,000 per year during the period 1965-1975, but the current figures are more like 35,000 to 40,000, and that's with a larger population. Although a large fraction of these were undoubtedly due to drunken driving, it's still only a fraction.
View attachment 28808
Also of note that, relative to total population or vehicle miles traveled, the fatality rate has been consistently going down. Thus, one's chance of being killed in traffic is lower than it's ever been.

Another interesting observation is that there was a sharp drop in motor vehicle fatalities during the Second World War (fuel rationing), and the period 1972-1978 (1970s energy crisis) and 2007-2011 ("Great Recession"). I guess maybe having a total World War, or at least a real bad depression/recession might help reduce traffic deaths more than banning cannabis or drunken driving.

There is a consistent drop since the early 70s possibly due to mandatory wearing of seat belts followed by the adoption of passive restraint systems (air bags) which has made crashes much more survivable. More recently we are seeing devices that detect drifting out of lane or a car stopping ahead. Roads are also getting somewhat safer with addition of center line and road edge rumble strips and better design of on and off ramps, etc.

 

[Anderson]

There is a consistent drop since the early 70s possibly due to mandatory wearing of seat belts followed by the adoption of passive restraint systems (air bags) which has made crashes much more survivable. More recently we are seeing devices that detect drifting out of lane or a car stopping ahead. Roads are also getting somewhat safer with addition of center line and road edge rumble strips and better design of on and off ramps, etc.

Not to mention other things such as crumple zones and the like, which in some cases basically trade off the survivability of the car for the survivability of the occupants. I remember reading somewhere that there were more than a few crashes back in the 40s/50s where the occupants died but the car could be put back into service with minimal work, because the rigid frames, etc., made the crashes more lethal.

 

[AFriendly]

You do know a CDL holder BAC is half of a non-CDL holder. If you can drive at less than .08 , a CDL holder has to be at less than .04 BAC. That restriction is enforceable even if I am on Vacation, driving a POV, retired but with a valid CDL. In effect the government is severely limited the amount of Alcohol currently permitted.

The government say zero drugs, therefore no levels of drugs in your system is permitted.

If you want to enjoy your dope, your not working in the transportation business. Simple choice.

Again the use of drugs might prevent some for gain employment, it not the reason Amtrak is having issues hiring people.

I'm as liberal as they come on cannabis legalization, but when it comes to operating any heavy machinery, especially when potentially hundreds of lives are at risk, I have to agree. For the record, hair follicle tests don't amount to a lifetime ban from employment- they only go back about 180 days. The point of a hair follicle test is not an invasive examination of your personal life- it is to detect a pattern of substance use over time, which I think is a legitimate concern for work that involves public safety. Ironically I think that urine tests are pointless and stupid except as part of the investigation of an accident, but this type of screening is a different story.

 

[Ryan]

The point of a hair follicle test is not an invasive examination of your personal life- it is to detect a pattern of substance use over time,

Hard disagree. What I do when I'm off the clock (as long as I'm unimpaired before I go on the clock) is none of your damn business.

 

[AFriendly]

Hard disagree. What I do when I'm off the clock (as long as I'm unimpaired before I go on the clock) is none of your damn business.

Okay, but stoned railroaders have demonstrated that they're not capable of keeping it off the clock. How would you feel if your child was a passenger on the Colonial?

 

[MARC Rider]

With current testing technology, urine tests would probably be sufficient for most outside of actual operating crew, and even for them, a clear urine test would be as closes a humanly possible to a guarantee that the person is intoxicated at the time of the test. Og course, a rapid and reliable field sobriety test would be best.

Whoops, that should be "a clear urine test is as close as humanly possible that the person is not intoxicated..."

 

[MARC Rider]

Okay, but stoned railroaders have demonstrated that they're not capable of keeping it off the clock. How would you feel if your child was a passenger on the Colonial?

That makes no sense. The Conrail engineer involved in the Colonial wreck was stoned while on the job. This wasn't a case of his using it while off the clock and the lingering effects affecting his ability to drive the engine. He was smoking weed and stoned while driving the train. A hair follicle test that says that you might have smoked weed (or been in the same room with someone who did) during the previous three months has little value in telling whether that person is not capable of "keeping it off the clock." You might as say that everybody who has a positive EtG test is incapable of keeping their alcohol drinking "off the clock." I know from personal experience that's not true. (I drink alcohol but have no trouble not drinking it when I have to drive my car.)

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Would you be ok with the government dictating that people in transportation jobs not be allowed to use alcohol at all?

Based on what pilots and truck drivers say it sounds like they operate under a practical use ban already, meaning that they rarely drink between shifts because a single cocktail can put them over the limit and the amount of time available between shifts may not be long enough to reach a test-passing state.

For those who think that any marijuana usage ever ought to disqualify prospective Amtrak workers on safety grounds, would you also agree that those with driving infractions--speeding tickets, unsafe lane changes, etc--also ought to disqualify folks from Amtrak employment?

Who thinks people with a history of dangerous driving should be in charge of trains and planes? I'm surprised this is considered a controversial take.

No. But their drug test is going to pop positive anyways. That's the exact heart of the issue, there isn't a way to chemically measure impairment like there is for alcohol where there is a direct correlation between BAC and impairment level (ignoring the pain of driving with a hangover).

Even BAC is a vague and unknowable value without testing. As your body builds resistance it takes more BAC to feel anything so even if you were very astue and could reliably estimate your BAC you would lose that internal calibration over time. People who drink a lot will be over the limit long before they can feel anything. What we need is cheap and easy BAC testing so drinkers can know where they are without having to guess. This is true for any intoxicant IMO.

 

[PVD]

Based on what pilots and truck drivers say it sounds like they operate under a practical use ban already, meaning that they rarely drink between shifts because a single cocktail can put them over the limit and the amount of time available between shifts may not be long enough to reach a test-passing state.


Who thinks people with a history of dangerous driving should be in charge of trains and planes? I'm surprised this is considered a controversial take.


Even BAC is a vague and unknowable value without testing. As your body builds resistance it takes more BAC to feel anything so even if you were very astue and could reliably estimate your BAC you would lose that internal calibration over time. People who drink a lot will be over the limit long before they can feel anything. What we need is cheap and easy BAC testing so drinkers can know where they are without having to guess. This is true for any intoxicant IMO.

What you say makes sense. But I would add that inexpensive and easy to use BAC detection (saliva strips or breath) is readily available, but I don't know if any solid studies back up their accuracy.