32
32
TECHNICAL
HEALTH AND SANITATION
Cannabis and
the workplace
By
Dr Doug Potter (ND), Dr Lori Guasta (PhD) and
David R Lauriski (MA)
Cannabis legalisation in South Africa
shifts from drug testing to impairment
testing to keep employees and
workplaces safe.
The modern workplace is filled with gadgets and protocols
designed to keep workers safe; there are security cameras,
risk assessments, alcohol and drug testing and safety
gear. We add each new safety device to our collection of
workplace initiatives to create a vision of a safer workplace.
Can we now manage drug use in our safety programmes?
The answer is yes.
In zero-tolerance workplaces, employees who drink alcohol on
Sunday night understand that its presence should be out of their
systems by Monday morning. Yet urine and blood tests for drugs may
indicate the presence of a substance up to 30 days after exposure to
the drug, long after the effects have worn off. This is especially true
of cannabis.
Given the drug’s new legal status in South Africa, employers
recognise the need to address this issue differently and in response
to the changed social landscape. Companies are dealing with a new
reality that an increased number of employees may choose to use
cannabis during the weekend or outside of their work schedule.
Instead of focusing on drug testing, South African employers may
shift to impairment testing, ensuring that workers are fit-for-work,
despite the presence of cannabis in their system.
Random drug testing is thought to dissuade employees from
engaging in drug use to eliminate the possibility of employees being
intoxicated at work. However, any component of a safety system
structured to catch wrongdoing as a method to prevent safety risk
is indicative of a safety culture and safety leadership that could be
improved. In addition, employers are recognising that current drug
testing approaches may make it difficult to attract and retain a
qualified workforce.
According to a 2010 report by the National Workrights Institute,
‘Impairment testing is the practice of determining which workers in
safety sensitive positions put themselves and others at risk by directly
measuring workers’ current fitness for duty. Urine testing, in contrast,
attempts to determine which workers have used specific substances
known to cause impairment in the relatively recent past.’
Alertness testing as a fitness-for-duty solution is far more valuable
as a workplace safety tool compared to drug testing because it can
www.plumbingafrica.co.za
@plumbingonline
@PlumbingAfricaOnline
November 2019 Volume 25 I Number 9