ENVIRONMENT IN FOCUS
CANNABIS
AND THE
WORKPLACE
By Dr Doug Potter (N.D.),
Dr Lori Guasta (Ph.D) and
David R Lauriski (M.A.)
Cannabis legalisation in
South Africa shifts from drug
testing to impairment testing
to keep employees and
workplaces safe.
36_QUARRY SA| JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019
T
he 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 detect impairment
regardless of the cause, including sleep-