The Institute for Work and Health has very helpfully posted some preliminary information about the state of research on the effects of cannabis on work safety. IWH researchers do high-quality work and are currently doing a systematic review of the research on the effects of various drugs on workplace injuries, deaths and near misses.
While the review has not yet been completed, the authors have shared some preliminary findings:
1. There are no published studies on the effects of legalized recreational cannabis on workplace outcomes. This is important because employers must typically demonstrate some minimal level of proof to support policies such as random drug testing.
2. The broader evidence of cannabis use on workplace outcomes (e.g., attendance, turnover, injuries) is highly conflicted and no conclusions can yet be drawn. This suggests that the popular perception of pot as problematic may be incorrect. There is also no data about the incidence of workplace cannabis use.
3. The evidence on cannabis use in safety sensitive positions is mostly based on studies of driving behaviours. Extrapolating these studies to other safety-sensitive jobs is likely analytical over-reach.
4. Cannabis-use testing does not establish impairment (whereas testing for alcohol can do so). This poses a major barrier to research and practice.
This kind of research is helpful because it demonstrates that the current state of knowledge about the workplace effects of legalizing dope is very limited.
This is not all that different from what we know about other forms of drug use in the workplace. The short of that is that there is little evidence linking drug use (as distinct from alcohol use) to increased injury rates (which surprised me) and there is little evidence suggesting that random testing reduces injury rates (less surprising if there is no relationship between drug use and injury to begin with).
That absence of evidence has not stopped employers from advancing mandatory drug testing policies (which workers and unions have resisted). You can read about a 2012 dust-up on this issue here.
Employers typically argue that, despite the lack of evidence to support their policies, they have an obligation to ensure workplace safety and, thus, they have to do something. Setting aside their assumption that there is a problem (which the evidence suggests there isn’t), the idea that employers ought to act to make workplaces safer based only on suspicion of harm is an interesting one.
This approach resonates with the precautionary principle in occupational health and safety, which states that, where an employer believes that a workplace substance or process may cause harm, then it should be up to the person advocating for the substance or process to prove it does not cause harm.
Interestingly, employers have generally resisted the precautionary principle when it might apply to the potentially toxic substances or process they choose to expose workers to. Given this, that they suddenly (and narrowly) laud the precautionary principle around drug testing ought to be viewed with suspicion.
If employers are truly motivated to make workplaces safer, then they ought to be come to the table and make a trade: workers might agree to having their privacy breached if, in exchange, the employer agreed to imposing the same standard on the substances and processes (e.g., shift work) that they subject workers to.
I’ll believe that when I see it.
-- Bob Barnetson
PS. Although it is irrelevant to the argument I’ve presented above, please note that (1) I don’t use pot, (2) I have never used recreational drugs (in 1989, I had 10 narcotic-based painkillers prescribed for a tooth absence but that was not recreational!), and (3) I’m pretty ambivalent about legalization. I disclose this to forestall the (shitty) arguments that arose that last time I wrote on this subject essentially accusing me of using my position to advance my own (presumably wild!) drug use.
No comments:
Post a Comment