I think it is more a case of drug testing companies trying to develop a market than anything else and some uneducated or easily led managers being susceptible to selling techniques - honey trap and free tickets to the footy being some of them.

Sorry to put it so cynically but many managers, especially HR managers, really have no idea at all and are merely following the lead set elsewhere. Senior bureaucrats are the same, much of 'new' government 'policy' federally and in States is a direct copy of what has been implemented and since found faulty somewhere else.

Here is an interesting report:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/drug-testing-workplacesummary-conclusions-independent-inquiry-drug-testing-work

Personally I'm sad to say it but I've come to the view that it would be best to not only legalize marijuana but have the government tax and distribute it.

People who are addicted are rarely persuaded to stop using - they deny they are addicted; minimize the amount they admit to using, everything that's wrong in their life is the fault of someone else. There is ample research demonstrating impaired brain function, short and long term harms.

I have observed exactly what Suzie and Belly described and I am fed up with picking up after the destruction to lives, relationships, alleviating the mood disorders, psychoses and general mayhem. More though, I am fed up with the stupidity of people so gullible as to buy and use this stuff and the callousness of people who exploit the weakness and stupidity of users.

Make it legal then testing for illicit substances will be largely confined to testing people whose performance is poor. Perhaps limits can be imposed for the purposes of driving - like alcohol - with penalties up to manslaughter charges if someone culpable tests positive.

In any case, there is widespread drug testing amongst US companies and it is expensive and rather pointless - there are lots of ways to cheat the process. There's even a cottage industry in selling articles that, hidden in clothing, will help deliver a stored 'clean' urine sample for testing.

Legalize, let the government dispense it at a cost that undercuts local suppliers, farm it as an industry, tax it and some of the taxes can go towards rehabilitation for people who want to put their lives back together, the welfare, child protection and health burden created by drug use, especially in psychiatric and ED facilities, and for drug education in schools.

Cornflower, excellent link. I hadn't even begun to explore the implications of such a policy in terms of the right of an employee to live their life outside work free of the demands of work.

Pynchme, please enlighten us as to the "ample research demonstrating impaired brain function, short and long term harms." I've had a long-term interest in this subject and I can find nothing that has any credibility to support your claims, other than in the trivial case.

Cannabis does NOT cause schizophrenia, although its use is frequently correlated with people suffering such illness.

It does NOT cause depression or bipolar disorder or any of the other mental disorders that you might claim for it. Once again, though, some people with such disorders find that it helps their condition.

It does NOT cause lung cancer, although really heavy use of the same order that cigarette smokers might employ can lead to emphysems. Use of vapourisers instead of joints or pipes reduces this effect.

Short-term memory is certainly affected, although longer-term impacts are negligible. Judgement may also be impacted, although there is little quantitative evidence.

The biggest "problem" for cannabis users is lassitude and lack of initiative. This is the major aspect of cannabis consumption that could be of interest to employers and public regulators. There is some evidence that use of cannabis is negatively correlated with road accidents. IOW, stoners don't crash as much.

BTW, if you accuse me of something and I deny it, it doesn't automatically make you right and me a "denialist". It just means we disagree.

In this case you're also wrong.

Before the demonisation of cannabis and other medicinal and recreational plant products occurred in the 1920's views such as expressed by Pynchme represent the modern day version of Harry. M. Anslinger's hysterical depictions in the 20's.

Anslinger was thrown out of the W.H.O. and resurfaced in the U.S as a health bureaucrat championing cannabis prohibition and produced hysterical propaganda movies depicting rape, death and mayhem caused by cannabis use. He was financed by the patent owners of the pulp paper manufacturing process for whom paper made from hemp fibre was a direct competitor.

The Dioxin produced by the pulp paper process is now one of our major biological pollution problems and I believe a greater threat to the future (even in mental health) than cannabis use.

History is littered with medical charlatans on this subject and today we have people like Jon Faine on the A.B.C. continually airing a clinical psychologist ? who expresses the view of Pynchme. Never once has Jon Faine mentioned to his listeners that this person's theories have been scotched by much larger and more comprehensive studies in Europe provoked by his guest's study.

Jon Faine himself presents to me as "an armchair or red wine expert" and claims to know all things on this subject from his uni days. Do you the recall the intellectual standing in the corner at parties with a glass of red wine in their hand postulating on the indulgences of others, that was Jon.

con't , I too, not unlike Antiseptic have been a long time observer of the effect's of various prohibitions on our Society, I'm not a fan. The opportunity for the very people you so abhor Pynchme, to commit crime and/or be corrupt is increased by such prohibitions.

Drugs do not create these bad people Pynchme and if recreational drugs were not available as an easy way to make a buck, these people would simply move on to their next criminal activity.They are now in Cyber crime as drug dealing has become more difficult of late through technology.

Attitudes to substance use create the problem's and the large profits. You believe it a sad fact Pynchme that people use drug's, I just believe it's a fact. Otherwise it's probably safe to say that all express our views because we care about our society. With or without drugs or religion "good people are still good people" this is a constant in my life experience.

And I still don't think random power for the few is healthy for any society.

It is clear I will make no progress with some here.
My post history shows a dislike for some of the actions of another union.
They are opposed to all drug testing.
yet place a levee in most EBAs they sign, to fund drug and alcohol help for workers in need.
I wear, often the shirts they sell to fund it too, and pay more than the asked price.
Now under the system of OHxS we imported from Thatchers England, bosses must consult and are bound by law to give workers a safe workplace.
I fight constantly against children of unwed parents, who are employers and refuse to buy personal protective gear.
I doubt very much good or bad bosses want to spend more than they must on any safety issue.
I will always believe personal rights are important but not enough to over rule every one Else's