# Drug Screening / Testing in EMS



## JohSco (Feb 2, 2012)

I am glad to find EMTLife, I apologize for having my first post being a selfish question about myself without contributing thought to another post...

So, I am attending my EMT-B class and it obviously requires a drug test for clinicals. Ok. I am on my 11th day of sobriety, I will eventually get clean enough to pass. My class is going great and I am learning a lot and making a good impression on my Professor. 

My question is, once I start working in EMS, do most companies/hospitals give RANDOM drug tests? I understand there will be an initial, pre-employment screening. I am disciplined enough to know not to smoke and get clean. I am also aware that working under the influence, especially in this field, would be a tragic mistake waiting to happen. From what I've gathered on various forums around the internet is that some EMS companies will give random tests, most give them after an on-duty accident has occurred. I would like to know more specifically what is the deal.

That being said, if my co-worker can drink himself to sleep on the weekends, smoke cigarettes until cancer forms with no scrutiny, what is wrong with me smoking ON MY OWN PRIVATE TIME? Rhetorics aside, can somebody please be upfront and honest with me and tell me if any, if not all EMS employers RANDOMLY drug test. The initial test is no problem. Please hold your judgemental views on marijuana if you can't answer my question, otherwise go ahead and judge, just give me the facts as well. 

Listen, I understand the initial backlash that is sure to be felt at such a question being poised by someone who wants to go into a highly demanding job in the medical field where vulnerable people rely on you with their lives. I honestly think that being a pothead, which I have been before, is not conducive to EMS. Those days are beyond me and I've learned the value of self-control. 

But, seriously, let's get real, I am not going to be high and the residual effects will not be any more of a factor than if I had smoked a cigarette on-duty or had a binge drinking weekend. So that being said...

Can anyone answer my question with facts?

Thank you. Goodnight/day. God Bless.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Feb 2, 2012)

Both. Mandatory after any kind of accidents and random (normally if they think you have been using).


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 2, 2012)

JohSco said:


> That being said, if my co-worker can drink himself to sleep on the weekends, smoke cigarettes until cancer forms with no scrutiny, what is wrong with me smoking ON MY OWN PRIVATE TIME?



Honest answer? Because one of those is a schedule 1 controlled substance and the other two aren't. "Should marijuana be a schedule 1 controlled substance, schedule 2, or uncontrolled?" is a good, but irrelevant, question when posed as a condition of employment. "Should nicotine and alcohol be schedule 2?" (I put schedule 2 because there is some evidence that nicotine is helps with some psychatric medication and alcohol has a valid use as an 'antidote' for some poisons like methanol) is a similarly good, but irrelevant question for the same reason. 



> Rhetorics aside, can somebody please be upfront and honest with me and tell me if any, if not all EMS employers RANDOMLY drug test. The initial test is no problem. Please hold your judgemental views on marijuana if you can't answer my question, otherwise go ahead and judge, just give me the facts as well.


Depends on the employer. I've worked for two different companies, and while I did have to pee in a cup for a medical urinalysis three times (I failed once when renewing it due to trace amounts of blood, hence the third test) in order to meet California's requirements to operate an ambulance, to the best of my knowledge none of those were ever sent for drug testing. I know the first one wasn't because it was done at my then PMD before being hired. The second 2 times were both done at an industrial med clinic for the sole purpose of renewing my medical card. Of course I'm also the type of person that smoking marijuana would be a very low concern. Without knowing you, how you act, and how you dress, I can't say whether a company without a hard policy would test you or not. Of course there are also a lot of companies that test everyone, period.


----------



## Tigger (Feb 2, 2012)

Everyone at my company gets tested after they are given an employment offer. Anyone involved in an on duty accident, regardless of whether or not you were at fault or if you were driving, will also be tested. If the bosses suspect you are under the influence you can be tested at any time. However, if you do nothing wrong, you don't get tested after the pre-employment screen. 

Like you, I think it's unfortunate that someone can smoke marijuana days before going on duty and still test positive despite not exhibiting signs of intoxication. While I disagree with this, I value my job more than the defense of this principle and therefore do not use marijuana.


----------



## JohSco (Feb 2, 2012)

Thank you for your honest answers, I am surprised at the level of support you guys have provided, I thank you again. I understand the serious nature of drugs and being on the job. To further clarify, if anyone was interested, I've never experimented with drugs, except marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms (TERRIBLE), both of which simply grow from the Earth. 

As much as this may sound like useless drug babble, I think it's an interesting point to bring up, I have practiced self-control, mostly for fear of not wanting to fall into a spiral of addiction. I don't take legal painkillers and I rarely drink. I don't smoke or ingest tobacco. Everybody is entitled to their opinion on what constitutes proper lifestyle practices for an EMT, but I also believe that you should be entitled to a level of freedom to make your own personal choices, provided it does not affect your ability to think clearly and work. I personally feel, that some individuals can have a bad initial experience with marijuana and deem it  unsafe for anyone, which is just plain wrong. I've had bad first experiences with a lot of legal substances, yet I don't discriminate against regular alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, and fast food eaters. I just don't partake in these activities.

But I also deeply respect policy and the need for it, one person may not be able to control himself as much as myself. Marijuana is illegal, there is no way around that issue, I just hope when the time comes, circumstances will allow me to occasionally smoke marijuana in my extended free time. Simple as that. I am not ashamed for stating this. It seems like as long as you aren't reckless with usage, it shouldn't be much of an issue, although I'm sure I will encounter somebody in this forum or real-life who will digress.

I don't know, I am approaching preacher status, and I want to contribute to other posts here, but this topic, along with off-duty tobacco bans, deeply disturb me. 

Thank you everyone for contributing thoughtful posts, I really appreciate it right now.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 3, 2012)

1. What does "being from the earth" have to do with anything? Lots of things are natural, but dangerous when invested or inhaled. 

2. While I agree with the philosophical viewpoint of freedom unless it intrudes on the rights of someone else, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand as the topic is not changing this country's drug laws.


----------



## JohSco (Feb 3, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> 2. While I agree with the philosophical viewpoint of freedom unless it intrudes on the rights of someone else, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand as the topic is not changing this country's drug laws.



Yes, you're definitely bringing up a point I can't argue. It is an illegal substance, same as every other illegal drug. I just initially, and still do, want the facts on the protocol for random tests. It sounds bad, it sounds like I want to "cheat" or "beat" the system that all of you faithfully follow, whether you want to or not. I appreciate that, I just truly believe in the non-harmful properties of marijuana for me personally. 

I want to provide true quality care as an EMS provider, which entails having a physically fit body and mind that is clear of toxins and distractions. If that means I have to quit completely, I will be fine with that. Helping people is more important than a relaxing plant, however it's just that, a way to relax on my own extended, personal and private free time. Any hope to reconcile this?


----------



## Remeber343 (Feb 3, 2012)

Be prepared to give it up.


----------



## Ewok Jerky (Feb 3, 2012)

Its illegal, if you are involved in any type of accident and are found with illegal drugs in your system, your company's insurance provider will be pretty pissed, plain and simple.

Smoking weed is a firable offense so I would think long and hard about your priorities, is recreational use worth risking your career (you will not get a second chance in ems). Actually if you have to think about it at all your priorities are not straight for ems.


----------



## Ewok Jerky (Feb 3, 2012)

And the guy who comes in hungover after a bender is going to get fired too, just like the guy who gets a dui "on his own time"


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 3, 2012)

beano said:


> Smoking weed is a firable offense so I would think long and hard about your priorities, is recreational use worth risking your career (you will not get a second chance in ems). Actually if you have to think about it at all your priorities are not straight for ems.



Would you hold that view if marijuana wasn't a schedule 1 controlled substance and had, say, similar legal status as tobacco and alcohol? Would someone who used alcohol during prohibition be viewed the same as someone who used marijuana today?


----------



## STXmedic (Feb 3, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> Would you hold that view if marijuana wasn't a schedule 1 controlled substance and had, say, similar legal status as tobacco and alcohol? Would someone who used alcohol during prohibition be viewed the same as someone who used marijuana today?



But it is a Schedule 1. If it were on the same legal status as alcohol or tobacco, then no big deal. But it's not, and it WILL get you fired. If it becomes legalized at some point, then more power to you. However, if you choose to partake in a currently illegal activity, then be prepared to bear the consequences.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Feb 3, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> Would you hold that view if marijuana wasn't a schedule 1 controlled substance and had, say, similar legal status as tobacco and alcohol? Would someone who used alcohol during prohibition be viewed the same as someone who used marijuana today?



Legal or illegal... doesn't matter.

I have fired employees for coming to work under the influence of alcohol.  Doesn't matter if it is legal or not.  Specifically, their job included operating heavy machinery and ensuring customer safety.  Regardless of personal opinion in regard to recreational drugs (legal or not), the situation presented an an unacceptable risk to the customer, staff, and the business.  Debate the level of impairment all you like, if you live in a "at will state" and the employer has a reason to suspect that your physical, emotional, or mental state presents a liability then they have not only the right, but responsibility to take whatever actions are needed to protect all involved.  It is that much easier if you have proof (UA) of a violation of company policy.  Hell, I have fired more than one employee that was so addicted to cigarettes that they couldn't wait for their scheduled breaks; if you get customer complaints and it affects the operation... that's life...  "Inability to accomplish the task for which hired to a level satisfactory to the employer."


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 3, 2012)

PoeticInjustice said:


> But it is a Schedule 1. If it were on the same legal status as alcohol or tobacco, then no big deal. But it's not, and it WILL get you fired. If it becomes legalized at some point, then more power to you. However, if you choose to partake in a currently illegal activity, then be prepared to bear the consequences.



My issue is the last part of his post where he turns from legality to morality.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 3, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Legal or illegal... doesn't matter.
> 
> I have fired employees for coming to work under the influence of alcohol.  Doesn't matter if it is legal or not.  Specifically, their job included operating heavy machinery and ensuring customer safety.  Regardless of personal opinion in regard to recreational drugs (legal or not), the situation presented an an unacceptable risk to the customer, staff, and the business.  Debate the level of impairment all you like, if you live in a "at will state" and the employer has a reason to suspect that your physical, emotional, or mental state presents a liability then they have not only the right, but responsibility to take whatever actions are needed to protect all involved.  It is that much easier if you have proof (UA) of a violation of company policy.  Hell, I have fired more than one employee that was so addicted to cigarettes that they couldn't wait for their scheduled breaks; if you get customer complaints and it affects the operation... that's life...  "Inability to accomplish the task for which hired to a level satisfactory to the employer."



The test for illicit drugs normally goes far beyond just 'being in the system,' and instead looking for metabolites or deposits outside of the system (e.g. hair). There's a difference between under the influence and used , and I can't believe that there wouldn't be backlash because an employee's urine sample came back positive for alcohol despite a blood test showing no ethanol currently inside the system. After all, albeit my source is Wiki (I don't worry about my ability to pass a drug test, so I don't have a better source), it's possible to detect alcohol use up to 80 hours after consumption. Is someone who last drunk 3 days ago still under the influence? 

Similarly, there's a difference between being a recreational user, be it tobacco or other drugs, and being a full blown addict that can't go 30 minutes without a hit, such as the tobacco smoker you fired. 

Finally, how many companies have a zero opioid (prescription or otherwise) policy? After all, the effects are the same whether they're being abused or properly used.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Feb 3, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Doesn't matter if it is legal or not.  Specifically, their job included operating heavy machinery and ensuring customer safety.  Regardless of personal opinion in regard to recreational drugs (legal or not), the situation presented an an unacceptable risk to the customer, staff, and the business.  Debate the level of impairment all you like, if you live in a "at will state" and the employer has a reason to suspect that your physical, emotional, or mental state presents a liability then they have not only the right, but responsibility to take whatever actions are needed to protect all involved.



So by this reasoning an employee who arrived to work after working a 24 then having 8 hours off but not sleeping for instance to take care of a kid or just shoot pool with a friend would arguably be impaired. Would you handle this employee in the same way as one who showed up mildly intoxicated? I'm just curious where the line is drawn. Impairment is impairment and can be caused by legal means as well but when caused by a drug it is generally handled far differently then when it is not caused by a drug despite the fact that the level of impairment is probably quite similar.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Feb 3, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> The test for illicit drugs normally goes far beyond just 'being in the system,' and instead looking for metabolites or deposits outside of the system (e.g. hair). There's a difference between under the influence and used , and I can't believe that there wouldn't be backlash because an employee's urine sample came back positive for alcohol despite a blood test showing no ethanol currently inside the system. After all, albeit my source is Wiki (I don't worry about my ability to pass a drug test, so I don't have a better source), it's possible to detect alcohol use up to 80 hours after consumption. Is someone who last drunk 3 days ago still under the influence?
> 
> Similarly, there's a difference between being a recreational user, be it tobacco or other drugs, and being a full blown addict that can't go 30 minutes without a hit, such as the tobacco smoker you fired.
> 
> Finally, how many companies have a zero opioid (prescription or otherwise) policy? After all, the effects are the same whether they're being abused or properly used.



Agreed.  The point I am trying to make is that an employer has the right to protect themselves legally, especially in any profession where mistakes have huge consequences.  If you are just a bad driver than the employer must prevent future issues.  The presumption of an inability to properly perform your duties is all the employer needs to A. Deny employment or B. Terminate employment in at "at will state" (just gotta do it legally).  In the case of the OP it is clear to me that if an employer drug screens (I have been tested for initial employment at 2 EMS Gigs) then the presence of a substance that can raise "fitness" issues in a market saturated with EMTs is going to turn out badly for the OP.  Think as an employer; when you have choices, you go for the safest bet and that ain't the guy that has 3 DUIs, a lack of favorable references, or can't pass a piss test.  I know of several Medics and EMTs who got DUIs while off duty.  Terminated the following day; employer didn't need the potential headache and could replace them with the next name on the wait list.

OP:  JUST SAY NO!!!  



bigbaldguy said:


> So by this reasoning an employee who arrived to work after working a 24 then having 8 hours off but not sleeping for instance to take care of a kid or just shoot pool with a friend would arguably be impaired. Would you handle this employee in the same way as one who showed up mildly intoxicated? I'm just curious where the line is drawn. Impairment is impairment and can be caused by legal means as well but when caused by a drug it is generally handled far differently then when it is not caused by a drug despite the fact that the level of impairment is probably quite similar.



The question is hypothetical for any employer.  In EVOC once I was shown a video on a study that showed that sleep deprivation was more impairing for a driver than intoxication.  The thing is that as an employer you have to CYA.  Incompetence, intoxication, indifference... what is the difference for the employer that has to think about the big picture?  How much more pronounced is that when you have evidence that the person has been or is using a substance that has the possible potential to impair their ability to operate at 100%.


----------



## wutthedutch (Feb 3, 2012)

*what is drug testing like where you work?*

how often do they test you and when? also do they pat you down? i know when i was in the navy they would watch you so hopefully its not as strict.


----------



## *MX-EMT (Feb 3, 2012)

umm...your an EMT?


----------



## Chan (Feb 3, 2012)

It's the same for just about every other job that doesn't include the government. 

For the record, I don't care if you do drugs, just do it responsibly.


----------



## CobraIV (Feb 3, 2012)

A friend told me he gets a drug test every month no drugs no booze


----------



## mgr22 (Feb 3, 2012)

Frequent and random.


----------



## CaydenElizalde (Feb 3, 2012)

Why do you need fake pee...? If you're going to do drugs that are going to cause you problems without any real medical reason, then you shouldn't be doing them anyways, especially as a healthcare provider.

That said, we get tested often enough and randomly.


----------



## shfd739 (Feb 3, 2012)

Preemployment, randoms, after OJIs, after vehicle incidents and after controlled substances go missing. 

In 8 years I've never had a random.


----------



## Amberlamps916 (Feb 3, 2012)

America......


----------



## MSDeltaFlt (Feb 3, 2012)

wutthedutch said:


> how often do they test you and when? also do they pat you down? i know when i was in the navy they would watch you so hopefully its not as strict.



Dude, really?!?  Either you're dangerous and amoral, or this is a troll.  My money's on troll.


----------



## usalsfyre (Feb 3, 2012)

Due to the potential for getting tested after an incident I would recommend another field if you can't abstain.



shfd739 said:


> ...controlled substances go missing.


Ahh yes, the joy of getting called in to pee in a cup because someone can't farking count.


----------



## shfd739 (Feb 3, 2012)

usalsfyre said:


> Due to the potential for getting tested after an incident I would recommend another field if you can't abstain.
> 
> 
> Ahh yes, the joy of getting called in to pee in a cup because someone can't farking count.



The best was when they went missing out of a code-locked compartment on a unit that I never got close to during my shift. Everyone on duty had to go. My partner and I played it so we were the last ones to show up--and the place was out of test kits..no test for us.


----------



## Jon (Feb 3, 2012)

usalsfyre said:


> Due to the potential for getting tested after an incident I would recommend another field if you can't abstain.
> 
> 
> Ahh yes, the joy of getting called in to pee in a cup because someone can't farking count.


Amen. That or post-incident screening (You crashed the ambulance? Even if it's not your fault?).

I'm always studying for my drug test.

Oh - I merged the OTHER drug screen thread into this one. This one seems to be going somewhere productive. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## Tigger (Feb 3, 2012)

It's unfortunate that marijuana testing is always done through urine. From what I understand, should you be pulled over and arrested for OUI of marijuana, you will have blood drawn and the the THC content in your blood will be measured. If you are not a chronic smoker and go to have your blood drawn a few days later, the THC levels will be back to "normal" as you are are no longer high. Meanwhile a pee test cannot differentiate whether you smoked yesterday or a month ago. 

Say what you want about marijuana use, but it seems like testing for it is still in the dark ages. Or maybe I have all this wrong and the drug counselor I was having an offhanded conversation with may have just been making all the above up.


----------



## Anjel (Feb 3, 2012)

There are a few companies I knoe of that do hair tests. So OP, you would be screwed. 

My current company is...

When you get hired

If you damage the ambulance in any way.

If you get hurt. I pulled a muscle and got drug tested. Its very easy to get hurt in EMS. 

Whenever the sup thinks you are "acting funny". 

And when drugs go missings.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 3, 2012)

Tigger said:


> Say what you want about marijuana use, but it seems like testing for it is still in the dark ages. Or maybe I have all this wrong and the drug counselor I was having an offhanded conversation with may have just been making all the above up.



For a schedule 1 drug, there's a value argument that it's irrelevant whether you used it two days ago or two hours ago.


----------



## wutthedutch (Feb 3, 2012)

MSDeltaFlt said:


> Dude, really?!?  Either you're dangerous and amoral, or this is a troll.  My money's on troll.



cannabis is much healthier than alcohol no im not trolling, so many damn prudes on here

@veneficus i chose it for health reasons. with alcohol raises estrogen, breaks down your muscles and your brain literally soaks in the alcohol causes much more damage. cannabis when vaporized isnt bad for your lungs and only temporarily affects short term memory if anything


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 3, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> Finally, how many companies have a zero opioid (prescription or otherwise) policy? After all, the effects are the same whether they're being abused or properly used.



It has been my experience in most places I have worked that while you are taking opioids, you must be on light duty (no driving, patient contact, lifting, machinery, or near open flame) or off using sicktime, PTO, FMLA, etc. 

Upon stopping prescription opioids, you would be retested at 6 months and 1 year automatically. 

Opioid without a prescription was instant termination upon a positive test. 

Places I worked had pre-employment drug testing, random (picked monthly by lottery), if narcs were unaccounted for, after any incident involving a motor vehicle (at fault or not), immediately upon injury at work, after any patient care error that had the potential (or actually caused) harm, and of course if you were suspected by another employee.

Things to consider other than employment. 

Most states have a "moral turpitude" clause for EMS certification. It is basically the civillian equivalent of "conduct unbecoming". It is a catch 22 that basically says "you made a decision or performed an action we don't approve of and we are going to punish you for it".

Which means you will likely face a long hard road to recovering your ability to practice. (in fact one of the questions on my medical school application was: "Have you ever had any healthcare certification revoked or disciplinary action affecting your right to practice?")

Both individuals and employers in my home state are required to report to the board of EMS various disciplinary infarctions. Drug use being one.

Unless something changed, workman's comp will not pay if a worker was injured while under the influence. A positive drug test whether you are currently under the influence or not will create a world of headache for you. Most likely starting with your claim being denied.

Insurance may not cover you. Which means if things go wrong, you could be all on your own.

Again in my home state, a provider is mandated to self report to the board of EMS all criminal action against them within a certain time frame. (I forget how long because I have never needed to know) but I think it is between 14 and 90 days. 

That means, when you get busted off duty for possession, purchasing, or paraphernalia, you probably will not be going to work the follwoing day, even if you post bail. (including personal bail by signing the ticket) Since you lost your immediate ability to work based on your action, you likely will be fired on the spot, if you lack the ability to call in sick and stay off work until you can either get out of the charges in a way that the state board will still let you be certified. 

Since my home state publically posts infarctions on a website, that might be a tough thing to conceal when you call in sick for 2 straight weeks and your employer gets suspicious. (I don't advocate trying to conceal things like this from your employer, but I know people will try.)

If you think some recreational time is worth all these risks, that is your business, not mine. 

I have simply made you aware.

Personally I try not to tempt fate. As some on this site who have worked with me can attest, no matter how remote the possibility something will go wrong, when I am working, it will go wrong with style.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 3, 2012)

Tigger said:


> It's unfortunate that marijuana testing is always done through urine. From what I understand, should you be pulled over and arrested for OUI of marijuana, you will have blood drawn and the the THC content in your blood will be measured. If you are not a chronic smoker and go to have your blood drawn a few days later, the THC levels will be back to "normal" as you are are no longer high. Meanwhile a pee test cannot differentiate whether you smoked yesterday or a month ago.
> 
> Say what you want about marijuana use, but it seems like testing for it is still in the dark ages. Or maybe I have all this wrong and the drug counselor I was having an offhanded conversation with may have just been making all the above up.



I think the issue is more of cost, a urine test costs considerably less than a blood test where I have been.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 3, 2012)

wutthedutch said:


> cannabis is much healthier than alcohol no im not trolling, so many damn prudes on here



What makes you think that?


----------



## NomadicMedic (Feb 3, 2012)

We are tested on hire, every year at our physical, following an accident or injury, if two supervisors have reason to believe you may be under the influence and randomly, generated by computer, while you're on shift. 

Needless to say, we're tested often. 

Not judging, but if you can't stay away from the herb, EMS may not be the job for you.


----------



## systemet (Feb 3, 2012)

wutthedutch said:


> i chose it for health reasons. with alcohol raises estrogen, breaks down your muscles and your brain literally soaks in the alcohol causes much more damage. cannabis when vaporized isnt bad for your lungs and only temporarily affects short term memory if anything



Would you like to clarify the "your brain literally soaks in alcohol?" comment?  Are you somehow of the impression that cannabinoids don't penetrate the CNS, because you might want to think that one through a little?

Regarding marijuana, I accept that much of the research is deeply flawed, and there has been some academic fraud in this area.  But to think that it's effects have been well describes and that any risks are well known would be naive. 

My EMS time has been outside of the states, where the war on drugs is a little tamer.  I've never been tested, including after accidents.  I think generally our policies on narcotic control are less strict.

For what it's worth, I'm against marijuana prohibition.  But, if you're doing EMS, and your continued employment in a field that you've invested significant time and money in, is dependent on passing a drug test, I think I would just stop using drugs.  It just seems that the risk is too high.  I don't know you're personal situation, but let's say now in a few years you have a wife or husband, mortgage, a couple of kids, and your paycheque is coming from EMS.  Are you really going to risk that every month?  Or on a random basis?  That seems like a large risk, especially if you can't make the same income outside of EMS.  Consider also, that this is a small field, and while it takes years to build a reputation, it can be destroyed very very quickly.

Also, have you considered the situation where someone you work with is stealing narcotics?  It seems like your potential employer may have the power to test in that situation.  If a bunch of fentanyl is missing, but you throw a positive THC, do you think they're going to believe it's not you?


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 3, 2012)

*nice try*



wutthedutch said:


> @veneficus i chose it for health reasons. with alcohol raises estrogen, breaks down your muscles and your brain literally soaks in the alcohol causes much more damage. cannabis when vaporized isnt bad for your lungs and only temporarily affects short term memory if anything



:rofl:

I think you have seriously oversimplified how alcohol works. 

There are even health benefits to alcohol consumption, 

here is some light reading for you,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21877303

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999906

there are some 700 studies on pubmed detailing everything from epidemiology to the very genes involved in linking cannabis use to schizophrenia. 

There are also studies that link it to other psychosis as well.

The 2 studies I cited demonstrate not only the psychoactive side effects of THC, but systemic issues as well.


----------



## Tigger (Feb 3, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I think the issue is more of cost, a urine test costs considerably less than a blood test where I have been.


You are correct of course. However, the purpose of random drug testing is to determine whether or not an employee is under the influence while at work. Pee tests don't really do this, they just say you may have been. 



JPINFV said:


> For a schedule 1 drug, there's a value argument that it's irrelevant whether you used it two days ago or two hours ago.


Fair enough, many people seem to forget that as "harmless" as marijuana is, it is still in the same class as say heroin.

If serious change is going to come with regards to the legality of marijuana use, it's going to have change schedules first.


----------



## Tigger (Feb 3, 2012)

So here is another screening question for everyone. You've been injured and are unable to work. The injury has you enough pain to require opioid pain management as well as muscle relaxant use. Will your employer test you when you come back to work?

I'd never experienced the effects of these drugs until this week and all I can say is that I hope companies do test before letting you back to work. I can post on EMTLife right now and watch TV, but driving and critical thinking where someone else's life might be affected are presently out of the question for me.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 3, 2012)

Tigger said:


> Fair enough, many people seem to forget that as "harmless" as marijuana is, it is still in the same class as say heroin.
> 
> If serious change is going to come with regards to the legality of marijuana use, it's going to have change schedules first.



Interesting note, cocaine is still a schedule 2 drug.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 3, 2012)

Answered your question above.

Did you get soma or flexeril?

Get well soon.


----------



## Tigger (Feb 3, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> Answered your question above.
> 
> Did you get soma or flexeril?
> 
> Get well soon.



I was asking the forum as a whole, just trying to get a feel for how different systems and agencies operate. 

Presently I am taking 5mg Valium, 10mg Percocet, and 500mg Naproxen.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 3, 2012)

Tigger said:


> Presently I am taking 5mg Valium, 10mg Percocet, and 500mg Naproxen.



candy


----------



## Tigger (Feb 3, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> Interesting note, cocaine is still a schedule 2 drug.



Personally I think the scheduling system is a bit flawed. Yes, cocaine can be used as a vasconstritor and local anesthetic for surgical procedures so there is a legitimate medical use for it. However, there are a myriad of alternatives to cocaine for this, the doctors I work with prefer using 10% Benzocaine injection along with some Epi 1:10,000 (if I recall correctly) in order to achieve a similar effect. Just because a drug has a conceivable medical use doesn't seem like it must be scheduled accordingly, especially when multiple alternatives exist.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 3, 2012)

Tigger said:


> Personally I think the scheduling system is a bit flawed. Yes, cocaine can be used as a vasconstritor and local anesthetic for surgical procedures so there is a legitimate medical use for it. However, there are a myriad of alternatives to cocaine for this, the doctors I work with prefer using 10% Benzocaine injection along with some Epi 1:10,000 (if I recall correctly) in order to achieve a similar effect. Just because a drug has a conceivable medical use doesn't seem like it must be scheduled accordingly, especially when multiple alternatives exist.



Especially considering opium has been used medically for centuries.


----------



## MSDeltaFlt (Feb 3, 2012)

wutthedutch said:


> cannabis is much healthier than alcohol no im not trolling, so many damn prudes on here
> 
> @veneficus i chose it for health reasons. with alcohol raises estrogen, breaks down your muscles and your brain literally soaks in the alcohol causes much more damage. cannabis when vaporized isnt bad for your lungs and only temporarily affects short term memory if anything



Not being prudish.  It's just simple logic.  If something is legal then by all means knock yourself out.  If it is illegal then don't do it.  If you you disagree then either change the policy, change the laws, change your profession, or change your residence. 

The choice is yours. Because that is what it all boils down to... choice.


----------



## JohSco (Feb 3, 2012)

Wow, I never expected to start a debate! :lol:

I've been calling around different states, and it seems the policy for drug screening differs. In one state, (I'm not saying which one, sorry, I don't want to jinx it), I was told by HR that all employees are only subject to "suspicion" testing. No pre-employment screen. I didn't ask about incident screens, but I imagine they probably do them for insurance and liability issues.

Thanks for the stimulating and enlightening discussion everyone.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 3, 2012)

Tigger said:


> So here is another screening question for everyone. You've been injured and are unable to work. The injury has you enough pain to require opioid pain management as well as muscle relaxant use. Will your employer test you when you come back to work?



When you take a drug screen, you advise them of what can be in your system.  If it's legal, it has a prescription.  If it has a prescription, it can be explained.  You will pop positive, but it will be disregarded because it's legal.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 3, 2012)

wutthedutch said:


> cannabis is much healthier than alcohol no im not trolling, so many damn prudes on here
> 
> @veneficus i chose it for health reasons. with alcohol raises estrogen, breaks down your muscles and your brain literally soaks in the alcohol causes much more damage. cannabis when vaporized isnt bad for your lungs and only temporarily affects short term memory if anything



Go back through the past couple of years on this forum.  You'll see many discussions on 'medical' marijuana, and how it's an ill-conceived fallacy.



If you do 'medical' marijuana, don't expect to work in EMS.  Especially not here in DFW.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Feb 3, 2012)

JohSco said:


> I've been calling around different states, and it seems the policy for drug screening differs. In one state, (I'm not saying which one, sorry, I don't want to jinx it), I was told by HR that all employees are only subject to "suspicion" testing. No pre-employment screen. I didn't ask about incident screens, but I imagine they probably do them for insurance and liability issues.



Non-EMS, but another thing on that vein:  With the economy and a larger pool of candidates to choose from, a lot of the businesses in my area (casinos, ski resorts, big box stores, etc.) have gone from a "suspicion testing" system to a "pre-employment and suspicion testing" system.  One of the ski resorts for instance only tested after an incident.  To test everyone before hiring (including all the wasted low-lifes) would have cut their work force down by 50% or more; something they could not afford.  When they started employment testing that is exactly what happened: 50% of the employees who attempted to return from last season could not be hired.  no biggie... there were plenty more to choose from.

And that was kinda my point in an early post:  In a market that is over-saturated (as EMS tends to be; especially in BLS providers) than the employer has more options and is able to move on to another canidate for any reason they have; you looked funny, they hated that mustache on your face, you reminded them of an ex girlfriend, or you ate a poppy seed muffin for breakfast :blink:.  That is why presenting the employer with the best image of a good potential employee is PARAMOUNT!!!



Linuss said:


> When you take a drug screen, you advise them of what can be in your system.  If it's legal, it has a prescription.  If it has a prescription, it can be explained.  You will pop positive, but it will be disregarded because it's legal.



Explained?  Yes.  Legal?  Yes?  Disregarded?  Maybe not.  If a potential side effect of a legally prescribed drug could put the company or business at risk, the employer still has valid reason not to hire you or to keep you out of the field until the medication is no longer required/used.  How many potential side effects are listed as "may cause drowsiness", or the warnings "do not drive" or "do not operate heavy machinery".  Even if you feel you are good to operate on the medication, if something were to happen (even if it was no fault of your own) and legal action was taken, the fact that you were on that medication could have bad consequences for the company or you.  i.e Driving under the influence often encompasses more than etoh and can included prescription and recreational drugs.  As an employer, why take the risk.  Can they legally terminate you for that?  Don't think so, but they can sure as hell limit your duty or place you on "inactive status".


----------



## Tigger (Feb 3, 2012)

Linuss said:


> When you take a drug screen, you advise them of what can be in your system.  If it's legal, it has a prescription.  If it has a prescription, it can be explained.  You will pop positive, but it will be disregarded because it's legal.



I mean following treatment. It's not inconceivable that an employee might try and come back to work early if they needed the cash while still using meds to control pain.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Feb 3, 2012)

This is only vaguely related but my union recently sent out a notice to us making us aware that certain OTC drugs had been recalled due to possible opiate contamination. Not sure if someone actually blew a test or if it was just precautionary. 

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health...n-NoDoz-bottles-are-being-recalled/52470062/1


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 3, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Explained?  Yes.  Legal?  Yes?  Disregarded?  Maybe not.  If a potential side effect of a legally prescribed drug could put the company or business at risk, the employer still has valid reason not to hire you or to keep you out of the field until the medication is no longer required/used.



Of course they won't let you back in the field while actively taking substances such as that.  My point was they won't take any adverse action if it's a legal prescription.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2012)

Tigger said:


> I mean following treatment. It's not inconceivable that an employee might try and come back to work early if they needed the cash while still using meds to control pain.



This is one of the reasons it's best to communicate with your supervisors when/before you start treatment, not after the test comes back positive.

But I have seen people do many stupid things.

One of my favorites was during an industrial medicine job.

Because of the multimillion dollar machinery involved, the company had a zero tolerance drug policy. One of the workers died (a rather sudden and untimely death out of work) So a bunch of the workers went out an "smoked up in his honor." 

After one came up positive on a random screen, she gave up the rest, thinking because there were many people they would be given a pass on this because of it being a 1 time thing and the circumstances involved.

Didn't quite work out like she thought. All named were tested that day and all  that came back positive were unemployed that day too.

HR was even nice enough to bring final cheques to hand out down to the clinic. (we didn't have direct deposite in those days.) Cops were nice enough to escort them off the property too.

From the new employee standpoint, it would really suck to move to a different state, sign a lease, open up a bank account, etc, to lose your job a few weeks later.

But were it not for people like that, many of us would not have a job, don't judge, just collect your pay cheque.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Feb 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> All named were tested that day and all  that came back positive were unemployed that day too.



How long did it take you to find a new job?


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> How long did it take you to find a new job?



In those days, an EMT fired today would be in orientation somewhere else tomorrow. 

Likely with a higher pay rate.


It is definately not like that now.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Feb 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> In those days, an EMT fired today would be in orientation somewhere else tomorrow.
> 
> Likely with a higher pay rate.
> 
> ...



  Not what I meant.  "You" as in Venie, not the general employee you.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Not what I meant.  "You" as in Venie, not the general employee you.



oh right, yea.

you know me, mind altering substances all the way.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Feb 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> you know me, mind altering substances all the way.



"And the truth shall set you free!"-Jim Carrey, Liar Liar


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 4, 2012)

*ummmm....*

You have to decide.

Public Safety or mind altering drugs.

I beleive all drugs should be legal.

http://www.leap.cc/

However, there should be extensive testing as condition for employment for things like health care, public safety, operating machinery etc.

They will randomly test you and will test your hair. That takes 30-90 days to get out of your system. Furthermore, someone you work with will find out and justifiably report you.

Stick to music, art, or some creative endeavor.

Nobody will want to deal with you. You will have it on you. It will get ripped off, someone will rip you off, you will owe people money. People will come by where you work looking for you. You :censored::censored::censored::censored:ing smell!!!!!

Dude, go back to your mom's basement, video games and skateboards. You have no business working anywhere on or near and ambulance.

Once again, I think drugs should be legal but certain professions and endeavors should test for drugs and bar the users from participating.

I see no reason why Willie Nelson (in fact I WANT him to) can not toke up, but, not anyone working the street with me.

Make your choice now. Mind altering drugs or EMS. You absolutely can never ever have both.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 4, 2012)

wutthedutch said:


> cannabis is much healthier than alcohol no im not trolling, so many damn prudes on here



No it is not.

Everyone I know who drank heavily growing up is still sharp.

Everyone I know who did pot is now a space cadet.

It is not about being a prude. It is about making a choice. Pot or EMS.

End of discussion.

Period.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2012)

emt seeking first job said:


> You have to decide.
> 
> Public Safety or mind altering drugs.
> 
> ...



I appreciate your passion, but do you have any idea how many healthcare workers take psychactive drugs for everything from ADHD to bipolar disorder?


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I appreciate your passion, but do you have any idea how many healthcare workers take psychactive drugs for everything from ADHD to bipolar disorder?



Maybe in a hospital . But not in the field. Not where health care overlaps public safety.

EMS, Fire and Police all have psych screening.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2012)

emt seeking first job said:


> Maybe in a hospital . But not in the field. Not where health care overlaps public safety.
> 
> EMS, Fire and Police all have psych screening.



Having been through it for fire and ems, I can confidently say if you have any brains and have not already snapped, you will probably get through the screen.

I can't speak for law enforcement, but some of the SWAT cops I have met are a few fries short of a happy meal so it couldn't be that hard.

It also doesn't take into account when people develop psych pathology after hire, like PTSD, depression, etc.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> Having been through it for fire and ems, I can confidently say if you have any brains and have not already snapped, you will probably get through the screen.
> 
> I can't speak for law enforcement, but some of the SWAT cops I have met are a few fries short of a happy meal so it couldn't be that hard.
> 
> It also doesn't take into account when people develop psych pathology after hire, like PTSD, depression, etc.



No screening is perfect. Look up Justin Volpe. Look up Robert Hansen. Look up Kenneth Morena and Franklin Mata. 

Look up EMT David Taranto. Beleive it or not he is still working.

There are enough :censored::censored::censored::censored:ed up people in public safety without adding marijuana users and their issues into the mix. Legal or not.

At my former LEO job, a guy there was twice arrested (by an outside agency) and twice NOT convicted for dealing. He is still there but the chief took away his gun. That guy unnerved me. There were always 'dudes' coming by to chat with him privately.


----------



## 94H (Feb 4, 2012)

Tigger said:


> It's unfortunate that marijuana testing is always done through urine. From what I understand, should you be pulled over and arrested for OUI of marijuana, you will have blood drawn and the the THC content in your blood will be measured. If you are not a chronic smoker and go to have your blood drawn a few days later, the THC levels will be back to "normal" as you are are no longer high. Meanwhile a pee test cannot differentiate whether you smoked yesterday or a month ago.
> 
> Say what you want about marijuana use, but it seems like testing for it is still in the dark ages. Or maybe I have all this wrong and the drug counselor I was having an offhanded conversation with may have just been making all the above up.



I know at my company the testing is done with mouth swabs, alot cheaper and sanitary then urine testing. Also, the mouth swabs will not come back positive unless you have smoked in the past 12 hours (If you are not a heavy user). 

Not that I would risk it, every single nursing school application had a questions about being dismissed from employment due to a failed drug test.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Feb 4, 2012)

emt seeking first job said:


> Maybe in a hospital . But not in the field. Not where health care overlaps public safety.
> 
> EMS, Fire and Police all have psych screening.



Even in the field do you have providers who take medications to control psych issues. For my EMS service we had no psych screening.


----------



## 94H (Feb 4, 2012)

emt seeking first job said:


> No it is not.
> 
> Everyone I know who drank heavily growing up is still sharp.
> 
> ...



Except our dear president


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 4, 2012)

firefite said:


> Even in the field do you have providers who take medications to control psych issues. For my EMS service we had no psych screening.



My service is all volly.

Not to say that there are not people with issues, but, we all had to have an MD sign a form that reads we are not under psych care for any mental health issues.

Privates in NYC used to hire anyone of the street who seemed "ok." Now they have screening.

At some point, especially since employers can cherry pick applicants. More and more will have that stipulation.

In NYC privates and hospitals are going to soon have agility testing.

EMS is a new 'thing.'

There was a time whne you could get an LEO position with a record....


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 4, 2012)

94H said:


> Except our dear president



I would make an educated guess that he just experimented in college.

The people I speak of were the every day users for twenty five years.

Many my friends but for the last twenty years or so I will only meet them in a public place like a diner. I will never go to their homes nor do I invite them to mine.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Feb 4, 2012)

emt seeking first job said:


> Maybe in a hospital . But not in the field. Not where health care overlaps public safety.
> 
> EMS, Fire and Police all have psych screening.



Not everywhere.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 4, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> Not everywhere.



And when they do it is not perfect.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2012)

emt seeking first job said:


> My service is all volly.
> 
> Not to say that there are not people with issues, but, we all had to have an MD sign a form that reads we are not under psych care for any mental health issues.....




That is easy enough to come by. You just go to an MD and when he asks if you have psych issues, say "no." It is not like anyone is going to call every psychiatrist in town and ask if it is true.

Even if they did call, the psych doc would probably decline to answer on confidentiality grounds.

I agree using THC is not a good idea, in EMS or at all, and I'd like to think I know a little bit about what it actually does, vs. what various advocates and detractors spew forth as factual.

But honestly, a lot of the employment testing in public safety is BS so the agency can say they had no idea, or in the case of "agility testing" in the fire service, to exclude women.

It is as pathetic as background checks. They don't screen people who haven't been caught yet.

A lot of wasted time, effort, and money.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 4, 2012)

Psych screening! = no mental illness.

Mental illness! = unable to function.

For the sake of fairness, I hope no one on your squad is struggling with, say, an addiction to nicotine. After all, addiction is a neuropsych issue. Psychiatric issues don't start with paranoid schizophrenia.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 4, 2012)

94H said:


> I know at my company the testing is done with mouth swabs, alot cheaper and sanitary then urine testing. Also, the mouth swabs will not come back positive unless you have smoked in the past 12 hours (If you are not a heavy user).



More sanitary? Try culturing a clean catch urine sample and a mouth swab and compare. Volume for volume, I'd rather be peed on than spat on because at least normal urine is sterile and is just modified and filtered plasma (more or less, but you get the point). Of course neither is a better option.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 4, 2012)

94H said:


> Except our dear president



Which ones?


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> Mental illness! = unable to function..



Not always, there are different levels of illness and different loss of functioning within them.

You can have hypomanic/depressed bipolar that is not treated.

Minor or even moderate depression

narcissistic or histrionic personality disorders...

I could go on, but I won't.


----------



## 94H (Feb 4, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> More sanitary? Try culturing a clean catch urine sample and a mouth swab and compare. Volume for volume, I'd rather be peed on than spat on because at least normal urine is sterile and is just modified and filtered plasma (more or less, but you get the point). Of course neither is a better option.



Sanitary wasnt the right word, it was just the most appropriate I could come up with. 

I was trying to saw it is better in my eyes to have a saturated swab on a stick then to have cup of urine on your desk


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> Not always, there are different levels of illness and different loss of functioning within them.
> 
> You can have hypomanic/depressed bipolar that is not treated.
> 
> ...




... umm... meaning might have been missed here.



> Several computer languages use "!" for various meanings, most importantly for logical negation; e.g. A != B means "A is not equal to B", and !A means "the logical negation of A" (also called "not A").


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark#Computers


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2012)

94H said:


> Sanitary wasnt the right word, it was just the most appropriate I could come up with.
> 
> I was trying to saw it is better in my eyes to have a saturated swab on a stick then to have cup of urine on your desk



But JP is right.

As long as it is mid stream or later, it will be less infectious from common pathogens than a swab.

It is like anything else, spend enough time around it and you'll get used to it.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 4, 2012)

94H said:


> Sanitary wasnt the right word, it was just the most appropriate I could come up with.
> 
> I was trying to saw it is better in my eyes to have a saturated swab on a stick then to have cup of urine on your desk




Something as sensitive as a drug test shouldn't be simply laying around on anyone's desk unless they're involved with acquiring or processing the drug test. I get that it's "icky" but medicine deals with "ick" all the time, after all just wait for your first digital prostate exam. It's not digital in the sense of computers.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 4, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> ... umm... meaning might have been missed here.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark#Computers



for certain, I don't do computer programming.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> for certain, I don't do computer programming.



Neither do I... I just spend too much time on the internets.


----------



## Tigger (Feb 4, 2012)

emt seeking first job said:


> You have to decide.
> However, there should be extensive testing as condition for employment for things like health care, public safety, operating machinery etc.
> 
> They will randomly test you and will test your hair. That takes 30-90 days to get out of your system. Furthermore, someone you work with will find out and justifiably report you.
> ...





emt seeking first job said:


> No it is not.
> 
> Everyone I know who drank heavily growing up is still sharp.
> 
> ...





emt seeking first job said:


> Maybe in a hospital . But not in the field. Not where health care overlaps public safety.
> 
> EMS, Fire and Police all have psych screening.





emt seeking first job said:


> No screening is perfect. Look up Justin Volpe. Look up Robert Hansen. Look up Kenneth Morena and Franklin Mata.
> 
> Look up EMT David Taranto. Beleive it or not he is still working.
> 
> ...



I had a long response typed out to this. Then I realized that it would be worthless to bother posting here, because obviously you are so far out of touch with reality that there is just no way anyone can get through to you with any sort of rationale argument. Making absurd blanket statements like the above serve zero purpose.


----------



## usalsfyre (Feb 4, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> It's not digital in the sense of computers.


That made me :rofl:


----------



## Sasha (Feb 4, 2012)

emt seeking first job said:


> Maybe in a hospital . But not in the field. Not where health care overlaps public safety.
> 
> EMS, Fire and Police all have psych screening.



You're quite wrong. I know several people I work with who take amphetamines at work.


----------



## Trashtruck (Mar 28, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Legal or illegal... doesn't matter.
> 
> I have fired employees for coming to work under the influence of alcohol.  Doesn't matter if it is legal or not.  Specifically, their job included operating heavy machinery and ensuring customer safety.  Regardless of personal opinion in regard to recreational drugs (legal or not), the situation presented an an unacceptable risk to the customer, staff, and the business.  Debate the level of impairment all you like, if you live in a "at will state" and the employer has a reason to suspect that your physical, emotional, or mental state presents a liability then they have not only the right, but responsibility to take whatever actions are needed to protect all involved.  It is that much easier if you have proof (UA) of a violation of company policy.  Hell, I have fired more than one employee that was so addicted to cigarettes that they couldn't wait for their scheduled breaks; if you get customer complaints and it affects the operation... that's life...  "Inability to accomplish the task for which hired to a level satisfactory to the employer."



Really dude?!
Who has cigarette breaks in EMS? And you bang them for that?


----------



## Trashtruck (Mar 28, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Legal or illegal... doesn't matter.
> 
> I have fired employees for coming to work under the influence of alcohol.  Doesn't matter if it is legal or not.  Specifically, their job included operating heavy machinery and ensuring customer safety.  Regardless of personal opinion in regard to recreational drugs (legal or not), the situation presented an an unacceptable risk to the customer, staff, and the business.  Debate the level of impairment all you like, if you live in a "at will state" and the employer has a reason to suspect that your physical, emotional, or mental state presents a liability then they have not only the right, but responsibility to take whatever actions are needed to protect all involved.  It is that much easier if you have proof (UA) of a violation of company policy.  Hell, I have fired more than one employee that was so addicted to cigarettes that they couldn't wait for their scheduled breaks; if you get customer complaints and it affects the operation... that's life...  "Inability to accomplish the task for which hired to a level satisfactory to the employer."



Exactly.


----------



## Trashtruck (Mar 28, 2012)

I don't really know how to post to this or reply to certain messages, but I wasn't replying to Mountain Res-Q when I said 'Exactly'. I was trying to reply to something else.

I'll figure this out soon.


----------



## Trashtruck (Mar 28, 2012)

Precisely.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Mar 28, 2012)

Trashtruck said:


> Really dude?!
> Who has cigarette breaks in EMS? And you bang them for that?



Yes really.  Everything stated is true.

For the record, the job I am referring to is my Manager/EMS Supervisor gig at a seasonal Snow Park (the winter-extra-money gig, and right now, something that is allowing me to go back to school).  While I have a number of EMTs and EMRs working for me, my position also has oversight over Lift Operations, Park Safety, Snow Cat Operations, Security, Parking, etc.  In my Event-Medical gig or when I was working Ambulance, the situation is obviously different; if you smoke... do it between calls IF you have the time.  But in this setting, an employee (EMT, Heavy Equipment Operator, or Grunt) that is smoking around children, families, etc, while on-the-job, would be the equivalent to a Medic smoking in the back of the rig with a patient.  Who would tolerate that?  Seriously, are we that addicted that we can not wait until a break?

In an "at will" state, your employer can *lay you of*f (not fire) for ANYTHING that is non-discriminatory.  They can *fire you* with "just cause".  Why give an employer a reason to cut you lose; to say "we can find someone better who is less of a headache"?  In the case of this topic: when the market is saturated and the economy sucks, the employer has more options, and given the choice between a chain-smoking, alcoholic, amphetamine-hyped candidate (not the OP... and exaggeration), and... well, me... guess what?  So, the OP might not be prohibited from working in EMS with his current medications, but as an employer, why take the risk when there are other candidates without his baggage?  I am taking the employers stance on this simply because in this job, I have had more options for employees when hiring in November/December every year.  I have passed on many applicants based on perception, and have fired many for simple things like smoking on the job, coming to work hung-over (and then trying to work heavy machinery), and simply mouthing off to a Manager/Owner/Customer.  I have had employees with medical marijuana prescriptions and they taught be a lesson; no more!  All I ask is that you give 100% every day; if you can't, won't, or I believe you can't or won't... bye...


----------



## Zeroo (Mar 28, 2012)

I think any one on any type of drugs that aren't prescribed should not have a job in ems. Or any real job for that matter. Excluding ciggs and alc, unless severly addicted to alc. Anyways if I can stay clean of drugs and alc for my job because I want to be a professional. Then you can to unless you are addicted? If you cant then that just means you don't want the job badly enough. It means you care more about your fun. So go have your fun.


----------



## DigDugDude (Mar 29, 2012)

*the real deal here.....*

all it takes is 1 failed drug test and your plans to EVER work in EMS or medical in any way are gone forever. NO ONE will hire someone who is on drugs at work especially working around drugs and being in high stress situations. 

sucks but thats the way it is. 

the cost and time needed for EMT-B and later EMT-P to all be thrown out because you wanted to smoke weed does not justify the actions IMO. I was never interested in weed and i did experiement with other substances but it was nothing that was testable in a standard test so i was able to explore and move on while also not risking my career. but thats just me. 

if you are a hard an true smoker this job isnt for you. all if takes is one rear ending or not your fault collision or accusation and thats it.


----------



## MedicBrew (Mar 29, 2012)

It never ceases to amaze me how we in EMS seem to eat our young! 

I’m referring to substance abuse in general. I personally know of 7 different incidents involving both physicians and nurses working in direct patient care areas that have been busted either inebriated on the job, popped a hot pee test, or caught stealing drugs from their area.  

None of the above cases, NONE of them lost their license. Only 2 were fired! They had to attend mandatory substance abuse treatment and counseling, placed on probation but allowed to return to work eventually. 2 of the nurses received a year suspension of their license, but again were able to return to work. 1 was a meth case...

You do that in the pre-hospital arena and your done. Period.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Mar 29, 2012)

MedicBrew said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how we in EMS seem to eat our young!
> 
> I’m referring to substance abuse in general. I personally know of 7 different incidents involving both physicians and nurses working in direct patient care areas that have been busted either inebriated on the job, popped a hot pee test, or caught stealing drugs from their area.
> 
> ...



That brings up an interesting topic. But I'll start a new thread so as not to hijack this one.


----------



## usalsfyre (Mar 29, 2012)

One of the stipulations on this type of deal is usually that the involved provider not handle controlled substances for "x" amount of time. Please explain how that will work for a paramedic.


----------



## EMTSTUDENT25 (Mar 29, 2012)

Once again, it's illegal...period. Although you can also abuse alcohol and nicotine, they are still legal substances.  Out of all professions out there at the moment, I believe one such as EMS, should be highly respected by the EMPLOYEE.  There is no need to have an essay response  to this inquiry...Simply put, If smoking pot is that important to you, then you have to also be prepared to face the consequences if, god forbid, something were to happen. Why go through school and testing for your certifications just to have it taken away(worse case scenario).Not hating on you man, just giving my .02.


----------



## Aidey (Mar 29, 2012)

usalsfyre said:


> One of the stipulations on this type of deal is usually that the involved provider not handle controlled substances for "x" amount of time. Please explain how that will work for a paramedic.



The only way it would work is if the medic worked for a double medic agency. I still doubt they wouldn't be fired by their employer. 

I personally know of 3 narcotic diversion cases, 2 RNs and 1 medic. One RN and the medic were fired/resigned when told they were going to be fired. The other RN quit when the investigation and somehow got a job at a different hospital in the same city. Because that RN was never officially caught the first hospital couldn't report it to the state or the RN's new employer.


----------



## SliceOfLife (Mar 31, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Yes really.  Everything stated is true.
> 
> 
> In an "at will" state, your employer can *lay you of*f (not fire) for ANYTHING that is non-discriminatory.  They can *fire you* with "just cause".



I don't want to nitpick and in your state this may be true, but in mine, MA an at-will employee means you can be terminated for any legal, non-discriminatory reason.  This does not apply to contract employee's or ones working under a CBA. 

If you are terminated for no reason you can collect unemployment.  If your company fights it they have to show cause for the termination.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Mar 31, 2012)

SliceOfLife said:


> I don't want to nitpick and in your state this may be true, but in mine, MA an at-will employee means you can be terminated for any legal, non-discriminatory reason.  This does not apply to contract employee's or ones working under a CBA.
> 
> If you are terminated for no reason you can collect unemployment.  If your company fights it they have to show cause for the termination.



Isn't that what I said?  Cause determines unemployment benifits and future re-hiring.  No cause means it was a lay off, not firing.  Different terminology... same idea.  Point was, yes, I can and have laid off for reasons that need not be explained.  I have also fired for cause.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Mar 31, 2012)

Trashtruck said:


> I don't really know how to post to this or reply to certain messages, but I wasn't replying to Mountain Res-Q when I said 'Exactly'. I was trying to reply to something else.
> 
> I'll figure this out soon.



In the lower right hand corner of the post you are responding to is a blue button that says "Quote".  Click that, and it will quote that post in your response to make it look like this one.


----------



## SliceOfLife (Mar 31, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Isn't that what I said?  Cause determines unemployment benefits and future re-hiring.  No cause means it was a lay off, not firing.  Different terminology... same idea.  Point was, yes, I can and have laid off for reasons that need not be explained.  I have also fired for cause.



You need to reread what you posted.  Specifically you're quote in my post.

Here is part of it 





Mountain Res-Q said:


> They can fire you with "just cause"


  My point is an at-will employee can be terminated without just cause.  They will be able to collect but they are still terminated.  Eligibility for rehire will be specifically circumstantial.  There is nothing baring a company from terminating someone with cause and hiring them back.  Unlikely but I have seen it happen.

The terms layoff and fire are really more for the terminated persons self-esteem and don't represent an expectation of rehire, severance or anything else.  Have you ever represented a company at an unemployment hearing?  

Sorry OP for going way off topic.


----------



## hippocratical (Mar 31, 2012)

EMTSTUDENT25 said:


> Once again, it's illegal...period. Although you can also abuse alcohol and nicotine, they are still legal substances.



From a legal/contractual standpoint maybe.

From a logical standpoint though this is madness! The list of things that go in and out of legal-state over time (slavery, voting rights, opium use, homosexuality, race-based-laws, rape in marriage, etc, ad nauseum) goes to show that 'legality' is not only dynamic but deeply rooted in human opinion rather than objective science or rationality.

*Are you capable to do your job right now? Safely and professionally? Then you're good to go. End of argument.*

So you in the past ingested a variety of interesting chemicals? Irrelevant.

We're all in the medical profession, so it boggles my mind that people with the same, if not likely more medical knowledge than me, can seriously defend "_Oh alcohol and tobacco is legal so okay, whilst marijuana is illegal so therefore evil_" Really? Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?

Add to that, that North Americans are practically rattling from the number of prescribed medications in their systems, that it shocks me more about the fantastic puritan nature of its residents in regards to chemical ingestion. I know (and do know personally) that not all Americans believe this hype, but I would have thought medically trained people would be more rational.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Mar 31, 2012)

SliceOfLife said:


> Isn't that what I said?  Cause determines unemployment benefits and future re-hiring.  No cause means it was a lay off, not firing.  Different terminology... same idea.  Point was, yes, I can and have laid off for reasons that need not be explained.  I have also fired for cause.
> 
> You need to reread what you posted.  Specifically you're quote in my post.
> 
> ...



Ya......  I am either really tired or you are... everything you said is what I said.  Your terminology might be different, but the legality is the same.  Yes, I have been involved in the termination of employees for cause and the subsequent legal fight for unemployment benefits.  Termination in an at will state can be for any non-discriminatory reason; if there is just cause (fired), then unemployment is unlikely.  But if an employee is simply terminated (laid off) for any other reason, then unemployment is likely.  Some of my more "interesting" terminations:  An employee attacking another (with me in between, finger on the trigger), employee violating several OSHA regulations and then ling about it when I caught him, insubordination (refusing to do the job hired for and telling me off when I put my foot down).  FIRED MUCH???  In any event, I had cause, but even without cause, they are employed at my pleasure.


----------



## SliceOfLife (Apr 1, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Ya......  I am either really tired or you are... everything you said is what I said.  Your terminology might be different, but the legality is the same.  Yes, I have been involved in the termination of employees for cause and the subsequent legal fight for unemployment benefits.  Termination in an at will state can be for any non-discriminatory reason; if there is just cause (fired), then unemployment is unlikely.  But if an employee is simply terminated (laid off) for any other reason, then unemployment is likely.  Some of my more "interesting" terminations:  An employee attacking another (with me in between, finger on the trigger), employee violating several OSHA regulations and then ling about it when I caught him, insubordination (refusing to do the job hired for and telling me off when I put my foot down).  FIRED MUCH???  In any event, I had cause, but even without cause, they are employed at my pleasure.



Agreed.  I think we are on the same page


----------



## Judeau (Apr 1, 2012)

So many contradictions and controversy. Truthfully i wouldn't risk it until marijuana has been brought up to the forefront and is dealt with more properly. Honestly, don't risk your job. As much as i used to smoke i knew i had to quit, especially when i'm out in the real world. I drove along time ago while under the effects of marijuana to cities or across states when i was 17. I never got into an accident, and did this for about a year. It doesn't cause the inability for me to drive, but could for someone else. I'm more focused when under the effects and i tend to think more than if i was "Normal"(Literally thinking outside the box). One thing is for sure, you will become extremely tired as the drug's effect wears off. So this could cause a lot of problems. I don't do it anymore, nor do i intend to use it again. No one should go to work intoxicated, period. You have to sacrifice parts of your life to make a better living in this world. We don't make the rules after all. :sad:


----------



## Judeau (Apr 1, 2012)

hippocratical said:


> From a legal/contractual standpoint maybe.
> 
> From a logical standpoint though this is madness! The list of things that go in and out of legal-state over time (slavery, voting rights, opium use, homosexuality, race-based-laws, rape in marriage, etc, ad nauseum) goes to show that 'legality' is not only dynamic but deeply rooted in human opinion rather than objective science or rationality.
> 
> ...



So true.... Seriously lets put a two perfectly healthy in a room. One with alcohol, and one with marijuana. Let them use the drug and herb for 24 hours straight and see who lives, and doesn't suffer from profound health issues. All i can say is that the alcoholic will be dead within the first 5 hours of drinking non-stop.


----------



## SliceOfLife (Apr 1, 2012)

I'll add to this a bit.  I have three jobs.  Two in EMS and a .gov contract job.  Only the government job requires drug testing.  I don't know what that means...


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Apr 1, 2012)

SliceOfLife said:


> Agreed.  I think we are on the same page



My brain is so fried right now, man, if I was you I would not liken your mental state to mine...  lol...  the page I am on has big letters, small words, and lots of pictures... and instead of sleeping for a long day tomorrow, I am writing a letter of reprimand for an employee that took a sharpie and signed his name on the First Aid Room (an outside storage room adjacent to FA).  :sly:


----------



## Sandog (Apr 1, 2012)

It is all about priorities. What is important to you?


----------



## EMTSTUDENT25 (Apr 25, 2012)

hippocratical said:


> From a legal/contractual standpoint maybe.
> 
> From a logical standpoint though this is madness! The list of things that go in and out of legal-state over time (slavery, voting rights, opium use, homosexuality, race-based-laws, rape in marriage, etc, ad nauseum) goes to show that 'legality' is not only dynamic but deeply rooted in human opinion rather than objective science or rationality.
> 
> ...



Ok, not too sure you were understanding my response.

"From a legal/contractual standpoint maybe"......Is that not the ONLY standpoint we SHOULD be refering to for the sake of this post?

You dont have to be in the medical profession to know, that in responsible amounts, consuming alcohol is COMPLETELY legal, where as ANY amount of pot in your system is not...Lets go back to my initial post, shall we?



EMTSTUDENT25 said:


> Simply put, If smoking pot is that important to you, then you have to also be prepared to face the consequences if, god forbid, something were to happen. Why go through school and testing for your certifications just to have it taken away(worse case scenario).



There is no need to debate the topic further.  I was making the response to the OP balck and white.  I dont look down on anyone who smokes. Thats their choice.  



Judeau said:


> Seriously lets put a two perfectly healthy in a room. One with alcohol, and one with marijuana. Let them use the drug and herb for 24 hours straight and see who lives, and doesn't suffer from profound health issues. All i can say is that the alcoholic will be dead within the first 5 hours of drinking non-stop.



Although I agree 100%, This has no relevance to the original post.


----------

