Drug Screening / Testing in EMS

J

JohSco

Forum Ride Along
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Both. Mandatory after any kind of accidents and random (normally if they think you have been using).
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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"
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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%.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top