Citation

MacDonald S, Hall W, Roman P, Stockwell TR, Coghlan M, Nesvaag S. Addiction 2010; 105(3): 408-416.

Affiliation

Centre for Addictions Research of BC and School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada. scottmac@uvic.ca

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02808.x

PMID

20402984

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Urinalysis testing in the work-place has been adopted widely by employers in the United States to deter employee drug use and promote 'drug-free' work-places. In other countries, such as Canada, testing is focused more narrowly on identifying employees whose drug use puts the safety of others at risk. AIMS: We review 20 years of published literature on questions relevant to the objectives of work-place drug testing (WPDT), with a special emphasis on cannabis, the most commonly detected drug. RESULTS: We conclude (i) that the acute effects of smoking cannabis impair performance for a period of about 4 hours; (ii) long-term heavy use of cannabis can impair cognitive ability, but it is not clear that heavy cannabis users represent a meaningful job safety risk unless using before work or on the job; (iii) urine tests have poor validity and low sensitivity to detect employees who represent a safety risk; (iv) drug testing is related to reductions in the prevalence of cannabis positive tests among employees, but this might not translate into fewer cannabis users; and (v) urinalysis has not been shown to have a meaningful impact on job injury/accident rates. CONCLUSIONS: Urinalysis testing is not recommended as a diagnostic tool to identify employees who represent a job safety risk from cannabis use. Blood testing for active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can be considered by employers who wish to identify employees whose performance may be impaired by their cannabis use.

Keywords: Cannabis impaired driving

Language: en