Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thatstheteasis95 t1_j8oijg5 wrote

Reply to comment by Low-Dragonfly-5352 in Can Employers Deny You for THC traces in Drug Testing, Anymore? by [deleted]

But is it true for after the law was changed or if you're being hired or if you're already an employee, or if they have reason to suspect a current employee is under the influence? That's everything I'm trying to find out.

1

Low-Dragonfly-5352 t1_j8oo76t wrote

Companies have all the right to refuse your employment for failing a drug test. The federal government doesn’t care what state you’re in or if you have a card or not.

5

thatstheteasis95 t1_j8oqbs0 wrote

I guess to move on from Federal vs. State because we all know federal is above state laws, I should be asking what if RI makes it so employers can't drug test for THC as a condition to employment? Then it wouldn't supersede the federal law but just make it harder for companies to disqualify you.

1

Low-Dragonfly-5352 t1_j8oxka9 wrote

It would never happen within the context of your question. Maybe in a decade or more but I’m pretty sure we’re miles away from that. It’s still a drug in most peoples eyes and the only reason it became rec was because RI was losing hundreds of thousands if not millions across the border to Massachusetts. I work in the industry and the one I’ve learned in the 3 short years I’ve been in it, it’s all about money. So I guess it all depends on what benefits the state would get out of preventing private companies from testing for THC. At the moment I don’t see one.

2

thatstheteasis95 t1_j8p0aiy wrote

I guess the only benefit I could if the state prevented companies from testing for THC is they don't want more people unemployed in the state, seeking benefits, but idk.

1