Abstract
Workplace urine drug testing for an inactive THC metabolite is common in both federally regulated and non-regulated drug testing. A positive result does not document impairment, or even recent use, when impairment is likely the most important parameter being searched for by the drug testing procedure. Most cannabinoid testing does not detect imported synthetics. Currently, urine is the most widely tested matrix, but blood, plasma, oral fluid, and hair may also be accepted in federally regulated testing in the future. This article will discuss the history, the status quo, and the possible near term future of workplace testing for marijuana in employees.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Swotinsky RB, Smith DR. The medical review Officer’s manual. MROCC’s guide to drug testing. 4th ed. Beverly Farms, MA: OEM Press; 2010.
Title 49: Transportation, Part 40 - Procedures for transportation workplace drug and alcohol testing programs (updated May 4, 2012), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Department of Health and Human Services. Mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs. Part II;notice. Fed Regist. 2015;80:28054–101.
Ellis Jr GM, Mann MA, Judson BA, et al. Excretion patterns of cannabinoid metabolites after last use in a group of chronic users. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1985;38:572–8.
Cone EJ, Bigelow GE, Hermann ES, et al. Non-smoker exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke. I. Urine screening and confirmation results. J Anal Toxicol. 2015;39:1–12.
Odell MS, Frei MY, Gerostamoulos D, et al. Residual cannabis levels in blood, urine and oral fluid following heavy cannabis use. Forensic Sci Intl. 2015;249:173–80.
Most employers don’t tackle legal marijuana head on. ACOEM MRO Update January 2016, 22(1), p 2.
ElSohly M, deWit H, Wachtel SR, et al. Delta 9 tetrahydrocannabivarin as a marker for the ingestion of marijuana versus Marinol: results of a clinical study. J Anal Toxicol. 2001;25:565–71.
Phillips JA, Holland MG, Baldwin DD, et al. Marijuana in the workplace: guidance for occupational health professionals and employers. JOEM. 2015;57:459–75.
Goldsmith RS, Targino MC, Fanciullo GJ, et al. Medical marijuana in the workplace. Challenges and management options for occupational physicians. JOEM. 2015;57:518–25.
Tait RJ, Caldicott D, Mountain D, et al. A systematic review of adverse events arising from the use of synthetic cannabinoids and their associated treatment. Clin Toxicol. 2016;54:1–13.
Colorado Bar Association: No. 13SC394, Coats v Dish Network - Labor and Employment- Protected Activities. 2015 CO 44. 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest
None
Sources of Funding
None
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kulig, K. Interpretation of Workplace Tests for Cannabinoids. J. Med. Toxicol. 13, 106–110 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-016-0587-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-016-0587-z