Drug test refusal

Maritime Topics Marine Safety
62

I don’t think anyone has said anything here that is wrong per say. Yes, maybe a credentialed mariner’s willingness to smoke weed does present a liability not only to their career but also to their employer. That is no doubt problematic.

But let’s take the argument outside of the regulations and consider it ethically: the problem is that current testing does not prove impairment, but only useage of something that is, for the most part, socially acceptable, medically valid, and far less harmful than America’s most widely used/abused drug, alcohol.

Now we should consider that many young people might avoid this career path because it’s governed by out dated regulations propped up for political reasons.

Forgive me for saying so, but in my opinion, the problem is not with the mariner, but with a system that already makes unreasonable demands on a person’s time and health, dictating what one can and can not do while off the boat, based on laws a century old which were propogated on fear mongering, racism, and yellow journalism, the maintainence of which flies in the face of modern medical and social sciences. In this case, I say the system is more guilty than the mariner.

It’s time the federal government, and by extension, the Coast Guard, get on board with the modern era and stops criminalizing good, hard-working people for what they do on their time off.

I’m tired of seeing good crewmates forced off the boat for reasons that did not affect their jobs or competence one single iota.

P.S. - if this proves too much to ask for, I’d happily return to the times where a mariner is alotted a ration of rum after his watch.

63

I’ve know plenty of stoners. Most are fuzzy headed, talk slow, and haven’t made it too far in life. Sure there are the white collar folks who roll a joint now and then, but they fly a desk, not a plane or ship.

Y’all can rationalize why your vice of choice is “ok” but I hope they never change the drug tests, other than making them stricter. I have no patience for users.

Stick to CBD I guess if you absolutely must use hemp products for “medical” reasons.

(I sound like an ass because I know damn well 99% people just want to get stoned. The 1% of cancer patients and the dying who need it for pain management I understand.)

64

You sound like an ass because you equate the occasional pot user with a chronic abuser with a psychological addiction problem.

The fact is most “stoners” do less harm to society than authoritarian ideologues.

Just as someone can enjoy a drink without being an alcoholic, someone can enjoy a puff or a brownie without being a “stoner.”

67

Yeah, you do.

68

If they want to implement an instant THC level test similar to the current alcohol breath/urine test, then fine. That’ll allow casual users to circumvent the mean old gubmint man.

Otherwise the current test standards are good enough.

Slick_cam1 69

:grin:

1 Like
70

My problem with druggies & out-of-control shipboard drunks isn’t with what they do on their off time to take the edge off of reality but their disregard for their credentials & profession. If they are willing to put it all on the line to get stoned or drunk then what prevents them from doing the same about punctuality, cleanliness, safety or putting oil over the side? Drug users & out-of-control drunks must lie to pretty much to everyone at some point to get or stay employed & that is an obvious red flag with. I don’t want to work with any stoner bridge officers, engineers or food handlers.

71

A co-worker(his company was recently bought by our company and this story predates that) of mine had a minor grounding. Post incident testing, blah, blah. No issues. Two weeks later he goes in for a yearly/Benzene physical. Comes up a few CCs short in one of the two cups. Drinks water. Nothing. Drinks more water. Nothing. Now, he had been sick with vomiting and diarrhea for the prior week and had been dehydrated. He tells the doctor this. Since he was a day early for crew change he told the doctor AND the company personnel manager maybe he could go back to his hotel room, get a good meal, some more water in him and complete the physical the following day. Doctor says: “No. you didn’t fill to the line, I’m marking it down as a Refusal to Test. You can’t have any more water because you’re only allowed a certain amount in a certain time frame and you can’t leave either.” Keep in mind this is a yearly Benzene physical, not a requirement by the USCG and he had had a drug test two weeks prior for post incident investigation. Company tells him: “just go home and we’ll figure it out.” Over the next week, my co-worker saw two different doctors, including a urologist. They both concluded from tests and his description of his illness that he had been dehydrated. Per the Benzene physical doctor’s orders, co-worker sent all results and doctors’ notes. Benzene doctor refused to budge, still had it down as a Refusal to Test. So almost three months later, it gets to the point that the USCG calls co-worker and gives him a few options. In a nutshell, he could either surrender his license permanently, start over as a deckhand after a six month furlough or take it to court and hope for the best. After talking to a Commander from NOLA face to face, it was agreed co-worker would submit to a hair sample, and pending a negative result, be cleared fully. Of course, hair sample comes back negative and once the medical review board re-convened, he was cleared. He calls the company and lets them know and is basically told:”Cool. Comeback down and we’ll get you to a boat in the next day or so. No reimbursement for lost time, no apology, nothing.

The kicker is that like most lazy red flag towing companies along the ditch, they use a full USCG physical for their Benzene physical every year instead of a normal blood test physical to actually check for Benzene. A full USCG physical isn’t required yearly, but I’ve heard companies get a contract price for a standard physical and the clinics use the USCG physical as a standard. By doing that, once the doctor(‘Medical Review Officer’) made his decision, it was locked in. The USCG Commander my co-worker met with made a recommendation to his company that perhaps they should modify their physical so as not to run into this again, i.e. use something more normal for company use and use USCG standards for random and post incident testing.

I sort of lost faith in the reasoning behind yearly physicals after that. My co-worker lost about 90 days of pay at a little over $500 per day. Over a few CCs of urine, a lazy CoonAss towing company and a prick CoonAss doctor who probably doesn’t think outside of a boilerplate. He didn’t refuse to take the test, he peed a little short of the line. I’ve been through enough of these to know that they test a few CCs and throw the rest down the drain. All in all, a stupid situation that was probably easily avoided had the doctor used some professional judgment instead of following the wording instead of the spirit of the rule. $30,000 lost over a few CCs of urine that was clean, if a little brown from dehydration. I don’t feel any safer knowing he was at home instead of passing me on the river or in the canal. I do know that ordeal almost bankrupted him. At 60 years old.

72

Another thing: you want to see a drug user go nuts and endanger his crew and vessel, deny him the use of nicotine during his hitch. In 43 years I’ve never seen a pot smoker or drinker get stupid with the lack of their chosen vice. I HAVE personally witnessed smokers go almost to the point of physical violence or endangering others when out of cigarettes or not being allowed to smoke for a few hours. If you want to make our industry truly safe, ban ALL drugs, including nicotine. If a man can’t function at his job without nicotine, he can’t function. Touchy subject but oh well.

73

That’s weird. A basic USCG physical doesn’t check anything benzene related. I had to do a lung function benzene test years ago before my first time on a crude oil barge and that was done every year or so to watch for diminishing capacity.

A towing vessel deck officer working inland is also acting as pilot so I think they are supposed to have a USCG physical annually. It has nothing to do with benzene.

Also, a drug test isn’t a part of a USCG physical. Those are two different things.

74

If a commercial entity is required by law or circumstance to demand drug testing of it’s employees, then EVERYONE in the company should be subject to that testing. And I mean everyone in the company from the President on down to the Janitor. And that testing be done spontaneously, in groups of 5, of any employee in any capacity while on company property. The company should then publish the result of that testing by publicly stating that out of 5 tested, one or more tested positive, or all tested negative. We all know how testing can be used as a punitive measure to intimidate employees. By testing everyone, it is not only fair, but that policy can have a very positive effect. There has and always will be a marked lack of affection between Operations people and “Office” people. This divide will be minimized if everyone were to be tested. We have all watched Company people “tacking” across the parking lot after a lunch accompanied by adult beverages. I can think of no more divisive a policy than exempting Office people from testing. Now we come to the following question- What to do when an employee tests positive? Suspension and offering Company-paid counseling over a period of time with the employee agreeing to spontaneous testing. Note- It should be company policy that the employees will only get One positive test. After that dismissal. People usually respond well to policies that are proven to be fair. If you are truly out to establish a Safety Culture, testing everyone is truly the only way to establish the company’s attitude toward substance abuse.

75

If you feel that way you should write your representatives & try to get a law passed. But me, I don’t really care if the dishwasher at the hospital’s cafeteria smokes weed when he’s home but I would feel a hell of a lot better if all the Drs & nurses in the operating room were drug free if I were on an operating table. A brother of mine is a CDL truck driver & he has been given random drug tests at weigh stations. Both he & I completely understand the reason for drug testing truck drivers & neither of us mind truck drivers get drug tests. If you think the person back at his shop who answers the phone should be given the same random drug tests for spite or to give some sense of fairness to the world thats fine with me but I don’t see any logic in it.

76

i’d rather see public assistance recipients get tested. Sitting on a couch getting stoned is not conducive to looking for gainful employment.

77

I’m required by virtue of holding an MMC to participate and pass random drug testing. For employees such as those in the office who are not bound by that requirement, I see no point or purpose in testing them. I am fine with being tested, it was a known requirement when I accepted the career. In my state, weed is legal. For those who can and choose to partake, I have no problem with that. It would be a waste of resources to test everyone.

Where I’ve worked, if you test positive, you’re fired. It’s a condition of employment. No need to publish a list, everyone already knows.

Most employers offer leave and counseling if you admit you have a substance abuse problem before being tested. This might even be a requirement. But if you take the test and fail, that is on you for knowingly violating and attempting to hide it.

78

Since the laws of physics don’t give “1 free pass” to barges before they blow up or “this collision won’t count” to bridges before they fall I can’t agree with your “one positive test” is okay policy. If you’re a tankerman pumping a big bomb or wheelhouse personnel about to go under a bridge that has people in cars & trains overhead you better be able to pass a D.O.T drug test on the first try. We know what is at risk with our jobs & safety regulations have been in place for several decades. If an employee asks for help, sure, send them to rehab & get them the help they need. But if it is after an accident or before a random test? I don’t think so.

79

That is the problem with behavioral legislation. There is very little rationality. I do think that a company will never lose by establishing policies that apply to all employees. When the guy working deck on a Tug sees Senior management coming back late from lunch after downing a few, that could create a lot of resentment. Especially if the company has a “Zero Tolerance” policy in place, beats their collective tests about how they expect everyone to adhere to that policy.

80

I may have stated my position incorrectly. When I stated that someone being tested should be given a free-pass if found Positive, I meant those individuals who register trace amounts as a result of accidental exposure, illness, foods, or dehydration. There was an incident that occurred at a company I worked for. The company’s dock was next to a Gypsum plant. One day the conditions were just right to render everyone on board unconscious from their exposure to the chemicals present in the manufacture of sheetrock. There was a huge fight between the Unions and the company. The company should have sent everyone aboard to the closest ER. Instead they were all sent off for drug tests. That is what I meant. I am amazed that they don’t test for Viagra. It can affect your ability to discern the colors of lights at a distance.

81

I’m not the type of person who thinks rules & polices should be created & enforced out of spite or because I want to impose my opinion of what is fair on the world. Rules & polices should be created & enforced as necessities only IMO. Also, when I think of a whole company I try to think about every person in the organization & not just senior management & the VIP’s. I don’t care if the receptionists, coordinator assistants or janitors smoke a joint or down a 6 pack when they get home every night. Who cares as long as they aren’t driving & are ready to do their non-critical tasks the next day. But I think it is safe to say no one wants the Master, CM, CE, tankerman or anyone aboard drunk or high in their stareroom on their off watch when the general alarm bell rings. Too much is at stake offshore & that is why we are held at a different standard than non critical, easily replaced office personnel. If the janitor at the airport is hung over then too bad for him. If the pilot of the flight that I am on is hungover then fire his ass or put me on another flight.

82

The standard USCG Drug test (DOT 5 Panel) to which I assume you are referring to does not test for alcohol. Any (standard) testing of your Senior management coming back late from lunch after downing a few would be meaningless.

83

Are people still passing by “packing piss” (often a small child’s) to the drug test?

I cannot understand how some of the guys I encounter manage to “pass” their drug tests.