Is Workplace Marijuana Testing a Boondoggle or Money Saver? | The Business Desk with Paul Solman | PBS NewsHour

ABOUT US \| LOCAL TV LISTINGS EMAIL PRINT

REGION: North America

TOPIC: Business & Economy

PBS NewsHour

In the fall of 2007, when the U.S. economy first seemed in peril, I began answering reader queries here on the Business Desk. I still do so, but this page has expanded to include posts from eminent economists, "far-flung correspondents," and a variety of voices that have intriguing and/or useful things to say about economics, broadly defined. Please feel encouraged to respond to any and all of them.

« Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry »

Is Workplace Marijuana Testing a Boondoggle or Money Saver?

Photo of a small marijuana plant in Oakland, Calif. by Tony Avelar/The Christian Science Monitor via Getty Images.

Name: Patricia Schwarz

Question: Has pre-employment urine screening for marijuana actually helped businesses save money? According to studies done for the NAS back in the '90s, the answer is NO. What do you say? Is this a boondoggle for drug testing companies or a concretely measurable asset to our national prosperity and economic security?

Paul Solman: Ah, finally! A subject about which I know more than anyone around: urine screening for marijuana. Urine screening for marijuana??? Is it a boondoggle? I'm not even sure if NAS stands for the National Academy of Science or the rapper who feuded with Jay-Z in the early 2000's.

I guess I can try to answer your question, though: Urine screening for marijuana is unlikely to be a major "concretely measurable asset to our national prosperity and economic security." Does it meet the key criterion of economics -- providing benefits greater than its costs? Damned if I know. But in my experience, workplace productivity is generally not a long suit of the stoned. And I am familiar with a couple of recent cases involving young men where smoking marijuana has seemed to induce something like psychosis. That's what one of them insists, anyway. My own trials with the much milder grass of nearly 50 years ago makes his testimony not implausible.

If urine screening for marijuana were to discourage marijuana use, then, maybe it has some hidden benefits. That's not something I would have thought decades ago. But as to the value of testing in the workplace, net net (i.e., bottom line, after all costs and benefits are reckoned), you'll have to ask elsewhere. The answer may well depend upon which NAS you consult.

This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown- NewsHour's blog of news and insight.

Follow @paulsolman

-- Posted June 29, 2012 | Comments ( ) | Permalink

TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is Workplace Marijuana Testing a Boondoggle or Money Saver?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/14137

Comments

*Photo of a small marijuana plant in Oakland, Calif. by Tony Avelar/The Christian Science Monitor via Getty Images.* **Name: Patricia Schwarz** **Question:** Has pre-employment urine screening for marijuana actually helped businesses save money? According to studies done for the NAS back in the '90s, the answer is NO. What do you say? Is this a boondoggle for drug testing companies or a concretely measurable asset to our national prosperity and economic security?

**Paul Solman:** Ah, finally! A subject about which I know more than anyone around: urine screening for marijuana. *Urine screening for marijuana??? Is it a boondoggle?* I'm not even sure if NAS stands for the [**National Academy of Science**](http://www.nasonline.org/) or the [**rapper who feuded with Jay-Z**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay-Z%E2%80%93Nas_feud) in the early 2000's. I guess I can try to answer your question, though: Urine screening for marijuana is unlikely to be a major "concretely measurable asset to our national prosperity and economic security." Does it meet the key criterion of economics -- providing benefits greater than its costs? Damned if I know. But in my experience, workplace productivity is generally not a long suit of the stoned. And I am familiar with a couple of recent cases involving young men where smoking marijuana has seemed to induce something like psychosis. That's what one of them insists, anyway. My own trials with the much milder grass of nearly 50 years ago makes his testimony not implausible. If urine screening for marijuana were to discourage marijuana use, then, maybe it has some hidden benefits. That's not something I would have thought decades ago. But as to the value of testing in the workplace, net net (i.e., bottom line, after all costs and benefits are reckoned), you'll have to ask elsewhere. The answer may well depend upon which NAS you consult. *This entry is cross-posted on the [**Rundown**](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/)- NewsHour's blog of news and insight.*

Follow @paulsolman