Impairment: The Most Misunderstood Word in Workplace Safety

As a workplace substance use consultant, I’ve seen firsthand how society often oversimplifies “impairment” as a clear state of incapacity. But the reality is far more complex. Every one of us has experienced some form of impairment—whether from alcohol, fatigue, stress, or other factors—which makes the word profoundly emotional and often misunderstood.

In workplace contexts, the term “impairment” is a slippery slope. It’s blurry, subjective, and can provoke confusion or negative emotions. Additionally, what many would consider a tried-and-true indication of impairment is related to Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC). The 0.08 level has been well-established by courts for over 50 years and is commonly referred to as impairment. In reality, the Criminal Code of Canada indicates a “per se” limit above which an individual is charged. Nowhere in the Criminal Code is this referenced as impairment. This inaccuracy is consistently perpetuated throughout the media. To make matters even more confusing, the story changes dramatically when we talk about other substances, especially cannabis, where the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are different from most other drugs. Cannabis use involves a complex mix of biological, situational, and cultural factors, making “impairment” concerns far less straightforward than alcohol. Any measure of impairment involves much more than a blood, breath, urine or oral fluid level.

Rethinking the Role of “Impairment”

The term “impairment” should be used only when referring to alcohol due to its clear historical and legal definitions. In my years as a licensed pharmacist, I’ve never encountered a drug at any level, under any circumstances, that can definitively be equated with impairment. And that’s a critical distinction.

For workplaces, the genuine concern isn’t impairment—it’s safety risk.

Shifting the focus to safety risk allows us to address what truly matters: ensuring employees can safely perform their duties without jeopardizing themselves or others. Unfortunately, many workplace policies continue to hinge on the outdated and overly simplified concept of impairment, creating unnecessary hurdles for supervisors and managers.

The Problem with “Impairment” in the Workplace

Supervisors and managers are often tasked with identifying “impairment,” but this is not their role. They aren’t law enforcement officers, and expecting them to make such assessments is unrealistic. This burden often results in inaction, as individuals hesitate to intervene in situations where safety may genuinely be at risk.

When workplaces focus on identifying impairment, they unintentionally send the message that employees are being policed, fostering a punitive and distrustful environment. This approach rarely leads to a culture of safety or collaboration. Instead, it can create fear and resistance.

By contrast, focusing on safety risk shifts the narrative. It becomes about ensuring a safe and productive workplace rather than assigning blame or punishment. Supervisors feel empowered to act, and employees are more likely to engage constructively with safety protocols.

A Safer, More Collaborative Workplace

Words matter. By replacing “impairment” with “safety risk,” workplaces can create a more supportive and actionable framework for addressing substance use. Employees feel less targeted, and managers feel more confident in their ability to handle safety concerns.

In upcoming discussions, I’ll explore the many factors that make safety risk such a nuanced issue, particularly in the context of cannabis and other substances. We’ll examine how workplaces can adapt to these challenges with forward-thinking policies and practices.