As cannabis use becomes more normalized and socially accepted, employers face a growing challenge: how to balance shifting cultural attitudes with the ongoing need to maintain a safe work environment.

Let’s continue the conversation about moving away from the vague and often unhelpful concept of “impairment” and focusing instead on safety risk. But even that can be murky. Why? Because perception plays a powerful role in how we understand and respond to substance use in the workplace.

Cultural Norms Are Shifting and So Are Attitudes About Risk

One of the biggest changes I’ve observed since cannabis legalization in Canada is how drastically employee and employer perspectives can differ.

• Employees may view cannabis use as low-risk or completely harmless, especially if they’re using it recreationally outside of work hours.
• Employers, on the other hand, often maintain a much more cautious stance, particularly in safety-sensitive work environments where even small risks can have serious consequences.

This disconnect in perception can lead to tension, confusion, and inconsistent application of substance use policies.

What’s considered “reasonable” or “safe” varies widely from person to person. And that’s exactly the problem. When perception shapes workplace decisions without a clear framework, policies become difficult to apply fairly and effectively.

Workplace Testing: What Are You Really Measuring?

Many employers try to manage substance use through workplace testing, most commonly for Reasonable Cause or Post-Incident situations. But here’s a major issue:

Urine testing, the most common method used for decades, doesn’t measure current safety risk.

Urine testing detects inactive drug metabolites, not the presence of active substances. This means:

• A positive result may indicate that someone used a substance days or weeks ago, and does not indicate whether they are currently a safety risk.
• There is no scientific, legally-defensible way to correlate a urine drug test result with current impairment, functionality, or safety risk.

This misunderstanding leads many employers to believe they have actionable information when, in fact, they do not.

A Better Option: Lab-Based Oral Fluid Testing

The only specimen type, aside from blood, that can accurately reflect recent use and support a safety-risk-based approach is lab-based oral fluid testing.

Why it matters:

• Oral fluid detects the presence of active drugs like THC.
• While it still can’t measure safety risk with absolute certainty, oral fluid testing can confirm recent use, which is far more relevant in determining whether a safety risk exists.
• A lab-based positive oral fluid drug test result reported by a certified Medical Review Officer (MRO) provides a legally defensible basis for workplace action.

This approach reframes testing not as a punitive tool, but as a means of fairly and appropriately managing workplace safety.

Scientific Facts vs. Public Misconceptions

Public perception often lumps cannabis and alcohol together, assuming their safety risks are comparable because they are both “legal” in Canada, many U.S. states and abroad. But they’re not.

• Alcohol is water-soluble and metabolized predictably, typically eliminated at a rate of one drink per hour.
• Cannabis is fat-soluble, stored in the body’s fat cells, and released over a much longer period of time (days, weeks, even months).

Cannabis also impacts different parts of the brain than alcohol, often affecting:

• Executive function
• Spatial and sensory awareness
• Cognitive control and focus
• Memory

These effects may not be visible, but they are real, and they carry significant implications for safety-sensitive roles.

What This Means for Employers

Education is everything. By understanding the difference between perception and scientific fact, employers can:

• Build stronger, evidence-based policies
• Train managers to identify and document safety risk (not impairment)
• Use testing methods that reflect real-time safety concerns
• Communicate expectations clearly with employees
• Address union concerns

Public attitudes may be evolving, but the responsibility to maintain a safe and functional workplace remains constant. By separating perception from fact-based science, employers can approach substance use with greater clarity and fairness.

Would you like to learn more? Book a call.