Will I fail a drug test if I use CBD Oil?
Well…….it depends. It is the cannabinoid THC that is being screened for during drug testing. THC is responsible for creating euphoria and psychoactivity, being the substance found both in marijuana and hemp that can alter the perception and senses of a person that consumed products containing it.
The CBD market is full of different CBD products that can be significantly different in content, from the quality of the product to the actual THC content it contains. Let’s begin:
1. CBD Oil & Drug Tests: CBD products from isolated
Some of you probably already know it but many of you do not. CBD oil is not equal to CBD oil. What does that mean? You will ask.
This means that there are different types of CBD oil and these types are similar but not the same.
Basically, you can divide it into 2 categories: Full Spectrum and isolated CBD, the so-called pure CBD.
Isolated (pure) CBD is the chemically isolated CBD molecule in the form of a 99.99% pure CBD powder.
This CBD powder contains nothing but CBD without any other plant substances from the hemp/cannabis plant. Isolated CBD products are what they say, meaning they have been isolated from all other canabinoids, including THC.
2. Full Spectrum CBD Oil:
Fully Extracted CBD Oil is the direct end product of a hemp/cannabis plant extraction that extracts the resin (trichomes) of the plant along with the terpene. The extract contains all ingredients (cannabinoid, terpene, etc.) of the hemp/cannabis strain used.
In order to remain legal in the manufacture and sale of CBD oil, it is preferred to use cannabis strains in which the cannabinoid profile of the plant contains a low proportion of THC. This THC proportion must be below 0.3% to be considered legal hemp.
3. Read the Labels: CBD Products Should Provide Specific Content
Wrongly labeling CBD products with misnomers by manufacturers has become more rampant in recent times. As has already been reported, the CBD oil market is crisscrossed with many bad products. The labels pictured above tell us full-spectrum, ingredients, how to take, amount, strentgh, website, and amount of THC.
- CBD products from isolated (pure) CBD contain no other cannabinoids, including THC. Considering its effectiveness, however, it is not as effective as fully extracted CBD oil, which also contains other cannabinoids and terpenes. However, if you want to play it safe and want to use the CBD, it can be a very good alternative.
- CBD from fully extracted CBD extract is more effective as it also contains the other cannabinoids and terpenes. However, the CBD product should come from a cannabis strain that does not exceed the THC value of 0.3%. With non-excessive consumption of such a product, the drug test will usually not return a “positive”.
- Do not believe the “free from THC” labeling on CBD products, but use a lab report to see for yourself how much THC the product actually contains. If the merchant/manufacturer cannot provide you with one, do not buy it if you have to do drug tests.
- CBD oils from medical cannabis dispensaries can include a lot of THC. So make sure you know what you are buying and ask your pharmacist
The Verdict:
As we have mentioned, there are many factors at play and must be considered before purchasing your product. The chances of failing a test, when taking full spectrum of 500mg or less, is highly unlikely, but still possible. For more information, we can be reached at 270.238.6065, 23N. Green St. Henderson, KY 42420, and assurance@actstesting.net
The Department of Transportation has mandated all involved with drug and alcohol testing become members of the clearinghouse by Jan. 6 2020.
A recent federal appeals court ruling against Airgas USA LLC related to a disabled worker’s disputed positive drug test result sends a warning to companies about exercising due diligence before taking adverse employment actions, attorneys say.
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s Jan. 31 order rejected Airgas’ argument that it had an “honest belief” that employee Murray Fisher used marijuana because it relied on information from a third-party drug screening company.
The doctrine shields companies from liability for allegedly discriminatory employment actions if they offer legitimate reasons based on incorrect information that they reasonably trusted at the time.
Yet the rule—a business-friendly defense used to escape employment discrimination and retaliation claims that hinge on indirect evidence of bias—isn’t a golden ticket to avoiding liability.
“This defense has been gaining in popularity and recognized by the courts,” said Amy Epstein Gluck, chair of Pierson Ferdinand LLP’s employment practice group.
But “it’s been successful most often when the employer does a complete investigation,” she said. “Timing matters.”
Fisher, who was using a legal hemp product to treat cancer-related pain, asked for a retest after telling the company that the hemp had caused the false positive result. Yet Airgas never told the drug testing company that Fisher was using hemp, nor did it ask whether the product could cause the test to come up positive for marijuana—”even though doing so would have been as easy as sending an email,” the court said.
That was enough to reverse a lower court’s decision tossing Fisher’s claim that the company illegally fired him in violation of Ohio’s disability law, the appeals court held.
The opinion highlights the perils companies face if they ignore their employees’ side of the story and carry out decisions without a proper investigation, said Sean Mack, co-chair of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden PC’s cannabis and hemp practice.
“It really underscores for employers that they need to listen to their employees,” he said.
Discrimination Framework
The Seventh Circuit originally developed the honest belief doctrine through a series of employment cases applying the three-part burden-shifting framework set out in the US Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. That decision allows an employer to give a legitimate reason for its actions that a plaintiff must prove is a pretext for bias in order to prevail.
The honest belief rule suggests that just because the employer was ultimately wrong, it doesn’t mean the reason for the action was pretextual and actually the product of illegal discrimination.
The rule, however, enforces the idea that employers must have legitimate, nondiscriminatory bases for an adverse action, Gluck said.
The Airgas case also has implications for employers trying to navigate a maze of evolving state marijuana legalization laws that grant certain protections to employees.
Ohio—where Fisher worked—late last year became the 24th state to legalize marijuana for recreational use. However, employers in the state aren’t required to accommodate a worker’s use or possession of marijuana, and they are allowed to discipline or fire an employee for using the drug if it violates a workplace policy.
Even where state laws permit such action, employers should be cautious when relying on third-party drug testing companies, especially as marijuana comes in various potencies, attorneys said.
“There is no one size fits all drug test,” said Sara H. Jodka of Dickinson Wright PLLC. The Airgas case demonstrates that “when you’re working with your vendors, you need to be very clear about what you want to test for,” she said.
“As an employer, you really do need to understand the language that your vendor is speaking and that is where we had a disconnect” in the case, Jodka said.
“They didn’t have that conversation prior to the results of the test and before firing the employee,” she said.
The case is Fisher v. Airgas USA, LLC, 6th Cir., No. 23-03286, unpublished 1/31/24.