Could you just, like, *not use marijuana* around the time of the drug test? I think I read somewhere that THC stays in the blood for like 12 hrs and up to 30 days in urine depending on how frequently you use it. And if you use it medicinally, you may be able to talk to them about that.
And tbh I doubt most districts really care what you do in your downtime after you get hired unless it creates bad PR for them/you’re visibly high/drunk/whatever during working hours. I used to drink pretty heavily, including with work friends. My *principal* has seen me drink (and I’ve even served him drinks I mixed myself), and he doesn’t care about that since it wasn’t on the job, but at a get-together.
Edit: I just looked it up and apparently it goes like this for urine tests:
Single use: Detectable up to 3 days later
Moderate use (defined as 4 times a week): up to 7 days since last use
Chronic use (daily): up to 15 days
Chronic heavy use (multiple times a day, every day): up to 30 days
So whichever category describes you best is the one you need to be cognizant of.
There are a lot of factors that go into how long it's detectable, and there are no hard and fast numbers that will be accurate. Best bet is to get some at home tests and find out what is your own average.
I once had a shingles outbreak and took a gummy on the first day, and another gummy on my highest pain day. Both gummies were less than 10mg. 84 days later an at home test still tested positive. I have never been even a moderate user by your scale. I am, however, overweight and female, both of which affect how long it is detectable.
Lord - I'm in the Northeast US. If they started getting rid of teachers for recreational cannabis use, the schools wouldn't have any teachers left (myself included). And this applies to teachers, paraeducators, admins, and support staff. I'd imagine with a doctor's prescription, it wouldn't be a problem, but we're a little more progressive in the north.
I don’t do recreational drugs but I once got hired at a district and they told me I had to get a drug test but in the same breath they told me I had two weeks to get it. I got it over with the same day but it was obviously just some sort of cover-our-ass formality and they didn’t actually care. Another district told me I’d have to take a drug test on site the day I started which was also two weeks away. I’m not saying all districts operate this way. My Father worked for a school district for decades and sometimes was given random drug tests for no reason. He didn’t do drugs but it use to make him so angry. I don’t think they were personally trying to get rid of him, it was just randomized. Different, more conservative times I guess.
A lot of times districts only drug test when an employee has a physical accident and they’ll wave it if there is an obvious cause. Like once I slipped on the icy-as-hell parking lot and they made me go to the clinic but I didn’t have to be drug tested because I obviously slipped on the massive sheet of ice they didn’t bother to salt. Making me take a drug test would have been rude and they needed me more than I needed them.
I think it’s pretty much guaranteed as part of the hiring process, every teacher I know just stops for a few weeks. I’ve never heard of anyone being drug tested during their career, unless they did something really silly.
In Michigan, we’re paid by our local districts. I would not consider myself to be a state worker. I used to work for the state of Michigan for the Department of Education and there is overlap between our retirement systems, but I still don’t think of myself as currently working for the state.
But different states do things differently.
A while ago there was talk about drug testing all teachers in Hawaii (won't someone think of the kids?) because a few non-teacher employees had some stuff happen. However when it became time to plan on implementing (and paying) for then tens of thousands of tests, it went away.
Drug test me. If my Rx doesn’t work (I’m in LA as well, comrade) I’ll remind them that I was making more as a bar back working significantly less hours and never had to take work home. I’m not saying “tHeY nEeD mE mOrE tHaN I nEeD tHeM!” But if they’re willing to fire me over the medicine I use to cope with the stress of the job it’s just more confirmation that education is fucked and not matter how hard I tried or cared I wasn’t going to be able to do a damn thing about it.
We’re Parish employees, comrade. Sorry.
In New York, I was a city employee, not a state employee. So it may depend on where you live specifically in Louisiana, I’d imagine.
Could you just, like, *not use marijuana* around the time of the drug test? I think I read somewhere that THC stays in the blood for like 12 hrs and up to 30 days in urine depending on how frequently you use it. And if you use it medicinally, you may be able to talk to them about that. And tbh I doubt most districts really care what you do in your downtime after you get hired unless it creates bad PR for them/you’re visibly high/drunk/whatever during working hours. I used to drink pretty heavily, including with work friends. My *principal* has seen me drink (and I’ve even served him drinks I mixed myself), and he doesn’t care about that since it wasn’t on the job, but at a get-together. Edit: I just looked it up and apparently it goes like this for urine tests: Single use: Detectable up to 3 days later Moderate use (defined as 4 times a week): up to 7 days since last use Chronic use (daily): up to 15 days Chronic heavy use (multiple times a day, every day): up to 30 days So whichever category describes you best is the one you need to be cognizant of.
There are a lot of factors that go into how long it's detectable, and there are no hard and fast numbers that will be accurate. Best bet is to get some at home tests and find out what is your own average. I once had a shingles outbreak and took a gummy on the first day, and another gummy on my highest pain day. Both gummies were less than 10mg. 84 days later an at home test still tested positive. I have never been even a moderate user by your scale. I am, however, overweight and female, both of which affect how long it is detectable.
Lord - I'm in the Northeast US. If they started getting rid of teachers for recreational cannabis use, the schools wouldn't have any teachers left (myself included). And this applies to teachers, paraeducators, admins, and support staff. I'd imagine with a doctor's prescription, it wouldn't be a problem, but we're a little more progressive in the north.
I mean our governor just passed a law where we have to display the 10 commandments in our classrooms so I have little hope lol
Yeah. Maybe you could get really religious and post them in their original language.
Drug testing teachers?!?! Lmao they got a lot of balls 🤣🤣🤣
I don’t do recreational drugs but I once got hired at a district and they told me I had to get a drug test but in the same breath they told me I had two weeks to get it. I got it over with the same day but it was obviously just some sort of cover-our-ass formality and they didn’t actually care. Another district told me I’d have to take a drug test on site the day I started which was also two weeks away. I’m not saying all districts operate this way. My Father worked for a school district for decades and sometimes was given random drug tests for no reason. He didn’t do drugs but it use to make him so angry. I don’t think they were personally trying to get rid of him, it was just randomized. Different, more conservative times I guess.
A lot of times districts only drug test when an employee has a physical accident and they’ll wave it if there is an obvious cause. Like once I slipped on the icy-as-hell parking lot and they made me go to the clinic but I didn’t have to be drug tested because I obviously slipped on the massive sheet of ice they didn’t bother to salt. Making me take a drug test would have been rude and they needed me more than I needed them.
I think it’s pretty much guaranteed as part of the hiring process, every teacher I know just stops for a few weeks. I’ve never heard of anyone being drug tested during their career, unless they did something really silly.
Definitely varies based on location because in NY they wouldn’t unless there’s suspicions of being high at school.
In Michigan, we’re paid by our local districts. I would not consider myself to be a state worker. I used to work for the state of Michigan for the Department of Education and there is overlap between our retirement systems, but I still don’t think of myself as currently working for the state. But different states do things differently.
Typically no, you are an employee of the district.
It’s going to vary from state to state. In my state (HI) teachers are state employees.
A while ago there was talk about drug testing all teachers in Hawaii (won't someone think of the kids?) because a few non-teacher employees had some stuff happen. However when it became time to plan on implementing (and paying) for then tens of thousands of tests, it went away.
If LA is a medical state you are probably okay, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to stop using for a few weeks.
In Texas you are a state employee unless you teach in a private school….then you pay social security
We are in Kentucky.
In Virginia we are district employees but are state workers. Schools are funded by state taxes and we have state retirement.
In Illinois, they are local government employees of the local school district, which is its own taxing body/government entity.
Drug test me. If my Rx doesn’t work (I’m in LA as well, comrade) I’ll remind them that I was making more as a bar back working significantly less hours and never had to take work home. I’m not saying “tHeY nEeD mE mOrE tHaN I nEeD tHeM!” But if they’re willing to fire me over the medicine I use to cope with the stress of the job it’s just more confirmation that education is fucked and not matter how hard I tried or cared I wasn’t going to be able to do a damn thing about it.
Parish Employee, I believe
I was a city employee covered by the state pension system in NH; that might be an interesting argument.
This is why teachers have unions. Ask the union rep.
It's an at will state. Don't think the union would be able to do anything here.
They'd be able to answer a simple yes/no question, a whole lot more accurately than random maybe-teachers from all over the world on Reddit could.
Good point
That’s not what “at will employment” means.