I generally agreed with your post but have a problem with how this is stated. One does not have to be "high" to have cannabis affect the job. At what point would an employer have the right to test? (If ever.) It is clear a certain segment of the population who use cannabis have a problem with it. Not going to argue percentages, but some. Should an employer have the right to mitigate the damage to his business by firing cannabis users? From a study I posted in the driving while high section, there is some evidence that cannabis users may have the drug effect their driving even when they haven't recently used. If it is found that cannabis use DOES affect driving even when the use is not recent, should an employer have the right to mitigate the chance of driving liability on his business caused by cannabis users? We could go on, but, it seems like even a person who is not high at the time at work could still be less good at work because of cannabis use. Does an employer or potential employer have the right to act on that potential? I've known guys who won't hire a worker unless he has a mortgage. It has nothing to do with the job but their "logic" is that, once a guy HAS to go to work to keep his house, he goes to work regularly. In their minds, a mortgage does not go away if the guy has a bad day and wants to yell at his boss. You could say the same for rent in my mind, yet, their logic differs. Is that their right? Personally, I'd like everyone to be taken on face value. If they can do the work it really doesn't matter if they got a degree, had a mortgage or smoked a doobie. (Well, I guess if they smoked...) If an employer feels a person is doing the job, everyone should be happy without any testing. (Some jobs have some legally mandated testing and we're not talking about those.) If the guy is no longer doing the job, fire them; no matter if it is because of being stupid, ugly, smelly or being a drug user. No testing needed! It's when we want to protect a person's job and prevent free firing for any, or no, reason where the schema of testing comes up. Sure, most states are "at will" where the boss can fire...at will. Yet, there are costs to unsupported firing. There are the hard to quantify costs of a churning workforce as well as increases in unemployment insurance. (Other insurance like worker's compensation also seem to be a lot higher when the workforce moves a lot.) If we had a choice of testing or of only being fired for cause, what would be the best choice?