> This tiny detail makes the difference why employer-mandated drug tests are not a thing in Germany like it is in the US.
It doesn't explain the difference, no, since the same is true about the US. In most states, consumption of most drugs is not a crime - possession, production, distribution, sale, and trafficking are the actual crimes prosecuted.
Nearly any amount of intoxication is vaguely illegal under disorderly conduct. It’s a catch all they can apply whenever. Fighting it and winning still costs time and money.
So sure, the act of consuming might be legal, but having consumed isn’t.
As I understand it, the issue is only about showing up to work with any level of drugs in your system, even if there aren't any actual signs of you being intoxicated.
> Nearly any amount of intoxication is vaguely illegal under disorderly conduct. It’s a catch all they can apply whenever. Fighting it and winning still costs time and money.
This is a weak argument. Almost nobody is getting prosecuted for "disorderly conduct" when under the influence of marijuana as a proxy for marijuana consumption. And even if they were, the connection between that and employer drug tests is extremely tenuous.
Unless you drive a car or own a gun in the US, then if you do get a bad drug test result you can easily get charged with a crime. It is not likely to get drug tested in relation to having a gun, but anywhere pushing DUI enforcement is going to be drug testing significant samples of random people and charging people who may have smoked long ago and had all side effects completely subsided but still charged with a DUI offense. You can get active THC in a blood sample up to 3 days after smoking despite the effects lasting hours at best and levels not increasing or decreasing linearly with consumption. And of course metabolites for cannabis can go back up to an entire month.
> Unless you drive a car or own a gun in the US, then if you do get a bad drug test result you can easily get charged with a crime.
The likelihood of getting charged with a drug-related crime for testing positive for drugs on an employer-mandated drug test, which is the context being discussed, is absolutely minuscule.
You may get fired, but your employer isn't going to refer you to local prosecution, and the prosecution wouldn't take it if they did.
AFAIK this is allowed during the approval process for very specific roles, but not just randomly in day-to-day work after admission.
And for good reason. That would be an entirely unproportional encroachment on privacy and personal rights, irrespective of whether the test turns out positive or negative.
I never heard of anyone around me required to do a drug test for work. May be different for people carrying guns, like police and hunters, but that's because of gun license requirements.
A drug test may be legal, or suggested, when there is reasonable suspicion someone was high during work hours. Maybe air traffic controllers and similar professions need to be evidently clean. Otherwise I don't think drug tests are legal in Germany. Even asking about consumption is illegal in most cases.
> Maybe air traffic controllers and similar professions need to be evidently clean.
kinda obscure example. i expect most operators of heavy machinery, human transportation devices and some security professions to require some verification of abstinence. i was tested once in order to get the required permit to drive a van with elderly and disabled ppl for the red cross.
> This tiny detail makes the difference why employer-mandated drug tests are not a thing in Germany like it is in the US.
Not really. The business of employer-mandated drug testing in the EU is generally tricky, and employees enjoy wide ranging protections. Most countries only allow drug testing where there is a certain aspect of risk, and in most of those case, only a physician can perform the test, and cannot share findings, only declare the subject as fit for duties or not.
In Germany, specifically, a pre-employment test but a physician is allowed, and when employed only rarely and for very specific circumstances.
It doesn't explain the difference, no, since the same is true about the US. In most states, consumption of most drugs is not a crime - possession, production, distribution, sale, and trafficking are the actual crimes prosecuted.