The worker’s request had a certain degree of logic. He had just received a prescription for medical marijuana from a naturopathic physician. Could he get permission to smoke the substance on the job?

The farm employee argued that Colorado — the state where he was working — had recently legalized marijuana. “We had quite a talk about that,” recalls his supervisor. “He told me I should allow him to smoke the marijuana on the job, just as I allowed other people to take their legal medications.”

What did the employer decide? Find out at the end of this article. First, let’s discuss how the anecdote illustrates a larger problem: Farm operations, large and small, must deal appropriately with the growing incidence of impaired employees.

Alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, codeine, morphine, barbiturates — workers under the influence of any such substance, legal or otherwise, threaten the bottom line.

“Impaired workers are safety risks,” says Faye Caldwell, managing partner of Caldwell Everson PLLC, a Houston-based law firm specializing in workplace drug testing. “They pose a danger to themselves, to coworkers, to company property and to the public.”

Costly habits

For farm operations, the downsides of worker impairment are many.

“Employers responding to our surveys cite absenteeism as the No. 1 negative result of substance misuse,” says Karen Pierce, managing director of Working Partners, a consulting firm based in Canal Winchester, Ohio. “The No. 2 and 3 responses, in order of severity, are decreased productivity and workforce shortages.”

Theft may also increase, and workplace morale may decline when “clean” employees must shoulder tasks neglected by their impaired co-workers.

Accidents caused by impaired workers, though, pose the greatest risk. This is especially true on farm operations, where heavy machinery and rugged terrain can create extreme safety hazards. Anyone under the influence of drugs or alcohol can be a risk to themselves or fellow workers.

Farm visitors — business related or not — injured by impaired workers may sue for damages. Courts often assume the employer is at fault when someone is hurt.

“It’s critically important to protect employees and the public,” says Joe Reilly, president of a drug testing consulting firm in Melbourne, Fla. “At smaller operations especially, one accident can be devastating.”

Employers who forgo drug testing can be favored haunts for abusers avoiding the pre-hire tests typical of larger enterprises. The problem escalates at high-turnover organizations relying on part-time, temporary and seasonal workers.

What happened in Colorado

Now, let’s return to the conundrum in Colorado. An employee requested permission to smoke medically prescribed marijuana on the job. How should the employer respond?

For the supervisor in charge of the employee, the answer was clear: “I said I couldn’t allow it. Doing so would set a bad precedent for the rest of the employees. To me, it’s like alcohol — if we find someone drinking on the job, they’re not going to be here for long because they violated our policy of no tolerance.”

The employer’s attorney supported his decision, adding a critical detail: Any substance illegal at the federal level can be banned from the work premises, regardless of state law.

Tackle the problem

Farm operations aren’t powerless to address impaired workers. “We believe that a drug-free workplace program is the best way to prevent substance misuse,” Pierce says. Such a program consists of five elements:

Testing is a vital tool for protecting a business. Before starting such a program, the employer should consult legal authority to ensure compliance with federal, state and local laws, many of which directly address the topic.

Perry is an award-winning business writer and syndicated columnist.