[ClearCase_guy]

CA has a lot of defense work. I believe defense contractors typically demand a drug test before they hire someone. So, if marijuana is legal in CA, can the employer legally refuse to hire someone for testing positive?

My own view is that an employer can refuse to hire someone for any reason at all. But my question is about how the legal profession would see this. It appears to me that drug tests for positions requiring security clearances might be seen as discriminatory.

[jiggyboy]

I believe defense contractors typically demand a drug test before they hire someone. So, if marijuana is legal in CA, can the employer legally refuse to hire someone for testing positive?

Sure. Usually the "drug" test gives a blood alcohol level too and it's perfectly legal to use a nonzero BAC as a reason not to hire somebody.

[dblshot]

Defense contracts are usually for the federal government and require a drug and alcohol program. This would be a condition of employment and you could be not hired or fired depending on when you failed the test. This is different from being arrested which is a criminal deal. The problem is there will be a lot more people failing drug tests and after training someone and getting them up to speed to have to fire them is costly. More temptation is going to mean more people getting caught and higher costs, not to mention the problem of someone working while high until they get caught. Then you get to the peer pressure thing about “do you or at are you cool to it” and the inevitable fights over narcing out your co worker. It's a mess we don't want to go through.