When marijuana is legal later this year in Canada, many Canadians may consider smoking weed on their way to work, or stepping out to purchase it during their coffee break.

How will this impact workplace productivity, and health and safety — especially in occupations involving driving or operating heavy machinery?

The federal government’s commitment to legalize recreational marijuana by July 1, 2018raises occupational health and safety concerns for many employers.

At the Institute for Work & Health (IWH), we have been reviewing the effects of various drugs that act on the central nervous system — including marijuana — on workplace injuries, deaths and near-misses.

What is striking is how little high-quality evidence there is on the impacts of marijuana in the workplace and how inconsistent the existing data is.

We urgently need high-quality observational research studies to be able to better understand the effects of marijuana on work. We also need to develop an accurate measure of impairment for use in Canadian workplaces.

No published studies on legalization

As far as we’re aware, no published studies to date have examined the impact of recreational marijuana legalization on the workplace.

The only data we’ve seen is from a report released in 2017 by a large private drug-testing company in the United States. It found that the rates of positive cannabis tests in Washington and Colorado in 2016 outpaced the national average for the first time since the two states legalized cannabis in 2012.

But these rates were based on the number of tests conducted, so it’s not clear whether this reflects an increase in the number of employees testing positive.

Workplace injuries and accidents

Several studies have examined the impact of marijuana use on workplace outcomes, but with mixed results.

Some have found associations between marijuana use in the workforce and work absenteeism, reduced productivity, job turnover, disciplinary measures, workplace accidents and injuries, unemployment and interpersonal conflict.

However, other studies have found no association with some of these outcomes. Overall, the evidence to date is quite inconsistent.

In 2017, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a major report on the health effects of marijuana use, including impacts on injuries and accidents in a workplace setting.

Based on six studies, the review did not find enough evidence to either support or refute a statistical link between marijuana use and occupational injuries or accidents.

No indicator for acute impairment

Some of the inconsistency in the research that does exist may be due to differences in study design and methodologies and difficulties in conducting this type of research.

Also, much of the evidence in this area comes from post-accident investigations, where the workers involved are tested for marijuana or other drugs following a workplace incident.

These kinds of cases tend to be more publicized, but rigorous research with control groups (i.e., those who did not have an accident) is needed to understand whether there are more accidents among those using marijuana compared to those who are not.

And even though workers may test positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in their urine, that doesn’t necessarily mean they were impaired at the time of the accident. Marijuana remains in the system for quite some time. So someone can use marijuana on Friday night and come into work on Monday no longer impaired, yet test positive for marijuana use.

There is no consensus as of yet on the levels of THC detected in fluids that indicate acute impairment.

Slower driving reaction times

Often, the findings of studies measuring the impact of marijuana on driving are extrapolated to work settings, to understand the potential hazards of marijuana on workplace safety. But even in the area of driving research, there is much still to be understood.

Researchers know marijuana use impairs driving, but it’s not yet clear how it does so. What is consistent among the studies published is that reaction time is slower, so people also drive slower.

Also, it isn’t clear to what extent you can extrapolate driving-to-work situations. Driving is a learned activity that many people do almost on auto pilot. Drivers’ brains are often multi-tasking; many people are talking or doing a secondary task while behind the wheel.

That kind of activity may be similar to some work situations, but not to others.

New research directions

We have very limited data on the extent of workplace cannabis use (e.g. during work, on breaks and in the hours prior to beginning a work shift) and impairment among workers in both the U.S. and Canada.

To address this gap, we have recently received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, along with Dr. Peter Smith, to conduct a survey of Canadian workers.

We will measure the current magnitude of cannabis consumption at work, reasons for workplace use, perceptions of its effects on work and availability in the workplace.

It will also be important to study the potential health impacts on workers involved in the production of cannabis. Some researchers in Washington State are beginning to look at this,with an initial focus on the effects of UV radiation.

Finally, one of the key avenues for future research will be to identify an accurate measure of impairment for use in workplaces. This is something that the workplace community is particularly keen to see.

An earlier Q & A version of this story was previously published in At Work.

Author: Andrea Furlan: Associate Professor of Medicine, University of Toronto and Nancy Carnide: Post-Doctoral Fellow, Institute for Work & Health, University of Toronto

Credit link:  https://theconversation.com/marijuana-in-the-workplace-what-is-unsafe-89142<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89142/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />

US President Donald Trump on Friday asked the African Union chairman to pass on his “warmest regards” to other regional leaders at a summit this weekend, after sparking outrage with a reported slur against Africans.

The outspoken US leader congratulated Rwandan President Paul Kagame on taking over as chair of the African bloc, which Trump said was a “great honour”.

“I know you’re going to your first meeting shortly. Please give my warmest regards,” Trump told Kagame after they held a one-on-one meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The reported remark drew outrage around the world and prompted several African governments to demand explanations from their US ambassadors.

The 55-nation African Union chaired by Kagame demanded an apology, although Trump has denied making the remark as relayed by US lawmakers who were present at the meeting.

Trump said he had “tremendous discussions” in Davos with Kagame, who for his part said they had “good discussions” about the economy and trade.

Source: ( AFP )

Source: AFP/de/zl
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/technology/facebook-admits-social-media-threat-to-democracy-9886118

On Jan. 29, 2017, a man entered a Québec mosque during evening prayer and opened fire on the backs of 53 congregants. Six died immediately.

A funeral service was held at a Montréal hockey arena for three of the victims. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Québec Premier Phillippe Couillard and other dignitaries delivered heartfelt speeches. They affirmed that an injustice towards Canadian Muslims is an injustice towards all Canadians. Muslims are Canadians and their pain is our pain, the politicians exclaimed.

“Vive le Québec! We love Canada!” the stadium replied.

One year later, it’s time to look back at the funeral and listen carefully to what was said. Why affirm the Canadian-ness (and Québecois-ness) of grieving Muslims?

It couldn’t possibly be to discourage the public from Islamophobia. That would be like declaring “Don’t be racist” — futile.

Rather, their declarations were directed at Muslims across the country: Don’t let this brutal act persuade you into thinking you don’t belong. The views of the accused killer, and others like him, are wrong. Muslims do belong to Canada and Québec.

Ultimate expression of Islamaphobia

Imagine public attitude towards Muslims on a continuum, however. On one end, we find the mass murder, the ultimate expression of anti-Muslim sentiment. On the other, we find the loving embrace of Muslims as our own, like a family welcoming an adopted child.

When growing anti-Muslim sentiment —no thanks to politics — resulted in a massacre, the political good will at the funeral accomplished one thing: It reminded Muslims that they do, in fact, belong to Québec. Their speeches therefore never escaped the continuum’s trajectory.

Rather, political declarations of solidarity — well-intended as they may be — remained fixed on what American scholar Anne Norton calls “the Muslim question,” a reference to Karl Marx’s On The Jewish Question.

“The Muslim question” defines the political centricity of Muslims as the archetypal threat to democratic nation-states. It’s the thematic summation of all moral panic surrounding Islam and Muslims, from civic integration to the war on terror. In short, the Muslim question is the inevitable “othering” of Muslims as foreign entities within the national body.

The politicians did not unpack the Muslim question at the funeral; they did not bring to our attention the unremitting oscillation between “good/accepted” and “bad/rejected” Muslims on the aforementioned continuum.

They simply positioned themselves favourably along its path. In doing so, the politicians legitimized the continuum’s raison d'être: The moral panic surrounding Islam and Muslims.

Moral panic

Their statements catered to the tacit anti-Muslim attitudes endemic in society, where Muslims are perceived as integration-resistant and threatening. They might as well have exclaimed: And as to the eternal question of whether Muslims belong in this country, Muslims are Canadians!

It should come as no surprise, then, that the niqab reappeared in the political limelight with Bill 62, Québec’s Religious Neutrality law.

The sentiments shared at the funeral remain relevant as the niqab is hoisted, once again, as the symbol of religious defiance of secular sanctity.

Our inability to question why Muslims have come to represent the “other” shows how little we are able to manoeuvre in our discussion. Bill 62 is the perfect example of this. The sensationalizing of a societal non-issue — niqab-wearing women who number perhaps no more than a few hundred in Québec — took centre stage only months after we’d buried the victims of the mosque massacre.

Political gestures of solidarity are comforting, but they remain fixed within the parameters of the Muslim question.

The root causes of why we’re asking the Muslim question run deep within the fabric of a society interlaced with financial, political and existential insecurities. And politicians continue to campaign on platforms that pander to the Muslim question — because it works.

The moral panic is real; it elected Trump.

Moving forward, if we are to make any progress, Canada and other countries must tackle the issues underlying the perception of Muslims in public consciousness.

Directly combating discrimination has proven to be insufficient. We cannot allow Muslim representation to oscillate incessantly. We cannot persist with the irony of proclaiming: “Don’t hate Muslims … but the niqab poses a national concern.”

Not an outlier

The accused killer was not a racist outlier. Racists are the product of the Muslim question somewhere along the end of the continuum where all Muslims are unequivocally bad/rejected .

What have we learned from the Québec City shooting a year ago? Very little, it seems. At the time of this writing, Québec political parties have refused to acknowledge Jan. 29 as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia.

The Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) says “[the shooting] is the intolerable act of a single person and not that of an entire society. Québecers are open and welcoming, they are not Islamophobic.” And yet Québec City anti-Muslim hate crime doubled in 2017.

The 29th of January should serve as a reminder then that we are — to this day — still trapped in the Muslim question’s awful continuum.

Author:Tarek Younis Newton International Postdoctoral Fellow, UCL Division of Psychiatry, UCL

Credit link:  https://theconversation.com/a-year-later-the-mosque-massacre-and-rising-islamophobia-90007<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90007/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />