Marijuana And The Workplace Interpreting Research On Complex Social Issues [Hardcover]

If sound policy is to be made on the issue of marijuana in the workplace, all available empirical evidence about its impact on job performance should be utilized in the decision process. Although a substantial amount of relevant research has been done, the results published in journals in widely divergent fields, are not easily summarized and present no single, simple message for decision makers. Schwenk and Rhodes offer a unique review of this complex body of work and challenge the many highly publicized but scientifically unsound mythical numbers touted as supporting various policy options. The authors provide a clear and objective presentation to managers on how to evaluate the evidence for themselves and make sound decisions for their own organizations. Scrupulously unbiased in its choice of material, the book will be an essential resource for organizational and public policy makers, and for university students and their teachers.

The effect of marijuana on job performance has been widely accepted as harmfulbut is it? Congress thought so, and in 1988, used productivity losses which it attributed to marijuana and other drugs to justify passage of legislation initiating a mandate for a drug-free workplace. Additional legislation expanding this mandate followed and a high percentage of large corporations and an increasing number of small businesses now expend scarce resources on anti-drug programs. Schwenk and Rhodes remain neutral in the debate over workplace drug policies, but argue that policy should be informed by empirical research on the impact of marijuana on job performance. Their book is both a challenge to the mythical numbers so often publicized as supporting a particular advocate's vested position, and a guide to both practitioners and scholars to help them evaluate the diverse body of existing evidence and the claims made by those committed to given policy positions.

Schwenk and Rhodes reprint examples of high quality researchlÓ