Evolving Norms, Emerging Risks: Cannabis Use in a Gen Z Workforce

The steady increase in cannabis use among Gen Z workers is reshaping how employers approach drug policy, compliance, and workplace safety. For HR leaders, the issue is no longer whether cannabis use will affect the workplace, but how to manage its growing normalization.

Recent data highlights just how widespread use among younger adults has become. According to recent research from Drug Rehab USA, approximately 35% of adults ages 18–25 reported past-year cannabis use, with about one-quarter reporting past-month use. 

This shift is not just about frequency, but perception. The Harris Poll found that 64% of Americans say cannabis “no longer carries the stigma it used to have,” highlighting how dramatically attitudes have evolved. For employers, that normalization is where risk begins.

Sample Policy: Drug and Alcohol Policy

When Legality Meets Reality

Gen Z employees often view cannabis through the same lens as alcohol — legal in many states and socially acceptable. But that assumption can create confusion about when and where use is appropriate.

It falls to employers to proactively set boundaries. “Employers should ensure their drug and alcohol policies emphasize that cannabis may never be used during work hours, even for medical purposes,” said Kathryn Russo, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Long Island, NY. She noted that “this prohibition includes meal breaks, rest breaks, and in the employees’ vehicles when parked on company premises.” 

Equally important is the distinction between use and impairment. “Employees may not report to work impaired by cannabis, and that suspicion of impairment may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination,” Russo said. This framing allows employers to anchor cannabis policies in familiar territory: performance and safety, rather than moral judgment.

Interactive Resource: Multistate Laws Comparison Tool

Still, policy clarity alone is not enough. Russo stressed that “these rules should be reiterated frequently at safety meetings, staff meetings, and other types of meetings with employees to ensure that they understand the rules.” Without that reinforcement, employees may default to a common misconception — that if cannabis is legal, it can be used freely.

“Many people seem to believe that if cannabis is legal in their state, they can use it whenever they want,” Russo observed. However, this is not the case. Employers are free to apply the same rules for cannabis that they have for alcohol.

Remote Work and the Visibility Gap

The rise of remote work has only made enforcement more complex. Traditional indicators of impairment are far harder to observe in virtual environments, leaving employers with fewer tools to assess potential issues.

“It is very difficult for employers to enforce drug and alcohol impairment policies for remote workers,” Russo acknowledged. As a result, employers “may be limited to discipline based on the employee’s productivity, attendance and/or observed behaviors during video calls or telephone calls.” This shift places greater emphasis on outcomes rather than direct observation.

“When there is suspicion of potential drug or alcohol use, the employer should make efforts to have an in-person meeting with the employee, if possible, to address the issues that have been observed,” Russo said. In practice, this reflects a broader move toward performance-based management in hybrid environments.

Rethinking Drug Testing 

Perhaps the most significant challenge for HR leaders is the growing mismatch between drug testing and impairment. Cannabis metabolites can remain detectable long after use, making positive tests an unreliable indicator of on-the-job risk.

“In states where cannabis is legal, many employers have stopped conducting cannabis testing for purposes of pre-employment tests, post-accident tests, and random tests,” Russo explained. This is because “positive test results in those situations do not necessarily prove impairment at work.” Instead, many organizations are shifting toward a more targeted approach.

Employers typically test for cannabis when there is reasonable suspicion, particularly where it is legally permissible, according to Russo. In those cases, “the employee’s impaired behaviors, combined with a positive cannabis test result, would provide a justifiable basis for disciplinary action,” she said. This combined-evidence model is increasingly viewed as more defensible than blanket testing policies.

How-To Guide: Reasonable Suspicion — How to Document It and When It Applies

Off-Duty Use and the Expanding Gray Areas

Adding further complexity, a growing number of states are enacting protections for cannabis use when employees are not on the clock. “This is very difficult for employers to navigate when conducting drug testing because off-duty use is likely to be detected on a drug test,” Russo said.

The implication is that employers must shift focus from presence to impact. This is especially true in the context of medical cannabis, where Russo cautioned that “employers must be careful not to base employment decisions on positive cannabis test results alone, because a medical user will always test positive.” Instead, organizations should confirm “that there is no impairment at work” and engage in an “interactive dialogue” to determine appropriate accommodations.

From Enforcement to Support

As cannabis use becomes more normalized, employers are expanding their approach beyond enforcement. “If an employee has a substance abuse problem, he or she may be eligible for a medical leave of absence,” Russo said. Forward-thinking organizations can offer employee assistance programs to provide confidential support.