I agree with your point, that's why I also said "How strictly this policy is enforced just depends on the people doing the testing." They are the ones who decide to report to the employer whether the test results were positive or negative. If they or the employer are willing to accept the claim that the script lasted longer than it would have according to the instructions because it was only taken as needed, then of course it wouldn't be a problem. The point I wanted to make is that you need to know beforehand how they are going to handle it, and not walk into it just trusting/hoping that they will be reasonable about it. I definitely wouldn't want to do that, and the more time has gone by, the less likely it is they are going to accept the explanation... if it's a matter of days, they probably would -- weeks, maybe -- months, probably not. The way I see it, "maybe" and "probably" is not sufficient when it comes to the question of whether or not I'll be able to keep my job, and that's why I think it's a good idea to find out ahead of time exactly what the policy is.

For out-of-state scripts filled through an insurance plan, the doctor is still local, even though the pharmacy isn't, and that's all that matters. Even if it is a 3-month supply, the label still shows the time period the prescription is considered to be current, so it wouldn't be a problem.