10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28315256/colorado-supreme-court-affirms-lower-court-rulings-medical?source=infinite
Employers' zero-tolerance drug policies trump Colorado's medical marijuana laws, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In a 6-0 decision, the high court affirmed lower court rulings that businesses can fire employees for the use of medical marijuana — even if it's off-duty.
With the ruling, which was a blow to some medical marijuana patients and a sigh of relief to employers, Colorado became the first state to provide guidance on a gray area of the law.
The decision came nine months after the state's highest court heard oral arguments in Brandon Coats' case against Dish Network. Coats became quadriplegic in a car accident and used marijuana to control leg spasms. He had a medical marijuana card and consumed pot off-duty. He was fired in 2010 after failing a random drug test.
Brandon Coats listens as his attorney talks Monday about his case. Coats said he is disappointed in the state Supreme Court ruling that businesses can fire employees for the use of marijuana even if it's for medical purposes and even if it's done off-duty. (Kathryn Scott Osler, The Denver Post)
Coats, who was a customer service representative for Dish, challenged the Douglas County satellite TV company's zero-tolerance drug policy, claiming that his use was legal under state law. His firing had been upheld in both trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals.
When the case went to the state Supreme Court, legal observers said the case could have significant implications for employers across Colorado. They noted that the ruling also could be precedent-setting as Colorado and other states wrangle with adapting laws to a nascent industry that is illegal under federal law.
At the crux of the issue was whether the use of medical marijuana — which is in compliance with Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment — was "lawful" under the state's Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute.
"Therefore, employees who engage in an activity, such as medical marijuana use, that is permitted by state law but unlawful under federal law are not protected by the statute," Justice Allison H. Eid wrote in the opinion.
Current Colorado law allows employers to set their own policies on drug use.
Coats' attorney Michael Evans, of Centennial-based The Evans Group, called the decision "devastating."
He said he does not plan to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"You need the Colorado Supreme Court to stand up for its own laws," he said. "The U.S. Supreme Court is not going to do that."
Resolution at last
On Monday, Coats and his mother, Donna Scharfenberg, spent all morning refreshing the Colorado Supreme Court's website. When they finally read the ruling, there was 10 minutes of silence.
"It was just kind of shocking," Coats said. "There was a silent moment there for a long while."
It was a disappointing resolution to what has been a five-year battle for Coats, who is unemployed.
"This is a controversial issue," he said. "This is a hard case, and it was going to be a hard case to win. I was definitely hoping it would go the other way around.
"I was feeling like maybe, maybe, but it didn't go that way."
Officials with Douglas County-based Dish lauded the decision.
"We are pleased with the outcome of the court's decision today," the company said in a statement. "As a national employer, Dish remains committed to a drug-free workplace and compliance with federal law."
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia H. Coffman said the decision gives companies the freedom to craft their own employment policies concerning marijuana.
"Not every business will opt for zero-tolerance, but it is important that the latitude now exists to craft a policy that fits the individual workplace," she said.
A question for the legislature
When Colorado legalized recreational marijuana last year, employers across the state increased their drug testing, said Curtis Graves, an attorney for Mountain States Employers Council, referencing a workplace survey at the time. A year later, and with an unemployment rate below 5 percent, some employers have loosened the reins.
"We've seen a number of employers, particularly in hospitality ... who are actually omitting THC from a pre-employment drug screen," he said.
The market might dictate a further shift in the future.
Until then, people like Coats will have to consider other treatments or find a position that does not enforce a zero-tolerance drug policy, said Austin Smith, managing shareholder of employment law firm Ogletree Deakins' Denver office.
"It puts employees in a tough spot," said Smith, who watched the case closely but was not involved.
Sam Kamin, a University of Denver law professor, said the justices' decision comes as no surprise.
"It's easy to make too much of this decision," he said. "It really comes down to interpreting this one word ('lawful') in this one statute."
As a matter of statutory interpretation, the court got it right, he said.
But for Coats and medical marijuana advocates, this is a blow, Kamin said. He said he thinks the state legislature will take up the issue.
"I think (Coats') case is very sympathetic, and I think his case would be quite compelling before the legislature," Kamin said.
Six of the seven justices decided the case. Justice Monica Marquez recused herself because her father, retired Senior Judge Jose D.L. Marquez, was on the Court of Appeals panel that upheld Coats' firing.
Alicia Wallace: 303-954-1939, awallace@denverpost.com or twitter.com/aliciawallace
Excerpts from the Colorado Supreme Court decision
• "Colorado's 'lawful activities statute,' the term 'lawful' refers only to those activities that are lawful under both state and federal law."
• "Nothing in the language of the statute limits the term 'lawful' to state law. Instead, the term is used in its general, unrestricted sense, indicating that a 'lawful' activity is that which complies with applicable 'law,' including state and federal law. We therefore decline Coats's invitation to engraft a state law limitation onto the statutory language."
• "Coats does not dispute that the federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits medical marijuana use. The CSA lists marijuana as a Schedule I substance, meaning federal law designates it as having no medical accepted use, a high risk of abuse, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision."
• "Having decided this case on the basis of the prohibition under federal law, we decline to address the issue of whether Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment deems medical marijuana use 'lawful' by conferring a right to such use."
Well, it may be legalized but the fight is not over it seems. If you want to smoke for fun or you need it for medical reasons, you need to find a special job where they are fine with it.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
High court my ass, they don't even sound buzzed! 
18698
Post by: kronk
I see what you did there... 
50326
Post by: curran12
The ruling makes sense to me. After all, while alcohol is legal, that doesn't mean that employers have to keep someone visibly drunk on the staff. Medical or no, businesses have the right to screen and as the article points out, some are already beginning to shift away from screening for THC.
A rocky part of gray areas, to be sure, but I'm glad that the courts sided with the rights of the business in this instance.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
The problem is, you can drink as long as you are not drunk at work. However, you cannot smoke at any time in these circumstances because most drug tests for THC go back 30 days. So they are not really catching people high at work, they are just catching people using on their own time.
Edit: Added Most, because you can do a saliva test for THC that works about like a breathalyzer. Fun Fact: IL is moving to saliva test for DUIs for Marijuana.
50326
Post by: curran12
But is that a failing of the law, or of the testing? I admit, I come from a biased perspective, I work in truck safety so I am always super high-strung about these sorts of things because if I am not tight, things slip through.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
 curran12 wrote:But is that a failing of the law, or of the testing? I admit, I come from a biased perspective, I work in truck safety so I am always super high-strung about these sorts of things because if I am not tight, things slip through.
I think it is a couple of reasons honestly. Our understanding of the drug and how long it effects us needs to get better and then the law needs to catch up accordingly. But, based on what we do know at the moment, the laws are still lagging behind.
50326
Post by: curran12
I agree with you that our understanding of the drug is behind. After all, it has been demonized for what feels like generations, so I imagine that paints any kind of research onto it in a certain unfavorable light.
I think we need to break away the business policy from the law in this instance. The law is simply saying that the business has a right to uphold its zero-tolerance policy. The business is the one making calls of firing based on testing. Now (depending heavily on the nature of the job), a zero-tolerance policy for THC seems a bit harsh and, as we can see in the article, businesses are moving away from it, but the business still has the right to test. I think the issue here is not so much the court's decision, but the discussion that should come asking if businesses should test for THC.
34390
Post by: whembly
I think businesses need to be able to make such policies like these...
Especially if said business involves driving company vehicles and/or equipment operation.
Otherwise, the liability insurance would go through the roof.
50326
Post by: curran12
 whembly wrote:I think businesses need to be able to make such policies like these...
Especially if said business involves driving company vehicles and/or equipment operation.
Otherwise, the liability insurance would go through the roof.
Very much this. There is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to drug testing. But the employer should have the right to set it, it should not be a government mandate.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
So the government should have the authority to dictate what happens on my personal time even though it does not effect work?
We may not know a lot about how marijuana effects us, but we do know that it can leave your system before you have to be at work. You do not smoke it and then stay high for 30 days, you come down.
50326
Post by: curran12
 Dreadwinter wrote:So the government should have the authority to dictate what happens on my personal time even though it does not effect work?
We may not know a lot about how marijuana effects us, but we do know that it can leave your system before you have to be at work. You do not smoke it and then stay high for 30 days, you come down.
Nobody is saying that first thing. At all.
The ruling is that the individual employers have the right to set their testing policies.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
If I smoke recreationally on my own time and I am given a urine test which dates back 30 days and I fail it. I am fired. So, I have to either find a new job which is difficult or I have to not smoke.
How is that not dictating my personal life?
31716
Post by: Lord of Deeds
Some good points regarding the short comings of current D&A screening methods vs what is permissible.
As a HSE professional, I am very concerned about individuals showing up to work under the influence of anything that might impact their personal safety and/or the safety of those they work with so I am strongly in favor of the right to set D&A conditions for employment.
BTW our workplace also specifically prohibits the improper use of prescription medication and we educate employees that they need to let us know when using anything that is causing serious side affects, whether OTC or prescribed by their physician, so that we can make the appropriate accommodations. My employer is willing to work with individuals as much as possible because they understand the positive impact on productivity and retention that such a policy promotes. Employees don't need to tell us what they are taking or why, only the side effects they are experiencing. We may ask for a doctor's note to substantiate what their work restrictions should be, e.g. no standing for more than x amount of time, no driving heavy equipment, no working at heights, etc. I would think that this type of policy could easily be extended to the use of medically prescribed marijuana. That said, there is only so much accommodations that can be made and the business needs to have the right to layoff an employee who is not medically fit to work at that company and employers should have the right to set those conditions.
Ultimately there will be times where we have to make hard choices about the types of medication we take or other medical procedures we undergo and how it will impact our ability to work in our chosen field. You certainly don't want your employer to become involved in those decisions, but then employers should not have to accommodate your choice and its effects on your ability to do the job you were hired to do.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Dreadwinter wrote:So the government should have the authority to dictate what happens on my personal time even though it does not effect work?
We may not know a lot about how marijuana effects us, but we do know that it can leave your system before you have to be at work. You do not smoke it and then stay high for 30 days, you come down.
Your employer, not the gov't is making the call in this case. The gov't (via the court) is upholding your employer's right to do so. Plenty of jobs/employers who don't test or don't test for THC. You have the right to not work for an employer who does test for it.
And lets not forget, in this case, like it or not, the employer has a policy to fire folks using a substance the Feds have on schedule I of illegal/regulated drugs. Alcohol is NOT a schedule 1 drug. You really cannot compare them from a legal aspect.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Not seeing the problem. If you work at a company with a clear zero-tolerance on drugs policy, decide to do drugs, get tested positive and then kicked out, you have zero reasons to complain. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dreadwinter wrote:If I smoke recreationally on my own time and I am given a urine test which dates back 30 days and I fail it. I am fired. So, I have to either find a new job which is difficult or I have to not smoke.
How is that not dictating my personal life?
You, personally, decided to work at the company. You, personally, also decided that doing drugs while working for a no-drugs policy company was a good idea. You, personally, are to fully take the blame.
34390
Post by: whembly
Look at it from the employer's perspective.
It's a major lawsuit if an employee get's injured/injured someone and it's found that THC is in the employee's system.
In fact, in the event of workers on-job injury, insurers REQUIRES the company to perform a drug test. If anything is found, then the company (and not the insurer) is on the hook.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
We glossing over the fact that THC does not stay in your system indefinitely and you can work sober, it is the employer that is using a test that makes it impossible to differentiate?
Of course people should get in trouble for coming to work stoned/drunk. However, they should not get in trouble if they do it at home. There is a difference.
34390
Post by: whembly
Dreadwinter wrote:We glossing over the fact that THC does not stay in your system indefinitely and you can work sober, it is the employer that is using a test that makes it impossible to differentiate? Of course people should get in trouble for coming to work stoned/drunk. However, they should not get in trouble if they do it at home. There is a difference.
No, the problem is that you can't prove that you weren't stoned on the job.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
You can, saliva. It works for DUIs, why not work?
34390
Post by: whembly
I'm pretty sure it isn't very accurate. Lemme doublecheck.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
whembly wrote:
I'm pretty sure it isn't very accurate. Lemme doublecheck.
Don't worry, I got you.
http://www.forensicfluids.com/oral_v_urine.htm
18698
Post by: kronk
Dreadwinter wrote:If I smoke recreationally on my own time and I am given a urine test which dates back 30 days and I fail it. I am fired. So, I have to either find a new job which is difficult or I have to not smoke. How is that not dictating my personal life?
Why does this sound like a new thing for you? This has been going on for decades. Your place of employment clearly lays out their drug testing policy when you apply for the job. If you agree to those terms, then don't do drugs. I've been randomly tested 3 times at my current place of employment. I have no problem with it. They do the hair test that can go back a few months, IIRC. The only new thing about this is that at the time of his firing, CO had legalized medicinal marijuana. I'm of the opinion that if he was given a subscription for it by his doctor, and was legal at the time for that use, then it shouldn't be terminated. Edit: Obviously, if he was stoned at work, then he should be gak-canned, but that's a how different discussion.
34390
Post by: whembly
Oh... now I remember why it isn't commonly used.
You still can't tell if you're stoned. All these tests can show is that you have THC present in your saliva.
So, instead of trying to find that fine line of whether or not you're impaired, the company policy is for any trace.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
I was referring to the situation that he is in, not myself personally. I can see how it might have come off like that. If I get drug tested and fail, I am in a state it is not legal recreationally and I have no medical card. I fully expect to be terminated.
This man was prescribed marijuana by a doctor. But no, the job says he cannot have that medicine! How is that right? Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:
Oh... now I remember why it isn't commonly used.
You still can't tell if you're stoned. All these tests can show is that you have THC present in your saliva.
So, instead of trying to find that fine line of whether or not you're impaired, the company policy is for any trace.
Did you read that at all?
When found in saliva, this means impairment because the drug has entered the blood stream and affected the brain, thus affecting motor skills.
So, you can tell if a person is stoned based on this test. Come on.
18698
Post by: kronk
Dreadwinter wrote:
This man was prescribed marijuana by a doctor. But no, the job says he cannot have that medicine! How is that right?
For this particular case, I don't think it is right. However, this is just the beginning of these rulings and cases. I expect we'll see a lot of development on this topic in the next 10 years...
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
whembly wrote:
I'm pretty sure it isn't very accurate. Lemme doublecheck.
Neither are alcohol tests, but that doesn't stop anybody... Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:
Oh... now I remember why it isn't commonly used.
You still can't tell if you're stoned. All these tests can show is that you have THC present in your saliva.
So, instead of trying to find that fine line of whether or not you're impaired, the company policy is for any trace.
Long-term "any trace" alcohol tests exist as well. ETG testing can detect alcohol for about a week post-ingestion, and is more or less comparable to the urine test for THC. Saliva testing is a shorter term test for impairment just like breathalyzer testing. If this was really about safety, then employers would simply use saliva tests and be done with it.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
If you're drunk or high at work then it affects your job and you should be disciplined. This ruling means you can sack people for doing something legal in their free time regardless of whether it impacts their work. Hmmm.
You Americans are obsessed with testing enployees and have somehow come to accept it as a reasonable imposition from employers. It doesn't happen in the UK and we don't have problems with people, spliff in mouth, crashing their trucks at work.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 kronk wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
This man was prescribed marijuana by a doctor. But no, the job says he cannot have that medicine! How is that right?
For this particular case, I don't think it is right. However, this is just the beginning of these rulings and cases. I expect we'll see a lot of development on this topic in the next 10 years...
Again, it is pretty simple. THC is a Schedule I drug. Like it or not. Until that changes any business that may ever want to work across state lines/bid on a Fed contract/what ever will be perfectly correct to screen for it, fire for it and so on. A prescription for a federally illegal drug isn't going to hold water in a court case against the business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  Howard A Treesong wrote:If you're drunk or high at work then it affects your job and you should be disciplined. This ruling means you can sack people for doing something legal in their free time regardless of whether it impacts their work. Hmmm.
You Americans are obsessed with testing enployees and have somehow come to accept it as a reasonable imposition from employers. It doesn't happen in the UK and we don't have problems with people, spliff in mouth, crashing their trucks at work.
It is not something legal federally. And frankly, even if it WAS legal federally, a business can have the policy to fire you for it. A business can fire folks for what they post to social media, even when that does not impact their work. No one is entitled to violate their employer's policies and still keep their job. They are entitled to not work for an employer who has policies they disagree with.
92521
Post by: BeAfraid
This is likely to be struck down in on appeal due to practical reasons:
Given how long pot remains in one's systems, and that detection can result from simply breathing second-hand smoke.
And given that there remains no way to reliably test for pot (given the many "fixes" you can take to thwart urinalysis), it is likely that the court will overturn this.
This is the first of such rulings on a path to clarifying the MANY outright lies, or simple confusions people have regarding drug use, and the people who use "drugs' other than alcohol and caffeine.
MB
4402
Post by: CptJake
BeAfraid wrote:This is likely to be struck down in on appeal due to practical reasons:
Given how long pot remains in one's systems, and that detection can result from simply breathing second-hand smoke.
And given that there remains no way to reliably test for pot (given the many "fixes" you can take to thwart urinalysis), it is likely that the court will overturn this.
This is the first of such rulings on a path to clarifying the MANY outright lies, or simple confusions people have regarding drug use, and the people who use "drugs' other than alcohol and caffeine.
MB
It is unlikely to be struck down on appeal for the following reasons: It won't be appealed. The state supreme court made the ruling and the plaintiff already said they won;t take it to the US Supreme Court.
And even if it was, the plaintiff would lose. A fed court is not going to say an employer with a No Pot Policy (a policy against a schedule 1 drug) can't fire people in accordance with their policy. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dreadwinter wrote:
Did you read that at all?
When found in saliva, this means impairment because the drug has entered the blood stream and affected the brain, thus affecting motor skills.
So, you can tell if a person is stoned based on this test. Come on.
You do realize they tested via saliva, don't you? At least that is what the plaintiff claims in the video at the link in the OP you posted.
93151
Post by: KiloFiX
But technically businesses in the U.S. can already fire you for ANY REASON as long as it is not one of the 5 protected classes or a proxy thereof right?
34390
Post by: whembly
 KiloFiX wrote:But technically businesses in the U.S. can already fire you for ANY REASON as long as it is not one of the 5 protected classes or a proxy thereof right?
Technically, true and also not in breach of any signed contracts.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
curran12 wrote:The ruling makes sense to me. After all, while alcohol is legal, that doesn't mean that employers have to keep someone visibly drunk on the staff. Medical or no, businesses have the right to screen and as the article points out, some are already beginning to shift away from screening for THC.
A rocky part of gray areas, to be sure, but I'm glad that the courts sided with the rights of the business in this instance.
I think that the problem with this is, If I drink a couple beers with dinner this evening, and show up to "work", there's no reasonable method to ascertain that I've in fact drank alcohol the night before. Whereas with weed, even if I'm not high, the THC is still in my system for what, 30 days or so?
IMHO, the court should have separated the two... I agree with you on "recreational" use; a business should retain the right for "zero-tolerance" drug policies with someone who is using drugs recreationally. However, I do not agree with them in saying that the businesses retain that right over a medical patient. In my eyes, it'd be very much the same thing as my employer firing me over the use of Methotrexate. Automatically Appended Next Post:  CptJake wrote:
And even if it was, the plaintiff would lose. A fed court is not going to say an employer with a No Pot Policy (a policy against a schedule 1 drug) can't fire people in accordance with their policy.
You mean to tell me that a Federal Court, in which Marijuana is still viewed as being illegal would remain illegal!? Say it ain't so!
93151
Post by: KiloFiX
Also, as an analogy I know quite a few police departments and other emergency services that contractually prohibit their personnel from drinking IN THEIR OWN TIME even though it would be legal to do so otherwise.
34390
Post by: whembly
KiloFiX wrote:Also, as an analogy I know quite a few police departments and other emergency services that contractually prohibit their personnel from drinking IN THEIR OWN TIME even though it would be legal to do so otherwise.
That's because they're likely oncall.
10356
Post by: Bran Dawri
I'll do you one better. I was recently on a project where at one point everyone was drug tested.
We were not only tested for illegal drugs, but they also checked for the presence of required drugs for the job (Anti-malaria meds in this case)...
...
And then when I finally got to go home with my wife and baby and thought I was rid of West-Africa, I had to come back after a couple of weeks because some donkey-cave (now ex-c)olleague of mine grossly failed a random breath-test not once, but thrice.
I had to leave my wife (who doesn't speak much Dutch (yet) or English in the Netherlands to fend for herself for two weeks.
So although I normally lean towards "anything that puts a check on companies' power is a good thing" in this case, no sympathy for people who fail drug tests on this end.
18698
Post by: kronk
whembly wrote: KiloFiX wrote:Also, as an analogy I know quite a few police departments and other emergency services that contractually prohibit their personnel from drinking IN THEIR OWN TIME even though it would be legal to do so otherwise.
That's because they're likely oncall.
As Whembly said, when you're on call, you are discouraged, or even prevented, from drinking.
I was on call a few weeks ago for a project I was leading. No booze for Kronkster for 1 night.
I had the shakes!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
whembly wrote: KiloFiX wrote:Also, as an analogy I know quite a few police departments and other emergency services that contractually prohibit their personnel from drinking IN THEIR OWN TIME even though it would be legal to do so otherwise.
That's because they're likely oncall.
Yep, my brother-in-law is a firefighter and basically, if he's on duty, on call, or wearing a department shirt: no booze. Period.
93151
Post by: KiloFiX
Yes I understand the Oncall bit. I was just trying to illustrate that just because something is usually legal in your own time, it doesn't mean that someone has legal standing to do it with every company.
There are also companies that prohibit their personnel from say eating at a competitors franchise while in uniform. Or even say going to an 'adult' establishment.
Regardless of whether the employees think the reason is fair or not, in the end, it's really up to the company.
18698
Post by: kronk
I like to wear a competitor's uniform and hang out in adult establishments.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I was on call a few weeks ago for a project I was leading. No booze for Kronkster for 1 night.
Dear God how did you survive??? 
18698
Post by: kronk
 Frazzled wrote:
I was on call a few weeks ago for a project I was leading. No booze for Kronkster for 1 night.
Dear God how did you survive???
They didn't say anything about not sniffing glue!
#loophole
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
221
Post by: Frazzled
kronk wrote: Frazzled wrote:
I was on call a few weeks ago for a project I was leading. No booze for Kronkster for 1 night.
Dear God how did you survive???
They didn't say anything about not sniffing glue! #loophole
Kronk + Glue= Profit!
18698
Post by: kronk
Just get a monogrammed shirt, dude!
Get a shirt with "Teachers Against Drunk Driving" for when you're going clubbing.
752
Post by: Polonius
CptJake wrote:
It is unlikely to be struck down on appeal for the following reasons: It won't be appealed. The state supreme court made the ruling and the plaintiff already said they won;t take it to the US Supreme Court.
And even if it was, the plaintiff would lose. A fed court is not going to say an employer with a No Pot Policy (a policy against a schedule 1 drug) can't fire people in accordance with their policy.
You're correct that this won't be appealed, but I think there's a bigger reason for that, and for the State Court's decision: the Supremacy Clause.
Colorado allows for medicinal and recreational marijuana use. Federal law prohibits both. If the State Court had sided with the plaintiff, the employer would likely seek certiari with SCOTUS. That means that the Supreme Court could untangle the knot by striking down Colorado's law.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
kronk wrote:
Just get a monogrammed shirt, dude!
Get a shirt with "Teachers Against Drunk Driving" for when you're going clubbing.
Man... you could make another one "Teachers supporting continuing education" for when you go to the strip club
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote: KiloFiX wrote:But technically businesses in the U.S. can already fire you for ANY REASON as long as it is not one of the 5 protected classes or a proxy thereof right?
Technically, true and also not in breach of any signed contracts.
Colorado law prohibits being fired for engaging in legal conduct, done off duty and off premises, that do not involve a conflict of interest.
So under pure State law, the firing was improper.
18698
Post by: kronk
CptJake wrote: kronk wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
This man was prescribed marijuana by a doctor. But no, the job says he cannot have that medicine! How is that right?
For this particular case, I don't think it is right. However, this is just the beginning of these rulings and cases. I expect we'll see a lot of development on this topic in the next 10 years...
Again, it is pretty simple. THC is a Schedule I drug. Like it or not. Until that changes any business that may ever want to work across state lines/bid on a Fed contract/what ever will be perfectly correct to screen for it, fire for it and so on. A prescription for a federally illegal drug isn't going to hold water in a court case against the business.
You're probably right.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Polonius wrote: whembly wrote: KiloFiX wrote:But technically businesses in the U.S. can already fire you for ANY REASON as long as it is not one of the 5 protected classes or a proxy thereof right?
Technically, true and also not in breach of any signed contracts.
Colorado law prohibits being fired for engaging in legal conduct, done off duty and off premises, that do not involve a conflict of interest.
So under pure State law, the firing was improper.
I see...
Is that generally true in other states?
752
Post by: Polonius
whembly wrote: Polonius wrote: whembly wrote: KiloFiX wrote:But technically businesses in the U.S. can already fire you for ANY REASON as long as it is not one of the 5 protected classes or a proxy thereof right?
Technically, true and also not in breach of any signed contracts.
Colorado law prohibits being fired for engaging in legal conduct, done off duty and off premises, that do not involve a conflict of interest.
So under pure State law, the firing was improper.
I see...
Is that generally true in other states?
Probably not, but either way, Colorado is still an at-will state.
Requiring them to be tested for a legal substance and firing them immediately makes it clear that it was the act of using a substance that led to termination. Any HR manager worth their salt would simply terminate without cause, pay the unemployment, and move on.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Polonius wrote:
Requiring them to be tested for a legal substance and firing them immediately makes it clear that it was the act of using a substance that led to termination. Any HR manager worth their salt would simply terminate without cause, pay the unemployment, and move on.
If a company were to fire for "violation of company policies" would the exact policy the employee was terminated for need to be revealed either to the (ex)employee, or a future employer?
752
Post by: Polonius
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: Polonius wrote:
Requiring them to be tested for a legal substance and firing them immediately makes it clear that it was the act of using a substance that led to termination. Any HR manager worth their salt would simply terminate without cause, pay the unemployment, and move on.
If a company were to fire for "violation of company policies" would the exact policy the employee was terminated for need to be revealed either to the (ex)employee, or a future employer?
Oh yeah.
Usually, a company tries to establish that they terminated with cause ("fired") because then they do not have to pay unemployment benefits. Termination without cause ("laying off") allows a person to collect unemployment. Even if terminated with cause, an employee can take the case to a hearing officer, and demand that the company establish properly that there was good cause. In theory it's not a very high burden, but in many states, the unemployment boards are pretty pro-employee.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
CptJake wrote:BeAfraid wrote:This is likely to be struck down in on appeal due to practical reasons:
Given how long pot remains in one's systems, and that detection can result from simply breathing second-hand smoke.
And given that there remains no way to reliably test for pot (given the many "fixes" you can take to thwart urinalysis), it is likely that the court will overturn this.
This is the first of such rulings on a path to clarifying the MANY outright lies, or simple confusions people have regarding drug use, and the people who use "drugs' other than alcohol and caffeine.
MB
It is unlikely to be struck down on appeal for the following reasons: It won't be appealed. The state supreme court made the ruling and the plaintiff already said they won;t take it to the US Supreme Court.
And even if it was, the plaintiff would lose. A fed court is not going to say an employer with a No Pot Policy (a policy against a schedule 1 drug) can't fire people in accordance with their policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Did you read that at all?
When found in saliva, this means impairment because the drug has entered the blood stream and affected the brain, thus affecting motor skills.
So, you can tell if a person is stoned based on this test. Come on.
You do realize they tested via saliva, don't you? At least that is what the plaintiff claims in the video at the link in the OP you posted.
I did. Did you read the link I posted?
Delta 9 THC has been measured in oral fluid up to 72 hours after smoking.
It can remain in the saliva for that long, but not be active in the system. It really depends at what point they set the bar for the test. Clearly this was a zero tolerance test with him, which meant if it said anything he was done for. Since he is a medical patient, that means there is no way it will not show up in his saliva. But, you can have it in your system and not be high.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Dreadwinter wrote: CptJake wrote:BeAfraid wrote:This is likely to be struck down in on appeal due to practical reasons:
Given how long pot remains in one's systems, and that detection can result from simply breathing second-hand smoke.
And given that there remains no way to reliably test for pot (given the many "fixes" you can take to thwart urinalysis), it is likely that the court will overturn this.
This is the first of such rulings on a path to clarifying the MANY outright lies, or simple confusions people have regarding drug use, and the people who use "drugs' other than alcohol and caffeine.
MB
It is unlikely to be struck down on appeal for the following reasons: It won't be appealed. The state supreme court made the ruling and the plaintiff already said they won;t take it to the US Supreme Court.
And even if it was, the plaintiff would lose. A fed court is not going to say an employer with a No Pot Policy (a policy against a schedule 1 drug) can't fire people in accordance with their policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Did you read that at all?
When found in saliva, this means impairment because the drug has entered the blood stream and affected the brain, thus affecting motor skills.
So, you can tell if a person is stoned based on this test. Come on.
You do realize they tested via saliva, don't you? At least that is what the plaintiff claims in the video at the link in the OP you posted.
I did. Did you read the link I posted?
You mean the one that says:
When found in saliva, this means impairment because the drug has entered the blood stream and affected the brain, thus affecting motor skills.
Yep. And as you quoted, if found in the saliva (and it was) this means impairment.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
This is a good ruling.
Weed is still an inhibiting drug, despite what its proponents might claim, as it impairs its users mental state. And it makes you smell like ass. You should be allowed to discriminate based on its use, medical or otherwise.
If you want to keep your job, find something else to help with your pain. There are hundreds of painkillers out there.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
CptJake wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: CptJake wrote:BeAfraid wrote:This is likely to be struck down in on appeal due to practical reasons:
Given how long pot remains in one's systems, and that detection can result from simply breathing second-hand smoke.
And given that there remains no way to reliably test for pot (given the many "fixes" you can take to thwart urinalysis), it is likely that the court will overturn this.
This is the first of such rulings on a path to clarifying the MANY outright lies, or simple confusions people have regarding drug use, and the people who use "drugs' other than alcohol and caffeine.
MB
It is unlikely to be struck down on appeal for the following reasons: It won't be appealed. The state supreme court made the ruling and the plaintiff already said they won;t take it to the US Supreme Court.
And even if it was, the plaintiff would lose. A fed court is not going to say an employer with a No Pot Policy (a policy against a schedule 1 drug) can't fire people in accordance with their policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Did you read that at all?
When found in saliva, this means impairment because the drug has entered the blood stream and affected the brain, thus affecting motor skills.
So, you can tell if a person is stoned based on this test. Come on.
You do realize they tested via saliva, don't you? At least that is what the plaintiff claims in the video at the link in the OP you posted.
I did. Did you read the link I posted?
You mean the one that says:
When found in saliva, this means impairment because the drug has entered the blood stream and affected the brain, thus affecting motor skills.
Yep. And as you quoted, if found in the saliva (and it was) this means impairment.
You are not impaired the whole time it is found in your system. I will quote this to you again.
Delta 9 THC has been measured in oral fluid up to 72 hours after smoking.
 Grey Templar wrote:This is a good ruling.
Weed is still an inhibiting drug, despite what its proponents might claim, as it impairs its users mental state. And it makes you smell like ass. You should be allowed to discriminate based on its use, medical or otherwise.
If you want to keep your job, find something else to help with your pain. There are hundreds of painkillers out there.
It is when it is in your system effecting you. But it is not effecting you as long as these tests can detect it in your system. That is the problem. Nobody is saying you should be able to go to work stoned. However, it IS a medicine and all of those other painkillers have terrible side effects. This does not.
Also, the smell thing is not true.
91290
Post by: Kap'n Krump
It's also tricky if you work for a company in Denver that is based out of a state where pot is still illegal.
Or, in my case, I work for a city municipality. I'm not 100% what the reason is, but I think because we take money from the state, which subsequently takes money from the feds, that we're held to federal employment standards and can therefore not use pot.
I do kind of wonder when someone's going to start making a stink about how we're breaking federal law.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
It sounds like this is the most proportionate ruling that the court come come up with as it balanced competing interests. There is a pre-existing contract, and while the drug may be legal on a State level for medicinal purposes, it is not legal beyond that. So the police and courts cannot punish someone with a medical permission who has the drug, but that does not prevent employers from setting their own boundaries.
So you had an Archer moment
23
Post by: djones520
From what I read, they upheld this, because the FedGov still declares marijuana illegal. Not because people may be stoned at work.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Dreadwinter wrote:
It is when it is in your system effecting you. But it is not effecting you as long as these tests can detect it in your system. That is the problem. Nobody is saying you should be able to go to work stoned. However, it IS a medicine and all of those other painkillers have terrible side effects. This does not.
Has a MAJOR side effect based on it being a schedule I drug. It will cost you your job if you get caught using it.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
It's not so much the firing for using the drug, it's the testing for it that bothers me. If you're impaired at work then you're not suitable for work. If they can only pick it up through random testing to find if you smoked it a fortnight ago, I don't agree. I'm a teacher, if I turned up at work on drink or drugs I deserve discipline, but I don't believe that what I do in my private life, short of bringing the school into disrepute (like being seen rolling around the street drunk by pupils/parents), should affect my employment. I don't see that your employer should have the right to ask drug testing of you without good due cause. Then again, it seems like all the power is with the employer in the US, I thought our unions here bend over for anything these days but the US is a bit of a joke on employment law and rights.
4402
Post by: CptJake
No one forces anyone to take a job that requires drug testing. There are plenty of jobs which do not.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Its also to protect the company that employs you. Insurance wise and all that. Why pay for medical when you were high on the job and got hurt
57811
Post by: Jehan-reznor
Company has no Drugs policy, so Alcohol is a drug, cigarettes are a drug, medicine are drugs. Have fun
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Jehan-reznor wrote:Company has no Drugs policy, so Alcohol is a drug, cigarettes are a drug, medicine are drugs. Have fun
But clearly, the pot is the only one anyone needs to worry about 
50512
Post by: Jihadin
If your organization you work has a piss test.
Then one can bet their sweet arse its not allowed regardless of State laws.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Dreadwinter wrote:
It is when it is in your system effecting you. But it is not effecting you as long as these tests can detect it in your system. That is the problem. Nobody is saying you should be able to go to work stoned. However, it IS a medicine and all of those other painkillers have terrible side effects. This does not.
Also, the smell thing is not true.
1) Pot definitely 100% does make you smell. Its the most wretched stink behind a 4 pack a day tobacco user.
2) Pot has some side effects which are all too often glossed over. It has been proven to cause brain damage, and it impairs your mental faculties and reaction times while in your system. And in addition there is too little knowledge about what other potential side effects it may have.
Sounds like a drug which employers have every right to not allow their employees to use.
There is also way too many people giving out pot prescriptions for very minor conditions which would not justify its use. It should be an extreme prescription only used after other methods have proven ineffectual. I'm totally convinced a huge portion of people with Medical licenses just use some minor aches and pains to justify their habit, and have gotten a doctor to enable them.
Plus, users should not be allowed to grow their own. It should be picked up at a pharmacy like any other controlled drug.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Grey Templar wrote:
1) Pot definitely 100% does make you smell. Its the most wretched stink behind a 4 pack a day tobacco user.
Actually, with a bit of proper hygiene, you'd never know some people are pot smokers. Anecdote: a good friend of mine worked at one of those mall portrait studios. He'd smoke in the car right before heading in, he'd smoke on break, and again at lunch. Then, after his shift was done, he'd drive the bit of distance from work to my house, and you'd never know he'd been smoking pretty much all day. His wife worked at a local dispensary, and I quite often gave her a ride home from work (they only had one car) and once her rain jacket came off at the house, you would never know she worked in a dispensary. The two of them currently have another photographic/portrait job travelling about the Western parts of the US, same story, different day.
The ONLY time you'll ever smell is if you're smoking indoors, or, more likely you have poor hygiene habits.
2. The side effects most definitely have not been glossed over. Most research today indicates that the amount of marijuana most average people would have to smoke to see real, lasting brain damage is quite insane. The large majority of people who show up as having memory problems that "relate" to smoking, started smoking as teens... Ya know, when the brain isn't fully formed/functioning?
So, tell us again how you're really prejudiced against smokers....
One part I do agree with, and is generally true in Washington: users should not be able to grow their own. Hence why, in Washington, we have dispensaries. And the regulations and inspections for them are extremely strict.
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
Need to keep in mind that if you got roaring drunk the night before, a breathalyzer test will probably mark you as roaring drunk in the morning, and the law generally doesn't descriminate as to whether or not you're still under the influence, only if its present or not.
The problem with weed is that it stays in the system so long, but even then concentration levels can be detected with a blood test to give an idea of when/how much is getting used. I think thats why they say that the only drugs you should use are the ones you can snort off a stripper's you know.
As for the ruling itself, well as long as the federal level supercedes the state, then it seems fine to me. Whether or not it should be that way is another issue, but that's for the courts/people to decide.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
CptJake wrote:No one forces anyone to take a job that requires drug testing. There are plenty of jobs which do not.
Seems like quite a lot do though compared to the rest of the world. No one forces you to take any job in theory, meaning any silly imposition is excused? Jobs where the employer wants you you give them access to your Facebook during interview for example, but once you give businesses an inch they'll take more and more of them will be doing it. You work for an employer in a mutual contract, you're not a slave to them where they can dictate all your conduct in and outside of paid hours and sack you any moment for non compliance, or at least you shouldn't be which is why the power is slanted far too much in favour of the employer in the US. Also, is turning down a job on the basis of drug testing being an imposition too far a good reason for welfare? Because I think you could lose your unemployment support if you turned down a job offer in the UK unless you can show they were asking you to do something illegal or clearly unsuitable (like all night shifts when you have children to look after)
5470
Post by: sebster
I think the court has to rule this way. It’s ultimately a business decision made by the employer as to whether drug testing is necessary. Anywhere heavy machinery or transport is in use the employer not only has a right but a responsibility to ensure staff are not on any form of drugs. If that means catching people who used legally in their own time, well that’s not great but there isn’t much of an alternative at this point. That said, there are certainly lots of employers who put a strict drug policy in place where it makes no sense. In fact, while I haven’t seen any figures I’d guess that in most cases the drug testing actually makes no damn sense at all – cubicle workers workers are not a liability. But ultimately it really isn’t the role of the court to second guess business decisions, even when then they’re frequently pretty stupid. Ensis Ferrae wrote:IMHO, the court should have separated the two... I agree with you on "recreational" use; a business should retain the right for "zero-tolerance" drug policies with someone who is using drugs recreationally. However, I do not agree with them in saying that the businesses retain that right over a medical patient. In my eyes, it'd be very much the same thing as my employer firing me over the use of Methotrexate.
Yeah, I think it makes sense to give an exemption for drug testing for marijuana required for medical use. But that’s really a solution for the state legislature, the courts can’t just make up new laws based on what is reasonable. And while I think that exemption is good, it could be problematic as it isn’t that hard to get your hands on a medical marijuana license. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Jihadin wrote:Its also to protect the company that employs you. Insurance wise and all that. Why pay for medical when you were high on the job and got hurt
If your workplace involves any kind of heavy machinery then the insurer will either require drug testing, or there will be such a premium increase for failing to have the testing that it might as well be a requirement. That said, drug testing doesn’t just happen in jobs like that. Lots of cubicle dwellers are tested, and there’s really no sensible reason for that.
79992
Post by: Bishop F Gantry
Dreadwinter wrote:If I smoke recreationally on my own time and I am given a urine test which dates back 30 days and I fail it. I am fired. So, I have to either find a new job which is difficult or I have to not smoke.
How is that not dictating my personal life?
Or you could prioritize, do I want to keep this job in these uncertain times?
That said, drug testing doesn’t just happen in jobs like that. Lots of cubicle dwellers are tested, and there’s really no sensible reason for that.
Performance drop
5470
Post by: sebster
Suggesting that smoking a joint on Friday night will lead to a performance drop on Monday is a very silly thing indeed.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
If the policy of the organization one works for states no drugs then no drugs unless proscribed. Its simple.
Its like those in the pot industry with banking. State allows it but banks won't accept the money due to Federal Laws
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
 Bishop F Gantry wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:If I smoke recreationally on my own time and I am given a urine test which dates back 30 days and I fail it. I am fired. So, I have to either find a new job which is difficult or I have to not smoke.
How is that not dictating my personal life?
Or you could prioritize, do I want to keep this job in these uncertain times?
What? Thanks for glossing over what I said.
CptJake wrote:No one forces anyone to take a job that requires drug testing. There are plenty of jobs which do not.
Actually, there are not a lot of jobs that do not. Decent paying jobs almost always drug test. So, would you be alright with me being on welfare and not having a job then?
18698
Post by: kronk
I'd rather you just stopped smoking pot and get a fething job.
Also, cut your hair, hippy!
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
kronk wrote:I'd rather you just stopped smoking pot and get a fething job.
Also, cut your hair, hippy!
Ill stop smoking if you stop drinking.
The balls in your court Kronk!
4402
Post by: CptJake
Dreadwinter wrote: [
CptJake wrote:No one forces anyone to take a job that requires drug testing. There are plenty of jobs which do not.
Actually, there are not a lot of jobs that do not. Decent paying jobs almost always drug test. So, would you be alright with me being on welfare and not having a job then?
I couldn't care less if you had a decent paying job or lived under an underpass in a box to be honest. We all have freedom of choice but should never be given freedom from consequences. You accept a decent paying job when you know the employer tests for drugs and choose to do drugs anyway, you earn the consequences of being fired. That does not bother me. And more, since it IS your choice to take that job and ignore your employer's policies, I personally don't feel you should be able to suck any tax dollars in welfare as a result. I'm not a compassionate person when it comes to folks making crap decisions then whining like bitches at the results of those decisions. If the hardest choice you face in life is whether to risk your job so you can get stoned, your life is frankly pretty damned easy.
Grow up, take responsibility for your actions, quit feeling entitled.
And quit voting for gak bags that keep things like THC as a schedule I drug if you don't feel it should be. Quit voting for gak bags that want to increase fed power at the expense of the states.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dreadwinter wrote: kronk wrote:I'd rather you just stopped smoking pot and get a fething job.
Also, cut your hair, hippy!
Ill stop smoking if you stop drinking.
The balls in your court Kronk!
Does drinking sterno count? No one gets between me and my tin of sterno!
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Dreadwinter wrote:
Actually, there are not a lot of jobs that do not. Decent paying jobs almost always drug test. So, would you be alright with me being on welfare and not having a job then?
If taking drugs is more important to you than having a well paid job...I'd say you have a problem.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
 Sigvatr wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
Actually, there are not a lot of jobs that do not. Decent paying jobs almost always drug test. So, would you be alright with me being on welfare and not having a job then?
If taking drugs is more important to you than having a well paid job...I'd say you have a problem.
I don't have this job so I can take drugs. It just so happens that this job does not drug test. But, either way, is it not my decision to do what I want on my own time?
CptJake wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: [
CptJake wrote:No one forces anyone to take a job that requires drug testing. There are plenty of jobs which do not.
Actually, there are not a lot of jobs that do not. Decent paying jobs almost always drug test. So, would you be alright with me being on welfare and not having a job then?
I couldn't care less if you had a decent paying job or lived under an underpass in a box to be honest. We all have freedom of choice but should never be given freedom from consequences. You accept a decent paying job when you know the employer tests for drugs and choose to do drugs anyway, you earn the consequences of being fired. That does not bother me. And more, since it IS your choice to take that job and ignore your employer's policies, I personally don't feel you should be able to suck any tax dollars in welfare as a result. I'm not a compassionate person when it comes to folks making crap decisions then whining like bitches at the results of those decisions. If the hardest choice you face in life is whether to risk your job so you can get stoned, your life is frankly pretty damned easy.
Grow up, take responsibility for your actions, quit feeling entitled.
And quit voting for gak bags that keep things like THC as a schedule I drug if you don't feel it should be. Quit voting for gak bags that want to increase fed power at the expense of the states.
I do not vote for people who keep doing that, but here is the problem, other people do so that makes it difficult. So I have to bring stuff up like this to make people aware of situations. But thanks for the common sense advice.
Here is the deal. I could not care less about my employer when I am off work doing my own thing. Because it is my time to do what I want. Saying that I am somehow beholden to a group of people that I do not even like when I am off work is absolutely ludicrous, did we go back to some sort of medieval fiefdom or some crap? I have had jobs that randomly drug test and guess what, I chose not to do drugs. You seem to be getting some sort of conflated idea that I am some rebel saying screw the system ill do what I want! I am not. I am some sort of rebel that is saying we need to change the system and you are getting upset about it. You seem to have something against people using marijuana for some reason. You tell me if I do not like it, quit my job. Then get upset when I suggest doing what you say. Not sure why, but you should know it is a lot safer than most prescription medications, tobacco, and alcohol.
Also, not a single person in this thread has suggested that it is okay to go to work high. Much like it is not okay to go to work drunk. Nobody wants that.
I take responsibility for my actions, so I am not sure where you are getting this. I work 40 hours a week and I pay my own bills. But you keep suggesting that I quit my job for some reason.
We are having a conversation about the policy and if maybe things need to be changed and you are attacking me. Please, leave the thread if you have nothing constructive to say.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't have this job so I can take drugs. It just so happens that this job does not drug test. But, either way, is it not my decision to do what I want on my own time?
It is. If you don't apply for a job because it does drug-testing, then it's your own decision to prioritize drugs over the job. The company decides who to hire and if there's a clear policy, you have no right to complain about limiting your personal freedom etc.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Sigvatr wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't have this job so I can take drugs. It just so happens that this job does not drug test. But, either way, is it not my decision to do what I want on my own time?
It is. If you don't apply for a job because it does drug-testing, then it's your own decision to prioritize drugs over the job. The company decides who to hire and if there's a clear policy, you have no right to complain about limiting your personal freedom etc.
You know that I have not applied to other jobs?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Dreadwinter wrote: kronk wrote:I'd rather you just stopped smoking pot and get a fething job.
Also, cut your hair, hippy!
Ill stop smoking if you stop drinking.
The balls in your court Kronk!
This is really the problem with our society's view on drugs - As evidenced by the replies in this thread, many Americans have more of a problem with someone who smokes pot, than with a guy who admits that he gets the shakes if he can't drink.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Dreadwinter wrote:. Saying that I am somehow beholden to a group of people that I do not even like when I am off work is absolutely ludicrous, did we go back to some sort of medieval fiefdom or some crap?
If you break the law on your own time, you will lose your job in most situations. You *ARE* beholden to your employer for your job if you like it or not. Until it is not a federal crime, you can't do it even in your 'personal time' because breaking laws in your personal time get you fired.
The main issue right now is there is no good 'test' to determine if one is 'under the influence' for marijuana right now so how does an employer protect itself from employees who are coming to work high? How do police protect other drivers from people who are driving while high? Without a test to determine impairment outside the 'walk this line' crap, the next best thing they have is the Saliva test which shows it has happened within 3 days, and still being illegal substance, that is enough for police and employers to protect themselves and others from risk.
If smoking up is *that* important that it controls your life to that level, then live with the consequences of a limited employment field and vote with your votes. Change takes time and may never happen.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
nkelsch wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:. Saying that I am somehow beholden to a group of people that I do not even like when I am off work is absolutely ludicrous, did we go back to some sort of medieval fiefdom or some crap?
If you break the law on your own time, you will lose your job in most situations. You *ARE* beholden to your employer for your job if you like it or not. Until it is not a federal crime, you can't do it even in your 'personal time' because breaking laws in your personal time get you fired.
The main issue right now is there is no good 'test' to determine if one is 'under the influence' for marijuana right now so how does an employer protect itself from employees who are coming to work high? How do police protect other drivers from people who are driving while high? Without a test to determine impairment outside the 'walk this line' crap, the next best thing they have is the Saliva test which shows it has happened within 3 days, and still being illegal substance, that is enough for police and employers to protect themselves and others from risk.
If smoking up is *that* important that it controls your life to that level, then live with the consequences of a limited employment field and vote with your votes. Change takes time and may never happen.
Okay, first off we need to stop with the smoking controls my life thing. It does not.
Second, you are not always fired for breaking the law and most times it is up to the employer to decide. If I were to be caught with marijuana where I live, my employer would never even know about it. I live in a city where it is decriminalized, I would only receive a fine and nothing would be brought up about it. So, breaking a federal crime does not mean I immediately get fired.
If I do not keep bringing this up, changes will never happen. It seems like quite a few people agree with me in this thread, so attempting to get their support and have them also do something about it is exactly what we need right now.
221
Post by: Frazzled
DW is presenting a libertarian argument, that if it doesn't impact the job the employee should be free from interference off the job, that the employee is only selling their skilled during the job-else they should be paid more and these agreements made.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Frazzled wrote:DW is presenting a libertarian argument, that if it doesn't impact the job the employee should be free from interference off the job, that the employee is only selling their skilled during the job-else they should be paid more and these agreements made.
I do not know about paid more in most cases, but there are some places where I would agree in pay increases.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 NuggzTheNinja wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: kronk wrote:I'd rather you just stopped smoking pot and get a fething job.
Also, cut your hair, hippy!
Ill stop smoking if you stop drinking.
The balls in your court Kronk!
This is really the problem with our society's view on drugs - As evidenced by the replies in this thread, many Americans have more of a problem with someone who smokes pot, than with a guy who admits that he gets the shakes if he can't drink.
If any of my employees are that dependent on alcohol I would consider letting them go too. Can't have employees with that bad of performance issues.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
How do you know they are not?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
How do I know they're not dependent on alcohol?
When I determine its not enough to impede their work. And I'll definitely use a breathalyser to ensure no employees are drunk on the job.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
But, that's the thing with actual functioning alcoholics... They won't appear drunk, they won't act drunk, they won't smell drunk and they'll be getting all their work done in a pretty timely manner.
So really, how would you know they are drunk unless you're going above and beyond what most employers are allowed to do? Are you going to put a camera above their workstation to catch them drinking on the job? I seriously doubt you can use a breathalyzer as an "entry control" means... there's no way you could force everyone to line up, blow into the machine and then enter the building/elevator/workspace, etc.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Grey Templar wrote:How do I know they're not dependent on alcohol?
When I determine its not enough to impede their work. And I'll definitely use a breathalyser to ensure no employees are drunk on the job.
What do you do, that your employees are OK with you randomly showing up and asking them to blow in a tube?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ensis Ferrae wrote:But, that's the thing with actual functioning alcoholics... They won't appear drunk, they won't act drunk, they won't smell drunk and they'll be getting all their work done in a pretty timely manner.
So really, how would you know they are drunk unless you're going above and beyond what most employers are allowed to do? Are you going to put a camera above their workstation to catch them drinking on the job? I seriously doubt you can use a breathalyzer as an "entry control" means... there's no way you could force everyone to line up, blow into the machine and then enter the building/elevator/workspace, etc.
If its not effecting their job performance I probably won't catch them. So unless I catch them with booze nothing will happen. If I do, then disciplinary action will be taken.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Grey Templar wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:But, that's the thing with actual functioning alcoholics... They won't appear drunk, they won't act drunk, they won't smell drunk and they'll be getting all their work done in a pretty timely manner.
So really, how would you know they are drunk unless you're going above and beyond what most employers are allowed to do? Are you going to put a camera above their workstation to catch them drinking on the job? I seriously doubt you can use a breathalyzer as an "entry control" means... there's no way you could force everyone to line up, blow into the machine and then enter the building/elevator/workspace, etc.
If its not effecting their job performance I probably won't catch them. So unless I catch them with booze nothing will happen. If I do, then disciplinary action will be taken.
So, you will do nothing?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Grey Templar wrote:How do I know they're not dependent on alcohol? When I determine its not enough to impede their work. And I'll definitely use a breathalyser to ensure no employees are drunk on the job.
Wander around with a breathalyzer and your employees will bail-at least the good ones. one may pop you in the face first. Pickup driving Americans are know to do that.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Frazzled wrote: Grey Templar wrote:How do I know they're not dependent on alcohol?
When I determine its not enough to impede their work. And I'll definitely use a breathalyser to ensure no employees are drunk on the job.
Wander around with a breathalyzer and your employees will bail-at least the good ones. one may pop you in the face first. Pickup driving Americans are know to do that.
I'm still curious what Grey Templar does for a living, and if these employees are real or hypothetical, because I don't see anybody putting up with that for long.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
They are hypothetical, but I would never ever tolerate drinking or being drunk on the job. And I would report any coworkers who were to my boss.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Grey Templar wrote:They are hypothetical, but I would never ever tolerate drinking or being drunk on the job. And I would report any coworkers who were to my boss.
Sounds good man, let us know how that works out for you in a few years.
FYI I work in a military facility (not going to name the branch or anything) and they serve beer in the bowling alley. When I worked at a different military facility for a different branch they actually had a fully stocked bar in the break room, and would regularly indulge (in moderation mostly) in hard liquor and beer during work hours. This break room was located literally next to my office, as in, if I wanted a drink (which I never did at work...never wanted one) I wouldn't even have to leave my office chair...it was possible to just roll right into the bar area.
When I worked in a M&I lab at a medical school, we would regularly have "beer hour" on Fridays where the PIs would bring in snack plates and cases of beer. This was in a lab where people were working with some seriously funky stuff that you don't want getting loose.
The people I work with are scientists and engineers, and nearly all of them have clearances. Good luck getting them to blow into a tube. They'll likely turn that request right around...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Grey Templar wrote:They are hypothetical, but I would never ever tolerate drinking or being drunk on the job. And I would report any coworkers who were to my boss.
If you worked in a teamster shop you wouldn't live long would you. A British bank would fire you on the spot for such blasphemy.  A French Bank would fine your lack of taste to be dreadfully American and not hire you in the first place. A Japanese or Mexican company would definitely exclude you from their lunches and dinners.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The people I work with are scientists and engineers, and nearly all of them have clearances. Good luck getting them to blow into a tube. They'll likely turn that request right around...
I work with the same types of people, all with clearances... and 'hey, blow in this tube' has happened in our company and can happen at any time. We actually have contracts from the government which are drug/alcohol related which require policies for employees working on the projects.
It all 'depends' on your culture, but random drug tests and breathalyzers for suspicion of intoxication is not uncommon or against your rights as an employee in many places. Most times you signed away your rights as terms of employment.
It was hard as we acquired a company from another state which not only had beer keg-orators in the conference rooms, but had a hookah lounge in the office. Talk about culture shock! 
If you don't like the terms of your employment, go somewhere else. If you can't go elsewhere, then you suck it up and follow the terms of employment.
25990
Post by: Chongara
They'll just lose employees to companies with less annoying entry requirements. Setting up barriers for people to join that don't have anything to do with job performance just filters more good talent to your competitors who don't put up those blocks.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Grey Templar wrote:They are hypothetical, but I would never ever tolerate drinking or being drunk on the job. And I would report any coworkers who were to my boss.
Sounds good man, let us know how that works out for you in a few years.
FYI I work in a military facility (not going to name the branch or anything) and they serve beer in the bowling alley. When I worked at a different military facility for a different branch they actually had a fully stocked bar in the break room, and would regularly indulge (in moderation mostly) in hard liquor and beer during work hours. This break room was located literally next to my office, as in, if I wanted a drink (which I never did at work...never wanted one) I wouldn't even have to leave my office chair...it was possible to just roll right into the bar area.
When I worked in a M&I lab at a medical school, we would regularly have "beer hour" on Fridays where the PIs would bring in snack plates and cases of beer. This was in a lab where people were working with some seriously funky stuff that you don't want getting loose.
The people I work with are scientists and engineers, and nearly all of them have clearances. Good luck getting them to blow into a tube. They'll likely turn that request right around...
Well, that environment is pretty dang unprofessional and reflects poorly on its members if you ask me.
Nothing wrong with drinking off the clock, but drinking on the job is extremely unprofessional.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Grey Templar wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Grey Templar wrote:They are hypothetical, but I would never ever tolerate drinking or being drunk on the job. And I would report any coworkers who were to my boss.
Sounds good man, let us know how that works out for you in a few years.
FYI I work in a military facility (not going to name the branch or anything) and they serve beer in the bowling alley. When I worked at a different military facility for a different branch they actually had a fully stocked bar in the break room, and would regularly indulge (in moderation mostly) in hard liquor and beer during work hours. This break room was located literally next to my office, as in, if I wanted a drink (which I never did at work...never wanted one) I wouldn't even have to leave my office chair...it was possible to just roll right into the bar area.
When I worked in a M&I lab at a medical school, we would regularly have "beer hour" on Fridays where the PIs would bring in snack plates and cases of beer. This was in a lab where people were working with some seriously funky stuff that you don't want getting loose.
The people I work with are scientists and engineers, and nearly all of them have clearances. Good luck getting them to blow into a tube. They'll likely turn that request right around...
Well, that environment is pretty dang unprofessional and reflects poorly on its members if you ask me.
Nothing wrong with drinking off the clock, but drinking on the job is extremely unprofessional.
You're referring to three separate organizations, two Department of Defense and one medical school-affiliated research group, containing a combined several hundred people, nearly all with PhDs in hard sciences (or at least Masters degrees) and security clearances, who are each easily pulling 6 figures per year. What are your qualifications for judging professionalism exactly?
221
Post by: Frazzled
You also conflated on the job and off the job.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Frazzled wrote:DW is presenting a libertarian argument, that if it doesn't impact the job the employee should be free from interference off the job, that the employee is only selling their skilled during the job-else they should be paid more and these agreements made.
No.
The libertarian view would be he is free to work for a company that does not test, and a company is free to announce and enforce their policies. A potential libertarian employee either agrees to the policy and applies/gets hired, or disagrees and does not apply. A libertarian sees accepting employment as accepting the policies/terms of that employment. Libertarians (heck, all reasonably mature adults) understand the conditions under which they are employed and either abide by those conditions or are willing to accept the consequences of refusing to abide by the conditions. If using illegal substances off the work clock is important to you, you either don't work for an employer with a zero tolerance policy, or if you do, you work knowing if/when you get tested and come up hot you will be looking for a new job.
Now, the libertarian also thinks the gov't shouldn't make pot illegal, and should stay out of people's lives in general. But as champions of a free market (not crony capitalism) they accept that employers have the right to set their own policies and employ those willing to abide by them.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Grey Templar wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Grey Templar wrote:They are hypothetical, but I would never ever tolerate drinking or being drunk on the job. And I would report any coworkers who were to my boss.
Sounds good man, let us know how that works out for you in a few years.
FYI I work in a military facility (not going to name the branch or anything) and they serve beer in the bowling alley. When I worked at a different military facility for a different branch they actually had a fully stocked bar in the break room, and would regularly indulge (in moderation mostly) in hard liquor and beer during work hours. This break room was located literally next to my office, as in, if I wanted a drink (which I never did at work...never wanted one) I wouldn't even have to leave my office chair...it was possible to just roll right into the bar area.
When I worked in a M&I lab at a medical school, we would regularly have "beer hour" on Fridays where the PIs would bring in snack plates and cases of beer. This was in a lab where people were working with some seriously funky stuff that you don't want getting loose.
The people I work with are scientists and engineers, and nearly all of them have clearances. Good luck getting them to blow into a tube. They'll likely turn that request right around...
Well, that environment is pretty dang unprofessional and reflects poorly on its members if you ask me.
Nothing wrong with drinking off the clock, but drinking on the job is extremely unprofessional.
Every shop that produces code everywhere has people drinking on the job. It's how the internet happens.
If using illegal substances off the work clock is important to you, you either don't work for an employer with a zero tolerance policy, or if you do, you work knowing if/when you get tested and come up hot you will be looking for a new job.
Marijuana isn't an illegal substance in the state where the event happened. It's Colorado, recreational use of marijuana is 100% legal.
So, the better question is, would you fire an employee for drinking on the weekend?
34390
Post by: whembly
 Psienesis wrote:
Marijuana isn't an illegal substance in the state where the event happened. It's Colorado, recreational use of marijuana is 100% legal.
Doesn't matter, it's a Control Substance by the DEA. It's in the same LEGAL category as heroine or cocaine.
The Feds could charge/fine those Coloradoian's for those recreational pot use. It's just that by policy, the Feds don't even bother (via inherent prosecutorial discretion).
So, the better question is, would you fire an employee for drinking on the weekend?
Flawed premise as alcohol isn't illegal.
Business not only must abide by State Laws and Regulation... but Federal as well.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
The Feds could charge/fine those Coloradoian's for those recreational pot use. It's just that by policy, the Feds don't even bother (via inherent prosecutorial discretion).
And by directive of the DOJ, as well as Presidential order, the DEA has been told not to pursue prosecution of marijuana-related crimes in Colorado and Washington state.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Grey Templar wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Grey Templar wrote:They are hypothetical, but I would never ever tolerate drinking or being drunk on the job. And I would report any coworkers who were to my boss.
Sounds good man, let us know how that works out for you in a few years.
FYI I work in a military facility (not going to name the branch or anything) and they serve beer in the bowling alley. When I worked at a different military facility for a different branch they actually had a fully stocked bar in the break room, and would regularly indulge (in moderation mostly) in hard liquor and beer during work hours. This break room was located literally next to my office, as in, if I wanted a drink (which I never did at work...never wanted one) I wouldn't even have to leave my office chair...it was possible to just roll right into the bar area.
When I worked in a M&I lab at a medical school, we would regularly have "beer hour" on Fridays where the PIs would bring in snack plates and cases of beer. This was in a lab where people were working with some seriously funky stuff that you don't want getting loose.
The people I work with are scientists and engineers, and nearly all of them have clearances. Good luck getting them to blow into a tube. They'll likely turn that request right around...
Well, that environment is pretty dang unprofessional and reflects poorly on its members if you ask me.
Nothing wrong with drinking off the clock, but drinking on the job is extremely unprofessional.
Hate to break it to you but it's kind of super common. A bunch of guys from my office would have "Bourbon Time" every Friday for a while. Heck, some folks I know have official office beer fridges.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Dreadwinter wrote:I don't have this job so I can take drugs. It just so happens that this job does not drug test. But, either way, is it not my decision to do what I want on my own time?
It is your decision.
It is also an employer's decision to terminate employees who use certain substances.
57811
Post by: Jehan-reznor
I am from Holland and it is legal there, and my country has collapsed because all the addicts high on weed and not working, oh wait everything goes on like normal.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This is really the problem with our society's view on drugs - As evidenced by the replies in this thread, many Americans have more of a problem with someone who smokes pot, than with a guy who admits that he gets the shakes if he can't drink.
..Or the guy that comes to work on prozac or xanax.
http://www.drugs.com/sfx/xanax-side-effects.html
and as for reporting someone who drinks on the job? Some people drink and work, I've worked with a few and have no problem with it. Some people come into work baked. If it works for them who cares?
The first rule of school is don't tell the teacher.
18698
Post by: kronk
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: kronk wrote:I'd rather you just stopped smoking pot and get a fething job.
Also, cut your hair, hippy!
Ill stop smoking if you stop drinking.
The balls in your court Kronk!
This is really the problem with our society's view on drugs - As evidenced by the replies in this thread, many Americans have more of a problem with someone who smokes pot, than with a guy who admits that he gets the shakes if he can't drink.
For the record, that was a joke... 
39188
Post by: Bullockist
The jocularity does not cover up the severity of your problem though. 
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Clearly, he either hasn't been around long enough, or hasn't taken Kronk 101
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Clearly, he either hasn't been around long enough, or hasn't taken Kronk 101
Kind of hard to tell sometimes! It's a fair question too - an ex girlfriend's father was a "functional" alcoholic. Owned a business, multiple boats, huge house, condos in NC, Cape May, etc. He also polished off almost an entire handle of Smirnoff every night and has been taken to the hospital on multiple occasions for liver failure.
5470
Post by: sebster
CptJake wrote:I couldn't care less if you had a decent paying job or lived under an underpass in a box to be honest. We all have freedom of choice but should never be given freedom from consequences. You accept a decent paying job when you know the employer tests for drugs and choose to do drugs anyway, you earn the consequences of being fired. That does not bother me. And more, since it IS your choice to take that job and ignore your employer's policies, I personally don't feel you should be able to suck any tax dollars in welfare as a result. I'm not a compassionate person when it comes to folks making crap decisions then whining like bitches at the results of those decisions. If the hardest choice you face in life is whether to risk your job so you can get stoned, your life is frankly pretty damned easy.
You say you're not a compassionate person when it comes to people making crap decisions, and neither am I. Personally I think anyone who risks getting caught breaching policy, no matter how stupid the policy, and then is punished when caught gets what they get, that's life. But the difference is that you are stuck looking only at the individual, and haven't looked at the company policy at all.
And it's at the company that this issue actually needs to be looked at. Obviously there's jobs where they must test for drugs for safety reasons, anything involving heavy machinery or transport for instance, but those are far from the only jobs that use drug testing. And so if we start looking at a lot of those other jobs, it's pretty hard to see anything other than a really stupid policy that spends company resources and increases turnover without achieving anything at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:Business not only must abide by State Laws and Regulation... but Federal as well.
Someone who uses of marijuana may breach Federal law, but that doesn't mean the company they work for has any legal obligation to test people to see if they might have used in the last 30 days.
I mean, we don't have managers pop around to each employee's house and look around to make sure they haven't been engaged in any theft in the last 30 days. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:Nothing wrong with drinking off the clock, but drinking on the job is extremely unprofessional.
I'm guessing you've never worked in marketing. You'd get fired from there if you don't drink.
End of the day, it depends what your profession is, what industry, what company. Plenty of places drinks over a business lunch are an essential part of the job. Other jobs the hours are weird enough that a drink becomes entirely reasonable – I worked a job where the office would close at 5:00, but the meeting with the governing board didn’t happen until 7:00, so we’d have a bite to eat and a drink and talk about whatever issues were going to come up in the meeting.
|
|
