Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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?

 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.

 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!

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.

 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.

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.

 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!

 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.

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.

I like to wear a competitor's uniform and hang out in adult establishments.

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???

 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

 KiloFiX wrote:
Or even say going to an 'adult' establishment.

And to think of all the fun I could have if I got a job at a place like, say... Focus On the Family

 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!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Or even say going to an 'adult' establishment.

And to think of all the fun I could have if I got a job at a place like, say... Focus On the Family

Just get a monogrammed shirt, dude!

Get a shirt with "Teachers Against Drunk Driving" for when you're going clubbing.

 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.

 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

 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.

 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.

 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?

 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.

 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?

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

 kronk wrote:
I had the shakes!

So you had an Archer moment