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.

From what I read, they upheld this, because the FedGov still declares marijuana illegal. Not because people may be stoned at work.

 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.

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.

No one forces anyone to take a job that requires drug testing. There are plenty of jobs which do not.

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

Company has no Drugs policy, so Alcohol is a drug, cigarettes are a drug, medicine are drugs. Have fun

 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

If your organization you work has a piss test.
Then one can bet their sweet arse its not allowed regardless of State laws.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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)

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.

 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

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Performance drop

Suggesting that smoking a joint on Friday night will lead to a performance drop on Monday is a very silly thing indeed.

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

 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?

I'd rather you just stopped smoking pot and get a fething job.

Also, cut your hair, hippy!

 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!

 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.

 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!

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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?

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.