It's that time of year again...

[East Coast Hustle]

So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.

The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.

However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.

What you aren't recognizing is that impairment can and does continue after use, thus the need for the testing in the first place.  You seem to be suggesting it should be okay to use marijuana right before coming to work, so long as they don't actually use it AT work.  If they are impaired they are impaired, and thus making their workplace less safe and prone to risk.  Employers are risk averse.


Marijuana is an impairing substance whether or not it is legal, which is why, it will still be subject to testing when it is legal, and rightly so.

Jesus tittyfucking Christ, Scooter.

Would you PLEASE go back to 8th grade english class and learn how to construct a fucking paragraph? It's hard enough translating your idiotic babble into something resembling an actual thought without you making it that much harder by refusing to understand things like grammar and punctuation.

Thanks in advance.

[LMNO]

So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.

The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.

However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.

What you aren't recognizing is that impairment can and does continue after use, thus the need for the testing in the first place.  You seem to be suggesting it should be okay to use marijuana right before coming to work, so long as they don't actually use it AT work.  If they are impaired they are impaired, and thus making their workplace less safe and prone to risk.  Employers are risk averse.


Marijuana is an impairing substance whether or not it is legal, which is why, it will still be subject to testing when it is legal, and rightly so.

Your logic is... well, not.  TCH levels can be found up to ten days after smoking.  That is what a pot test will detect.

Smoking before going to work would be the same as doing shots of vodka before going to work.  Both of which would make one imparied.  But that's not what the test is doing.  It's testing if you have TCH in your system, not if you're high.


If I take a shot on Friday, and smoke a joint on Saturday, and do nothing else all weekend, hopefully you'll say I was not impaired on Monday.  And a drug test on Monday would show I have no alcohol in my pee, but I do have TCH.

But you're saying that I should be fired, even though I am not impaired at work, and yet my drug test is positive. 

Again, what are the business rules in Colorado for recreational use?  I'd be interested to find out.

[Junkenstein]

I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).

No such test exists.  So we have to go with the technology that currently exists.  You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol.  There is no ".08" for marijuana.  It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution.  And can you blame them?  Lawsuits are expensive,

Whoops, wrong again Scooter!

OR maybe we're just smarter out here in WA than your buddies in Maine are, but we have a test that detects active THC as opposed to THC metabolites. It tells whether someone is currently impaired or not, not whether or not they've smoked in the last couple weeks.

And they even have a limit established for DUI. Amazing.

Even the UK has this. Who knew prohibitionists could be so backward.

[AFK]

So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.

The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.

However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.

What you aren't recognizing is that impairment can and does continue after use, thus the need for the testing in the first place.  You seem to be suggesting it should be okay to use marijuana right before coming to work, so long as they don't actually use it AT work.  If they are impaired they are impaired, and thus making their workplace less safe and prone to risk.  Employers are risk averse.


Marijuana is an impairing substance whether or not it is legal, which is why, it will still be subject to testing when it is legal, and rightly so.

Your logic is... well, not.  TCH levels can be found up to ten days after smoking.  That is what a pot test will detect.

Smoking before going to work would be the same as doing shots of vodka before going to work.  Both of which would make one imparied.  But that's not what the test is doing.  It's testing if you have TCH in your system, not if you're high.


If I take a shot on Friday, and smoke a joint on Saturday, and do nothing else all weekend, hopefully you'll say I was not impaired on Monday.  And a drug test on Monday would show I have no alcohol in my pee, but I do have TCH.

But you're saying that I should be fired, even though I am not impaired at work, and yet my drug test is positive. 

Again, what are the business rules in Colorado for recreational use?  I'd be interested to find out.

Do you agree that employers tend to be risk averse?  Yes or No.

[East Coast Hustle]

Do you agree that RWHN is pathologically incapable of acknowledging posts that show him to be factually wrong?

[AFK]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0425/Colorado-court-rules-marijuana-smokers-may-be-fired

[LMNO]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0425/Colorado-court-rules-marijuana-smokers-may-be-fired

:sigh:

That's about federal law.  Where, you know, it's still illegal.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Dumbass, that isn't going to go away when it is legal.  You think your employer is going to want to have a bunch of stoned goons running heavy equipment?  Are you allowed to show up to work drunk?


C'mon, use your brain.

Yes, I was just considering that last time I got randomly screened for alcohol.

Wait.  That never happened.



Fucking moron.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Do you agree that RWHN is pathologically incapable of acknowledging posts that show him to be factually wrong?

The thing to remember is that it's not his JOB, it's his RELIGION...And a very popular religion at that, dating back to Saint Ronald Reagan.   And as I just recently wrote in another thread, rationalism has NOTHING to do with faith.

[AFK]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0425/Colorado-court-rules-marijuana-smokers-may-be-fired

:sigh:

That's about federal law.  Where, you know, it's still illegal.

Yes, you are right, it is still illegal federally.  You do realize that is still in the mix, correct?  You can't just pretend that doesn't exist. 

"For an activity to be lawful in Colorado, it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law," the appeals court stated in its 2-1 conclusion.

[AFK]

So, to recap, a Colorado court ruled it is okay for Colorado employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana.


What more are you looking for?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, to recap, a Colorado court ruled it is okay for Colorado employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana.


What more are you looking for?

Either random screening for alcohol use, or the total repeal of marijuana prohibition.  I'd prefer the latter.

And I think I'll get it, sooner than I used to think.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.

The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.

However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.

What you aren't recognizing is that impairment can and does continue after use, thus the need for the testing in the first place.  You seem to be suggesting it should be okay to use marijuana right before coming to work, so long as they don't actually use it AT work.  If they are impaired they are impaired, and thus making their workplace less safe and prone to risk.  Employers are risk averse.


Marijuana is an impairing substance whether or not it is legal, which is why, it will still be subject to testing when it is legal, and rightly so.

Jesus tittyfucking Christ, Scooter.

Would you PLEASE go back to 8th grade english class and learn how to construct a fucking paragraph? It's hard enough translating your idiotic babble into something resembling an actual thought without you making it that much harder by refusing to understand things like grammar and punctuation.

Thanks in advance.

REMEMBER, KIDS:  THERE ARE NO LINGERING IMPAIRMENT ISSUES WITH ALCOHOL.

[AFK]

So, to recap, a Colorado court ruled it is okay for Colorado employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana.


What more are you looking for?

Either random screening for alcohol use, or the total repeal of marijuana prohibition.  I'd prefer the latter.

And I think I'll get it, sooner than I used to think.

UNNNNGGGGG!  Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test.  This is pretty straightforward.

[LMNO]

Dumbass, that isn't going to go away when it is legal.  You think your employer is going to want to have a bunch of stoned goons running heavy equipment?  Are you allowed to show up to work drunk?


C'mon, use your brain.

Statement implies MJ is legal at all levels: local, state, fedeeral.

All responses from LMNO based on that premise.

All subsequest responses from RWHN back away from that premise.