It's that time of year again...

[Junkenstein]

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.

Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.

Are employers risk averse?

Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.

No, most of them, which is why they all have lawyers.


Dumbass.

RWHN rage is fucking awesome.  Stella just owned the FUCK out of him.  Watch the froth.

Right, the lawyers are just around for kicks, not to advise them on how to not to be on the hook and losing tons of money.  It's the blind leading the blind at PD.COM

Because every company has a lawyer on hand overseeing all activities.

How do you breathe on your own?

[AFK]

Including, workplace safety.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Including, workplace safety.

So we've also learned in this thread that OSHA isn't necessary because lawyers.

[LMNO]

And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.

[AFK]

Including, workplace safety.

So we've also learned in this thread that OSHA isn't necessary because lawyers.

It isn't either/or.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.

And alcohol has no long term effects.  No matter what, you are fully-functional the moment you have metabolized out any actual alcohol in your system.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, we learned that in the real world, people aren't instantly fired when they fail a drug screen. 

And that EAP will still protect you if you don't approach them before the screen takes place.

[LMNO]

And that circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

[AFK]

And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.

Some employers are dicks.  Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way.  An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture,  If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.


But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others.  Do you disagree with that notion?  If so, why?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.

Some employers are dicks.  Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way.  An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture,  If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.


But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others.  Do you disagree with that notion?  If so, why?

But you just said that in the real world, people don't get fired right away.  EAP or something.

[Reginald Ret]

You've been ignoring from the start the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, with regards to workplace safety (aka people not being impaired and turning people into jelly with heavy machinery) and the legal status is a moot point.  I've tried like 3 different ways to get you to acknowledge it but you refuse to even address the point.

I'm sorry?  I completely admit that MJ is imparing, when you're high.  Your posts make you appear to think that if you show up positive on a pee test for pot, you're high.

What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.


WHICH IS MY ENTIRE POINT RIGHT NOW.

What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.
What you're ignoring is that the test is not an accurate measurement of impairment.

Repetition often helps messages be remembered.

added:

And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.

Some employers are dicks.  Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way.  An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture,  If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.


But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others.  Do you disagree with that notion?  If so, why?

If you can't tell if someone is impaired then you are fucked anyway. There are 5000 ways to be impaired, focussing the attention on these tests is stupid. test for reaction time or something.

[LMNO]

And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.

Some employers are dicks.  Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way.  An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture,  If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.


But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others.  Do you disagree with that notion?  If so, why?

There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.

[AFK]

And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.

Some employers are dicks.  Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way.  An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture,  If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.


But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others.  Do you disagree with that notion?  If so, why?

There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.

Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever?  Really?

[Kai]

I think Scooter is a shill, being paid here to front these particular opinions and make these arguments, and given that he /is/ getting paid, this is why he refuses to leave. Apparently this is becoming a popular way to spread propaganda these days, so I wouldn't put it past the FDA.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think Scooter is a shill, being paid here to front these particular opinions and make these arguments, and given that he /is/ getting paid, this is why he refuses to leave. Apparently this is becoming a popular way to spread propaganda these days, so I wouldn't put it past the FDA.

More likely the DEA.

5 years ago, I'd have told you to get a tinfoil hat.  I would have been wrong.