Messages

[when it is legal]

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.

MARIJUANA IS AN IMPAIRING SUBSTANCE REGARDLESS OF LEGAL STATUS.


Workplace safety doesn't give a fuck about legal status, it gives a fuck about someone impaired running over someone with a forklift.


C'mon!

Sure, do tests for alcohol, I'm fine with that.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

I just dropped in to gloat a little.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21081289-clear-majority-favors-legal-marijuana-new-gallup-poll-shows?lite

For the first time ever in a Gallup poll, a clear majority of the country – 58 percent – say that pot should be legalized. That figure represents an increase of 10 percentage points since last year, according to Gallup. The poll surveyed 1,028 Americans by phone Oct. 3-6.

Those in favor of legalization skew young and liberal, though the biggest increase of support came among people identified as independents. Sixty-two percent of independents favored legalization in 2013, up 12 percentage points from last year, according to the poll. Sixty-five percent of Democrats favored legalization, vs. just 35 percent of Republicans.

The poll broke Americans down into five general age groups: 18 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 64, and 65 or older. The only age group not in favor of legalization was those 65 years or older – 53 percent of those polled still opposed legalization.

"Americans are increasingly recognizing that marijuana is less harmful than they've been led to believe," said Mason Tvert, a spokesperson for Marijuana Policy Project.  "I think it's time to regulate marijuana like alcohol and most Americans appear to agree. We're seeing support for ending prohibition in states across the country and efforts are being made to change state laws."

Twenty states, plus the District of Columbia, permit marijuana for medical use. Washington state and Colorado have passed legislation permitting use of the drug recreationally. Marijuana is still considered an illegal drug by the federal government and is categorized as a hallucinogen by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Gallup first started tracking the question of legalization in 1969, when just 12 percent of the country favored legal use of marijuana. That figure doubled in the 1970s, reaching 28 percent. Support rose steadily and reached 50 percent in 2011, according to Gallup research. A Gallup poll released in early August said that 38 percent of Americans have tried marijuana.

Still, there is opposition.

"I'm concerned that these people that are saying that they are favoring legalization are really not aware or knowledgeable about the marijuana that's out there today," said Carla Lowe, the founder of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana.

A poll conducted by Pew Research, released in April, said that 52 percent of the country favored legalization.

Carla Lowe, of course, is hilarious.  She's the darling of the Heritage Foundation and Take Back America.

Which is the only place the prohibitionists have any remaining support to speak of.

So good luck "marshalling voices for the big fight", RWHN.  It will be interesting to see who your "allies and bedfellows" are, this time next year.

Take it up with him.

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.

Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.

I'm sure this is an accident, but 

Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/

Applies to Medical MJ. Which currently puts it in the same realm legally as prescription pills. I believe we're talking about generalized legality, which allows recreational use without a prescription. Which means you didn't answer the question. Of course.

Th

Does legalization turn marijuana into a non-impairing substance?

Again, the piss test reveals if you HAVE USED, not if you ARE impaired.

So.

Which is the technology we have to work with currently.


So.

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,

Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.

I'm sure this is an accident, but 

Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/

Applies to Medical MJ. Which currently puts it in the same realm legally as prescription pills. I believe we're talking about generalized legality, which allows recreational use without a prescription. Which means you didn't answer the question. Of course.

Th

Does legalization turn marijuana into a non-impairing substance?

Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.

I'm sure this is an accident, but 

Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/

Really? A piss test determines if you're CURRENTLY high?

Because if not, that's like saying if you drank a beer in the weekend or after work, you should be fired for drinking on the job.

Employers have a need to maintain safety in the workplace.  Put yourself in their shoes.  Someone who was tested and found to have had marijuana in their system is allowed to still work and does something to cause harm to another employee.  What do you think is going to happen there when it comes to light that the person who caused the accident had tested positive?  You think the family will just say, "oh, it was only marijuana" and not sue the pants off the employer?

Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.