Using legal pot on own time fireable offense - Colorado Court Ruling

[RidgeHunter]

The only time I've pissed in a cup was in a tent in single-digit weather. I've only had one offer that required a UA and luckily I was able to turn it down.

I would have pissed clean - I just got a kick out of bewildering them with my "No thanks, I'd rather not pee in a cup. That's weird." response and wasting their time. Because it is weird.

 

[MadDogs]

Where would that end, though?

Now, there are jobs that 'require' certain off-the-clock concessions.

So it is OK for one employer to do that but not others?

I'm all for the rights of an employer, but where is the line in your scenario.

If a business owner wants to allow patrons to smoke in their restaurant, bar or whatever; the business owner not the government should decide. In the end, it will be the market that makes the final decision whether to go there or not.

If the business owner thinks the risks of smoking a federally illegal drug (weed) are too high (no pun intended) and tell his/her employees that this is the reason why he/she does drug tests, then that is his/her choice. Don’t like? Don’t work there.

Anything and everything a person does … Is that an appropriate fire-able offense (getting married)?

I think the issue is of one doing drugs listed under the Federal Controlled Substance Act and not all the amusing hyperbole you can come up with.

 

[donner]

So it is OK for one employer to do that but not others?



If a business owner wants to allow patrons to smoke in their restaurant, bar or whatever; the business owner not the government should decide. In the end, it will be the market that makes the final decision whether to go there or not.

If the business owner thinks the risks of smoking a federally illegal drug (weed) are too high (no pun intended) and tell his/her employees that this is the reason why he/she does drug tests, hen that is his/her choice. Don’t like? Don’t work there.



I think the issue is of one doing drugs listed under the Federal Controlled Substance Act and not all the amusing hyperbole you can come up with.

You still didn't answer any of my questions, merely cherry picked part of my post. I never said it was okay or not okay. I pointed out a time when what someone does off the clock does matter and laid out why i thought it was different than what you posted regarding 'productivity' as a reason for the invasion of privacy. The second part of my statement, the part you left out, explains why i thought the two could be different.

And your point about doing drugs listed under the Controlled substance act actually doesn't work. An employee with a prescription for a pain killer could still be high as a kite on that pain killer at work and pass a drug test since many drug tests wont report if someone tests positive for something they have a prescription for. Since they make a legally prescribed version of weed, a person taking it would show as positive for it but it likely wont be reported since it takes a prescription (and not from a colorado/California doctor mind you) to get it.

So i ask you again, how much can an employer control what an employee does in the name of 'productivity'? Because someone sitting behind a computer doing data entry is much farther removed from the waitress at a restaurant who is exposed to smoke in terms of letting the market decide.

 

[sh00ter]

For entry physicals or after an accident of some type, that's fine, Random ua's as a fishing expedition are bs. Just my opinion, which counts for shite.

yeah I'd agree...opens the door to the snowball effect. I'm not sure how we have the happy balance though because there are still private clubs that only allow men & such...I think as long as it isn't the gov't that might be okay. I realize that fishing into people's personal lives is different than that though, but what are your thoughts on a private business being able to hire who they want or serve who they want?

 

[Coded-Dude]

I think the issue is of one doing drugs listed under the Federal Controlled Substance Act and not all the amusing hyperbole you can come up with.

It is certainly possible, but I don't buy that(I think it has more to do with the mantra of potheads/stoners). You still haven't stated your position, but let's just say the federal government decides to remove it from the list and decriminalize it. Would you still approve of the business decision given that it is legal in that state?

 

[TenBears]

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/how-legalizing-pot-affected-1m-teens-121674072507.html

A big boost for medical marijuana advocates: A massive study involving data on a million teenagers in 48 states has found no evidence that legalizing pot for medical use does anything to increase teen usage, the Guardian reports.

The study, published in the Lancet Psychiatry journal, looked at some 1,098,270 8th-grade, 10th-grade, and 12th-grade students over 24 years; the teens had been asked if they used pot in the last 30 days. The researchers found that teenage pot use not only failed to rise in the 21 contiguous states where medical marijuana was legalized as of 2014 (Alaska and Hawaii bring the nation’s total to 23), usage actually went down among the youngest teenagers, from about 8% before the law was passed to 6% after.

It's a "gateway drug" blah,blah,blah. It looks like legalizing it lower its use among chiltren. Legalize it for the chiltrenz.

 

[CHenry]

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/how-legalizing-pot-affected-1m-teens-121674072507.html

A big boost for medical marijuana advocates: A massive study involving data on a million teenagers in 48 states has found no evidence that legalizing pot for medical use does anything to increase teen usage, the Guardian reports.

The study, published in the Lancet Psychiatry journal, looked at some 1,098,270 8th-grade, 10th-grade, and 12th-grade students over 24 years; the teens had been asked if they used pot in the last 30 days. The researchers found that teenage pot use not only failed to rise in the 21 contiguous states where medical marijuana was legalized as of 2014 (Alaska and Hawaii bring the nation’s total to 23), usage actually went down among the youngest teenagers, from about 8% before the law was passed to 6% after.

It's a "gateway drug" blah,blah,blah. It looks like legalizing it lower its use among chiltren. Legalize it for the chiltrenz.

Restrict something and it creates curiosity. Make it available and the curiosity goes away.
Mom refused to buy sod when I was a kid mostly cause we were poor. Guess what, I saved me 35 cents or whatever it was and walked to the store and got a pop now and then. Later it was made available and I never drank it.

 

[MadDogs]

You still didn't answer any of my questions …

Such as when I said …

If the business owner thinks the risks of smoking a federally illegal drug (weed) are too high (no pun intended) and tell his/her employees that this is the reason why he/she does drug tests, then that is his/her choice. Don’t like? Don’t work there.

And your point about doing drugs listed under the Controlled substance act actually doesn't work.

Actually it does work but you took that out of context. It was referring to Coded-Dude’s use of hyperbole and comparing illegal drugs to marriage (or in retrospect, your comment about cell phones).

So i ask you again, how much can an employer control what an employee does in the name of 'productivity'?

So again I will say that if an employer believes that an employee who smokes weed, molests goats, robs banks, enjoys masturbating on park benches during the lunch hour or does anything else that is illegal can cost his/her company productivity in terms of output, lost hours, increased insurance costs, etc. then he/she can tell the employees that is why they do drug tests.

Because someone sitting behind a computer doing data entry is much farther removed from the waitress at a restaurant who is exposed to smoke in terms of letting the market

Let me explain that better. A person owns a bar. He thinks it is OK for his patrons to smoke. That is his call, not the governments. That is why I said the market will decide.

 

[Super Dave]

Opiates by far I think.

There are way more alcohol related deaths every day.

In 2013, there were 10,076 fatalities from drunk driving. That is just drunk driving. Think of all the other alcohol related deaths.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

This reports 88,000, annually, in the US.

 

[MadDogs]

It is certainly possible, but I don't buy that (I think it has more to do with the mantra of potheads/stoners).

Possible? Possible that marijuana is listed under the Controlled Substance Act, Schedule 1? Possible? Really? Are you waving your hand in front of your computer right now to clear the smoke away?!?

Point is that it is listed as an illegal (key word) drug and your use of less than imaginative hyperbole is not. Comparing the “what-if’s” is not the focus.

You still haven't stated your position, but let's just say the federal government decides to remove it from the list and decriminalize it. Would you still approve of the business decision given that it is legal in that state?

Legalize and decriminalize are two different things. That aside, if marijuana was legalized and taken off the Schedule 1 list then an employer would have to show that employees who smoke weed are a risk to his business. Risk being that from lost hours, cost to retain personnel, less output, etc. With that said the employer could possibly rationalize such and incorporate into policy so employees know up front the consequences of getting baked and why they have drug tests.

Interesting side note is the NFL’s policy on weed and how they handle such.