If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   If you are a legal medical marijuana patient in Washington, you can still be fired from your job even if you only smoke it at home and experience no side effects on the job   (seattlepi.com) divider line 197
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

6048 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2011 at 1:29 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-10 09:56:02 AM

Soumac: timujin: BGates: Yeah. Until either the feds legalize it or the FDA approves it as a valid prescription, I imagine the same can happen in all states that have medical marijuana laws.

It's that way in California. I believe the reasoning here was that even if you're not breaking state law, you're breaking federal law and that is valid grounds for dismissal.

Unfortunately, this.


No, that was not the reasoning given by the California Supreme Court at all. You can read the short version here, but the bottom line is that Prop 215 did not create a specific exemption for medical marijuana, and since there is no actual "prescription" involved (only a "recommendation"), the protections extended to persons on prescription meds do not apply.

The argument that mmj is still a Federal Offense did not even arise in the case, as Cali had already told the Feds to fark-off over mmj.
 
2011-06-10 09:56:15 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: I don't.


Well then, let me explain.

To fall under the umbrella of anti-discrimination statutes, one must be doing something otherwise legal and not in violation of their employment contract. A person who is fired for sleeping through every meeting does not fall under the umbrella if they happen to be black. Likewise, employers often have clauses in the contract that are generally vague: 'good behavior' style language. If you act like a raging douche on Facebook, or get arrested for snorting coke off a dead hooker's ass, they can fire you even if you're the best whatever-it-is-you-do in the company. These are all rights afforded an employer, something often overlooked in situations like this. If she wore striped socks and her boss didn't like it, he could fire her for it as long as that doesn't violate her employment contract. A doctor prescribing those striped socks has no bearing on the validity of her termination.

To claim federal anti-discrimination laws for smoking pot, one also takes the action of pot smoking out of the realm of state law and into Federal law: where it's farking illegal. A Federal judge would see no difference in this case between this person and a person who was fired for meth addiction (unless, of course, they overturn precedent and declare anti-pot laws unconstitutional).

Granted, that's not what she's trying to claim, she's trying to claim that the state law that restricts criminal prosecution of marijuana smokers at the state level overrides the federal right of employers to enforce their employment contract. Which is farking clownshoes.
 
2011-06-10 09:56:24 AM

AbbeySomeone: Marijuana has tremendous medicinal benefits and should be a non legal issue.
I was on xanax for a year and have a serious mistrust for anyone taking rx meds because of it. I had seizures when I came off it and used weed to make it better.
Not a stoner.
/Seattle isn't as cool as some think.



This seems pretty silly, considering a lot of people you interact with are probably on some type of meds.

Oh? Metronidazole? Well- sorry. I don't trust you, enjoy your Giardiasis!

/Tried really hard to avoid being snarky in the above post
//needs her xanax
 
2011-06-10 10:01:42 AM

sprawl15: To fall under the umbrella of anti-discrimination statutes, one must be doing something otherwise legal and not in violation of their employment contract. A person who is fired for sleeping through every meeting does not fall under the umbrella if they happen to be black. Likewise, employers often have clauses in the contract that are generally vague: 'good behavior' style language. If you act like a raging douche on Facebook, or get arrested for snorting coke off a dead hooker's ass, they can fire you even if you're the best whatever-it-is-you-do in the company. These are all rights afforded an employer, something often overlooked in situations like this. If she wore striped socks and her boss didn't like it, he could fire her for it as long as that doesn't violate her employment contract. A doctor prescribing those striped socks has no bearing on the validity of her termination.


You can get fired for a lot of silly reasons, I get that.

sprawl15: To claim federal anti-discrimination laws for smoking pot, one also takes the action of pot smoking out of the realm of state law and into Federal law: where it's farking illegal. A Federal judge would see no difference in this case between this person and a person who was fired for meth addiction (unless, of course, they overturn precedent and declare anti-pot laws unconstitutional).


I didn't claim that.

sprawl15: Granted, that's not what she's trying to claim, she's trying to claim that the state law that restricts criminal prosecution of marijuana smokers at the state level overrides the federal right of employers to enforce their employment contract. Which is farking clownshoes.


I agree, she won't win.

Whenever people talk about the government getting in between you and your doctor (scary!) they never seem to include this as an example of that, when that's exactly what it is. And it's bullshiat.
 
2011-06-10 10:02:29 AM
I'm ususally an advocate of the anti-drug, but this seems silly to me. I don't see why a company would fire someone over a medical reason and that kind of thing should be fought against legally, but really a company can fire someone for any reason they choose. It usually says that on their W2 and employment agreements.

/That being said, people need to stop being obsessed with this plant.
//And stop comparing it to alcohol or caffiene.
///Most beers are like what, 3 - 5% alcohol and no one averages enough caffiene to cause problems.
//Weed is 100% of what it is. It could be less harmful than hard liquor, but I wouldn't trust a pothead behind the wheel either.
/Slahies.
 
2011-06-10 10:03:29 AM
No side effects on the job? So she would take a few days to let it wash out of her system before going back to work?
 
2011-06-10 10:05:11 AM

CalvinMorallis: DiogenesCynic: CalvinMorallis: I don't care if you have a script or not; if you smoke pot, you get high. If you regularly get high, I don't want you working for me.

Plus, someone who knows more should correct me, but isn't medical pot usually reserved for people with highly painful and terminal illnesses? If this prescription is legitimate, why is this woman working anyway?

If you judge people like that based on what they do in their PERSONAL time, I don't want to work for you. Thanks.

I get high on a regular basis, and I could probably do your job better than you're able to. Believe it or not, there are some very capable stoners.

Are you kidding? The best way to judge someone is based upon what they do on their personal time. Anyone can put on a pretty face at work and say all the right things to the boss.


Wait a minute, you think that even if someone is a superstar on the job, just because they smoke pot at home, they're a bad worker and you wouldn't hire them? Wow, you're a farking moron.
 
2011-06-10 10:10:13 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Whenever people talk about the government getting in between you and your doctor (scary!) they never seem to include this as an example of that, when that's exactly what it is. And it's bullshiat.


It's bullshiat in principle, but completely legal. It's her right to smoke pot, but that doesn't override the employer's right to boot her ass for whatever they can get away with. I'm as anti-drug laws as you can get (to the point where I think all drugs should be OTC and prescriptions should only determine what is allowed to be charged to your insurance [possible exception for antibiotics because of the public safety issue of bacterial immunities]), but until we get some intelligent people making intelligent laws, our stupid and broken ones are the ones we have - and need to enforce.

Tatsuhiko: I don't see why a company would fire someone over a medical reason and that kind of thing should be fought against legally, but really a company can fire someone for any reason they choose.


The company is headquartered out of Colorado. They have a blanket drug testing policy that says anyone who fails the drug testing is immediately fired. She thinks that because she told them she'd fail the drug test, she gets a pass on the first firing.

Dusk-You-n-Me: I didn't claim that.


I never said you did.
 
2011-06-10 10:12:27 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: None of which are prescribed by a doctor.


People also get fired for medical reasons: cancer, diabetes, narcolepsy, etc. I had a friend who was fired because he was prescribed to take Percoset 3 times a day for a slipped disc in his back and his company felt it would impair him to be able to do his job (which it never did and eventually he got surgery and a better job). Considering most big companies have their corporate offices in states where medical marijuana might be illegal and that's where their policies are set, again, I'm not surprised at all.

If you aren't in a federally protected class you can get fired for any reason. Being able to get high for migraines isn't a federally protected class.
 
2011-06-10 10:14:22 AM

CalvinMorallis: Are you kidding? The best way to judge someone is based upon what they do on their personal time.


So do you hold the same strict standards about people who get drunk on their free time? What if they waste all their free time playing video games? What about if they just like to sleep a lot and don't really do much else in their life except sleep and work? What about those sad losers who spend their free time pointlessly arguing on the internet with random strangers about silly things which don't affect them? What's the line you draw when it comes to judging someone, and what kind of qualities does "someone who gets high all the time" possess that makes them so much less of a person than any other time-waster?
 
2011-06-10 10:15:59 AM

Communist_Manifesto: CalvinMorallis: DiogenesCynic: CalvinMorallis: I don't care if you have a script or not; if you smoke pot, you get high. If you regularly get high, I don't want you working for me.

Plus, someone who knows more should correct me, but isn't medical pot usually reserved for people with highly painful and terminal illnesses? If this prescription is legitimate, why is this woman working anyway?

If you judge people like that based on what they do in their PERSONAL time, I don't want to work for you. Thanks.

I get high on a regular basis, and I could probably do your job better than you're able to. Believe it or not, there are some very capable stoners.

Are you kidding? The best way to judge someone is based upon what they do on their personal time. Anyone can put on a pretty face at work and say all the right things to the boss.

Wait a minute, you think that even if someone is a superstar on the job, just because they smoke pot at home, they're a bad worker and you wouldn't hire them? Wow, you're a farking moron.


Yes, but you just THINK you are a capable stoner and do you job well.

thumbnails.hulu.com
 
2011-06-10 10:19:48 AM

Tatsuhiko: no one averages enough caffiene to cause problems.


Ask the kids in your local coffee shop how many times they've witnessed a coworker collapse into seizures from caffeine overdose. Go on, ask about this harmless drug that causes no problems. It's not like our society is completely addicted to it, it's not like it's force-fed to us in all forms of media that we NEED caffeine and we need it now and we need a crap ton of it. No, no, people never have too much of that. You're right, it's not fair to compare pot to things like alcohol or caffeine. It's not nearly as dangerous or addictive.
 
2011-06-10 10:22:56 AM

CalvinMorallis: DiogenesCynic: CalvinMorallis: I don't care if you have a script or not; if you smoke pot, you get high. If you regularly get high, I don't want you working for me.

Plus, someone who knows more should correct me, but isn't medical pot usually reserved for people with highly painful and terminal illnesses? If this prescription is legitimate, why is this woman working anyway?

If you judge people like that based on what they do in their PERSONAL time, I don't want to work for you. Thanks.

I get high on a regular basis, and I could probably do your job better than you're able to. Believe it or not, there are some very capable stoners.

Are you kidding? The best way to judge someone is based upon what they do on their personal time. Anyone can put on a pretty face at work and say all the right things to the boss.


No, I'm not kidding. And it's got nothing to do with pretty face, saying the right things. It's got everything to do with competence. The drugs don't cause incompetence. Incompetence causes incompetence.
 
2011-06-10 10:25:25 AM

Tatsuhiko: I'm ususally an advocate of the anti-drug, but this seems silly to me. I don't see why a company would fire someone over a medical reason and that kind of thing should be fought against legally, but really a company can fire someone for any reason they choose. It usually says that on their W2 and employment agreements.

/That being said, people need to stop being obsessed with this plant.
//And stop comparing it to alcohol or caffiene.
///Most beers are like what, 3 - 5% alcohol and no one averages enough caffiene to cause problems.
//Weed is 100% of what it is. It could be less harmful than hard liquor, but I wouldn't trust a pothead behind the wheel either.
/Slahies.


I'll wager you couldn't spot a pothead behind the wheel with those super-thick lenses you're looking through.
 
2011-06-10 10:30:13 AM

Lesbian Trapped in a Mans Body: Yes, but you just THINK you are a capable stoner and do you job well.


Wrong. I know I do my job well, regardless of the job. My production is twice that of anyone else doing the same job here. That's why others here before I was were let go. I'm still around. I'm writing this from work right now.

And before you get all critical about the fact that I'm writing from work, we have very little in the way of work right now. I blame the company for that. Of course, they let us sit around and do pretty much whatever we want at the moment since there is so very little to do.
 
2011-06-10 10:32:07 AM

Tatsuhiko: //And stop comparing it to alcohol or caffiene.


Why? They're all natural substances people choose to ingest. Although alcohol and caffeine both have achievable lethal doses and alcohol is a proven killer of millions, not to mention the anti-social aspects of its use. I can see now why we shouldn't include marijuana with those other two, far more damaging substances. Good call.

///Most beers are like what, 3 - 5% alcohol and no one averages enough caffiene to cause problems.

False. Excessive ingestion of caffeine causes headaches, depression, irregular heartbeat, insomnia and tremors. It also has nasty withdrawal sympoms such as pounding headaches and tremors. PLENTY of people average more than enough caffeine to cause problems.

Are you trying to say people can't be alcoholics on beer?!

//Weed is 100% of what it is. It could be less harmful than hard liquor, but I wouldn't trust a pothead behind the wheel either.

Wrong. Alcohol, and especially spirits, is demonstrably and provably worse than marijuana. You have been shown this many, many, many times haven't you? Personal prejudice will not allow you to admit that you're wrong, but you are and you know it.

Your whole post is just blather. You're not even trying to argue anything, you're just volunteering to all that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. SOP for you. Grow up and admit that your talking points are rubbish and that you just don't like weed and people who smoke. Don't try to rationalise something that isn't rational, it makes you look dumb(er).
 
2011-06-10 10:37:49 AM

The Envoy: Don't try to rationalise something that isn't rational, it makes you look dumb(er).


Is that even possible? The looking dumber part, I mean.
 
2011-06-10 10:50:11 AM

DiogenesCynic: The Envoy: Don't try to rationalise something that isn't rational, it makes you look dumb(er).

Is that even possible? The looking dumber part, I mean.


In my time on Fark I have been exposed to the terrible truth: just when you think someone has said the most stunningly stupid, incorrect and moronic thing ever to pass the lips of man, some other tool will arrive and say something immeasurably worse without any apparent effort, thereby resetting your expectations about the levels of idiocy some Farkers inhabit. It only gets worse.

Even Tatsuhiko, the well-known mj thread troll who is coming across as a retarded relation of a turnip is still much smarter than plenty of others. Isn't that depressing?!
 
2011-06-10 10:58:57 AM
I wonder how many of you would want me to come to work and take care of your kid while I was stoned.

If you are smoking dope, with or without a doc's rx, can a test tell if you are under the influence 'right now' or does it just show whether it is in your system?
 
2011-06-10 11:04:38 AM

wide_eyed: I wonder how many of you would want me to come to work and take care of your kid while I was stoned.

If you are smoking dope, with or without a doc's rx, can a test tell if you are under the influence 'right now' or does it just show whether it is in your system?


Just whether it's in the system, I don't think that there's a test that is accurate enough to tell if people are stoned at a certain time. For instance, I have smoked in the last 4 weeks, so it would show up in my system. However, I am at work and therefore not smoking so I'm not currently stoned.

I wouldn't have a problem with a person who smoked weed taking care of my kids. I'd have a problem if they did it in front of my kids which even I myself wouldn't do, but smoking in their own time is their choice. It's not like a magical lobotomy where one puff reduces the smoker to the intellectual level of a Fark troll with only basic motor control and the munchies. I'd have a problem with an idiot looking after my kids, regardless of their level of sobriety.
 
2011-06-10 11:16:04 AM

wide_eyed: I wonder how many of you would want me to come to work and take care of your kid while I was stoned.


It's funny when people say that, like being nice,slow, funny, and in the mood to cook, around kids is going to wreck their childhood and future.
But it is amazing that most people wont blink an eye if your smoking a pack of reds around kids, which DO kill you and people around you (the kids). I've smoked cigs, they make you not want to eat, tense, want more cigs, have a VERY short temper, and generally pissed.

SO yeah, if i had to choose between u watching the kids on weed or cigs I'd pick weed.
 
2011-06-10 11:17:36 AM
www.destructoid.com
 
2011-06-10 11:24:29 AM

The Envoy: DiogenesCynic: The Envoy: Don't try to rationalise something that isn't rational, it makes you look dumb(er).

Is that even possible? The looking dumber part, I mean.

In my time on Fark I have been exposed to the terrible truth: just when you think someone has said the most stunningly stupid, incorrect and moronic thing ever to pass the lips of man, some other tool will arrive and say something immeasurably worse without any apparent effort, thereby resetting your expectations about the levels of idiocy some Farkers inhabit. It only gets worse.

Even Tatsuhiko, the well-known mj thread troll who is coming across as a retarded relation of a turnip is still much smarter than plenty of others. Isn't that depressing?!


I've been a lurker on Fark for awhile, so I think I know what you mean. The stupidity on Fark is like Dante's Inferno, only there are nine circles of derp.

You sir, or ma'am, have offended both I and all mentally handicapped Brassicaceae. I like your style.
 
2011-06-10 11:27:56 AM

The Envoy: wide_eyed: I wonder how many of you would want me to come to work and take care of your kid while I was stoned.

I wouldn't have a problem with a person who smoked weed taking care of my kids.


moefuggenbrew
SO yeah, if i had to choose between u watching the kids on weed or cigs I'd pick weed.

I'm a pediatric nurse. I take care of very, very sick kids. It is my job to notice slight changes in vital signs, assessments, lab values, etc. I have a feeling that if your child was walking the line between life and death, and mistakes made on my part might leave your kids dead or worse than dead (persistant vegetative state, neurologically devastated) that you might want to make sure I was absolutely at the top of my game.

Blanket statements that people should be allowed to use drugs and then go to work (without a test to check that the person is NOT under the influence during work hours), show that someone hasn't thought out the consequences fully.
 
2011-06-10 11:29:01 AM

wide_eyed: I wonder how many of you would want me to come to work and take care of your kid while I was stoned.

If you are smoking dope, with or without a doc's rx, can a test tell if you are under the influence 'right now' or does it just show whether it is in your system?


The Envoy: wide_eyed: I wonder how many of you would want me to come to work and take care of your kid while I was stoned.

If you are smoking dope, with or without a doc's rx, can a test tell if you are under the influence 'right now' or does it just show whether it is in your system?

Just whether it's in the system, I don't think that there's a test that is accurate enough to tell if people are stoned at a certain time. For instance, I have smoked in the last 4 weeks, so it would show up in my system. However, I am at work and therefore not smoking so I'm not currently stoned.

I wouldn't have a problem with a person who smoked weed taking care of my kids. I'd have a problem if they did it in front of my kids which even I myself wouldn't do, but smoking in their own time is their choice. It's not like a magical lobotomy where one puff reduces the smoker to the intellectual level of a Fark troll with only basic motor control and the munchies. I'd have a problem with an idiot looking after my kids, regardless of their level of sobriety.


Agreed that it shouldn't be done in front of the children. I wish more people would get stoned more often. Perhaps it would reduce some of the strife on this crazy little sphere we call home.

Idiots are idiots are idiots. You get them in all shapes, sizes, colors and creeds. We all have our vices. You should take a good, hard look at your own life before you try to point the finger at anyone.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about you Envoy. I'm just ranting at the idiocy and lack of personal responsibility.
 
2011-06-10 11:36:04 AM

wide_eyed: The Envoy: wide_eyed: I wonder how many of you would want me to come to work and take care of your kid while I was stoned.

I wouldn't have a problem with a person who smoked weed taking care of my kids.

moefuggenbrew SO yeah, if i had to choose between u watching the kids on weed or cigs I'd pick weed.

I'm a pediatric nurse. I take care of very, very sick kids. It is my job to notice slight changes in vital signs, assessments, lab values, etc. I have a feeling that if your child was walking the line between life and death, and mistakes made on my part might leave your kids dead or worse than dead (persistant vegetative state, neurologically devastated) that you might want to make sure I was absolutely at the top of my game.

Blanket statements that people should be allowed to use drugs and then go to work (without a test to check that the person is NOT under the influence during work hours), show that someone hasn't thought out the consequences fully.


Some people do a bit better when they've had their fix. I've got rage issues. Smoking actually calms me down when I'm dealing with idiocy, such as Fark trolls (not you).

I can't speak for others around here, but I have no problem if you choose to smoke in your off time. I don't find it any more problematic than if you choose to have a drink in your off time. I wouldn't advocate that certain professions should work under the influence of any substance. That said, people should learn how they react to things. I know how smoking affects me. Do you? I can reasonably go to work after. Can you? No? Then don't.

I can't stress personal responsibility enough. Do I make mistakes? We all do. Have I ever made significant mistakes at work? Not sober, nor any other condition. I've never been fired from a job due to incompetence or ineptitude. I'm good at what I do, period. That's why they keep me around.
 
2011-06-10 12:08:58 PM
Sure, because everybody knows that weed smokers are a menace to society, while those of us who take the government-approved painkillers and mood stabilizers are never compromised by those. No nasty side-effects or possibility of abuse there. Especially among medical personnel, who wouldn't dream of stealing from the hospital's stash for their own use.

I wish more people would smoke weed. If nothing else, we'd be a lot more easygoing populace. We're already fat, so the extra calories consumed due to the munchies wouldn't be noticeable.
 
2011-06-10 12:12:06 PM
Stuff can be grown just about anywhere, by anyone. Easy to powder up dry material and/or produce concentrated essences. Get a job, make a point of only drinking tea (bring your own bags). Add small amount of said concentrate to Coffee pot, rub on the backs of chairs/rails in stairways, etc. (transfer from hands to mouth more likely). Wait for fellow employee's drug tests to start turning up positive. Get promoted to open position...

With laws like these, corruption extends in all directions.

All members of EVERY Government Body should be required to submit to monthly, random, drug screens. They are employees of the citizens and higer standards are required to exercise the privilege of serving the people.

/private business? Work product is suffering... slurred speech/nodding at desk? Test and/or fire otherwise, none of their `business'
 
2011-06-10 12:30:49 PM

puppetpusher: The rules regarding prescription drugs are rediculous.

I'm supposed to be on ADD meds. I have a legit prescription for them, and as they're hard enough to get even when you're following all the rules, I certainly don't abuse them. But I stopped taking them.

Why? Because I can't get a damned job. It shows up on any drug test. I'm fine with that, because I know I'm not doing anything wrong. But try telling an employer that. Because of stupid "privacy" laws, they "aren't allowed" to know what prescriptions an employee is taking. Therefore they don't care what does or doesn't show up on your drug test, even if it's a prescription. They see something, and that's it. The one time I got past this was due to a really awesome manager begging for the company to hire me, because she saw through the crap and knew I would be a decent employee, and I showed her my prescription. But it was enough of a hassle, and I'm not stupid enough to believe many other employers would bother with it, that I just don't take my prescription anymore. Very unfortunate, as I'm a much better worker when I do what the doctor tells me and actually take my meds.

Way to go for intelligent laws.


THIS. I have the same problem with prescription meds. The only way I can get a job is to stop taking my prescription. Companies really don't care if your meds are prescribed or not, they won't hire you if you fail the drug test.
 
2011-06-10 12:35:05 PM
Sounds like some people need to be introduced to the Whizzinator.
 
2011-06-10 01:25:26 PM

sprawl15: ipeeintheshower: I don't know how anyone can be a legal marijuana patient when there are still federal laws in place banning it's sale or usage.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



Then start a case to make the federal laws unconstitutional. But until then, federal marijuana laws still apply.
 
2011-06-10 01:52:17 PM

ipeeintheshower: But until then, federal marijuana laws still apply.


You might want to tell that to California.
 
2011-06-10 02:01:00 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Soumac: timujin: BGates: Yeah. Until either the feds legalize it or the FDA approves it as a valid prescription, I imagine the same can happen in all states that have medical marijuana laws.

It's that way in California. I believe the reasoning here was that even if you're not breaking state law, you're breaking federal law and that is valid grounds for dismissal.

Unfortunately, this.

No, that was not the reasoning given by the California Supreme Court at all. You can read the short version here, but the bottom line is that Prop 215 did not create a specific exemption for medical marijuana, and since there is no actual "prescription" involved (only a "recommendation"), the protections extended to persons on prescription meds do not apply.

The argument that mmj is still a Federal Offense did not even arise in the case, as Cali had already told the Feds to fark-off over mmj.


ah, thanks. I tried to not sound too certain in my OP, I only remembered that the case had come up and the dismissal was upheld. Thanks for correcting my faulty memory.
 
2011-06-10 02:12:09 PM

PastaFazoole: puppetpusher: The rules regarding prescription drugs are rediculous.

I'm supposed to be on ADD meds. I have a legit prescription for them, and as they're hard enough to get even when you're following all the rules, I certainly don't abuse them. But I stopped taking them.

Why? Because I can't get a damned job. It shows up on any drug test. I'm fine with that, because I know I'm not doing anything wrong. But try telling an employer that. Because of stupid "privacy" laws, they "aren't allowed" to know what prescriptions an employee is taking. Therefore they don't care what does or doesn't show up on your drug test, even if it's a prescription. They see something, and that's it. The one time I got past this was due to a really awesome manager begging for the company to hire me, because she saw through the crap and knew I would be a decent employee, and I showed her my prescription. But it was enough of a hassle, and I'm not stupid enough to believe many other employers would bother with it, that I just don't take my prescription anymore. Very unfortunate, as I'm a much better worker when I do what the doctor tells me and actually take my meds.

Way to go for intelligent laws.

THIS. I have the same problem with prescription meds. The only way I can get a job is to stop taking my prescription. Companies really don't care if your meds are prescribed or not, they won't hire you if you fail the drug test.


I have a hard time believing this is true. I'm also sure this has already been discussed earlier in the thread. But I have no problem striking an expired equus-

I'm on adderall- I take it most every day- and I know it shows up in my piss tests. I also have a prescription for an opiate painkiller that I take maybe 3-4x a month. It also would show up in my piss.

I usually have all my information in order before I even take the piss test. I tell them in advance what I will test positive for- and when requested I turn over my information. Sometimes at the time of the piss test, other times once my positive results come back (it depends on who is doing the test). I've even had a potential employer waive the piss test because I told them outright.

I've never had a problem. I don't know anyone else who has had a hiring issue due to medication. And in my field piss tests are a regular thing (I work with the juvenile justice system.)

Maybe there is another reason why they aren't hiring you?

And, if you really want a job- I would think you could abstain from whatever you are taking long enough to pass the piss test. (Depending, of course, what the medication is.)

/piss is a fun word
 
2011-06-10 02:32:46 PM

sprawl15: ipeeintheshower: But until then, federal marijuana laws still apply.

You might want to tell that to California.



The federal government doesn't have the resources to enforce every law everywhere. That still doesn't make it legal to buy, sell or use.
 
2011-06-10 02:46:27 PM

wildcardjack:

/Hint: If you want to fire someone don't tell them the real reason why
//Pick something safe
///And she can do better than call center


Then the law should be upgraded to handle your shenanigans. If any part of the policy offers termination while they're facing something else (e.g. age discrimination, labor issues, drug testing, whistle blowing, office politics) they cannot be terminated for something that effectively allows a prohibited-by-law adverse action.

Termination by coincidental technicality is wrong in every possible way.
 
2011-06-10 02:49:05 PM

ipeeintheshower: The federal government doesn't have the resources to enforce every law everywhere. That still doesn't make it legal to buy, sell or use.


The federal government passing a law does not automatically overturn state regulations.
 
2011-06-10 02:49:46 PM

sprawl15: To fall under the umbrella of anti-discrimination statutes, one must be doing something otherwise legal and not in violation of their employment contract. A person who is fired for sleeping through every meeting does not fall under the umbrella if they happen to be black. Likewise, employers often have clauses in the contract that are generally vague: 'good behavior' style language. If you act like a raging douche on Facebook, or get arrested for snorting coke off a dead hooker's ass, they can fire you even if you're the best whatever-it-is-you-do in the company. These are all rights afforded an employer, something often overlooked in situations like this. If she wore striped socks and her boss didn't like it, he could fire her for it as long as that doesn't violate her employment contract. A doctor prescribing those striped socks has no bearing on the validity of her termination.


Then fix that problem so that the employer can't do that. Problem solved.
 
2011-06-10 02:50:57 PM

ipeeintheshower: The federal government doesn't have the resources to enforce every law everywhere. That still doesn't make it legal to buy, sell or use.


Actually, I think you and all the other folks here making this argument that "it's still a violation of Federal law" are just plain incorrect. Some two years ago President Obama directed Federal agencies to cease arresting, charging and prosecuting persons who were complaint to their State's medical marijuana, to include collectives and dispensaries.

That in fact makes mmj legal, since Scheduling drugs is an Administrative function at the Federal level.

So you guys need to drop this whole line of reasoning: IT WASN'T A FEDERAL MARIJUANA CASE. The woman got canned because her employer has the authority to set its internal policies IAW the law, just as an employer can test you for nicotine, and fire you if you test positive.

Until mmj has prescription protections this will continue to happen.
 
2011-06-10 02:54:23 PM

hailin: Dusk-You-n-Me: None of which are prescribed by a doctor.

People also get fired for medical reasons: cancer, diabetes, narcolepsy, etc. I had a friend who was fired because he was prescribed to take Percoset 3 times a day for a slipped disc in his back and his company felt it would impair him to be able to do his job (which it never did and eventually he got surgery and a better job). Considering most big companies have their corporate offices in states where medical marijuana might be illegal and that's where their policies are set, again, I'm not surprised at all.

If you aren't in a federally protected class you can get fired for any reason. Being able to get high for migraines isn't a federally protected class.


Then start making more people federally protected. On both sides of employment.
 
2011-06-10 03:08:11 PM
Actually, I think you and all the other folks here making this argument that "it's still a violation of Federal law" are just plain incorrect. Some two years ago President Obama directed Federal agencies to cease arresting, charging and prosecuting persons who were complaint to their State's medical marijuana, to include collectives and dispensaries.

That in fact makes mmj legal, since Scheduling drugs is an Administrative function at the Federal level.



No, it just makes the existing laws UNENFORCED. That however does not change the law. Adulterers don't get prosecuted either even though adultery is still illegal in some states because it's just not worth the time or money.
 
2011-06-10 03:21:46 PM

sprawl15: The federal government passing a law does not automatically overturn state regulations.


Are you saying that federal law does not trump state law?
 
2011-06-10 03:23:51 PM

trappedspirit: sprawl15: The federal government passing a law does not automatically overturn state regulations.

Are you saying that federal law does not trump state law?


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
2011-06-10 03:32:13 PM
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


You make a good constitutional argument but that doesn't make you legally correct until a court says you're correct. That hasn't yet happened so the federal laws that are in place are still valid, at least for now. When you win your case in court then you can say that medical marijuana is legal in certain places not just under state law but federal law as well but not before then.
 
2011-06-10 03:40:46 PM

sprawl15: trappedspirit: sprawl15: The federal government passing a law does not automatically overturn state regulations.

Are you saying that federal law does not trump state law?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Yeah, I misread your post. If you are talking about existing state legislation.
 
2011-06-11 08:32:18 AM

DiogenesCynic: Brassicaceae


I'm not ashamed to say that I had to look that up!

wide_eyed: I'm a pediatric nurse. I take care of very, very sick kids. It is my job to notice slight changes in vital signs, assessments, lab values, etc. I have a feeling that if your child was walking the line between life and death, and mistakes made on my part might leave your kids dead or worse than dead (persistant vegetative state, neurologically devastated) that you might want to make sure I was absolutely at the top of my game.

Blanket statements that people should be allowed to use drugs and then go to work (without a test to check that the person is NOT under the influence during work hours), show that someone hasn't thought out the consequences fully.


Ok, I don't think I was clear. I assumed you were talking about a childminder role when you talked about looking after kids. I wouldn't expect or condone a person in a sensitive position such as yours to have a huge bong before leaving the house for work. Nor would I expect someone in that position to go out and have a huge drunken night out before going to work the next day. If someone wants to have a joint when they're not working then that is none of your or my business. If, however, that person is stoned at work then that is obviously a problem. That is a decision for the individual to take, just like alcohol. I would far rather you were stoned doing your job than drunk. Why should weed be any different to a substance that is demonstrably worse? Should people not be allowed to drink in their off-time too? Should I, as the parent of one of your charges, have the right to insist that you don't have a glass of wine or a beer when you're not at work? Why one rule for one substance and another for a different one?

Blanket statements that people should be allowed to use drugs alcohol and then go to work (without a test to check that the person is NOT under the influence during work hours), show that someone hasn't thought out the consequences fully.
 
2011-06-11 07:50:53 PM
LET THE HYPOCRISY CONTINUE!
 
Displayed 47 of 197 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report