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.

(AP)   Now that marijuana has been legalized in Washington and Colorado, the already complex issue of drug testing in the workplace naturally grows even more complicat... HEY TACOS   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 97
    More: Interesting, Colorado, marijuana  
•       •       •

3387 clicks; posted to Business » on 09 Dec 2012 at 12:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-09 01:05:09 PM  
From articles I read at my old job I'm waiting for the first disputes involving a work comp claim where the injured worker uses medicinal marijuana instead of high-end opiods. The pieces I read weren't so concerned about the legality of such situations, more the scale to use in valuating the marijuana. I would pay to see a WC claims adjustor having to note a reserve adjustment because a claimant needed high-end hydroponic instead of some seedy ditch weed.
 
zez
2012-12-09 01:05:51 PM  
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, a Denver-based chain with locations in the two states, has no plans to revisit its drug policy. Spokesman Kevin Caulfield said the policy already covers legal drugs, such as prescription medication. Marijuana would be treated the same, he said.

Well thank god the teenagers cooking and serving my burgers will be safe to smoke pot after work!
 
2012-12-09 01:20:39 PM  
static.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-09 01:31:14 PM  
FTA: "Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, so officers would not under any scenario be allowed to use marijuana," White said. White wasn't sure about pre-employment marijuana use.

Really, what about undercover detectives?
 
2012-12-09 01:31:22 PM  
Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.

What I do outside of work is not my employer's business.
 
2012-12-09 01:32:53 PM  
It doesn't seem that hard. Could easily be ruled under Commerce Clause that drug testing falls under federal rule. Now if you want to move to a job that doesn't drug test or just be unemployed, then smoke up all you want.
 
2012-12-09 01:46:50 PM  

Honest Bender: Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.

What I do outside of work is not my employer's business.


False. Your bodily fluids may be seized and analyzed by your employers or their proxy at any time.

/damn entitled workers
 
2012-12-09 01:51:23 PM  
Not really an issue for me. I would never piss in a cup for an employer.
 
2012-12-09 01:58:42 PM  

Alphakronik: Not really an issue for me. I would never piss in a cup for an employer.


Unfortunately not everyone has that option. I would rather just see it legal federally.
 
2012-12-09 02:11:58 PM  
Depends whether your contract has an exception for legal drugs, and whether not having an exception is overruled by these laws.
 
2012-12-09 02:13:00 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-09 02:13:54 PM  
Nice pitch, RG3!
 
2012-12-09 02:13:55 PM  
Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.

I have to imagine most folks are aware of their employer's drug testing policy.

Also, don't ask if you can't stand the answer.
 
2012-12-09 02:15:03 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Nice pitch, RG3!


oops wrong thread

/backs out slowly
 
2012-12-09 02:16:31 PM  
simple...don't test for pot.
they don't test for alcohol levels.
 
2012-12-09 02:20:29 PM  

ski9600: FTA: "Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, so officers would not under any scenario be allowed to use marijuana," White said. White wasn't sure about pre-employment marijuana use.

Really, what about undercover detectives?


Thin Blue Line.
 
2012-12-09 02:22:05 PM  

rogue49: simple...don't test for pot.
they don't test for alcohol levels.


If you show up impared they sure as hell do.
 
2012-12-09 02:23:11 PM  
Company policy is company policy. You can be fired for smoking tobacco - even during off hours - at some jobs. Smoking pot is no different. Until MMJ is taken from Schedule I and moved downward, it cannot be used as a termination dispute for medical reasons (at least not legitimately, in the eyes of the law).

As much as I am in the "legalize it" camp, I'm under no illusions as to what my rights would be were I to smoke it legally.

Hell, Nike will can you for wearing competitor's clothing. You have to abide by your employer's code of conduct and business policies at all times. Don't like them, go find another employer.

/it takes more than mere legalization
//entire society has to change
 
2012-12-09 02:25:22 PM  

Honest Bender: Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.

What I do outside of work is not my employer's business.


Unless your employer has a code of conduct that proscribes certain activities at all times.

Might want to check that paperwork.
 
2012-12-09 02:25:39 PM  

Honest Bender: Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.

What I do outside of work is not my employer's business.


Um, yeah it can be. Because if you go and die of a heroin overdose it's going to be reported "Conglomerated amalgamated employee dies of heroin overdose." As part of your employment agreement, you most likely agreed to refrain from engaging in activities that would bring harm the the company image.
 
2012-12-09 02:28:35 PM  
This just in - even rights we may have in the future will require responsibility.

And right now, anyone involving potentially legal marijuana needs to be on their best behavior to maintain the rising levels of support- even if that includes not smoking when you work for an employer that mandates drug testing. It also includes not being jackasses about it being legal to the folks that didn't support it, or smoking while driving, or giving it to kids. Basic common sense will go a long way to changing the public's perception.
 
2012-12-09 02:28:56 PM  
Police departments are especially worried. Officers take oaths to protect all laws, state and federal. In this case, pot is still prohibited under federal law.

However, as we've learned from the Obama administration suing Arizona, states aren't supposed to enforce federal laws, so no problem if you're a state or local cop. Just don't be an FBI agent in Washington state and expect to toke up.
 
2012-12-09 02:29:47 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Honest Bender: Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.

What I do outside of work is not my employer's business.

Um, yeah it can be. Because if you go and die of a heroin overdose it's going to be reported "Conglomerated amalgamated employee dies of heroin overdose." As part of your employment agreement, you most likely agreed to refrain from engaging in activities that would bring harm the the company image.


It's not even that they're worried about image. Businesses are beginning to proscribe certain activities and recreational chemicals for insurance purposes.
 
2012-12-09 02:33:03 PM  
so let people come to work stoned?? what's worng with that
 
2012-12-09 02:34:20 PM  

jjorsett: Police departments are especially worried. Officers take oaths to protect all laws, state and federal. In this case, pot is still prohibited under federal law.

However, as we've learned from the Obama administration suing Arizona, states aren't supposed to enforce federal laws, so no problem if you're a state or local cop. Just don't be an FBI agent in Washington state and expect to toke up.


King County officers in Washington have already been instructed not to enforce the Federal law. Not sure about Clark County. Although since most people living in Clark actually work down in Multnomah County (Portland), I am waiting for the inevitable arrests made by PDXPD of Washingtonians who either forget to empty their vehicle, or simply come across the border within hours of having been high (read that as "the day after getting high the night before"). Portland Police really are big enough assholes to screw with people like that.
 
2012-12-09 02:37:58 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: so let people come to work stoned?? what's worng with that


You sound stoned right now.

Would explain why you can't differentiate between people who get high on their own time, yet come into work clean. Works the same way with alcohol, yet if you drink during your off-hours, they aren't going to test you for liver enzymes on a random screening. Sobriety is not and has never been the goal of piss tests. Drug screenings are only meant to locate people using illegal substances so they can be publicly shamed.

Coming in to work sober should be good enough.
 
2012-12-09 02:38:31 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: so let people come to work stoned?? what's worng with that


If it wasn't Sunday, I would say misspelling of simple words in important work documents.
 
2012-12-09 02:47:40 PM  

Kuroshin: Jon iz teh kewl: so let people come to work stoned?? what's worng with that

You sound stoned right now.

Would explain why you can't differentiate between people who get high on their own time, yet come into work clean. Works the same way with alcohol, yet if you drink during your off-hours, they aren't going to test you for liver enzymes on a random screening. Sobriety is not and has never been the goal of piss tests. Drug screenings are only meant to locate people using illegal substances so they can be publicly shamed.

Coming in to work sober should be good enough.


your allowed to drink beer on lunch break why not smoke a bong
 
2012-12-09 02:55:15 PM  

Kuroshin: Jon iz teh kewl: so let people come to work stoned?? what's worng with that
You sound stoned right now.
Would explain why you can't differentiate between people who get high on their own time, yet come into work clean. Works the same way with alcohol, yet if you drink during your off-hours, they aren't going to test you for liver enzymes on a random screening. Sobriety is not and has never been the goal of piss tests. Drug screenings are only meant to locate people using illegal substances so they can be publicly shamed.
Coming in to work sober should be good enough.


You can't tell he's a troll? Like, the NAME didn't tip you off?

My boss can have my pee when he comes over and gets it out of my toilet. He shouldn't have a problem with that, since they're already trying to tell me what I can or can't do in my own home. Hey, would you like a stool sample while you're here? I might not be eating right--it could cause some health problems for me that might affect my work performance. Maybe you can check the closets and the medicine cabinet while you're here too.

Stupid employees, thinking they have a private life outside of work.

Mr. Eugenides: Um, yeah it can be. Because if you go and die of a heroin overdose it's going to be reported "Conglomerated amalgamated employee dies of heroin overdose." As part of your employment agreement, you most likely agreed to refrain from engaging in activities that would bring harm the the company image.


Maybe if you're the CEO. It wouldn't be "reported" at all, except as maybe a tiny blurb in the local paper, where it might be noted that "he worked for Conglomerated Amalgamated Corporation."
 
2012-12-09 03:02:19 PM  
I don't see why it is going to be that tough of a question for employers. They own the jobs, so if they don't want you coming to work drunk, they should be just as justified in not allowing you to show up to work stoned. Hell, I've had job interviews where you weren't even considered if you were a smoker. If you're a warehouse or factory worker or even a trucker I can see the employers saying "Yes, this state did make pot smoking legal, but for safety reasons, we refuse to allow it." Actually, it would make more sense, even in factory and warehouse environments to look at job duties. Drug test the forklift drivers, yes. Drug test order pullers who's entire job is to pick up stuff like DVDs and put them into a box to be shipped out? I've done that job and it's dull enough that you should be allowed to smoke pot as a benefit for staying in a position as mind numbingly dull as that.
 
2012-12-09 03:13:03 PM  
No, really, where are the tacos?
 
2012-12-09 03:13:45 PM  
As long as you don't show up to work high or smoke weed during your shift, I don't see what the big deal is.

/Canadian
 
2012-12-09 03:21:38 PM  

rogue49: simple...don't test for pot.
they don't test for alcohol levels.


So people don't get fired for being drunk on the job?
 
2012-12-09 03:23:26 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
What a taco might look like.
 
2012-12-09 03:26:12 PM  

Hector Remarkable: No, really, where are the tacos?


images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Has something to say about tacos.
 
2012-12-09 03:50:32 PM  
FTA : One of Washington's biggest private employers, The Boeing Co., generally requires drug tests before employment, upon reasonable suspicion or after accidents

I can't wait for them to develop a piss test for incompetence. "We'll after running your sample through the liquid chromatograph, we found no trace of illicit substances. However, we've determined you're stupid, incompetent and lazy. You're fired asshole!"

/drug test? drink plenty of water, you'll pass (I am a lab technician), passed the 3 I've had
//offered a job this summer and the HR guy said straight up, "you'll get a dug test, drink plenty of water"
/// I assess people simply by their performance, do whatever you like (within reason) after work
 
2012-12-09 03:54:08 PM  
Well. no apostrophe

goddamnit!!
 
2012-12-09 04:01:24 PM  
The problem with marijuana is that there is not a current method of determining pot intoxication that I know. Many companies require a blood test, breathalyzer test and/or piss test for any work mishap that requires medical care and that may lead to workers compensation. Any worker who is hurt on the job while found to be intoxicated will not recieve the benefits that he or she would be entitled since he argument as that the person's intoxication caused or contributed to the mishap/injury.

With alcohol, there is a system and means for measuring alcohol related intoxication. I have not heard of such a system in place for marijuana intoxication. Last I knew, marijauna was a pass/fail test without regards for level (with only a minimum level set for detection).

Gnash your teeth and bemoan our politicians and cops all you want. The insurance companies have the power in this situation and businesses will relent on this so as to keep the premiums at as low as possible.

If there is a system of measurement in place to determine marijauna intoxication, please respond with a link, as I would be interested in learning about it.
 
2012-12-09 04:24:56 PM  

McGrits: The problem with marijuana is that there is not a current method of determining pot intoxication that I know. Many companies require a blood test, breathalyzer test and/or piss test for any work mishap that requires medical care and that may lead to workers compensation. Any worker who is hurt on the job while found to be intoxicated will not recieve the benefits that he or she would be entitled since he argument as that the person's intoxication caused or contributed to the mishap/injury.

With alcohol, there is a system and means for measuring alcohol related intoxication. I have not heard of such a system in place for marijuana intoxication. Last I knew, marijauna was a pass/fail test without regards for level (with only a minimum level set for detection).

Gnash your teeth and bemoan our politicians and cops all you want. The insurance companies have the power in this situation and businesses will relent on this so as to keep the premiums at as low as possible.

If there is a system of measurement in place to determine marijauna intoxication, please respond with a link, as I would be interested in learning about it.


blood test
 
2012-12-09 04:35:28 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: McGrits: The problem with marijuana is that there is not a current method of determining pot intoxication that I know. Many companies require a blood test, breathalyzer test and/or piss test for any work mishap that requires medical care and that may lead to workers compensation. Any worker who is hurt on the job while found to be intoxicated will not recieve the benefits that he or she would be entitled since he argument as that the person's intoxication caused or contributed to the mishap/injury.

With alcohol, there is a system and means for measuring alcohol related intoxication. I have not heard of such a system in place for marijuana intoxication. Last I knew, marijauna was a pass/fail test without regards for level (with only a minimum level set for detection).

Gnash your teeth and bemoan our politicians and cops all you want. The insurance companies have the power in this situation and businesses will relent on this so as to keep the premiums at as low as possible.

If there is a system of measurement in place to determine marijauna intoxication, please respond with a link, as I would be interested in learning about it.

blood test


does the blood test have a parts per or other percentage based standard?
 
2012-12-09 04:38:53 PM  
So long as they're not coming to work stoned, who gives a toss if an employee enjoys the ganja on their own time? The only reasons why they test for it is a) the metabolites have a ridiculous half life, and b) it gives them a reason to can your ass without compliant if they want to have one.
 
2012-12-09 04:48:00 PM  
if getting stoned and not getting your work done got your ass fired, you got fired for not getting your work done. Stoned has nothing to do with it.
 
2012-12-09 05:06:27 PM  
That will be interesting to see what happens to student athletes that test positive for pot.
 
2012-12-09 05:17:13 PM  

PsyLord: That will be interesting to see what happens to student athletes that test positive for pot.


Nothing new. Athletes are already banned from taking a lot of legal supplements/drugs.
 
2012-12-09 05:28:07 PM  

Sandusky Knows Best: It doesn't seem that hard. Could easily be ruled under Commerce Clause that drug testing falls under federal rule. Now if you want to move to a job that doesn't drug test or just be unemployed, then smoke up all you want.


most. abused. clause. ever.
 
2012-12-09 05:29:05 PM  

PsyLord: That will be interesting to see what happens to student athletes that test positive for pot.


Athletes don't take tests, they get nerds for that trivial shiatt.
 
2012-12-09 05:35:04 PM  

nmemkha: Sandusky Knows Best: It doesn't seem that hard. Could easily be ruled under Commerce Clause that drug testing falls under federal rule. Now if you want to move to a job that doesn't drug test or just be unemployed, then smoke up all you want.

most. abused. clause. ever.


In retrospect, I may have made a mistake. That is under the assumption that federal law allows drug testing by employers. I have no idea if there is such legislation. Then it would be ruled under commerce clause. As someone would sue employer, employer would claim federal legislation, federal legislation would be constitutional under commerce clause. That is also why I said it would be EASILY ruled that way. As the commerce clause is often over reaching.
 
2012-12-09 05:48:11 PM  

McGrits:

does the blood test have a parts per or other percentage based standard?



http://www.npr.org/2012/12/05/166531388/pots-legal-in-washington-sta te -but-dont-drive-high

"The new law makes it legal for adults to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana, but illegal for that same adult to drive if the THC content of his blood reaches 5 nanograms per milliliter."
 
2012-12-09 05:54:36 PM  

McGrits: The problem with marijuana is that there is not a current method of determining pot intoxication that I know. Many companies require a blood test, breathalyzer test and/or piss test for any work mishap that requires medical care and that may lead to workers compensation. Any worker who is hurt on the job while found to be intoxicated will not recieve the benefits that he or she would be entitled since he argument as that the person's intoxication caused or contributed to the mishap/injury.

With alcohol, there is a system and means for measuring alcohol related intoxication. I have not heard of such a system in place for marijuana intoxication. Last I knew, marijauna was a pass/fail test without regards for level (with only a minimum level set for detection).

Gnash your teeth and bemoan our politicians and cops all you want. The insurance companies have the power in this situation and businesses will relent on this so as to keep the premiums at as low as possible.

If there is a system of measurement in place to determine marijauna intoxication, please respond with a link, as I would be interested in learning about it.


For driving you do the same physical tests that existed prior to breathalyzers.

For everything else: is job performance satisfactory? If no, fire for that.

The only thing about this that I gnash my teeth at is how obvious the solution to your problem is.
 
2012-12-09 06:10:30 PM  

McGrits: The problem with marijuana is that there is not a current method of determining pot intoxication that I know. Many companies require a blood test, breathalyzer test and/or piss test for any work mishap that requires medical care and that may lead to workers compensation. Any worker who is hurt on the job while found to be intoxicated will not recieve the benefits that he or she would be entitled since he argument as that the person's intoxication caused or contributed to the mishap/injury.

With alcohol, there is a system and means for measuring alcohol related intoxication. I have not heard of such a system in place for marijuana intoxication. Last I knew, marijauna was a pass/fail test without regards for level (with only a minimum level set for detection).

Gnash your teeth and bemoan our politicians and cops all you want. The insurance companies have the power in this situation and businesses will relent on this so as to keep the premiums at as low as possible.

If there is a system of measurement in place to determine marijauna intoxication, please respond with a link, as I would be interested in learning about it.


Maybe if the DEA and FDA had been a little more interested in actual science and less of "we already know its the most harmful drug on the planet, we won't grant you an exemption to study it" for the last 50 years, we'd have one by now.

There's kind of a chicken and egg problem that'll get resolved as soon as there's a legal and economic reason to distinguish use in the visible past from currently impaired.
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report