Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Northwest News (Seattle))   Security guard gets fired from job due to news footage of him being the first person to buy legal recreational marijuana in the State of Washington. That's some fine bud there Lou   (nwcn.com ) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

7814 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jul 2014 at 3:03 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-09 11:28:54 PM  
Meh

Companies can have their own rules about illegal drugs.

You know it is still illegal .... right?
 
2014-07-10 12:00:48 AM  

feckingmorons: Meh

Companies can have their own rules about illegal drugs.

You know it is still illegal .... right?


Doesn't even have to be illegal. Unless Washington is one of the states that ban firing based on legal substances, he's screwed.

Boyer posted his claim and resume on Craigslist in a post titled "LOST MY JOB! still #1 tho!!"

Because losing a job and showing this level of idiocy is certainly worth the same marijuana you could have purchased the next day.
 
2014-07-10 12:15:12 AM  

ArkAngel: feckingmorons: Meh

Companies can have their own rules about illegal drugs.

You know it is still illegal .... right?

Doesn't even have to be illegal. Unless Washington is one of the states that ban firing based on legal substances, he's screwed.

Boyer posted his claim and resume on Craigslist in a post titled "LOST MY JOB! still #1 tho!!"

Because losing a job and showing this level of idiocy is certainly worth the same marijuana you could have purchased the next day.


There are other labor pools.
 
2014-07-10 12:15:36 AM  

ArkAngel: feckingmorons: Meh

Companies can have their own rules about illegal drugs.

You know it is still illegal .... right?

Doesn't even have to be illegal. Unless Washington is one of the states that ban firing based on legal substances, he's screwed.

Boyer posted his claim and resume on Craigslist in a post titled "LOST MY JOB! still #1 tho!!"

Because losing a job and showing this level of idiocy is certainly worth the same marijuana you could have purchased the next day.


It will be interesting to see how the employment angle is handled as the situation evolves in CO and WA.  Right now, yes, there are no legal protections.  I do firmly believe that there should be legal protections, and not just for pot but for tobacco, alcohol, or whatever other legal substances you want to enjoy in your own time as long as you don't come to work under the influence.

In the absence of a legislative solution to protect workers I'm hoping that companies start to realize that most marijuana users are upstanding productive citizens and make a point to advertise that they do not consider off-time marijuana use to be a problem for hiring/employment.  Doing so will certainly open up a larger pool of applicants for compared to the companies that continue to subscribe to the doctrine of prohibition.
 
2014-07-10 12:18:01 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I do firmly believe that there should be legal protections, and not just for pot but for tobacco, alcohol, or whatever other legal substances you want to enjoy in your own time as long as you don't come to work under the influence.


I'm good with that. If it were put to a vote I'd vote for that.

Then again I think if marijuana possession is going to be illegal it should be at the level of a stop sign ticket.
 
2014-07-10 12:52:41 AM  
My take is that both the employer and the employee should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.  That includes contracting for everything short of slavery.

So if the employer wants to have a no stoners policy-- let 'em.

I'd even go so far-- hold onto your crocs farkers-- that if an employer wants to racially discriminate-- let 'em.  the civil rights act was an anti-rights act.  obviously racial discrimination is terrible, but what one does in the private sphere is their own business, including being an idiot.

as we celebrate the slow and long overdue march toward legalization of marijuana, we should look at what other liberties we've surrendered to the state to make us "better," including the right to be bigoted.  again-- i strongly object to racist ideas, but also reject the notion that there's federal authority beyond what's delineated in the constitution.

and just as there's no authority to regulate pot, there's no authority to tell idiots not to be idiots when acting in a private capacity.

who's with me?
 
2014-07-10 01:26:25 AM  

nickdaisy: My take is that both the employer and the employee should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.  That includes contracting for everything short of slavery.

So if the employer wants to have a no stoners policy-- let 'em.

I'd even go so far-- hold onto your crocs farkers-- that if an employer wants to racially discriminate-- let 'em.  the civil rights act was an anti-rights act.  obviously racial discrimination is terrible, but what one does in the private sphere is their own business, including being an idiot.

as we celebrate the slow and long overdue march toward legalization of marijuana, we should look at what other liberties we've surrendered to the state to make us "better," including the right to be bigoted.  again-- i strongly object to racist ideas, but also reject the notion that there's federal authority beyond what's delineated in the constitution.

and just as there's no authority to regulate pot, there's no authority to tell idiots not to be idiots when acting in a private capacity.

who's with me?


The civil rights act protects individual liberties, it doesn't surrender them.  Yes, I suppose you could say that bigots lose the ability to shiat on other based on their bigoted beliefs, but a larger portion of people gained the liberty to work, live, shop, and eat wherever they wanted.

Protecting the rights of those who want to use marijuana would be a similar measure - some business owners would lose the right to control their employees lives off the clock, but a much larger group of people would gain the right to take part in an activity that they enjoy on their own free time.

The government has an important role in bestowing and protecting individual liberties.  Many freedoms would not exist if not for legislation protecting them.
 
2014-07-10 02:04:29 AM  

nickdaisy: My take is that both the employer and the employee should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.  That includes contracting for everything short of slavery.

So if the employer wants to have a no stoners policy-- let 'em.

I'd even go so far-- hold onto your crocs farkers-- that if an employer wants to racially discriminate-- let 'em.  the civil rights act was an anti-rights act.  obviously racial discrimination is terrible, but what one does in the private sphere is their own business, including being an idiot.

as we celebrate the slow and long overdue march toward legalization of marijuana, we should look at what other liberties we've surrendered to the state to make us "better," including the right to be bigoted.  again-- i strongly object to racist ideas, but also reject the notion that there's federal authority beyond what's delineated in the constitution.

and just as there's no authority to regulate pot, there's no authority to tell idiots not to be idiots when acting in a private capacity.

who's with me?


Well, the Commerce Clause would disagree with some of that. It's also the reason why companies that do business across state lines can't have employees smoking pot, even if it's now legal in a couple of the states in which they do business. A business that carefully does not cross any state lines might chance a run at it, but I don't like their odds.
 
2014-07-10 02:28:29 AM  
I'm just glad employers can't fire me for camping out in front of Apple Stores before big release dates.
 
2014-07-10 02:38:51 AM  

HotWingAgenda: Well, the Commerce Clause would disagree with some of that. It's also the reason why companies that do business across state lines can't have employees smoking pot, even if it's now legal in a couple of the states in which they do business. A business that carefully does not cross any state lines might chance a run at it, but I don't like their odds.



CSB:

I work for a large corporation, and happen to live in Washington.

A while back, we received an email telling us that tobacco users would have to kick in an extra $50 per month.  The email had a link to a FAQ, and one of the questions was regarding marijuana use.

The answer "Blah blah blah.....federal contractor.....yadda yadda.....it's not allowed per company policy."

/End CSB.
 
2014-07-10 02:46:44 AM  

nickdaisy: My take is that both the employer and the employee should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.  That includes contracting for everything short of slavery.

So if the employer wants to have a no stoners policy-- let 'em.

I'd even go so far-- hold onto your crocs farkers-- that if an employer wants to racially discriminate-- let 'em.  the civil rights act was an anti-rights act.  obviously racial discrimination is terrible, but what one does in the private sphere is their own business, including being an idiot.

as we celebrate the slow and long overdue march toward legalization of marijuana, we should look at what other liberties we've surrendered to the state to make us "better," including the right to be bigoted.  again-- i strongly object to racist ideas, but also reject the notion that there's federal authority beyond what's delineated in the constitution.

and just as there's no authority to regulate pot, there's no authority to tell idiots not to be idiots when acting in a private capacity.

who's with me?


4/10
 
2014-07-10 02:54:50 AM  
Bonus points if he called in sick that day.
 
2014-07-10 03:09:32 AM  
Dude, you CAMPED OUT to be the first and now you're complaining about being caught by the media coverage?


AverageAmericanGuy: I'm just glad employers can't fire me for camping out in front of Apple Stores before big release dates.


In most states employers can fire you for whatever the fark reason they like.
 
2014-07-10 03:17:33 AM  
Somebody in another thread today made a comment that the city attorney in his town made a public statement that now that weed was legal he is going to to buy some now. My first thought was how long before he comes in and there is a piss cup on his desk and a letter informing him to report to the testing place immediately.
 
2014-07-10 03:19:13 AM  
It's very, very early in the legalization movement. Best to keep your head low for the moment unless you're willing possibly to pay a big price. Being an activist is great and all, but it very well may have consequences of which you have no recourse. Those with more to lose than they're willing to give up should especially exercise some caution. Oh, and free the weed.
 
2014-07-10 03:21:26 AM  
Fair enough, if the guy is in security, you'd be concerned your guy was going to show up blazed. Alcohol is legal too, but no employer would tolerate an employee showing up drunk ,either. The guys refusal to do a drug test would imply a degree of guilt, all though still it is somewhat a breach of his privacy. How long before we all have to do breathalizer and drug tests for all jobs?
 
2014-07-10 03:22:30 AM  

ongbok: Somebody in another thread today made a comment that the city attorney in his town made a public statement that now that weed was legal he is going to to buy some now. My first thought was how long before he comes in and there is a piss cup on his desk and a letter informing him to report to the testing place immediately.


A city attorney has no obligations to the feds. Usually they are hired/fired by the mayor or city council. Some are elected.

If the mayor doesn't care, the Feds have no jurisdiction to come down on the guy except to harass and to *guarantee* a lawsuit that will appeal all the way up.
 
2014-07-10 03:25:58 AM  

Bonzo_1116: ongbok: Somebody in another thread today made a comment that the city attorney in his town made a public statement that now that weed was legal he is going to to buy some now. My first thought was how long before he comes in and there is a piss cup on his desk and a letter informing him to report to the testing place immediately.

A city attorney has no obligations to the feds. Usually they are hired/fired by the mayor or city council. Some are elected.

If the mayor doesn't care, the Feds have no jurisdiction to come down on the guy except to harass and to *guarantee* a lawsuit that will appeal all the way up.


He is a public employe. If the city has an anti drug policy then he is subject to it. If the guy really did make a public statement like that and somebody wants to make a stink, he will be gone, unless the city wants to change their policy towards employees and marijuana usage.
 
2014-07-10 03:27:55 AM  

feckingmorons: Meh

Companies can have their own rules about illegal drugs.

You know it is still illegal .... right?


Well, a few states have laws protecting workers from being fired for legal activity.  Yeah, pot is still illegal at the federal level, but seriously if you're a skilled worker and do your job well no employer is going to fire you.  I've know people who told me their employer is scared to drug test them because the they might have to fire them or something.

And it's not just illegal drugs - there has been more than one company who said no nicotine - don't care if you smoke it, vape it, or use a patch because you're trying to quit.  If you test positive for nicotine, you're fired.  Fark that shiat.

Where should we draw the line?  How about a no-Muslim policy?  Well, I think you can't do that, but a no-nicotine user policy?  Apparently perfectly legal.  Don't even bring up the question of using pot - even on weekends when you're not on the clock.
 
2014-07-10 03:29:18 AM  
I like this kids attitude. He isn't complaining that he lost a job and it sounds like he has at least one job. He set out to be the first buyer and spent overnight on the curb to accomplish his goal. I don't smoke weed, but hey I'm not going to put down Big Lebowski.
 
2014-07-10 03:32:50 AM  
So, he shouldn't have any problem finding another $8 an hour job.  He's obviously not very smart or he would have at least tried to hide it knowing his employer drug tests.
 
2014-07-10 03:32:54 AM  

feckingmorons: ArkAngel: feckingmorons: Meh

Companies can have their own rules about illegal drugs.

You know it is still illegal .... right?

Doesn't even have to be illegal. Unless Washington is one of the states that ban firing based on legal substances, he's screwed.

Boyer posted his claim and resume on Craigslist in a post titled "LOST MY JOB! still #1 tho!!"

Because losing a job and showing this level of idiocy is certainly worth the same marijuana you could have purchased the next day.

There are other labor pools.


I dunno, security guard jobs don't grow on trees.
 
2014-07-10 03:37:13 AM  
www.film.com
I ain't going to lie to you Ronnie, there is nothing good about this at all.
 
2014-07-10 03:38:05 AM  

ArkAngel: feckingmorons: Meh

Companies can have their own rules about illegal drugs.

You know it is still illegal .... right?

Doesn't even have to be illegal. Unless Washington is one of the states that ban firing based on legal substances, he's screwed.

Boyer posted his claim and resume on Craigslist in a post titled "LOST MY JOB! still #1 tho!!"

Because losing a job and showing this level of idiocy is certainly worth the same marijuana you could have purchased the next day.


Opinions are like....
 
2014-07-10 03:38:47 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm just glad employers can't fire me for camping out in front of Apple Stores before big release dates.


....you sure?

I am a small business owner with fewer than 15 employees, and while I have no issues with Apple stores or marijuana, I reserve the right to fire people if they are making my company look bad.

Also the world is different than it was 20 years ago. I would wager that almost everyone under 25 has somethink objectionable in their online profiles. I stay out of my employee's personal lives, but if you don't think that your pictures of binge driniing, bikini selfies, opinions on marijuana and/or Ann Coulter that you broadcast on your personal billboard have no effect on you getting calls on jobs, well, urine idiot.
 
2014-07-10 03:41:53 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: So, he shouldn't have any problem finding another $8 an hour job.  He's obviously not very smart or he would have at least tried to hide it knowing his employer drug tests.


That's your opinion and because his values differ from you doesn't mean, "He's obviously not very smart..."
 
2014-07-10 03:43:08 AM  
The day after legalization was voted in, the HR department at my company sent out a company-wide email reminding us all that policy still opposed marijuana use and that we were still subject to testing.
 
2014-07-10 03:44:44 AM  

tacos4jesus: AverageAmericanGuy: I'm just glad employers can't fire me for camping out in front of Apple Stores before big release dates.

....you sure?

I am a small business owner with fewer than 15 employees, and while I have no issues with Apple stores or marijuana, I reserve the right to fire people if they are making my company look bad.

Also the world is different than it was 20 years ago. I would wager that almost everyone under 25 has somethink objectionable in their online profiles. I stay out of my employee's personal lives, but if you don't think that your pictures of binge driniing, bikini selfies, opinions on marijuana and/or Ann Coulter that you broadcast on your personal billboard have no effect on you getting calls on jobs, well, urine idiot.


Lots of mean spirited put downs. Nice, real nice.
 
2014-07-10 03:47:09 AM  
I know an employer who tests people for tobacco and fires them if any is in their system.
 
2014-07-10 03:54:56 AM  

Fark Offten: tacos4jesus: AverageAmericanGuy: I'm just glad employers can't fire me for camping out in front of Apple Stores before big release dates.

....you sure?

I am a small business owner with fewer than 15 employees, and while I have no issues with Apple stores or marijuana, I reserve the right to fire people if they are making my company look bad.

Also the world is different than it was 20 years ago. I would wager that almost everyone under 25 has somethink objectionable in their online profiles. I stay out of my employee's personal lives, but if you don't think that your pictures of binge driniing, bikini selfies, opinions on marijuana and/or Ann Coulter that you broadcast on your personal billboard have no effect on you getting calls on jobs, well, urine idiot.

Lots of mean spirited put downs. Nice, real nice.


? How so?

I am just pointing out that most people are extremely naive about their online activity has real life consequences. Employers do web searches on their applicants all the time, and it is very easy to disciminate based on looks, politics, gender, race, sexuality, recreational choices -whatever else you have - when you bare your soul on a Facebook page.

Not being mean, just trying to let folks know the reality of how it works.
 
2014-07-10 03:58:13 AM  
Drugs are bad.  Always have been and always will be.

Just ask anyone between the ages of fifty and seventy.
 
2014-07-10 04:01:14 AM  
All-I-read-was-the-headline-spoilers:

He still has his security job. His other employer is a temp outfit, and they didn't so much fire him, as they asked him to pass a drug test, by Thursday. I've been trying to muster up some sympathy for the last couple minutes, and it's just not happening.
 
2014-07-10 04:01:17 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: It's very, very early in the legalization movement. Best to keep your head low for the moment unless you're willing possibly to pay a big price. Being an activist is great and all, but it very well may have consequences of which you have no recourse. Those with more to lose than they're willing to give up should especially exercise some caution. Oh, and free the weed.


Sage advice.

Not quite a legal/illegal argument, but it reminds me of 10 years ago with everyone rushing onto Facebook to post their drunken dildo-waving party photos.

What were people thinking?!
 
2014-07-10 04:03:51 AM  

bekovich: Fair enough, if the guy is in security, you'd be concerned your guy was going to show up blazed. Alcohol is legal too, but no employer would tolerate an employee showing up drunk ,either.


Do you work with any night security? I've worked with tons (and been a guard, etc). They are either drunk or blazed or want to talk about the government stealing guns. Those are the only three flavors they ever seem to come in.

It's all about playing it cool until the second shifter goes home and making sure everything is cleaned up before the first shifter comes in.

/Your night security also goes through your desks and pees off the roof and knows how to break into every secure area and the best path to take to stay off camera and...
//You get bored and have to make your own entertainment.
 
2014-07-10 04:05:48 AM  

nickdaisy: My take is that both the employer and the employee should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.  That includes contracting for everything short of slavery.

So if the employer wants to have a no stoners policy-- let 'em.

I'd even go so far-- hold onto your crocs farkers-- that if an employer wants to racially discriminate-- let 'em.  the civil rights act was an anti-rights act.  obviously racial discrimination is terrible, but what one does in the private sphere is their own business, including being an idiot.

as we celebrate the slow and long overdue march toward legalization of marijuana, we should look at what other liberties we've surrendered to the state to make us "better," including the right to be bigoted.  again-- i strongly object to racist ideas, but also reject the notion that there's federal authority beyond what's delineated in the constitution.

and just as there's no authority to regulate pot, there's no authority to tell idiots not to be idiots when acting in a private capacity.

who's with me?


I can live with that, though that sounds dangerously close to the entire Libertarian philosophy, and also dangerously close to the INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION!

Freedom to do whatever we want, including the pursuit of happiness, as long as it doesn't affect others in their own pursuits.
 
2014-07-10 04:09:07 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: It's very, very early in the legalization movement. Best to keep your head low for the moment unless you're willing possibly to pay a big price. Being an activist is great and all, but it very well may have consequences of which you have no recourse. Those with more to lose than they're willing to give up should especially exercise some caution. Oh, and free the weed.


This is how progress happens.

Keep your head down and support the King.
 
2014-07-10 04:15:11 AM  

ongbok: Bonzo_1116: ongbok: Somebody in another thread today made a comment that the city attorney in his town made a public statement that now that weed was legal he is going to to buy some now. My first thought was how long before he comes in and there is a piss cup on his desk and a letter informing him to report to the testing place immediately.

A city attorney has no obligations to the feds. Usually they are hired/fired by the mayor or city council. Some are elected.

If the mayor doesn't care, the Feds have no jurisdiction to come down on the guy except to harass and to *guarantee* a lawsuit that will appeal all the way up.

He is a public employe. If the city has an anti drug policy then he is subject to it. If the guy really did make a public statement like that and somebody wants to make a stink, he will be gone, unless the city wants to change their policy towards employees and marijuana usage.


If it's a flyspeck town where the mayor blazes up too (or possibly grows his own) the hassling will come from outside. City attorneys aren't truly public servants in the traditional sense...they are the in house consigliere for the local govt.

I get the feeling that the city attorney in this case is well aware of the implications of running out to score some putatively legal green.
 
2014-07-10 04:32:17 AM  
Okay, precident is out there that you can fire people, or refuse to hire them, if they use tobacco.

But in the medical pot states, can you fire or refuse to hire someone who has a card? Under ADA, where does that fit?
 
2014-07-10 04:55:06 AM  
My impression is that the guy is desperate for attention.

...and I can't help wondering what his Fark login is.
 
2014-07-10 05:18:47 AM  

wildcardjack: Okay, precident is out there that you can fire people, or refuse to hire them, if they use tobacco.

But in the medical pot states, can you fire or refuse to hire someone who has a card? Under ADA, where does that fit?


You can fire them.  Dish did it in Colorado.  The guy was a quadraplegic who answered phones for them. He had a medical marijuana card.  He got tested, got fired and took it to court.  He lost.
 
2014-07-10 05:21:01 AM  
I can see firing him over this, it's a security job, not a cashier at Walmart.  You don't want to run a security company people associate with potheads, they're not the most alert people.
 
2014-07-10 05:23:36 AM  

Bandito King: bekovich: Fair enough, if the guy is in security, you'd be concerned your guy was going to show up blazed. Alcohol is legal too, but no employer would tolerate an employee showing up drunk ,either.

Do you work with any night security? I've worked with tons (and been a guard, etc). They are either drunk or blazed or want to talk about the government stealing guns. Those are the only three flavors they ever seem to come in.

It's all about playing it cool until the second shifter goes home and making sure everything is cleaned up before the first shifter comes in.

/Your night security also goes through your desks and pees off the roof and knows how to break into every secure area and the best path to take to stay off camera and...
//You get bored and have to make your own entertainment.


Gus
 
2014-07-10 05:33:26 AM  

gfid: wildcardjack: Okay, precident is out there that you can fire people, or refuse to hire them, if they use tobacco.

But in the medical pot states, can you fire or refuse to hire someone who has a card? Under ADA, where does that fit?

You can fire them.  Dish did it in Colorado.  The guy was a quadraplegic who answered phones for them. He had a medical marijuana card.  He got tested, got fired and took it to court.  He lost.


A basket case? How? How does he answer the phone? Tap away at the database? How does he pack a bowl?
 
2014-07-10 05:44:46 AM  

bekovich: Alcohol is legal too, but no employer would tolerate an employee showing up drunk ,either.


I think weed is lame (it makes people very, very boring whilst they are convinced they're being very, very interesting) but the difference is you can get a positive for a test and not be high.  No one thinks you're drunk if you had one glass of wine at lunch, they shouldn't get to claim you're high at work if you smoked a joint on the weekend.

It's none of their business what entirely legal activities you get up to outside work hours.  The only thing that's their business is whether your performance at work is suffering (regardless of whether it's because you're high or you stayed up three nights playing WoW).
 
2014-07-10 05:45:07 AM  

thesloppy: All-I-read-was-the-headline-spoilers:

He still has his security job. His other employer is a temp outfit, and they didn't so much fire him, as they asked him to pass a drug test, by Thursday. I've been trying to muster up some sympathy for the last couple minutes, and it's just not happening.


That.

Not fired yet. They've only asked him to take a drug test.  There's tons of products on the market to help you "cleanse", "detox" or otherwise pass a urine test. And I can tell you from experience that some of them actually work.

"Hell yeah I passed my drug test. I just wanted to be first in line to buy it. I didn't actually ingest any of it. That would be against company policy!"

And if that doesn't work, then hey ... looks like he's gonna be sitting on his couch for the next six months collecting unemployment, ripping bong hits and watching old Dukes of Hazzard reruns. Not a bad life.
 
2014-07-10 05:46:50 AM  
Stoners once again proving they are not among our (or "are" for those of you who went to school in Chicago) best and brightest. This idiot even wasted 20 hours of his life standing in line to buy it.
 
2014-07-10 05:54:14 AM  

hasty ambush: Stoners once again proving they are not among our (or "are" for those of you who went to school in Chicago) best and brightest. This idiot even wasted 20 hours of his life standing in line to buy it.


Hahahaha I was subby for that one. Weird.
 
2014-07-10 05:56:21 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: ArkAngel: feckingmorons: Meh

Companies can have their own rules about illegal drugs.

You know it is still illegal .... right?

Doesn't even have to be illegal. Unless Washington is one of the states that ban firing based on legal substances, he's screwed.

Boyer posted his claim and resume on Craigslist in a post titled "LOST MY JOB! still #1 tho!!"

Because losing a job and showing this level of idiocy is certainly worth the same marijuana you could have purchased the next day.

It will be interesting to see how the employment angle is handled as the situation evolves in CO and WA.  Right now, yes, there are no legal protections.  I do firmly believe that there should be legal protections, and not just for pot but for tobacco, alcohol, or whatever other legal substances you want to enjoy in your own time as long as you don't come to work under the influence.

In the absence of a legislative solution to protect workers I'm hoping that companies start to realize that most marijuana users are upstanding productive citizens and make a point to advertise that they do not consider off-time marijuana use to be a problem for hiring/employment.  Doing so will certainly open up a larger pool of applicants for compared to the companies that continue to subscribe to the doctrine of prohibition.


Would love to see the links you have showing users to be mostly productive.
 
2014-07-10 05:58:33 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: So, he shouldn't have any problem finding another $8 an hour job.  He's obviously not very smart or he would have at least tried to hide it knowing his employer drug tests.


$8 and hour and still enough disposable income to waste on buying some vegetation that he is just going too ignite and inhale the fumes.



You would have thought he would have at least used the money to upgrade his wardrobe  to that of an adult male instead of dressing like some teenager.




assets.nydailynews.com
 
2014-07-10 06:02:21 AM  

rev. dave: I know an employer who tests people for tobacco and fires them if any is in their system.


Whizzinator.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report