-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
EvilRaven1031
Member
if employers can still persecute someone for smoking marijuana, even though that person has a medical recommendation, i believe that employers should extend their drug screening to include pharmaceuticals.
good for one, good for all....right?
good for one, good for all....right?
This is for Athletes-- They are held at a more stringent drug abstinent decree than us--
Any drug use is too much...when you are paid millions to stay clean and represent your sport!!
Us Stoners...we just hit a bong at Partys...and hope it doesn't cost us a deal with Kellogg--
Any drug use is too much...when you are paid millions to stay clean and represent your sport!!
Us Stoners...we just hit a bong at Partys...and hope it doesn't cost us a deal with Kellogg--
J
JackTheGrower
California can fire you for testing positive for cannabis.
So there is another level to the war.. Economic..
Oh I'm telling everyone we have work to do and get up stand up for your rights!
Changing to Schedule II will help.
You know we are not Cattle! But the Corporations don't care if we have rights or not .. Just that we produce as much as cheaply as possible and cannabis is seen as a productivity issue.
While Meth is seen as a productivity booster.
Figure that one out..
So there is another level to the war.. Economic..
Oh I'm telling everyone we have work to do and get up stand up for your rights!
Changing to Schedule II will help.
You know we are not Cattle! But the Corporations don't care if we have rights or not .. Just that we produce as much as cheaply as possible and cannabis is seen as a productivity issue.
While Meth is seen as a productivity booster.
Figure that one out..
What is ironic about this story is that my company was started because my former employer challenged me when I claimed that weed was legal in California.
daddy fingaz
Active member
Damn right! This is what gets me about drug testing employees, a mate of mine works for a big US company here in the UK and he got tested before he started work there and gets random tests now, are you really telling me that smoking a few joints the night before work might impair your ability to work safely and productively the next day as much as alcohol would!!??
If i got dismissed for it i would go mental (obviuosly due to 'skunk psychosis' lol) but i would be taking them to the European court of human rights or something!!
But Raven is right they cant have a prejudice towards non pharmaceutical prescribed drugs!!!
EvilRaven1031
Member
all im saying is that medicine should be medicine.
I thought in the sports world they were primarily concerned with performance enhancing drugs. Especially in this case I don't see mmj as something that is going to make a fighter dominate in the ring. Someone is taking their political frustrations out I would venture.
I agree 100% with the alcohol comments. I know I've missed days of work and spent other days in zombie mode (i.e. zero productivity) because of hangovers. I can't recall ever missing work because I smoked out too much the night before. How does an employer have a legitimate interest specifically in this case but not in the case of a million other more harmful habits that no doctor would recommend?
I agree 100% with the alcohol comments. I know I've missed days of work and spent other days in zombie mode (i.e. zero productivity) because of hangovers. I can't recall ever missing work because I smoked out too much the night before. How does an employer have a legitimate interest specifically in this case but not in the case of a million other more harmful habits that no doctor would recommend?
The co-opting of employers has long been the most insidious element of state oppression in the "War on Drugs". An employer has no rational or other legitimate economic interest in what an employee consumes or does not consume in his or her own time.
The extension of a legal right to an employer to require drug testing and the idea that the detection of marijuana in the bloodstream would provide just cause for dismissal is pretty much the High Water mark of zealotry in the War on Drugs.
The idea that an employer even has a right to test for drug use, generally, is a concept that is at odds with individual freedoms and rights. Its origin in the industry workplace lies with the Ford Motor Co. and its practice of investigating employees for drinking alcohol (and philandering) in their off hours during the height of the Temperance movement.
Usually, the United States stands at the forefront of democracies on these sorts of matters. True, America is usually near the bottom of the pack when it comes to actively spending money in favor of some social justice cause. Such expenditures go against America's deeply ingrained distrust of all government. However, when it comes to preventing some entity from *doing something* (as opposed to requiring them to do something), America's political culture lends itself well to this sort of legislation and public policy.
But not in this case. It is a real oddity, given that for the most part, employers don't even really CARE what their employees do or don't do in their off time, as long as they show up and produce when they are required to do so.
In Canada, for example, the vast majority of employers are not permitted to test employees for any substance (there are some exceptions in the federally regulated banking and transport industries, but that's about it.) Detection of marijuana in the bloodstream is not just cause for dismissal in Canada either, in any province. And to be clear, unlike a quarter of the states in the USA which have decriminalized marijuana - Canada has never taken that step.
One wonders how marijuana use could ever be just cause for dismissal in any state in America, either. Rationally, it simply makes no sense: there is no cause and effect to point to so as justify it on a rational basis. The fact that it has, nevertheless, been accepted as just cause, does not speak to any rational policy reason in favor of employers or with respect to business interests generally, either.
No. The acceptance of marijuana use as just cause for dismissal is instead an attempt by government policy to co-opt employers into doing indirectly what the State cannot do directly: randomly drug-test its citizens and hold the threat of such tests and a consequent loss of income in terrorem over the citizen. It's public policy by private means; economic intimidation to promote citizens to refrain from the use of drugs.
It's an irrational, intrusive and highly-objectionable bully tactic of the state, conducted through employers as their proxy. Amazingly, Americans put up with it, too.
This will, at some point, end. Should a marijuana legalization ballot initiative prevail in California, I fully expect the courts to remove marijuana use from the "just cause" ledger in employment law and that line of dominoes will begin to slowly fall. While it will take some time to work itself out, marijuana use by employees in their off hours will be adjudged a private activity in which an employer has no legitimate interest.
And this nonsensical story, with a sports theme, will then move instead to the surreal Ross Rebaglieti Zone where "marijuana used as a performance enhancing drug" becomes the whipping boy of the Drug Warriors. But only for a short while. *sigh*
All by way of saying: this too shall pass.
The extension of a legal right to an employer to require drug testing and the idea that the detection of marijuana in the bloodstream would provide just cause for dismissal is pretty much the High Water mark of zealotry in the War on Drugs.
The idea that an employer even has a right to test for drug use, generally, is a concept that is at odds with individual freedoms and rights. Its origin in the industry workplace lies with the Ford Motor Co. and its practice of investigating employees for drinking alcohol (and philandering) in their off hours during the height of the Temperance movement.
Usually, the United States stands at the forefront of democracies on these sorts of matters. True, America is usually near the bottom of the pack when it comes to actively spending money in favor of some social justice cause. Such expenditures go against America's deeply ingrained distrust of all government. However, when it comes to preventing some entity from *doing something* (as opposed to requiring them to do something), America's political culture lends itself well to this sort of legislation and public policy.
But not in this case. It is a real oddity, given that for the most part, employers don't even really CARE what their employees do or don't do in their off time, as long as they show up and produce when they are required to do so.
In Canada, for example, the vast majority of employers are not permitted to test employees for any substance (there are some exceptions in the federally regulated banking and transport industries, but that's about it.) Detection of marijuana in the bloodstream is not just cause for dismissal in Canada either, in any province. And to be clear, unlike a quarter of the states in the USA which have decriminalized marijuana - Canada has never taken that step.
One wonders how marijuana use could ever be just cause for dismissal in any state in America, either. Rationally, it simply makes no sense: there is no cause and effect to point to so as justify it on a rational basis. The fact that it has, nevertheless, been accepted as just cause, does not speak to any rational policy reason in favor of employers or with respect to business interests generally, either.
No. The acceptance of marijuana use as just cause for dismissal is instead an attempt by government policy to co-opt employers into doing indirectly what the State cannot do directly: randomly drug-test its citizens and hold the threat of such tests and a consequent loss of income in terrorem over the citizen. It's public policy by private means; economic intimidation to promote citizens to refrain from the use of drugs.
It's an irrational, intrusive and highly-objectionable bully tactic of the state, conducted through employers as their proxy. Amazingly, Americans put up with it, too.
This will, at some point, end. Should a marijuana legalization ballot initiative prevail in California, I fully expect the courts to remove marijuana use from the "just cause" ledger in employment law and that line of dominoes will begin to slowly fall. While it will take some time to work itself out, marijuana use by employees in their off hours will be adjudged a private activity in which an employer has no legitimate interest.
And this nonsensical story, with a sports theme, will then move instead to the surreal Ross Rebaglieti Zone where "marijuana used as a performance enhancing drug" becomes the whipping boy of the Drug Warriors. But only for a short while. *sigh*
All by way of saying: this too shall pass.
I understand wanting to apply the same standard to MMJ as Alcohol, but the fact is that Marijuana is an ILLEGAL drug. Just because your state says they won't enforce marijuana laws and they "claim" they will protect patients, it doesn't trump federal law. Because it's an illegal drug and still considered illicit the employers right to test for it will be protected.
Same as if a cop pulls you over and takes your stash as "Evidence" even though you claim you have a medical marijuana rec. from a doctor doesn't mean they have to give it back. Because it's illegal by federal law, the police would be forced to partake in breaking that federal law to give you your shit back, so they don't have to and usually don't.
It's f*cked up and I sincerely hope that someday this tyranny will end, but it's unrealistic under our current federal legislation for that to happen. Random drug testing should be outlawed altogether. It's a complete invasion of my privacy. My employer does not need to know what prescriptions I'm on or what my current medical conditions might be. They can actually speculate quite a bit from that. An employer should have to have some reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence of a drug to have you tested. For example if you cause a fork lift accident in the warehouse and during the interview during the investigation you appear to be "high" then it should be allowed. But even calling it "random" and doing it without reason should be illegal.
I just don't see the point of it. I can't come to work drunk and expect to keep my job, they don't need a test to determine I'm drunk. I don't need a test to determine someone has come to work stoned. I know people can get away with smoking a little before work or on break and it's hard to tell they are stoned, but then I say "fuck it" they aren't "intoxicated". Just like having a beer at lunch, it's not the same as coming in drunk.
Same as if a cop pulls you over and takes your stash as "Evidence" even though you claim you have a medical marijuana rec. from a doctor doesn't mean they have to give it back. Because it's illegal by federal law, the police would be forced to partake in breaking that federal law to give you your shit back, so they don't have to and usually don't.
It's f*cked up and I sincerely hope that someday this tyranny will end, but it's unrealistic under our current federal legislation for that to happen. Random drug testing should be outlawed altogether. It's a complete invasion of my privacy. My employer does not need to know what prescriptions I'm on or what my current medical conditions might be. They can actually speculate quite a bit from that. An employer should have to have some reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence of a drug to have you tested. For example if you cause a fork lift accident in the warehouse and during the interview during the investigation you appear to be "high" then it should be allowed. But even calling it "random" and doing it without reason should be illegal.
I just don't see the point of it. I can't come to work drunk and expect to keep my job, they don't need a test to determine I'm drunk. I don't need a test to determine someone has come to work stoned. I know people can get away with smoking a little before work or on break and it's hard to tell they are stoned, but then I say "fuck it" they aren't "intoxicated". Just like having a beer at lunch, it's not the same as coming in drunk.
W
whiterasta
That was one of the "backroom deals" our compassionate cannabis advocates in the capital bargained out of the OMMA years ago. In Oregon being a med user is a defacto firing and persistant unemployment sentence. Not only that, and I cannot explaiin why this is, You will never see a dime of SSD if you have a medical card in oregon,I do not care how profoundly disabled or ill you may be you WILL be denied. I know one man here who managed to get by the system and get his SSD while holding a card but was dropped in less than three yrs because his wife's biz was doing well( HUH?) For myself I've been part of the MMJ movement for over three decades. I was in the first 100 card holders in the state. I qualify for the card with several conditions which cannabis is necessary to stay off dangerous and expensive phamaceuticals. I however had to give up my protected right to use cannabis in order to recieve the SSD I have worked since 15 for.
The economic war is still raging against us.
WR
The economic war is still raging against us.
WR
karmasabitch
Member
I can't wait until the first cases are brought to court to fight this foolishness. When the court awards $$$$ to the patients you'll see how fast the testers will change their tune. Patients are out there working while using strong narcotic pahrmacuticles legally many of them having side effects affect their performance. Along with putting the public and their co workers at risk due to side effects. What a travesty.
I almost got fired before by an employer who one day started demanding DMV records. I had already been there for two years with no problems. They told me that sometimes employees drive together to lunch or company events, so they have to ensure everyone's safety. I told them to fuck off, that driving was no where in my job description or duties, and to stay the fuck out of my car if they are that worried. I got a write up in my file and just about made the HR lady have an aneurysm. She even had my coworkers bust my balls about it, but in the end they never got my DMV records. I was at another place for about 3 months and got fired for refusing a drug test on moral grounds.
In terrorem and ad baculum for sure. These days I have more serious financial obligations and can't afford to lose my job over protecting my rights.
In terrorem and ad baculum for sure. These days I have more serious financial obligations and can't afford to lose my job over protecting my rights.
Without putting too fine a point on it: what the hell are you talking about? What "federal law" are you referring to? The one that says that private employers have the right to enforce public criminal statutes? I seem to have missed that regulation. Care to point it out for me?
First off, using marijuana is not, in itself, a crime. Possessing it, transporting, trafficking, selling, importing, exporting and cultivating it is a crime - but not the use of it, per se. (I admit, it is virtually impossible to avoid possessing it while using it, but still, in the context you raise the issue, it's worth mentioning.)
Secondly, what does the fact that it is a crime have to do with just cause for dismissal? Assault and battery is a crime too. But if you take a swing at someone down at the local pool hall, and get a criminal conviction for it - that's not just cause for dismissal in most states. And why the hell SHOULD it be?
Far more to the point is the case where you take a swing at someone down at the pool hall and don't get charged for it. There's no conviction at all. Would the employer be justified in firing you then? I think the answer is resoundingly, "no". How is is it different then if instead of taking a swing at the guy who grabbed your woman's boob, you turned the other cheek, went outside and took a hit of an Iolite, and went back inside?
In neither case has there been a conviction. In neither case is there any impairment with the ability to do one's job the following day.
The entire idea behind drug testing and "just cause" is an acceptance of FALSE science that gives life to the lie that impairment on a Friday night has any reasonable bearing on one's job performance on Monday morning. It's a prohibitionist lie. Justifying it by relying on a criminal statute as an excuse is all it is: an excuse.
So who talked you into accepting that there was some reasonable and rational connection between a punch down at the pool hall and firing someone for poor job performance? Why would that be justifiable at all?
Many democracies don't even RECOGNIZE that an employer has a right to deny employment to someone because of a criminal record. It's not rational in terms of public policy or on a private economic basis, either. But in Hang Em High JAIL EM ALL America - it seems to have been accepted as rational - even though it demonstrably isn't.
So, whatever moral / philisophical position you are approaching this from, let me say this: you are coming off as a DUPE and a SHILL for the Prohibitionist cause here. You appear to have accepted, without qualm, that just because something is illegal, that gives a private person the right to fire you over it.
Why ever would that be? Why would that make any rational sense whatsoever?
seekinggreen
Member
I'm not sure about what other sports the CSAC governs but for professional MMA fighters strict drug testing is the norm. Karo Parisyan, a fairly prominent UFC fighter was stripped of a win for testing positive for opioid based prescription pain killers. I'm not saying that what the commission is doing is right but it's part of the game for pro athletes. I would think that with the rigorous training and competition athletes endure they should be able to have more choices in the types of medicine they are allowed to use.
FreshlyShaven
Member
Firing someone for using a doctor-recommended medicine is fucked. But the court was right to rule the way it did- nowhere in the law did it say that employers had to recognize the doctor's prescription or that it's illegal to discriminate against medical marijuana users. Not only that, but many insurance companies offer discounts to businesses that drug test and many federal contracts require companies to drug test in order to be eligible.
If the medical marijuana community could pass Prop 215 by such wide margins(which have only grown in our favor since then), I'm sure they'd be able to pass a referendum banning discrimination on the basis of one's use of medical marijuana or add "medical marijuana patient" to the list of protected classes which currently include race, gender, disability, religion and sexual orientation. I mean, who would vote against a "medical marijuana patients' bill of rights"? Who supports firing law-abiding citizens because they're sick?
If the medical marijuana community could pass Prop 215 by such wide margins(which have only grown in our favor since then), I'm sure they'd be able to pass a referendum banning discrimination on the basis of one's use of medical marijuana or add "medical marijuana patient" to the list of protected classes which currently include race, gender, disability, religion and sexual orientation. I mean, who would vote against a "medical marijuana patients' bill of rights"? Who supports firing law-abiding citizens because they're sick?
Oh man, I hope this forum isn't full of guys like you. Please don't quote PART of what I wrote and act like I support the system that's currently in place.
It is the way it is because employers have the right to fire you for ANYTHING they want that isn't illegal (such as sexism, agism, and other expressly ILLEGAL reasons to fire someone). As it SHOULD be. An employer COULD fire you for using alcohol the night before (at least in California where all employment is "at will", "right to work" states would obviously be a different case). To end that would require legislation infriging upon the employers right to employ or fire whoever the hell they want for whatever reason they want.
I think it should NOT be legal for employers to request drug tests, but that would require legislation. The FACT is that as long as marijuana is an illicit drug and viewed the way that is in our society, you won't see legislation passed to infringe upon the rights of the employers (read: wealthy businesses). It'll never gain traction and the money won't be there to fight that battle. You think it'll be supported by the MAJORITY of people to nix drug testing all together? The panic would be enormous.
I don't like it, but at least I don't try to twist it into some shit it's not. In california the employer doesn't need to have "just cause" to do anything. In california if an employer asked to see your DMV record and you didn't provide it, they could fire you. If an employer SUSPECTS you have stolen something without any evidence, investigation or with the presence of obvious doubt, they can fire you.
from employeeissues.com:
Employment at will is a is legal concept referred to as the Doctrine of Employment at Will. It essentially means that, in the absence of employment contracts (such as collective bargaining agreements) that indicate otherwise, employers generally may fire employees for any reasons, no reasons and even unfair reasons, as long as they are not illegal reasons.
I don't like it, I hate it, but it is what it is. If you want to change it go ahead and try, but the "drug" cause isn't going to work. Gotta change it under some OTHER precident to get the public support necessary.
That doesn't in any way make me a SHILL or a DUPE. It makes me educated and realistic. Please don't partially quote me again and don't come at me like you know what you're talking about when you're clearly trying to see things the way that you want them to be, not the way that they are.
Crazy analogies of irrelevant legal situations have NOTHING to do with employment law so spare me.
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
