Cannabis Lover Loses Job After Being First to Buy Legal Pot in Spokane

And so the plot thickens. What was once a method of eliminating "undesirables" from the labor pool may, in my estimation, eventually turn into a full-blown civil rights issue.

What becomes of the THC test? Can employers discriminate against people who choose to engage in (off the clock) perfectly legal activities?

Job up in smoke! Cannabis lover loses work after being first to buy legal pot

Mike Boyer from Washington State had been waiting for hours before the first marijuana legal shop opened in his town. But after purchase, the pot enthusiast received a demand from his employer to undergo a drug test, he told local media.

The 30-year-old cannabis lover finally bought his cherished stash of Sour Kush for $50 dollars, and the happy purchase was broadcast by TV stations and photographed by newspapers.

Boyer said that when he headed home to enjoy the fun, he received a message from his employer that he should do a drug test. He told The New York Daily News that he did the test and it came back positive for THC, the mind-altering ingredient in marijuana. After the test, Boyer told the local newspapers that he lost his position at Kodiak Security Services.

What say you, ATS? Should it be illegal for employers to base hiring decisions on the presence of legal substances found in an applicant's body?

I think so.

a reply to: NthOther

Yep, I agree with you bud. Legal is legal.

a reply to: NthOther

As long as the guy does his job while not baked I can not see a problem with it.
Funny we were talking about this at my work and we can be tested etc but If they did at least two thirds of our staff would be fired.
At the end of the day though he signed the contract, he knew what was in it.

a reply to: NthOther

That is a tough question.
Technically they can do this. Wal mart is known for firing medical MJ employees for being open about it. They can still drug test you and not hire you due to company policy.

The state may be legal, however, it is still illegal under federal law, so they can do it.

is it right?

if you are in a position where you can screw up and harm others on the job, then yes, otherwise, IMO, No.
However,until it is legal from a federal standpoint, employers can do this.

I have nothing against people smoking legally or otherwise, if they can remain responsible people..But an employer absolutely has the right to choose only to hire and employ people who do not do drugs.

Cigarettes are legal as well, and an employer can choose not to hire smokers.

Particularly if this guy worked for a security agency...dude should have been intelligent enough to not have his face broadcast on the news.

Would they have fired him if he decided to drink in his own time away from work?

Interesting to see how the smear campaign on cannabis has worked so well.

a reply to: NthOther

A private employer has the right to maintain employment conditions.

It may be legal to smoke THC...but what if your employment involves operating heavy equipment or something similar? The employer needs the employees fully functioning. If they determine a drug test helps them do that, their call.

This goes for lots of other things.

It is legal to be drunk...but not behind the wheel of a car.

It is legal to have a gun on your person...but not on a commercial flight.

a reply to: NthOther

It's a no-go if you work in a safety sensitive job.

Unfortunately, employers in Washington still have the right to ask for drug tests and to fire people for using it. It's a state law that should be addressed alongside the legalization laws, IMO.

I disagree with the company's actions. free the weed!

And? My job doesn't like me drinking at work either and it's legal as well


Since when is it a civil rights issue for an employer to have criteria for it's employees?

It's not racial discrimination. It's not gender discrimination.and it's not age discrimination...


So there is no civil rights violation

I have nothing against pot and feel it should be legal. But I do take issue with people crying about this


You got it legal and now it's like if you get an inch you take a mile


Entitlement attitude needs to stop.....quit sniveling

Edit: op this isn't directed at you but rather the situation

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

Cigarettes are legal as well, and an employer can choose not to hire smokers.

And here is the answer. If you do not like it, it is up to you to organize people and get the law changed. As the law currently stands employers have the right to not hire and even fire employees for engaging in activities they don't agree with like smoking tobacco even when on your own time.

It is important to note that THC can be detected in blood and urine streams for weeks after cannabis use. Just because it's "in your system" doesn't mean you're "high" at that moment.

So you could be operating heavy machinery, be called off to take a drug test, fail it, and would have in no way put anyone at risk because you haven't used in three weeks.

See the problem? The testing procedure doesn't accurately assess what it is they're trying to determine.

a reply to: NthOther


Depends if they're under the influence or not? It would be the same as turning up drunk or really hungover.
If it affects your work then they can sack you, if you just smoke in your spare time and don't go in stoned or high, then I cannot see what the issue is and people should take legal action for wrongful dismissal.

I don't even see why this a issue.

First of all, where did he work? What are the safety issues?

You can't base laws off personal experience. Where one stoner can function perfectly well, another might cause the death of himself or another.

A truck driver should not be allowed to smoke except on vacation, whereas a burger flipper can do it all day long?

There has to be standards.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It is all a new situation, so these road bumps are to be expected. My only worry is that once it becomes totally legal, on a federal level, people will be discriminated against for their choice to indulge.

This IS a possibility.

However, long term, it will only become more socially accepted than it already is, and then it will be the same as getting busted for drinking on the job. You do it at work or before work, and you get fired.

But at that point, they will not be able to fire you for it turning up in a UA.
If they choose to not hire you due to it turning up in a AU, once it becomes totally legal, then you might just have a fighting chance with a good lawyer, but really, all they have to do if they want, is just toss your app.

I imagine they will stop testing for it though once it goes federal.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz3
I disagree with the company's actions. free the weed!

So says the yougun' that has no clue.

I'm all about freein' the weed, but lets have some common sense about it.

Like a roadside test that can tell if you are currently stoned. The penalty, the same as if you were drunk. That sort of thing.

The tech is there. But nobody wants to pay for it...at least until towns realize they can make even more revenue off of it.

a reply to: NthOther

Well, it's only as legal as the state allows it to be.

Another point here, is that unless they are going to do spot check alcohol tests, and treat consumption of that substance as severely, they really have no reason to behave this way toward the fellow in question for smoking a perfectly legal substance in his free time.

What crap. There are many completely legal things that people take that can impair them on the job, from their pharmaceutical meds to caffeine. I know people are going to use the old "but you don't know if they smoked when they got up this morning" excuse. Yeah, and you don't know if Joe Schmoe took his meds last night or this morning, either. It's a double standard that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's not a matter of which type of impairment is safer than the other, it's a matter of fairness. Assuming 2 folks are impaired at the same time on the job, one from smoking up, the other from popping their medication, who do you think is more likely to get canned for being impaired?
Think about that for a while, and you'll see why it's unfair.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Another point here, is that unless they are going to do spot check alcohol tests, and treat consumption of that substance as severely, they really have no reason to behave this way toward the fellow in question for smoking a perfectly legal substance in his free time.

I did work for a company that also tested for alcohol during the random drug screening and if your blood alcohol level was at the impairment level you could face termination or at minimum disciplinary action.