It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY
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.




You're right.

The numbers have changed in recent years, but it totally legal in some states to fire someone because they are gay. Or evict them from a rental property, because they are gay. Supreme court wouldn't even touch that one...




posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
When I used to work for GM every time we got a new supervisior we would play stoned Thursday so the new guy would request a drug test after lunch on Thursday and the paperwork wouldn't come back till after lunch on Friday so we would get a 3 1/2 day weekend and paid for the time we waited. That might happen 3-4 times a year and nobody really cared





posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, but if you drank enough to be impaired the next day, when you know you have work, that is totally different. For a start, THC is processed at an entirely different rate by the body. Alcohol clears out pretty damned fast, as long as one has not been very silly with it indeed. But THC hangs around for a long time. I mean, one could have consumed something more than twenty four hours ago, and be suffering no impairment of any kind later on and still have a significant amount in ones sample.

Having it present in a sample does not mean that it is still active on the body in any significant way, and I think the double standard of it being legal, but companies being allowed to fire people who have consumed it in their free time, is absolutely scraping the barrel. Here you have a state which is actually making progress toward a more enlightened approach to the issue of pot, and some store manager decides that he knows better than the entire state legislature?

I mean, what are people supposed to think about this exactly?



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Yes, but if you drank enough to be impaired the next day, when you know you have work, that is totally different.


But sadly, people still do it. I do not think I have had one job where I did not run into a hardcore alcoholic.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Well, the bottom line is that it is nobodies business what a person does or takes within the privacy of their own home and it should be nobodies business what meds or choices someone makes in life.

Knowing some people (actually a LOT of people) who are on some heavy meds and working, I actually have wondered if they were impaired or not? and judged personally that they were which made me chuckle.

Almost everybody is on something.

The difference here is when it comes to work and recreational use of booze and MJ.
No one wants a drunk on the job, but it is fine after, might even have one with you.
it should be no different for pot if and when it becomes legal everywhere.

It generally is a recreational drug.
it also has medical uses,lots of them, and those who require medical, should be allowed to keep their jobs if they are stoned at work unless they have a job where others can be put in harms way. it should be no different than a prescription.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
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.

I think so too. If somebody is using a legal substance on their own time their employer shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it. Alcohol and tobacco are both legal substances too, so why aren't they firing people who use those on their own time? I'm willing to bet that most of these employers doing the firing for legal marijuana use are just stodgy old fashioned dinks looking for any excuse to get one over on "those damn pot smoking hippies".

P.S. Don't expect this thread to last too long. Oversensitive admins usually delete threads that have any mention of drugs in the OP.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Lawsuits will follow. In states where it is legal it is no different than using alcohol. Until they start firing people for buying 6 packs, they wont be able to fire people for buying a $20 sack.

Id sue for sooooooo much, if I were him.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I am in agreement with the employer on drug testing. Although the individual isn't using it on the job, they are still high because it is still in their system. Alcohol is different, it is metabolized within hours. With pot, metabolization can take weeks.

In my observation of pot users and the effects of the drug on the user, it induces social withdrawal and it turns an individual into a complete moron when high.

All jobs require some amount of focus, pot usage take that away. Also the federal government will never legalize marijuana, they have nothing to gain from federal legalization.
edit on 10-7-2014 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Lawsuits will follow. In states where it is legal it is no different than using alcohol. Until they start firing people for buying 6 packs, they wont be able to fire people for buying a $20 sack.

Id sue for sooooooo much, if I were him.

Here's where state law comes into play. If the law has no provision for circumstances such as these, then I'm afraid our protagonist is screwed.

States that are considering following the examples of Colorado and Washington should take careful note of this.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: eManym




I am in agreement with the employer on drug testing. Although the individual isn't using it on the job, they are still high because it is still in their system.
Completely and totally false. It being present in your system does not in any way mean you are still high.




In my observation pot users and the effects of the drug on the user, it induces social withdrawal and it turns an individual into a complete moron when high.
Im guessing most of your experiences have been with 16 year olds....




All jobs require some amount of focus, pot usage take that away.
No more than use of anti depressents, anti psychotics, diet pills, alcohol, antibiotics.....hell, you can say that about processed foods.

Nice try though.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther



Here's where state law comes into play. If the law has no provision for circumstances such as these, then I'm afraid our protagonist is screwed.

the precedence has to be set. This will be one of the first cases to set it. Ill bet money he wins, as its a privacy issue.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
What a muncher
getting filmed going to buy some mj it is a employer's market out there

What did he expect a brass band

Sue them big time



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

the precedence has to be set. This will be one of the first cases to set it. Ill bet money he wins, as its a privacy issue.

Touche.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I used to work in a frozen food retail outlet in my late teens. At the time, I lived in a room, at the back of a pub. I would wake up, drink a quarter of a bottle of dark rum for breakfast, light a smoke, go to work, come back to the bar for a pint of ale with my lunch, then go back to work, finish my shift, come back to the pub, sit in there drinking my head off until well past closing time, continue drinking in my room, and do it all over again the next day.

The sheer tedium of that job, was such that if I had not have been two ways wasted at least, I never would have been able to put up with it.

I was none the less, one of the most efficient staff they had on the premises, and would have been fast tracked to management, so my boss informed me when he saw me after I left. He was sad to see me go, and he knew exactly how I functioned at work, and what I did in my spare time. His attitude to it was "Mate, if you can do this job, that well, with that much booze and such in your body, then who the hell am I to complain!".

Bear in mind, most of the people with whom I was working, were about as motivated as a corpse, and half as intellectually capable, but straight sober. While they would respond to customers by mumbling a greeting reluctantly, I would be in full flow "GOOD MORNING MADAM! And a jolly fine one too, is it not?", making people feel welcome, joking with the regulars, making eye contact and keeping it entertaining for the customers. Always a spring in the step, and a cool head in a crisis, that was me in that job, and I never went to work sober there ONCE!

It was not anti social drinking, in fact, I was more sociable with a quarter bottle of rum in my guts, than without, oddly enough. But I was never impaired in the sense that I never fell over, never dropped stock, never made huge errors in stocking, my till was always balanced perfectly, and to cap it all, I was the only member of staff who received a tip in the entire history of that store.

Being wasted is not necessarily the same as negatively effecting ones ability to work. I would not do that sort of thing nowadays of course, but my job now involves high speed metal cutting machinery, grinding wheels, blades, chisels, tools, and more importantly, customers homes and security. This is crap you have to take DAMNED seriously, but it is not tedious. It fires the neurons, and keeps the mind sharp. If I fail to keep my head together on a job now, it's a finger I could lose, or an artery I could nick, or a customers door or walls that I might damage, and that is worth staying sober to avoid.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious with that fallacy.

Obviously some employment conditions are illegal. Sexual orientation, race, religion, etc are some of those.

Employment conditions in place for safety or something similar are Constitutional.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
It does not matter if the substance is legal, it matters what the employment policy states on drug/alcohol/other substance use and what the policy states about random testing. IMHO, there are professions in which one absoutely should be fired.
edit on 10-7-2014 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
I used to work in a frozen food retail outlet in my late teens. At the time, I lived in a room, at the back of a pub. I would wake up, drink a quarter of a bottle of dark rum for breakfast, light a smoke, go to work, come back to the bar for a pint of ale with my lunch, then go back to work, finish my shift, come back to the pub, sit in there drinking my head off until well past closing time, continue drinking in my room, and do it all over again the next day.


You, sir, are a professional.

I would offer to buy your a round if we ever crossed paths but I fear your would drink me dry.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex
i'm 48. I've been a diligent fan of the herb for more than half of those years.
I say a plant cannot be criminalized. they've tried. doesn't work. nor can companies expect their employees to live their home lives according to work rules.
the company that fired this chap are living fossils in this respect.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
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.


An employer can hire or fire anyone they choose for any reason they choose. Right to work? Right to employ...

Not everyone likes to hang around a stoner...



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
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.


I don't think an employer can't choose to hire someone if they smoke. If the person didn't smoke at work and the employer saw them out and about with a cigarette on a Saturday night I'm not sure it would be legal to fire them for that. It's their personal time.

Aren't drug tests to look for "illegal" substances? Or are employers giving them to look for prescription med use, tobacco, and any other legal substance as well?

In this case, if the guy doesn't smoke it at work and it doesn't affect his performance it it his business. If his contract tells him no one who smokes pot or drinks scotch can be employed - different story. If it says "illegal substances" he has a case.




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join