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.
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.
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.
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.
Completely and totally false. It being present in your system does not in any way mean you are still high.
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.
Im guessing most of your experiences have been with 16 year olds....
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.
No more than use of anti depressents, anti psychotics, diet pills, alcohol, antibiotics.....hell, you can say that about processed foods.
All jobs require some amount of focus, pot usage take that away.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.