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

a reply to: mysterioustranger
Employers shouldn't have any "right" to control you when you are not on the job though is my point.

I am so glad I don't have to put up with the crap employees go through anymore..... They put up with way too much crap these days and need to collectively stand up and change things IMO. That is the only way anything is going to change for the better.

Unless someone from a state that legalized it can push it through to a higher court and get a precedent set. An employer does not own the employee and in most cases should not be able to decide what they can and can't do on their own time, in their own homes.

And...in Michigan you cannot get a CPL license to legally carry a firearm if you have a Medical Marijuana license to use. You must choose which is more important.

That is absurd if you ask me....

a reply to: xDeadcowx

If conditions of my employment were that I obstain from alcohol then I suppose it would be my fault wouldnt it?

Guess I would go get a job that doesnt mind what substances I partake in on my off time......

To the later part of your post though, I do agree they should have more accurate testing

a reply to: NthOther

Depends on the work this guy has to do. If he has careful, precise or responsible task to do I would not like it him to be a pot smoker. Better yet, if a boss wouldn't mind him..or her..smoking it he or she is a fool and have probably yet to discover the side-effects of smoking pot.

On the other hand if this employee does not need to be careful, precise or responsible I would not mind..

Having read the article the following can be stated:

While it is legal to use in 2 states, ultimately I will have to side with the employer on this one.

The man signed a document that stated he could not have THC in his system. There was probably as part of that paperwork, what would be the consequences of him having such in his system, namely termination.

While he may think it was a good idea to be the first in the city to purchase such, the question should be was it worth it? And how does one prove that he was not doing such while on the job?

Those are the kinds of questions that will have to be answered.

This is the second thread recently, where something entirely legal has been condemned by the chorus of "It's not fair."

Of course, employers are free to fire people, and there's little to be said about unless the discharged employee is in a protected class. There is no way at all that a marijuana user will be considered a member of a protected class as it is not an inherent characteristic. There may possibly be a claim under Americans with Disabilities Act, but such a claim hasn't arisen.

The idea that an employer can't fire someone for something they do on their own time is completely contradicted by twitter posters, Brenden Eich, the list is nearly endless. It happens all the time. Nobody would have known about Eich, if a group didn't spend time trying to find something. If you'll recall, he gave a mere $1000 to a group supporting a view of marriage that Obama was supporting at the time.

it doesn't matter if you're incapacitated at work. Try going out with the boss for drinks after work, telling him is daughter is a woman of easy virtue, and that he is a pinhead who deserves to be shot. Do you really think you should be punished only for things you do at work.

This is another, "I don't like it, so it must be illegal and horrible" thread. In this case, the purchaser managed to get a lot of publicity for himself and his company.

a reply to: charles1952
Just because something is commonplace, does not mean it is right.

a reply to: NthOther



America is Litigation central,it will not be long before one big company is slapped with a multi-million dollar lawsuit for discrimination,it has only been a Federal level of reluctance to set the structure for re-doing MJ laws and impacts which has allowed this glitch,but the feds are now playing ball so it will not be a long term issue,one lawsuit and employers will back off.Everything revolves around Federal legeslations and the different ways States choose to interpret and apply those federal statutes. A long term but now useless structure based uopn now outdated Federal laws is still in place and it will take a short time to flesh out new interpretations and applications of the new Federal perspectives,but it will not be a long lived challenge.

Liquor laws and the structures surrounding them provide a definate and progressive template for MJ managment socially,and many of these existing structures will seamlessly superimpose themselves onto the developing MJ social platforms we are building.

Lets just say you likely do NOT want to be the first big company that is required to set the punative benchmark, because as with all clear and defendable statutes the courts will want to set a precedent which discourages frivolous lawsuits and repeated wasting of expensive court time ,they will want to ensure Companies get a clear message on the first go-round.

Mj will not be allowed to clog up the civil court system,the past experiences with what it has done to the criminal justice and court systems will ensure that these issues are dealt with expediently.

a reply to: TKDRL

Just because something is commonplace, does not mean it is right.

I agree completely, but whether it's right or not the Courts aren't going to change it soon, as far as I can see.

Oh, wait. Hold on, you may be right that the Court would rule it discriminatory. It would be an ugly ruling, and make the Court look nuts, but I can see it.

Some where in this country, they should be able to find an individual who desperately needs it for medical reasons, and that the only possible way for him to take it is through inhalation. The Court says that under ADA, his illness has to be accommodated, and as a member of the disabled, he is in a protected class.

The Colorado passes a goofy law, saying that anyone who can get a doctor's note will be considered disabled and a member of the protected class. Then the Supreme Court accepts it.

Everyone, even the Court, would know that it's a huge fraud as you can get a doctor to say anything you want, but the stoners would get their win. Weakening the respect for law and prostituting legal reasoning would be side effects, but the stoners wouldn't care.

a reply to: charles1952
Or the courts could just rule that employees are not slaves, and employers have zero right to tell any employee what they can and can't do on their own time and dime. That would be sanity, unfortunately that is probably fantasy, but one could hope anyways. I have no problem with random drug tests, as long as they test for actual impairment on the job, that's a whole other story than the drug screening that is allowed now.

a reply to: TKDRL

It is a sticky situation but it seems to me the people pushing for legalization they didn't ask for protection like Arizonans did.

This is an interesting read.
www.mondaq.com...

a reply to: TrueBrit

hell forget 20 hours
a hair sample can test positive up to three years after your last puff
do these jokers your talking to think that you can take a puff and stay stoned for 3 years
....the ignorance and lack of thought to some of these responses is astounding

edit: kind of funny how the least harmful of the bunch can be detected for the longest period of time so someone smoking cannibis cant get a job flipping burgers but if youre on coc aine or heroin youre good to go

a reply to: NthOther

I'm sure his contract was quiet clear in being drug free and the company being able to place drug tests on him.
Being a security officer means he needs to use his head and in a court of law if he was under the influence of THC during duties then his company could be liable.

Its something he didn't (but should have) thought of.

a reply to: thesaneone
Man, those laws are all over the frikken place lol...... Goes to show you though, there are some places to live that have little shreds of sanity left at least.

In Colorado, for example, it is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee because that employee engaged in any lawful activity off the employer's premises during nonworking hours unless the restriction 1) relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employee's employment activities and responsibilities; or 2) is necessary to avoid, or avoid the appearance of, a conflict of interest with any of the employee's responsibilities to the employer.

Looks like Colorado is covered here

a reply to: NthOther

It's not legal to be high on the job. They should be able to test ... but what test is used should be limited. Some tests can only detect if you used in the past several hours.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

I'm sure his contract was quiet clear in being drug free and the company being able to place drug tests on him.

Can't argue with the Sanctity of the Contract.

However.

Let's say a potential employer of yours--vehemently opposed to extramarital sex--made celibacy a condition of employment, and signing a contract affirming such was a condition of employment; further, that violation of the contract (i.e., someone finds out you're sleeping with a neighbor down the hall and rats you out) is grounds for immediate termination.

Or, perhaps more sensationally, what if you had to sign a contract affirming that you wouldn't have an abortion while employed with the company, or else they wouldn't hire you?

The outrage would be deafening (although I'm sure there are companies out there that do this, thus far under-the-radar). Yet both cannabis use and abortion are now legal, volitional activities, are they not?

I think the Colorado law posted above by TKDRL is fairly decent protection. We'll see how it's applied in the coming months, I'm sure.

What did the idiot expect ? Advertise the fact that you are a drug addict on the media, then expect to keep your job ? ....I don't think so !

originally posted by: NthOther
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.

The testing for THC from Cannabis is not and has never been about testing for competency or ability to carry out contracted tasks at a place of work.

As you point out, the test can pick up traces of THC in the blood up to 3 weeks after a joint was smoked. The effects from that joint having long been eliminated from the body for the entire 3 weeks the THC remains detectable.

The test isn't about safety at work, or ability to perform duties - it has always been about detecting criminality, specifically criminality involving using Cannabis.

Now...since Cannabis is now legal in this state, there is no criminal behaviour linked to Cannabis usage, so the a test that can pick up tiny traces of THC in the blood is no longer fit for purpose, since it's purpose was designed to detect criminality and not intoxication.

A new test needs to be introduced, which specifically determines intoxication, or whether the employee is 'high' or otherwise intoxicated by using Cannabis. This kind of test, as oppposed to a test that once determines whether someone has broken the law up to 3 weeks ago, i would support, as it is common sense not to be intoxicated or impaired while at work or where you could hurt yourself or others.

This guy should sue his previous employers for unfair dismissal.

originally posted by: MrJohnSmith
What did the idiot expect ? Advertise the fact that you are a drug addict on the media, then expect to keep your job ? ....I don't think so !

Drug addict?!!

You know very little about Cannabis, and a whole lot about gullibility it seems mate.

FYI...while a person might enjoy smoking/eating Cannabis, Cannabis is not, at all physically addictive.

Alcohol, nicotine, hard drugs, caffine on the other hand, are actually addictive substances.

This guy might have been a drug addict as you put it, but not with Cannabis...i'd research matters if i were you mate.

originally posted by: NthOther
Let's say a potential employer of yours--vehemently opposed to extramarital sex--made celibacy a condition of employment, and signing a contract affirming such was a condition of employment; further, that violation of the contract (i.e., someone finds out you're sleeping with a neighbor down the hall and rats you out) is grounds for immediate termination.

Terrible analogy. It's more analogous to alcohol, which you can NOT be under the influence of at work even though it is legal.

a reply to: MysterX

There are ways of testing that only yield positive results within 4-6 hours after last use. Are you ok with those tests?