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

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
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

Your job could fire you for failing a blood alcohol test as well. Its really know different other than the fact alcohol leaves your system alot quicker. If you have a job that drug tests and has a policy of no drug use legal or not doesnt matter. Its a condition of your employment dont like it find another job or risk being fired.

a reply to: sirhumperdink

I know. It's ridiculous. Mind you, hair samples, assuming unchecked growth, can actually tell you all about most of the chemicals put into the body over a long period, not just THC. But you are right, the treatment that this subject receives has always been poorly thought out, and based on prejudice not scientific backing.

I would hope that when this law has been in place a while, that people come to appreciate the reality of the situation, that being the fact that a town full of stoners is better off than a town full of drunks.

I'm all for legal marijuana, but it does pose some issues.

An employer can fire someone for coming to work drunk, and alcohol is legal. But you can easily know if someone is drunk right at that moment if you have them submit to a test right then and there.

However, you can't do that with marijuana because it stays in your system for so long.

originally posted by: kruphix
I'm all for legal marijuana, but it does pose some issues.

An employer can fire someone for coming to work drunk, and alcohol is legal. But you can easily know if someone is drunk right at that moment if you have them submit to a test right then and there.

However, you can't do that with marijuana because it stays in your system for so long.

Nope. Several tests such as a saliva test only work if you had recently smoked, 4-6 hours detection limit.

a reply to: kruphix

You can certainly tell whether or not someone is under the influence of MJ, and that is despite the fact that the stuff stays in ones system for a time. The reality is, it might hang around in the body for a while, but it is only effective on the body for a relatively short time after consumption, when compared to the length of time it remains in the body.

There are test methods which only report a result if the consumption was within a few hours of the test being administered, and THAT is the sort of time range that you can assume a smoke will be acting on ones body for. Other posters have pointed out, the active ingredient is not active on the body for the same amount of time as it is present in the body.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kruphix
I'm all for legal marijuana, but it does pose some issues.

An employer can fire someone for coming to work drunk, and alcohol is legal. But you can easily know if someone is drunk right at that moment if you have them submit to a test right then and there.

However, you can't do that with marijuana because it stays in your system for so long.

Nope. Several tests such as a saliva test only work if you had recently smoked, 4-6 hours detection limit.

Well the effects can last up to about 8 hrs so thats useless isnt it? Also when your drug tested there not looking for THC it gets metabolized. Drug tests look for these THC metabolites there isno way to directly test for THC. Mostof it quickly finds its way to the CB1 receptors in the brain. This is what causes the high in the first place.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kruphix
I'm all for legal marijuana, but it does pose some issues.

An employer can fire someone for coming to work drunk, and alcohol is legal. But you can easily know if someone is drunk right at that moment if you have them submit to a test right then and there.

However, you can't do that with marijuana because it stays in your system for so long.

Nope. Several tests such as a saliva test only work if you had recently smoked, 4-6 hours detection limit.

Well the effects can last up to about 8 hrs so thats useless isnt it? Also when your drug tested there not looking for THC it gets metabolized. Drug tests look for these THC metabolites there isno way to directly test for THC. Mostof it quickly finds its way to the CB1 receptors in the brain. This is what causes the high in the first place.

I just told you there are tests that can determine if you smoked in the past 4-6 hours. Why are you saying they can only test for long lasting metabolites? the saliva test detects actual THC.

There are also blood tests where actual levels can be tested for and last use can be determined by how high the level is, this also tests for actual THC, not metabolites.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

I just told you there are tests that can determine if you smoked in the past 4-6 hours. Why are you saying they can only test for long lasting metabolites? the saliva test detects actual THC.

Are these tests expensive?

I ask because if they are, it will be an excuse for the police to not use them. This will become a civil rights thing if dead sober people start getting arrested for DUI because the tests they're using are stupid.

If this guy had a flat mate in another room who smoked or even there was somebody in his flat who smoked, they still could have found traces of the drug in his system. If smoking pot was as widespread as normal tobacco smoking then everybody would have a trace of THC in their system.

And everyone would be alot happier (though that is aside my point)

originally posted by: TKDRL
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.

Please tell me how an employer who has a workplace rule prohibiting particular types of drug use and any amounts of the drug in your system has now become "The employer cannot tell me what I do on my own time."

There are many types of jobs where any kind of drug use could be very dangerous...

I hear it all the time... "The drug is currently having no affect me...I haven't had a drink in over eight hours....blah! blah! blah...!"

Just the same as a skunk cannot smell its own stink...an addict has no clue...and refuses to accept reality...

The rules governing drug use/tolerance and the workplace are spelled out...

Like I said earlier, right to work? Right to employ...you do not like it? Start your own business and hire the stoners...see how long that company lasts...ha ha ha...

a reply to: NthOther

It doesn't matter.
If you sign a contract that quite clearly says:

'' you must not take drugs and be under the influence during employment and/or you can be subject to random drug testing '

Then go and publicly purchase drugs, you will ultimately be inviting a drug test. If your found positive of any drug you will be dismissed - because you signed this contract.

it sucks, unemployment sucks, but you did break the contract!

there will always be pros and cons:

this is a catch 22:

A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules.[1][2] Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over. One connotation of the term is that the creators of the "catch-22" have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.

en.wikipedia.org...

i was about to say the same thing
booze is worse than all other drugs
"yes booze is a drug"
thats not aimed at you DodgyDawg
a reply to: DodgyDawg

we are so on the same page

a reply to: DodgyDawg

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

I just told you there are tests that can determine if you smoked in the past 4-6 hours. Why are you saying they can only test for long lasting metabolites? the saliva test detects actual THC.

Are these tests expensive?

I ask because if they are, it will be an excuse for the police to not use them. This will become a civil rights thing if dead sober people start getting arrested for DUI because the tests they're using are stupid.

the saliva test is near identical to one the police currently use iirc. Blood tests tend to be more expensive, the saliva one is not. Advantage of the blood test is that it detects all THC, saliva only detects THC that was smoked, not sure if a brownie would show up.

a reply to: NthOther

I don't smoke MJ or anything, but even I agree with the sentiment. If you cannot get fired for drinking alcohol when your not at work, they shouldn't be able to fire you for smoking MJ when your not at work either.

They should have the same standards as for alcohol in states where it is legal. If you show up stoned your canned, otherwise there is no reason to fire people. But then, I don't see a drinker of alcoholic beverages as any different than someone smoking weed. They both claim its to "relax" after work, and they are both intoxicating substances. In both instances it is probably quantity control that is key for going to work the next day.

The only exception to that might be a job like flying an airplane, air traffic control or something where the effects of last night can affect performance today to any degree, but I think jobs like that have that same policy for alcohol as well. Even a trace in one's system can get you fired. When it comes to jobs like that, the mj users should realize THC stays in their system long periods of time and get a job accordingly.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

You covered that well. As unpopular as this idea is, it's the way it is in the real world. An employer has the right to set his rules. If the rule is, don't test positive for THC or you will get fired, guess what, don't test positive or you'll get fired.
You don't have to like the rule, or even agree with it, but if you want the job, those are the rules.

Perhaps in the future, there will be a way to test for "high right now, as opposed to High last week Tuesday", but until that time, legal weed or not, you have no choice but to respect the rules of your employer.

Sorry to be such a "buzz killer".

This is just ridiculous. It's legal in the states of Washington and Colorado. And for those touting the "but it's against Fed law" bit, there is such a thing as states rights, remember?

I feel for the guy. If he didn't show any type of impairment on the job, then what is the problem? Is it only because they saw him on the TV and in the paper that they tested him?

Seems like entrapment to me, and it would be if it was anyone else doing that to him but his employer. Shame on Kodiak Security Services!

People should get fired because they are incompetant, not because of what they do to themselves outside of work.
Period.

Like a poster said earlier, most prescribed medication can affect individuals much more heavily than THC yet, that's all good. It's an injust double standard.

I wonder how pharmaceutical companies would react if using prescribed medicine would be outlawed at work?

Chocolate, coffee, sugar, alcohol and nicotine are all drugs. If someone using any of those drugs says something wrong about recreational THC users, they are ingnorant and hypocrite.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kruphix
I'm all for legal marijuana, but it does pose some issues.

An employer can fire someone for coming to work drunk, and alcohol is legal. But you can easily know if someone is drunk right at that moment if you have them submit to a test right then and there.

However, you can't do that with marijuana because it stays in your system for so long.

Nope. Several tests such as a saliva test only work if you had recently smoked, 4-6 hours detection limit.

Well the effects can last up to about 8 hrs so thats useless isnt it? Also when your drug tested there not looking for THC it gets metabolized. Drug tests look for these THC metabolites there isno way to directly test for THC. Mostof it quickly finds its way to the CB1 receptors in the brain. This is what causes the high in the first place.

I just told you there are tests that can determine if you smoked in the past 4-6 hours. Why are you saying they can only test for long lasting metabolites? the saliva test detects actual THC.

There are also blood tests where actual levels can be tested for and last use can be determined by how high the level is, this also tests for actual THC, not metabolites.

Wasnt discussing saliva but your wrong there effective from 48 to 72 hours. metabolites can be detected for up to 90 days though you can shorten this by drinking cranberry juice for example.Employers do not do blood testing because its expensive and only detects drug use in the past 2 to 3 days (the time takes longer the more you smoke ). Other reason employers dont like it. Only time they use this is a traffic accident where the employer tests if you were under the influence of drug or alcohol. Though the problem is at what level does THC impair an individual can vary. A chronic smoker it stays with them longer but obviously the effects dont.Others can smoke it and feel it for 2 days they see it as being tired.