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.

 

Colorado Supreme Court: Employers can fire for off-duty pot use

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Bad news for anyone living in Colorado and are subject to random drug tests.

I wonder if Brandon Coat, a quadriplegic, was prescribed an opiate pill from his doctor would he still be fired for failing a drug test? The answer is most likely no since the federal gov't is A Okay with said pills but not mary jane, and it's because it's not legal federally employers like Dish can and will fire anyone in Colorado for testing positive for marijuana. It's a shame the drug lasts so long in your system while coc aine can be flushed out in a matter of days.

www.denverpost.com...


Employers' zero-tolerance drug policies trump Colorado's medical marijuana laws, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a 6-0 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed lower court rulings that businesses can fire employees for the use of medical marijuana — even if it's off-duty.

With the ruling, which was a blow to some medical marijuana patients and a sigh of relief to employers, Colorado became the first state to provide guidance on a gray area of the law.


edit on 15-6-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon Jun 15 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed very long quotes IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

So you can be fired for something your doctor subscribes and this is supposed to be a good thing?



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
So nothing has changed
That's not cool. Back to the beer and hard drugs, hard working folk

dos



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Definitely not a good thing. You can blame the federal gov't for continuing to demonize and keeping marijuana illegal.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Boy oy oy ing






posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I'm an advocate for legalization and individual rights, but if someone is obviously abusing a drug, prescribed by a doctor or not, I believe a business owner has the right to refuse that person work.

There are many liabilities that can come from employing someone that abuses drugs/medications. An attentive businessman will recognize that and he should protect himself.

Of course, this ruling seems to go beyond that and I have to question if this will be a detriment to responsible drug users/medically required.
edit on 15-6-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The way MJ stays in ones system how could you tell if someone is abusing it.

On a second thought can you really abuse said plant?

unless you're toking at work my answer is no.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Time to start boycotting companies that wish to rule the lives of employees when not at work.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Synthetic Urine is out there for those who need it.

Now with urea.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Who said anything about abusing the drug? The case in question involves a quadriplegic who could probably become addicted to some kind of opiate but chooses to use marijuana instead. You don't have to abuse marijuana to fail a drug test. Are you familiar with how long it stays in your system, especially compared to actual hard drugs? Drugs like heroin, coke, MDMA, etc can be flushed in as fast as 24 hours but not marijuana.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Big pharma wins.
Can't see many people risking their livelihood to get high.

It's a heavy handed response, alcohol (poison) severely damages the body, why isn't it under the same restrictions?



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

Good point, people have been over coming drug tests for years but random drug tests always catch a few.

Luck favors the prepared in the case of drug tests. So if you're living in Colorado and work for a company that does random testing then it's in your best interest to be prepared.

Dish Network, a major corporation, has 0 sympathy for anyone. Typical of such a behemoth.
edit on 15-6-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
What needs to happen is similar to the treatment of alcohol in the system. There are established levels indicating it's affect on the system. If you go to work and are forced to take a breathalyzer, but blow below the legal limit, then can the employer still fire you? If not, then this should be used as a precedent for all drugs in the system.

Established legal limits must be determined, in which to use in these cases to determine the % remaining in the system, is actually not impairing the persons mental abilities.

Zero tolerance is an extreme that IMO is just as bad as zero laws....totally detrimental. However, if a set of legal limits can be established by numerous independent and accredited testing agents, then at least cases such as this, where a medical professional has prescribed a legal substance for their patient cannot be overruled by a group of political appointees.


edit on 6/15/2015 by Krakatoa because: whoopsie



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I live in Ohio and factories around here are being granted lower insurance rates of they only hire employees who don't smoke and last time i checked tobacco was a legal product. If you get drug tested at my job and you test positive for tobacco they will fire you. SO if they can do that with tobacco, you can imagine the Hell the feds will arm-twist the insurance companies into doing with pot.
edit on 15-6-2015 by roaland because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2015 by roaland because: spelling



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

You know what I just thought of? I was under the impression that you wouldn't be fired but rather sent to rehab. I know of a few people who went that route. I guess Dish Network would rather fire a severely crippled man than offer treatment, as silly as treatment sounds. He's still unemployed five years later. Sad. F U Dish Network. Glad I don't use your service and I never will!



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: roaland

They test for tobacco? I've never heard of such silliness.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: roaland

They test for tobacco? I've never heard of such silliness.


silliness

i kid you not, for tobacco lol. If you want a job in Ohio that pays anything, you better not be a smoker.
edit on 15-6-2015 by roaland because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: roaland

Thank God I would never move and live in Ohio. I was born and raised on islands my entire life and require an ocean near my home.

I don't smoke cigs, but still, screw that.
edit on 15-6-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GoShredAK
a reply to: Swills

I was trying to look from both points of view.

If someone is abusing a drug or alcohol and it is obvious or affects their work, a business person should be legally protected if they decide to terminate that person, considering they can be a liability.

That being said, I don't like the idea that a business owner can fire you for doing something in your spare time and has no effect on your work.

I'm well aware of how long certain drugs remain in the system. My goal is to highlight both sides of the argument, as I believe they both have a level of validity.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I'm not understanding this one, and people may know me to seem as if I'm against legalization on these boards *shrugs* (I'm not). I don't really care what you're doing in your own home, within reason, and I don't think it's in any businesses best interest to be concerned either. If someone's personal lifestyle truly interferes with their professional life, then it'll be noticeable, document-able, and they can mark them on their errors on the job. There's no reason to involve personal lifestyle choices in the matter.
edit on 15-6-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join