SB 301 would protect a worker's right to use marijuana off the clock

Not exactly breaking news but it didn't show up in my search on this site. To me this is more important than almost any other issue. As long as you aren't stoned at work you should have the right to use at least modest amounts of Cannabis.

Cannabis is safer by far than alcohol or almost any other drug.

The THC in Cannabis kills cancer cells. The CBD in Cannabis keep cancer from spreading. Many other health benefits also.

This bill should be supported by Trump. I think it's a great idea. Instead of just making America great again. Let's for once do the right thing and make "America better than ever again"!

SB 301 interview with bill creator

Good article. Much more on Google available .

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Work is work and who you work for, should not have any impact on what you do on your own time. As long as you're not high on the job, it's none of their business.

Good.

Hope it becomes a trend.

Happy to hear about the bill for this, was talked of previously and finally is a bill. Other states need to follow through with a similar one.

State and county government jobs in Florida have banned employment to people who smoke or have smoked tobacco products. If Cannabis is made legal in Florida then the same will go for weed usage.

As a side note: Many state workers I have seen are fat disgusting slobs.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Work is work and who you work for, should not have any impact on what you do on your own time. As long as you're not high on the job, it's none of their business.

That would be at the discretion of the employer if they bothered to do drug testing. How would one define "high;" what level of THC in the blood do you consider being high?

a reply to: Doctor Smith
This is a state bill for Oregon. I guess that would void marijuana from drug test failures in the state of Oregon. Thats a plus, for Oregon alone. Eh, well it wont be too long before stuff like this goes national anyways.
a reply to: eManym
Do you live in Flagler county?? It is the only county in Florida that I am aware of that has this policy.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Does the bill also protect an employer from litigation should said impaired employee cause property damage or cause injury? If it doesn't the bill should be flushed down the nearest toilet.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

as much as i support this. its useless. oregon is an at will employment state. they will still drug test and they will still fire marijuana users. only difference is they will leave the "reason for termination" line blank as they are legally allowed to do so.

at will employment needs to end

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Does the bill also protect an employer from litigation should said impaired employee cause property damage or cause injury? If it doesn't the bill should be flushed down the nearest toilet.

Workers cause damage and injury - not just workers that partake in their free time.

So injury and damage already have a solution - insurance.

You should know that though.

I bet you think people that use marijuana on their own time - causes more "injury and damage" at work..

If so, you're as uneducated on the topic as Nancy was (though I don't blame her).

Get educated.

a reply to: Metallicus

That's where I see a problem at with this. A positive test won't tell the difference between someone high last night or even a couple days ago and being high right then. It's either a positive or not and it stays in your system long after the effects have stopped.

They'll have to come up with a way to know if it's just in your system or if you're actually high right then.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Work is work and who you work for, should not have any impact on what you do on your own time. As long as you're not high on the job, it's none of their business.

Well what about surgeons or pilots or air traffic controllers? There are jobs that can be called in and you would prefer they weren't stoned since they are responsible for people's lives.

a reply to: dragonridr

If you're on call then I would suggest not doing anything while on call. But when you're on call, you're supposed to still get paid for that time by the company also. Because you're still on their time technically. Which means you're on the clock and not on your own time yet either. Which is why you get paid for it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: dragonridr

If you're on call then I would suggest not doing anything while on call. But when you're on call, you're supposed to still get paid for that time by the company also. Because you're still on their time technically. Which means you're on the clock and not on your own time yet either. Which is why you get paid for it.

They'll have to figure out something. Put on their thinking caps and not just say it can't be done. It's legal in my state and I should be able to use it if I want.

And I expect lower medical insurance as Cannabis lowers the risk of cancer and other diseases. If not the can start drug testing the members of Congress and Senate for the 1st time.

Sure, you have a right to use marijuana.

You don't however, have a right to a job.

You are free to make whatever choices you like, but you are NOT free to choose the consequences.

Smoke during free time, and not before driving.
Don't get high at work.
Don't get high on call.

What is the bill covering about insurance issues?
THAT is the entire problem anyway,SAFETY cannot be guaranteed,if ONE person uses TOO much before work and harm's someone.
I am in this as well but medically retired.

I don't think that employees should be allowed to be high at work. I have no problem with what they do after work, but when they come in in the morning, they should not be high or been drinking.

I used to get high years ago and used to drink. I did not desire to be high at work and would not drink a beer while working. I am not saying that I was not still a little bit buzzed from partying the night before, and I did have a hangover sometimes. but I did not work high or drunk, even when I had my own business.

a reply to: rickymouse

Obviously you can't allow being high one duty. But how long until they have a case where some corporation makes the claim that anyone with consistent use of MJ, even while not on duty, should still be considered under the influence??

At that point, just having it in your system would be considered "High on the Job" even if you hadn't smoked in a couple days even.

You know for a fact that greasing the right people and getting the right lawyers would making such a law a piece of cake.

People in power want total control over everyone else on this planet and if you think they'll stop at anything to get it you're crazy. They have no moral or personal ideals which will stop them from doing whatever possible to get it either.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: rickymouse

Obviously you can't allow being high one duty. But how long until they have a case where some corporation makes the claim that anyone with consistent use of MJ, even while not on duty, should still be considered under the influence??

At that point, just having it in your system would be considered "High on the Job" even if you hadn't smoked in a couple days even.

You know for a fact that greasing the right people and getting the right lawyers would making such a law a piece of cake.

People in power want total control over everyone else on this planet and if you think they'll stop at anything to get it you're crazy. They have no moral or personal ideals which will stop them from doing whatever possible to get it either.

Problem is certain jobs need restrictions. I dont want to go into surgery with the surgeon being high. But who decides what jobs need to be excluded. So ultimately its up to the employer to decide. Your choice either smoke pot or have a job.