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.

 

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

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   
how would this worl with tradesmen who sometimes get regular random drug tests?




posted on May, 8 2017 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

There are provisions in many professions, where all you have to say is "I've had a couple of drinks" and they can't call you in. They [ the company ] would be knowingly putting lives at risk.
There's a saying for pilots : "24 hours from bottle to throttle". Although how many pilots have been caught trying to fly drunk is disturbing.
edit on 8-5-2017 by DAVID64 because: punctuation



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: JourneymanWelder

Just like alcohol, they need to do tests/studies to determine how much THC in the bloodstream leads to impairment. They've set a level for alcohol and if there is going to be this huge push to legalize M, they need to do the same.
Personally, I've worked with stoners. Heavy smokers who lived by "wake and bake" and just had to have another at lunch or break time. Like alcoholics, I don't trust them to do the job safely. Admittedly, this was welding/heavy construction and coal mining, so I don't want anyone who is impaired in ANY way operating equipment in those situations.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: eManym
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.


Man, when I went into the place where you get a drivers license in Illinois, the people were actually drinking king size cola drinks at the counter (employees I'm talking about). I mentioned to the lady, wow, you can drink on the job but can't smoke behind the counter. My have times changed in the last 60 years of public service.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   
F# Oregon, F# Washington, and F# California..

Seriously??? I work in construction. There is no way that mentally "drunk" workers can be relied on or even be taken seriously. They are a VERY SERIOUS RISK and it's an accident waiting to happen.

IT CAN'T HAPPEN OR BE ALLOWED. PERIOD.

Wash cars, paint a fence, or trim a tree if you wanna be high as sh#...

Drug and alcohol use have no place in a reputable job site. I have been on job sites where the developers have been on crack and coc aine and fired ALL their subcontractors and hired everybody's friends to avoid liquidated damages because they couldn't kick their habits. The site supervisor walked around with a Beretta 9mm in his waist!! I caught him twice in the morning, after a coke binge, in a closet in one of the unfinished units!! This happened in Walnut Creek, Ca.

However I agree.... a drinking binge after work is worse than toking a bong..but, it allows workers to be less than aware of certain on the job hazards that in turn puts lives in danger. This cannot be across the board legislation. One thing leads to another.
edit on E31America/ChicagoMon, 08 May 2017 06:08:45 -05005amMondayth06am by EternalShadow because: add



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.



Your choice. No alcohol on your free time. Either that beer or wine on your free time or your job. Same logic.

Alcohol impairs you worse than Cannabis. No hangovers with Cannabis. Alcohol causes many diseases. Cannabis fights and cures disease. No surgeon is going to want to be stoned while working as it could slow you down.

The only reason Cannabis is illegal is because of big Pharma, oil, and other competing industries. They've payed off politicians and suckered you all into believing nonsense.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

i have never applied for a job that does drug testing, i dont do drugs, but i will never take a drug test for a job. if my current job started testing i would look for work somewhere else. what they need to do is get away from testing people that work, and test the people that get food stamps and wellfare.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.


I think you're completely missing the point here. Nobody is advocating getting stoned and going on to work. Especially surgeons lol What this law would do is make it impossible for me to be refused a job based on taking a legal substance. I don't see anyone askin for breathalyzers to be installed on the door to surgical suites. Same concept. If I were to hypothetically indulge on Saturday evening and went to work Monday, I would test positive. Hell, I would, depending on methodology used and how long my hair was, test positive for months after legally using cannabis. Having active canibinoids and terrines in your system doesn't mean one is high. One place I worked years ago would test you if there was an accident at the job and you can determine how much is in someone's system and if they were actually inebriated. That Dems a much better option than excluding an entire sub class of the citizenry when we don't randomly test for alcohol.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Imagine all those other countries; where marijuana's legal or decriminalized... Those workers are probably always running around damaging things.. and putting each other in danger.

I'm surprised their even industrialized. ..just a bunch of fence-painters.

Oh well, one thing leads to another.

Sure they [I]seem[/I] happy, and seem like they have a handle on things like government, healthcare and social services, lower crime rates, lower hard drug usage, less high blood pressure and heart disease, better use of tax money, etc..

But it must be an illusion - people who smoke on their own time will always destroy the work place, and should be flushed down the toilet.

I'm positive an example that proves I'm right will eventually happen - some day - and then you'll understand why prohibition was a step in the right direction.


/s
edit on 8-5-2017 by Pearj because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I have seen coworkers come in to work in the morning with their hands shaking so badly they had problems lining the stock up for then next print! the problem wasn't they were high on weed, it was that they were alcoholics needing that next drink!! my husband once worked with a welder who the boss sent out to buy himself a case for work because he was such a crappy welder unless he kept some alcohol in his system. alcohol by far is more dangerous than weed!!!

and quite frankly, the drug tests are not accurate.. heck I probably wouldn't be able to pass one because of all the ibuprofen I would have to take just to be productive..



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Sadly this just means more people will show up to work high and then point to this law in their defense.

*golf claps*



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Thing is, everyone is already showing up to work high and the sky hasn't fallen yet.

None of the threatened social ills that we've been told will befall us if we decriminalize marijuana have come to fruition.

None.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

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.


You need to read the article.

"Off the clock."



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.


Replace "stoned," with "drunk," and your arguement falls apart.

Do we not allow the legislation of alcohol because of jobs that require call-ins?



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
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.


What does employees being high at work have to do with this bill?

Honestly - what relevance does someone going into work baked have to do with a ball that explicitly states "off the clock?"

Anything to further that smear campaign.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Sadly this just means more people will show up to work high and then point to this law in their defense.

*golf claps*


So? Do you think this bill will be a "cover," for that? Because it won't be.

But then again, this actually involves reading the bill rather than reading the headline of the bill and having an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

You guys are soooo worried about people showing up to work stoned. How many people, this morning alone, in America, are going to die on their way to work because of drunk drivers?

Don't worry. I'll wait.

Hint: it will kill more people in one day than compared to what cannabis has done for thousands of years (no deaths)



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

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.


The bill doesn't allow for idiots to get stoned at work.

Unless the boss doesn't care. A source of mine knows of a business that unofficially allows it at work (the boss also high). So far, they seem to be more creative and get the work done quicker.

One things for sure. We don't want big boring brother dictating to us what we can or can't do for corrupt political or monopoly reasons.
edit on 8-5-2017 by Doctor Smith because: spelling



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




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.


I've seen enough shattered trucks on the road not to know
you can't have this in trucking. The serious accident rate would
skyrocket. Can't be get'n high and go'n off to work all half cocked.
Shouldn't even be in a drivers blood. And if it is and he gets caught?
He's done driving 53's at 80,000.
edit on Rpm50817v20201700000014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: dragonridr




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.


I've seen enough shattered trucks on the road not to know
you can't have this in trucking. The serious accident rate would
skyrocket. Can't be get'n high and go'n off to work all half cocked.
Shouldn't even be in a drivers blood. And if it is and he gets caught?
He's done driving 53's at 80,000.


Again. Nobody is advocating being under the influence at work or behind the wheel. Especially with trucks. None of your business if small amounts are in the fat and blood of a user.

You have a Endocannabinoid system in your body. It's a good healthy thing to have Cannabis in your system. It should be required by law in some cases.
Introduction to the Endocannabinoid System

The best thing they have so far is a saliva test, which tells if they have used it in the last 12 hours.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

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.


there would have to be a way to test the intoxication level of a person at the time of the accident. to my knowledge, there isn't a way to determine that in a person who is suspected of being under the influence of cannabis.

example: for alcohol it's the blood to alcohol ratio that can determine a person's intoxication level.




top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join