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

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.

Not accurate...they most certainly can detect levels of THC, leading to a very accurate timeline of last use...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, I have calmed down a lot in the last ten years. It's the change in jobs. There is something about having a job that challenges one, which rather curtails ones wish to shake hands with oblivion to quite the extent I used to.

I do still love a drop or two of the rum though. And the ale for that matter. It was my day off on Wednesday, so I treated myself to a bottle of Black Sheep ale, which is a delightfully hoppy number I must say. I had that with my lunch, but I worked today, and I am working tomorrow, and hence I have had no drink today, and will not drink tomorrow either in all likelihood!

On the subject of the gentleman in the OP, if he is not showing significant impairment at work, drops in productivity, poor attendance or something like that, then firing him for having a substance in his body is foolish. A persons individual tolerance must be taken into account. The fact is that this firing was politically motivated. The manager knew the fellow had bought weed, disliked the fact, and set the poor bastard up, knowing that on a technicality, he could fire the fellow for perfectly legal activity.

Personally, I think that if this is going to happen to people, the state must pass law preventing people from being discriminated against based on their choice of recreational habits. Bearing in mind that most heavy drinkers (and I say this having lived in a pub remember) are bigger trouble than heavy smokers, I find it very hard to understand the situation here. It is not the smokers who go out and trash cars, and get into random fights in the street with total strangers. It's the fellows who have drained two eight packs a piece, and decided that a game of truth or blunt force trauma is the sort of intellectual pursuit that suits them!

a reply to: totallackey
I don't know, I have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. Here is one such report that makes me doubt the claim.

I sure don't understand employers that think they should own the personal lives of their employees, they are not slaves. If they are doing the job properly, you hav e to be a moron to fire someone for what they choose to do on their own time.

I think he should sue his former employer for discrimination. I think he would win in a court of law (depending on the judge, etc.). At the very least, it would set a precedent in a LEGAL state that would defend the rights of the individual. Please ATS keep this thread updated, as I am curious to see what happens to this guy. I wonder what he will decide to do?

a reply to: NthOther

once marijuana is legal, it is illegal to discriminate for hiring and retention solely based upon a legally protected class or to punitively punish anyone for use those reasons in any context. way to go pot

a reply to: th3dudeabides
I don't think that is correct. There are actually companies out there that are somehow able to forbid smoking tobacco, test for nicotine and fire for it. It's stupid, and I disagree with it of course, but if they can do it with legal tobacco users, they will probably get away with doing it to legal marijuana users as well.

originally posted by: totallackey

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.

Not accurate...they most certainly can detect levels of THC, leading to a very accurate timeline of last use...

Except companies don't tend to use those highly accurate tests. At least not in Canada. Maybe they're more expensive? Another problem that has arisen is that some people have taken up the drugs that leave your system quicker, like coc aine, they start at the beginning of their weekend off, making for some dangerous drivers at shift change. This is one of the problems that has come up in Alberta's oil fields.
It's hard to stop young people that make a lot of money, from partying hard....

Zero tolerance policies.

Should it be illegal for employers to base hiring decisions on the presence of legal substances found in an applicant's body?

a reply to: NthOther

Absolutely! Alcohol is legal, but I don't know of many employers wanting someone under the influence 'on the job'.
The same rules should apply to tranquilizers, antidepressants, diet aides, etc. Knowing some of my co-workers were taking prescriptions that altered their reflexes and impaired their cognitive abilities while using dangerous equipment wasn't comforting.
Maybe in a sales position of some sort, I wouldn't mind....except somebody always has to pick up the slack and re-do the mistakes of people who aren't fully attentive.

a reply to: NthOther Who wants an employee that does not know how to pass a test. After all it is a test and those that use and still manage to pass are the type employs that you would want around because they study.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Who wants an employee that does not know how to pass a test. After all it is a test and those that use and still manage to pass are the type employs that you would want around because they study.

Who wants an employee who lies and cheats?

This is a "NO BRAINER".

Employers have the ABSOLUTE right to fire someone for
workplace intoxication.

Therefore, workplace tests should be developed that test
for intoxication...not for for trace amounts left over from
intoxication--that potentially last for weeks.

There already exists a test like this for marijuana. It's just
like a breathalizer and that should be the new standard.

As much as I dislike the idea of it, even airline pilots,
and the like, have the right to enjoy other legal intoxicants
while off duty. The dreaded MJ should be treated no
differently.

I don't see this coming anytime soon though. For too long
MJ has been demonized by propaganda in the media and
the older generation is still afraid of the big bad boogey-man.

BTW...I am one of the older generation

Not sure about the laws in Washington for mmj but in Arizona we are still a mmj only state and your employer cannot discriminate unless it's a safety sensitive or federal jobs, it does not give patients permission to smoke during work hours but at least you are protected if you pee hot.

Oh yea we finally got PTSD added to the list of conditions.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

How would you feel if your employer decided to test for ANY alcohol use in the last month and fire you over a beer you drank 2 weeks ago, off the clock.

I understand an employer not wanting people to be high at work, just like i understand an employer not wanting people drunk at work. This is firing someone for what they do with their personal time, off the clock.

Its a grey area and I, personally, feel that it needs to be addressed. Employers should not be able to discriminate over what a person does, legally, in their own time off the clock.

I would also like to add that MJ has an unfair disadvantage in the drug testing department. Most other recreational drugs will clear your system inside of 48 hours (coc aine, meth, pills and such) while MJ can take 30 days or longer. This means taking a single puff at a party weeks before could cause a person to lose their job, but a wild party weekend a few days before and they are in the clear.

It is very unfair and I think the system should be reworked and adapted to detect if a person is high/drunk at work only. What a person does with their personal time is nobodies business but their own.

a reply to: NthOther

It absolutely can get you fired just on the "against company policy"...whether there its legal r not. Its not the laws that get you in trouble....but the "company-policy" against using it or testing positive.

a reply to: BlueMule

Legal can still get you fired for breaking company policy. This is what folks arent getting.

Thats just simply not fair! Aslong as he isnt high at work whats the problem?? I love that they have legalised it there but they really need to put laws in place too prevent this kind of thing happening! Isnt there a mouth swab test that only shows if its been done very recently? Although that still wouldn't help the issue if your doing it out of work hours. Urine tests are so silly especially for thc which lurks for a long time in your fat cells. So basically yeah they need something that shows if they are high at work not in their own private time, its not like the high lasts all freakin day! MJ smokers have rights just like everyone else they should be more worried about people on hard drugs putting cleaning products inside their body etc not people smoking something that naturally grows in the ground and that has so many benefits. Makes me angry anyway i hope the dude can find another job now.

a reply to: mysterioustranger
It may be how it is, doesn't mean we have to agree with it. IMO company policy should only be able to dictate what you do on "their time", and have no bearing on your personal life. That's just me though.

a reply to: Shana91aus

The guy will probably find a better job with better employers and be all around better off.

Maybe one of the cannabis shops will hire him.

a reply to: TKDRL

Oh, of course not. I agree. We've discussed at work the conundrum this puts smokers in. What takes precedence?

Go to a legal clinic, see a licensed doctor, receive a legal-registered government controlled substance prescription, and possess it legally by the state say...that you live in.

But? You work at a place or company that has it against corporate rules and a firable offense.

So we have both. The right to legally buy, possess and use...and your employers right to forbid it...or be fired. My employers has all kinds of signs saying NO WEAPONS ALLOWED even if LEGALLY LICENSED. NO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL etc....

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.

originally posted by: NthOther
And so the plot thickens. What was once a method of eliminating "undesirables" from the labor pool may, in my estimation, eventually turn into a full-blown civil rights issue.

What becomes of the THC test? Can employers discriminate against people who choose to engage in (off the clock) perfectly legal activities?

Job up in smoke! Cannabis lover loses work after being first to buy legal pot

Mike Boyer from Washington State had been waiting for hours before the first marijuana legal shop opened in his town. But after purchase, the pot enthusiast received a demand from his employer to undergo a drug test, he told local media.

The 30-year-old cannabis lover finally bought his cherished stash of Sour Kush for $50 dollars, and the happy purchase was broadcast by TV stations and photographed by newspapers.

Boyer said that when he headed home to enjoy the fun, he received a message from his employer that he should do a drug test. He told The New York Daily News that he did the test and it came back positive for THC, the mind-altering ingredient in marijuana. After the test, Boyer told the local newspapers that he lost his position at Kodiak Security Services.

What say you, ATS? Should it be illegal for employers to base hiring decisions on the presence of legal substances found in an applicant's body?

I think so.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a means of knowing whether someone is currently 'high' with the methods used for testing...In the industry I was involved with, I wouldn't care to work with somone who was drunk or high...

My view is that if someone shows up for work drunk or high, they should be sent home with a warning, not fired, at least not the first time...But it is one's own business what he does on his own time...