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

originally posted by: roaland

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.

What the hell? What if you was considered a rehabilitating smoker on a nicotine patch or gum? This is abhorrent, diabolical and draconian, pure tyranny at it's finest. Please United States Of America citizens rise up and protest this crap violently if need be!!! Burn it all down! Then we can all rise out of the ashes of this tyranny!

ok. not gonna lie. i smoke weed all the time. every job i have worked at has been totally intolerant of weed and every job i've gotten other than (oddly) newspaper delivery has drug tested me in some form. i just quit smoking weed with sufficient time beforw the test so i will pass or i get someone else to pee for me. i do live in Kansas, so the chance of even medicinal weed being legalized here is pretty much less than zero, especially with brownback as governor. (i went to school with his kids and they are a WEIRD family). I do think employera should be able to do whatever they want as far as pre employment drug screening, however, i do not think its fair that you can be high as crap on any kind of opiate and as long as you have a prescription, its ok, but if you smoke weed its the end of the world. weed is not a drug. and i personally dont care what anyone says. i have been complained at about smoking cigarettes and weed. i do not understand why junkies who have permissive doctors can legally do meth (adderall and ritalin) and heroin (percocet and oxycontin among others) but someone who smokes weed can be persecuted and fired. it is crap and hopefully hillary will rectify it.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Time to start boycotting companies that wish to rule the lives of employees when not at work.

This is what should happen! People need to get very selective about where they spend their dollar.

a reply to: Swills

This is ridiculous. I was fired for the same reason, however I hated my job and told them just to see if they would actually fire me.

I have a Kaiser diagnosed medical condition. My psychologist told me that I should continue to smoke my medicine if it was helping. It helps so I keep smoking.

I never smoked at work, it never caused me a problem, and the last two years I was outperforming most of the people in my role.

My job performance improved according to both of my bosses, after I started smoking. It was helping me to do my job, but they fired me.

This is an ADA issue and I am being discriminated against. I am doing nothing wrong. I am smoking a plant that should have never been illegal.

And I refuse any of the more dangerous and addictive pharmaceuticals that are available to me.

This is B.S.

a reply to: Swills

I believe that these businesses will start to suffer even if it's just a bit when they can find fewer and fewer people willing to work for them based on this issue.

what would be ironic was if the drugs that he would have been traditionally prescribed incompacitated him to the point of not being able to work and well going without treatment had that same effect.
in which case, well, they just put the guy on disability, unless of course they decide now that he's not eligible because he was fired from his last job because of drug use.

a reply to: introvert

I know you already got slapped for this but I'd like to add that Dish Network admitted that the man in question was not high at work and not using. But of course, if he was using at home on non-work hours he'd still test positive days or weeks later. I demand that employers start routinely testing for alcohol and nicotine and kick those abusers to the curb as well.

a reply to: Swills

This is going to be an issue as states (and feds) decide what to do about medical (and recreational) marijuana... DISH is an employer in every state and what Brandon Coats does is illegal under federal law, so according to a company that operates on a federal level, their employee is breaking federal law. As DISH sees it, they can't let their Colorado employees operate under one set of rules, while firing their Illinois employees for the same behavior.

So, while I think it's VERY unfortunate, I see their point. I don't like it. I hate arbitrary drug testing. But I understand their point.

This is just one stumbling block in the road toward full legalization.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Don't get me wrong... this isn't an excuse, just their reasoning, most likely. When I went to work at Intel, their policy was, as long as it's prescribed by a doctor and doesn't cause impairment on the job, then you won't get fired for using a particular drug. DISH could easily make this their policy, but they choose to be obstinate.

I'd love to find out who, in the company, would rather put Coats on some form of disability than let him be continue to be a productive member of society...

A private company should be able to choose its limitations on what it allows. Do I agree with making the use of medicinal marijuana a cause of termination? No. However, I think everyone is aware that the medical marijuana laws, in many cases, are really abused.

In Michigan a lot of companies now won't hire you if you use tobacco. They screen that out in the drug tests too. It costs them more money, but saves them money in the long run in cost of providing healthcare. Do I personally agree with it? No. So I just choose not to work for or do business with those companies.

a reply to: Swills

IMO there needs to be a better way of detecting residual cannabis in the system. Urine/blood testing can only tell if there was use/exposure within the last couple of weeks, even months in longtime heavy smokers who only recently quit.

It's imperfect, and I feel morally dubious about it, but ultimately it's the employer's call. It just is. As a cannabis advocate, I seriously wish there was a perfect solution, but there isn't one at this point. Sorry that people are losing their jobs.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Testing positive for marijuana isn't the same as abusing marijuana. Though I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE that can abuse marijuana. Even the hopelessly addicted can function just fine for the few hours they may have to be sober. In any case, I'd certain trust a marijuana addict over an opiate addict.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Medical marijuana being abused or not is irrelevant. This is the Colorado Supreme Court ruling this. Marijuana is legal regardless of prescription there.

a reply to: Swills

how will this ruling effect the other states that legalized it?

When jobs decide what you can and cannot do OUTSIDE of your working hours, it's SLAVERY, plain and simple. The hypocrisy agaisnt MJ as got to end, it's probably the least dangerous of all altering substances and it's time people stop being so emotional about it.

They are emotional, not logical.
Boycott comapnies that want to regulate the lives of their employees 24/7, we are not slaves!!

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Swills

how will this ruling effect the other states that legalized it?

It won't because Colorado's Supreme Court has no say in any state but Colorado.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Right on, I can respect that That was more of a general response on the subject than an individual reply.