Legal marijuana and your job

[Peter1469]

With so many states making marijuana legal to one degree or another (23 states and DC), this is a timely article for people who have a job. Especially if the job is identified as a "safety-sensitive positions." Because state laws vary, this is a complicated issue and you need to know the laws in your state- your job may depend on it. Some states will favor the employees with off-job marijuana use. Other states will favor employers.


On June 15, 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court was the ultimate buzzkill.


When the state's residents passed a referendum in 2012 legalizing recreational marijuana use—long after the state sanctioned medical use in 2000—few had any idea that Coloradans who partook in the bud would end up jeopardizing their livelihood.


That’s exactly what the court permitted in Coats v. Dish Network. The case pitted a quadriplegic licensed to use medical marijuana against his employer. The court held the state’s “lawful activities statute,” which generally prohibits employers from firing employees for engaging in lawful activities off the job, applied only to activities lawful under Colorado and federal law. Because marijuana is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, its use isn’t lawful—and can remain a valid basis for termination in the state.


Coats addressed just one sliver of the universe of employment law issues triggered by the loosening of marijuana laws. There’s an entire galaxy of questions just about how employers must treat marijuana use under state and federal employment laws, including disability laws, to which clear answers have been slow to emerge.

[Chris]

I would expect companies to adhere to their own policies. Why would government have any say in it at all?

[donttread]

With so many states making marijuana legal to one degree or another (23 states and DC), this is a timely article for people who have a job. Especially if the job is identified as a "safety-sensitive positions." Because state laws vary, this is a complicated issue and you need to know the laws in your state- your job may depend on it. Some states will favor the employees with off-job marijuana use. Other states will favor employers.

So Colorado lost the balls they had when they legalized pot to begin with.

[Matty]

This could all end up being discriminatory right?

[Crepitus]

I thinking it won't be an issue for long anyway. Federal legalization is coming.

[donttread]

I thinking it won't be an issue for long anyway. Federal legalization is coming.

Federal drug policy within the states is unconstitutional. Which is why alcohol prohibition required an amendment. But then people weren't sheep in 1920 either.

[Crepitus]

Federal drug policy within the states is unconstitutional. Which is why alcohol prohibition required an amendment. But then people weren't sheep in 1920 either.
Not trying to argue that, just saying it will eliminate the particular issue this thread is about.

[donttread]

Not trying to argue that, just saying it will eliminate the particular issue this thread is about.

True and no offense meant.

[Peter1469]

So Colorado lost the balls they had when they legalized pot to begin with.

I don't know what you mean? This article is more about what the employers should do.... Read the OP.

[Peter1469]

This could all end up being discriminatory right?

How so?

[Ethereal]

But then people weren't sheep in 1920 either.

That's debatable.

[Standing Wolf]

Part of the problem is that neither the technology or the law exists to determine whether someone who uses marijuana while on their own time is still under its influence while on the job. It would be far easier to argue to a company that an employee's off-the-job activities vis-a-vis marijuana could be engaged in without risking that influence, and if a simple test, comparable to a Breathalyzer with alcohol, could be employed to prove or disprove it. With urinalysis testing, legally reportable levels of THC can be detected for up to six weeks after a long-time user has begun to abstain, and no one from the medical or scientific community is prepared to say what tested level constitutes "recent use".

[Truth Detector]

Federal drug policy within the states is unconstitutional. Which is why alcohol prohibition required an amendment. But then people weren't sheep in 1920 either.

How is it unconstitutional to regulate drugs? Should everyone have unlimited access to OxyContin? How about Heroin? How is that working up in New Hampshire which is dealing with an epidemic of heroin addicts and deaths?

[Matty]

Part of the problem is that neither the technology or the law exists to determine whether someone who uses marijuana while on their own time is still under its influence while on the job. It would be far easier to argue to a company that an employee's off-the-job activities vis-a-vis marijuana could be engaged in without risking that influence, and if a simple test, comparable to a Breathalyzer with alcohol, could be employed to prove or disprove it. With urinalysis testing, legally reportable levels of THC can be detected for up to six weeks after a long-time user has begun to abstain, and no one from the medical or scientific community is prepared to say what tested level constitutes "recent use".



Good, then let your heart surgeon and your pilot use drugs on their off time. Good idea.

[domer76]

Good, then let your heart surgeon and your pilot use drugs on their off time. Good idea.

Here's clue, pal. They already do.

[Matty]

Here's clue, pal. They already do.


I am not your pal. Back up your assertion or count yourself out.

[Matty]

What does "Here's clue" even mean?

[Don]

Its already being addressed in Colorado. If it works for law enforcement and driving it could be used in business too.


Legalization of Marijuana and Impaired Driving

Marijuana affects reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, concentration and perception of time and distance. Getting high and getting behind the wheel of a car will get you arrested for a DUI – this law hasn’t changed with the legalization of marijuana in January 2014.
Similar to alcohol, there is an established impairment level in Colorado of five nanograms of active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the active psychoactive component of marijuana—per milliliter of whole blood.



I worked in manufacturing of pharmaceuticals (in Colorado) which means chemicals and the possibility of explosions, runaway reactions and the release of deadly chemicals and compounds into the atmosphere. We didn't want anyone under the influence of anything and there was a zero tolerance level. That didn't mean you couldn't drink or take prescription drugs, just that you weren't under the influence at work. I think the same would apply with marijuana using the same standard as Colorado law enforcement uses to gauge your ability to drive safely.

[domer76]

I am not your pal. Back up your assertion or count yourself out.

Pally boy, if you think doctors, lawyers, pilots or any other professional occupation doesn't use and/or abuse both legal and illegal substances in any proportion different than the general population, you are just plain fucking naive.

Pal.

[Matty]

Pally boy, if you think doctors, lawyers, pilots or any other professional occupation doesn't use and/or abuse both legal and illegal substances in any proportion different than the general population, you are just plain fucking naive.

Pal.


Back it up wormy boy.

[domer76]

Its already being addressed in Colorado. If it works for law enforcement and driving it could be used in business too.



I worked in manufacturing of pharmaceuticals (in Colorado) which means chemicals and the possibility of explosions, runaway reactions and the release of deadly chemicals and compounds into the atmosphere. We didn't want anyone under the influence of anything and there was a zero tolerance level. That didn't mean you couldn't drink or take prescription drugs, just that you weren't under the influence at work. I think the same would apply with marijuana using the same standard as Colorado law enforcement uses to gauge your ability to drive safely.

Don't confuse impairment level with an arbitrary number. The alcohol BAC of 0.08 for most states is a per se level. It doesn't say or mean you are impaired at that level, just that you are in violation of the law. The same goes for the arbitrary THC level.

Unfortunately, for both laws, there is no way for the drinker or smoker to know whether they are in violation of the law.

[domer76]

Back it up wormy boy.

Going from naive to stupid, I see. My observation is that you were at that destination already.

[zelmo1234]

The problem with under the influence of any substance is in some jobs you can become a danger to yourselves and others.

It is my experience that Pot users do other things that prevent them from keeping long term employment. they get the Fuck It's And stop showing up for work.

[Chris]

Pally boy, if you think doctors, lawyers, pilots or any other professional occupation doesn't use and/or abuse both legal and illegal substances in any proportion different than the general population, you are just plain fucking naive.

Pal.


Back it up wormy boy.


Going from naive to stupid, I see. My observation is that you were at that destination already.


Cut the personal insults and discuss the topic.

[domer76]

Cut the personal insults and discuss the topic.

I just did discuss the topic. Professionals, especially doctors, have the same, or even greater, substance abuse rates than the general population. Easy to confirm in a matter of seconds. Willful ignorance is no excuse.

[Matty]

I just did discuss the topic. Professionals, especially doctors, have the same, or even greater, substance abuse rates than the general population. Easy to confirm in a matter of seconds. Willful ignorance is no excuse.


Show us!

[domer76]

Show us!


Let your lazy heiney take 10 seconds to Google 'drug abuse among doctors' and you'll see any number of articles confirming that your brain surgeon, does in fact, use and abuse drugs.

[Ethereal]

Show us!

The incidence of drug and alcohol abuse in lawyers, doctors and pilots is about the same--10 percent--as for the general population. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-01-05/news/9901050243_1_alcohol-abuse-lawyers-assistance-program-judge)

[Matty]

Let your lazy heiney take 10 seconds to Google 'drug abuse among doctors' and you'll see any number of articles confirming that your brain surgeon, does in fact, use and abuse drugs.
Oh I see the game you play. You make assertions you cannot back up. Typical.

[domer76]

Oh I see the game you play. You make assertions you cannot back up. Typical.

I won't do the work for your lazy ass. Do what I suggested and you'll do something out of character - educate yourself. It will take all of a few seconds, at least for most of us. Probably hours for you, but the facts are a quick search away.

[Ethereal]

Oh I see the game you play. You make assertions you cannot back up. Typical.

I find it amazing that you require some kind of proof that doctors, lawyers, and pilots abuse drugs. Still, I provided it anyway, so now you have no excuse for constantly making that asinine point.

[Mister D]

Show us!

Why would you be so incredulous? You do know successful people use drugs right? Cocaine, for example, was long perceived as an upper class high.

[Matty]

I find it amazing that you require some kind of proof that doctors, lawyers, and pilots abuse drugs. Still, I provided it anyway, so now you have no excuse for constantly making that asinine point.


What you provided was proof that ten percent of them used. Correct? Do you want a pilot or a surgeon on drugs? Or would you prefer the ninety percent who don't use? Why or why not?

[Mister D]

I find it amazing that you require some kind of proof that doctors, lawyers, and pilots abuse drugs. Still, I provided it anyway, so now you have no excuse for constantly making that asinine point.

This is a generational thing, Ethereal. It was been drummed into her head for decades that drugs are for low lives and losers.

[Mister D]

What you provided was proof that ten percent of them used. Correct? Do you want a pilot or a surgeon on drugs? Or would you prefer the ninety percent who don't use? Why or why not?

Um...we're not talking about a pilot when he's flying a plane or a surgeon during surgery...

[Matty]

Um...we're not talking about a pilot when he's flying a plane or a surgeon during surgery...


How do you know?

[Ethereal]

This is a generational thing, Ethereal. It was been drummed into her head for decades that drugs are for low lives and losers.

I think it's just a stupid thing.

[Standing Wolf]

Good, then let your heart surgeon and your pilot use drugs on their off time. Good idea.

My post was a statement of fact, and did not constitute advocacy for one "side" or the other.

[Mister D]

How do you know?

Reading comprehension. Try some drugs.

[Mister D]

I think it's just a stupid thing.

Nah it's deeper than that. People like her treat drug use like they would a personal failing or character flaw. That one is greedy, that one is a jerk and that one uses drugs. It's weird and it's hard for us to put ourselves in her shoes but it's the effect of decades of propaganda. My parents are kind of like that.

[Matty]

Reading comprehension. Try some drugs.


Oh, so you read about it. You don't actually know. Well, then, I am sure you'll be safe.

[Matty]

I think it's just a stupid thing.


I am not stupid enough to smoke or take drugs. How about yourself?

[Mister D]

Oh, so you read about it. You don't actually know. Well, then, I am sure you'll be safe.

No, I read their posts.

[Matty]

No, I read their posts.


Sniff some one more glue. It's the smart thing to do.

[Ethereal]

I am not stupid enough to smoke or take drugs.

Aside from copious amounts of alcohol, you mean.

[Mister D]

Sniff some one more glue. It's the smart thing to do.

Matty, you do know that a lot of successful people use drugs, right? Even nice people. :smiley:

[Mister D]

Aside from copious amounts of alcohol, you mean.

That's culturally acceptable. It's not a "drug" even though it is. I can kind of understand that position to an extent because, while beer and wine were most certainly consumed for their narcotic effect, they were also basic foodstuffs. OTOH, that's primarily those products are consumed now.

[Matty]

Matty, you do know that a lot of successful people use drugs, right? Even nice people. :smiley:


Certainly. It's still a very stupid choice. Even smart people do stupid stuff.

[Matty]

Aside from copious amounts of alcohol, you mean.


You do all three? How do you function?

[Mister D]

Certainly. It's still a very stupid choice. Even smart people do stupid stuff.

By that logic, so is having a beer. Who wants to live like that?

[Matty]

By that logic, so is having a beer. Who wants to live like that?


Live how you choose. Just pay for your choices. Deal?

[Tahuyaman]

With so many states making marijuana legal to one degree or another (23 states and DC), this is a timely article for people who have a job. Especially if the job is identified as a "safety-sensitive positions." Because state laws vary, this is a complicated issue and you need to know the laws in your state- your job may depend on it. Some states will favor the employees with off-job marijuana use. Other states will favor employers.


I would expect companies to adhere to their own policies. Why would government have any say in it at all?

employers will defer to federal law. At least local government of states which legalized marijuana will defer to federal law.

[Peter1469]

How is it unconstitutional to regulate drugs? Should everyone have unlimited access to OxyContin? How about Heroin? How is that working up in New Hampshire which is dealing with an epidemic of heroin addicts and deaths?

Constitutional? Where in the Constitution is there authority for the federal government to get involved in drug policy?

Federalism- it is a state issue.

Note: federalism does not mean the federal government has all of the power. :wink:

[Ethereal]

You do all three? How do you function?

We know you drink alcohol. Just like we knew you were pretending to be someone else when you were Twenty-Sixteen and gaming the reputation system. You aren't fooling anyone.

[Common]

I thinking it won't be an issue for long anyway. Federal legalization is coming.

Doesnt matter whether the feds legalize it or not, its absurd to allow people to wholesale smoke pot at work.

Whats infuriating about even the suggestion that people be allowed to smoke weed at work, I remember employers firing employess for smoking cigarettes and banning cigarette smoking at work because it destroyed productivity. NOW you want to allow smoking a PSYCHOTROPIC at work.

How cool is that, I cant wait to see a crane operator, operationg his craine on the 20th floor in NYC high on weed. I mean if it topples it may only kill a couple of dozen folks and how about those truckers driving their big rigs in fla 70 miles per hours suckin on a joint.

Heres the point NO ONE SHOULD SMOKE WEED AT WORK EVER

[donttread]

I don't know what you mean? This article is more about what the employers should do.... Read the OP.

Didn't I read about a Colorado court upholding their corporations?

[Chris]

employers will defer to federal law. At least local government of states which legalized marijuana will defer to federal law.

No company I have ever worked for would allow employees smoking weed to work for them. I have nothing against it personally, it's good the government is legalizing it, but employers should be free to make it a condition of working for them.

[donttread]

Actually, employers may be able to not hire pot smokers, in much the same way as some companies now refuse to hire tobacco smokers, even once federal law is changed.
Of course there is a tremendous amount of evidence that tobacco smokers are more expensive to employ and insure than are non smokers

[Chris]

How is it unconstitutional to regulate drugs?....

Asked like a true liberal would, inverting the Constitution. The document grants enumerated powers, prohibits others, it's not a living document giving the government free rein.

[Chris]

I just did discuss the topic. Professionals, especially doctors, have the same, or even greater, substance abuse rates than the general population. Easy to confirm in a matter of seconds. Willful ignorance is no excuse.

Don't violate rule 9. If you have concerns take it to PMs.

[Peter1469]

Didn't I read about a Colorado court upholding their corporations?

That was one small part of it.

[Crepitus]

Doesnt matter whether the feds legalize it or not, its absurd to allow people to wholesale smoke pot at work.

Whats infuriating about even the suggestion that people be allowed to smoke weed at work, I remember employers firing employess for smoking cigarettes and banning cigarette smoking at work because it destroyed productivity. NOW you want to allow smoking a PSYCHOTROPIC at work.

How cool is that, I cant wait to see a crane operator, operationg his craine on the 20th floor in NYC high on weed. I mean if it topples it may only kill a couple of dozen folks and how about those truckers driving their big rigs in fla 70 miles per hours suckin on a joint.

Heres the point NO ONE SHOULD SMOKE WEED AT WORK EVER

I don't think anyone is suggesting that's OK. I'm certainly not.

[Crepitus]

Doesnt matter whether the feds legalize it or not, its absurd to allow people to wholesale smoke pot at work.

Whats infuriating about even the suggestion that people be allowed to smoke weed at work, I remember employers firing employess for smoking cigarettes and banning cigarette smoking at work because it destroyed productivity. NOW you want to allow smoking a PSYCHOTROPIC at work.

How cool is that, I cant wait to see a crane operator, operationg his craine on the 20th floor in NYC high on weed. I mean if it topples it may only kill a couple of dozen folks and how about those truckers driving their big rigs in fla 70 miles per hours suckin on a joint.

Heres the point NO ONE SHOULD SMOKE WEED AT WORK EVER

Although, when you get right down to it, coffee and cigarettes are "psychotropic" too.

[Chris]

Actually, employers may be able to not hire pot smokers, in much the same way as some companies now refuse to hire tobacco smokers, even once federal law is changed.
Of course there is a tremendous amount of evidence that tobacco smokers are more expensive to employ and insure than are non smokers

Exactly.

[Peter1469]

Actually, employers may be able to not hire pot smokers, in much the same way as some companies now refuse to hire tobacco smokers, even once federal law is changed.
Of course there is a tremendous amount of evidence that tobacco smokers are more expensive to employ and insure than are non smokers

Allowing employers to jack up the employee contribution for smokers should solve the employers' concern with employees smoking off the job.

[Common]

Although, when you get right down to it, coffee and cigarettes are "psychotropic" too.

Not even close

[domer76]

I am not stupid enough to smoke or take drugs. How about yourself?

You make up for it in your posts.

[Standing Wolf]

Coming next, just to add another ingredient to the (no pun intended, of course) pot: a worker who smokes marijuana as part of his religious practice, demanding that he be retained on the grounds that firing him would constitute religious discrimination.

[Peter1469]

You make up for it in your posts.


Warning: if you can't post without insulting people, stay in the Hole.

[Peter1469]

Coming next, just to add another ingredient to the (no pun intended, of course) pot: a worker who smokes marijuana as part of his religious practice, demanding that he be retained on the grounds that firing him would constitute religious discrimination.

I think courts have handled that one. Yes to peyote (if you are an Indian - feather, not dot), no to Mary Jane.

[Green Arrow]

Coming next, just to add another ingredient to the (no pun intended, of course) pot: a worker who smokes marijuana as part of his religious practice, demanding that he be retained on the grounds that firing him would constitute religious discrimination.

Dudeism, man.

[Crepitus]

Not even close

Might wanna check those definitions.

[Crepitus]

Dudeism, man.

Sign me up! I don't smoke (don't like it, guess I'm to much of a control freak) but it still sounds like my kinda thing!

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/PzqNv.jpg

[Crepitus]

Warning: if you can't post without insulting people, stay in the Hole.

Must....resist....humorous.....comments........

[donttread]

That was one small part of it.

Not to me, remember I'm the one who thinks the states, not the people will bring the revolution

[donttread]

Asked like a true liberal would, inverting the Constitution. The document grants enumerated powers, prohibits others, it's not a living document giving the government free rein.

I guess detector never heard the truth about enumerated powers

[donttread]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that's OK. I'm certainly not.

Not at work of course, but I think what's in question here is can they be fired for smoking it on their free time

[donttread]

Constitutional? Where in the Constitution is there authority for the federal government to get involved in drug policy?

Federalism- it is a state issue.

Note: federalism does not mean the federal government has all of the power. :wink:

It seems "truth detector" can't detect the truth about the law of the land

[Chris]

Not at work of course, but I think what's in question here is can they be fired for smoking it on their free time

JMO, it should be up to the company and their policies.

[Crepitus]

Not at work of course, but I think what's in question here is can they be fired for smoking it on their free time

I understand, that was a response to another poster who seemed to think that's what this was all about.

[donttread]

Although, when you get right down to it, coffee and cigarettes are "psychotropic" too.

Yes, but they don't interfer with task completion the way other drugs do, but you are 100% right. Caffine and nicotine are mood altering chemicals. The route by which you administer and the purity matters as well. Coca leaves chewed by the South Americans were similar to our coffee, but when we got a hold of them, purified them many times and started snorting the powder up or nose it's almost like a different drug

[donttread]

Allowing employers to jack up the employee contribution for smokers should solve the employers' concern with employees smoking off the job.

If you jack the contribution high enough it would solve the insurance problem yes. But smokers also take more breaks, use more sick time and disability and are "sick at work" than non or ex-smokers. They also drink twice as much booze and are much more likely to use other drugs or have criminal records

[donttread]

Not even close

Yes they are , look it up and come back and admit you were wrong, that will help stop you from embarrassing yourself in the future

[Tahuyaman]

No company I have ever worked for would allow employees smoking weed to work for them. I have nothing against it personally, it's good the government is legalizing it, but employers should be free to make it a condition of working for them.

state government is legalizing it. The Feds are not going to anytime soon.

[Standing Wolf]

Most employers' major problem with drug-using employees is the financial consideration. Worker has an accident on the job in which citizen is seriously injured. Worker is subject to mandatory "for cause" drug test, which comes back positive for an illegal substance. Citizen (or citizens' heirs) sue the company for not taking precautions against such incidents. Impairment or non-impairment at the time of the accident becomes a matter of which paid expert can convince a non-expert jury.

A good friend runs an agency that provides drug testing to the courts, government agencies, private companies, etc., and everybody who comes in to pee in a cup, even the "walk-in" clients who are doing it strictly for themselves, are watched by a same-sex monitor through a one-way mirror while providing the sample; hundreds of people a month are caught trying to sneak "clean" urine in, even though they know they're being watched. The only ones who are NOT watched? Those testing for pre-employment by private companies. The companies want to be able to claim, for legal reasons, that their workers are drug-tested - but they don't want them to get caught cheating to get the job, so they make it easy for them to cheat. If a would-be employee is a drug-user, they don't want to know; they just want to be able to say they gave the person a drug test to create the appearance of caring.

[Peter1469]

People find ways around many laws and regulations. :smiley:

[donttread]

That's culturally acceptable. It's not a "drug" even though it is. I can kind of understand that position to an extent because, while beer and wine were most certainly consumed for their narcotic effect, they were also basic foodstuffs. OTOH, that's primarily those products are consumed now.


So basically drugs you use aren't really drugs? Holy shit.

[Cletus]

Part of the problem is that neither the technology or the law exists to determine whether someone who uses marijuana while on their own time is still under its influence while on the job. It would be far easier to argue to a company that an employee's off-the-job activities vis-a-vis marijuana could be engaged in without risking that influence, and if a simple test, comparable to a Breathalyzer with alcohol, could be employed to prove or disprove it. With urinalysis testing, legally reportable levels of THC can be detected for up to six weeks after a long-time user has begun to abstain, and no one from the medical or scientific community is prepared to say what tested level constitutes "recent use".

If it is detected in the system of one of my employees, he instantly becomes a former employee.

That policy will remain in effect even if the Feds decriminalize it.

[donttread]

Most employers' major problem with drug-using employees is the financial consideration. Worker has an accident on the job in which citizen is seriously injured. Worker is subject to mandatory "for cause" drug test, which comes back positive for an illegal substance. Citizen (or citizens' heirs) sue the company for not taking precautions against such incidents. Impairment or non-impairment at the time of the accident becomes a matter of which paid expert can convince a non-expert jury.


A good friend runs an agency that provides drug testing to the courts, government agencies, private companies, etc., and everybody who comes in to pee in a cup, even the "walk-in" clients who are doing it strictly for themselves, are watched by a same-sex monitor through a one-way mirror while providing the sample; hundreds of people a month are caught trying to sneak "clean" urine in, even though they know they're being watched. The only ones who are NOT watched? Those testing for pre-employment by private companies. The companies want to be able to claim, for legal reasons, that their workers are drug-tested - but they don't want them to get caught cheating to get the job, so they make it easy for them to cheat. If a would-be employee is a drug-user, they don't want to know; they just want to be able to say they gave the person a drug test to create the appearance of caring.

We need to find a way to differentiate between acute intoxication and the presence of chemical indicators of use as long as weeks before hand

[Mister D]

So basically drugs you use aren't really drugs? Holy $#@!.

Are you high? :laugh: I was describing her mentality.

[domer76]

We need to find a way to differentiate between acute intoxication and the presence of chemical indicators of use as long as weeks before hand

Agreed, but with something like THC, that's going to be difficult. It is even with alcohol, a substance that is much more predictable in its absorption and elimination. The cannabinoids are not.