Grocery store fires Arizona medical marijuana patient after drug test

[Pogo]

You mean they paid the price of authoritarianism in the workplace, facilitated by lemmings who bend over for that shit.

It is ironic though that such control-freakism cost them half their joint talent. They shot themselves in the foot for the sake of ego-tripping.

Actually they were fired due to Federal DOT standards. Standards that have been in place for decades, including the entire careers of all five employees. They somehow thought a state regulation superseded Federal Regulations.

The three who weren’t hired all knew about the requirements before applying for the job.

I have no sympathy for any of them.

What you have none of is cognizance of wtf this is about, This is a wrongful termination case.
I'm getting the impression not a single one o' y'all bothered to read the OP article.

Everyone read the article. You're simply wrong.

Clearly you didn't. It's obviously easier to go "you're wrong" and STILL not bother to read the article, which clearly states the state law about discrimination.

Too funny.

Pogo's Axiom: "I have met the enemy, and he is me."

Billy's Bullshit: "Oh duh yes SIR mister Big State may I please have yet another boot to lick. YUM".

From the OP article, since you're too stupid to read it:

>> Section 36-2813 of the AMMA reads, in part:

B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:

1. The person’s status as a cardholder.

2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<
​

Again --- state law. Again, federal law has no jurisdiction here.

Again --- you think you can just blow off the actual background and argue Appeal to Emotion based on the expectation that nobody else did their homework either. Again, that ain't happening on my watch.

 

[Anathema]

Has absolutely nothing to do with any "moral standards". It has to do with state law, which clearly prohibits what the employer did. Those ARE the rules.

Moral Law supersedes the laws of mere mortals. The proper punishment for anyone caught with that shit is an express trip to Hell. Immediately, if not sooner.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Actually they were fired due to Federal DOT standards. Standards that have been in place for decades, including the entire careers of all five employees. They somehow thought a state regulation superseded Federal Regulations.

The three who weren’t hired all knew about the requirements before applying for the job.

I have no sympathy for any of them.

What you have none of is cognizance of wtf this is about, This is a wrongful termination case.
I'm getting the impression not a single one o' y'all bothered to read the OP article.

Everyone read the article. You're simply wrong.

Clearly you didn't. It's obviously easier to go "you're wrong" and STILL not bother to read the article, which clearly states the state law about discrimination.

Too funny.

Pogo's Axiom: "I have met the enemy, and he is me."

Billy's Bullshit: "Oh duh yes SIR mister Big State may I please have yet another boot to lick. YUM".

From the OP article, since you're too stupid to read it:

>> Section 36-2813 of the AMMA reads, in part:

B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:

1. The person’s status as a cardholder.

2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<
​

Again --- state law. Again, federal law has no jurisdiction here.

How silly. Federal law always has supremacy.

Also, the danger of the employer losing insurance coverage because of non-action in these matters is quite real, I assure you.

 

[Pogo]

Anyone who had an accident and tested positive for prescription drugs would be fired. Why is marijuana so sacred?

Once AGAIN there is no cause-and-effect established. See my last post as well as:

>> Drug testing can reveal THC metabolites from marijuana used days or weeks prior, so the presence of such metabolites does not imply a person is presently impaired. This will be included in part of Carden’s argument during litigation. <<​

--- that's also from the same OP article, and is already well-known. Just as the fact that you had three beers three weeks ago doesn't mean you're drunk today. This is all a Big State heavyhand scam to put the little people "in their place", and that's ALL it is.

Once AGAIN if employers were genuinely interested in workplace safety what they would be doing is administering a simple reflex test at the beginning of the workday, which would flag substandard conditions whether they derived from alcohol, prescription drugs, cannabis, fatigue, creeping illness, personal distraction, or anything else. And it would be a lot cheaper than piss tests and a lot quicker.

But they don't do that, do they.

That right there demonstrates what the priority really is. POWER. Keeping the plebes submissive even if it requires piss tests, hair locks, saliva harvesting or ferreting up somebody's bunghole. It's not in the least about "safety". It's about WE RULE YOU UND YOU VILL SUBMIT. And anyone who does bend over for it is just helping them do it and fucking the rest of us.

Here's the proper response to "we drug test" --- "Drug test this "

Have the stones to stand up for yourself and just watch how fast they back down.

 

[Montrovant]

Anyone who had an accident and tested positive for prescription drugs would be fired. Why is marijuana so sacred?

That is a very broad, and therefore untrue, statement. There are all sorts of prescription drugs that one can take. Do you think all will have an affect on one's work, regardless of what that work is?

 

[Pogo]

Anyone who had an accident and tested positive for prescription drugs would be fired. Why is marijuana so sacred?

That is a very broad, and therefore untrue, statement. There are all sorts of prescription drugs that one can take. Do you think all will have an affect on one's work, regardless of what that work is?

I've never heard of an employer (or any entity) "testing for prescription drugs". There's actually an easy way to establish whether somebody's taking prescription drugs. It's called "their doctor". Or "their pharmacist".

Just demonstrates how little thought some people put into their posts just so they can go "look Mom! I'm on the internets!"

 

[petro]

Anyone who had an accident and tested positive for prescription drugs would be fired. Why is marijuana so sacred?

Once AGAIN there is no cause-and-effect established. See my last post as well as:

>> Drug testing can reveal THC metabolites from marijuana used days or weeks prior, so the presence of such metabolites does not imply a person is presently impaired. This will be included in part of Carden’s argument during litigation. <<​

--- that's also from the same OP article, and is already well-known. Just as the fact that you had three beers three weeks ago doesn't mean you're drunk today. This is all a Big State heavyhand scam to put the little people "in their place", and that's ALL it is.

Once AGAIN if employers were genuinely interested in workplace safety what they would be doing is administering a simple reflex test at the beginning of the workday, which would flag substandard conditions whether they derived from alcohol, prescription drugs, cannabis, fatigue, creeping illness, personal distraction, or anything else. And it would be a lot cheaper than piss tests and a lot quicker.

But they don't do that, do they.

That right there demonstrates what the priority really is. POWER. Keeping the plebes submissive even if it requires piss tests, hair locks, saliva harvesting or ferreting up somebody's bunghole. It's not in the least about "safety". It's about WE RULE YOU UND YOU VILL SUBMIT. And anyone who does bend over for it is just helping them do it and fucking the rest of us.

Here's the proper response to "we drug test" --- "Drug test this "

Have the stones to stand up for yourself and just watch how fast they back down.

Elements on the left wish to control the mind and thought...
Elements on the right wish to control the body.
Screw all of them.
I have never in over 40 years ever had the degrading experience of pissing in a bottle for a shitty job. Says a lot about the employer who assumes a person is tainted and has to produce body fluids to prove themselves which does nothing to detect actual intoxication.
I know plenty of folks in a variety of jobs who get around the testing in a variety of ways. A drug free workplace is actually false advertising. There may be more workers using it than anyone realizes.

 

[aaronleland]

I'm a pothead, and just a few months ago was the casualty of a failed random drug test, and I have no problem with an employer not employing somebody who smokes weed if they don't want to. It's still silly since weed stays in your system for so long the person could have smoked a joint a month ago, but that's whatever. If the person was a good worker they are only screwing themselves out of a good employee.

 

[Polishprince]

When I hear of an employer complaining because he can`t find enough people to hire because of a failed drug test, I consider that employer to be the problem. Hire the guy, if his work sucks then you fire him. Simple as that. What he does on his own time is his own business.

Workmens comp and other insurance companies might insist or want to raise rates. It really depends on what job you are hiring the pothead to do.

A minority of employers might have moral problems with the smoking of grass too. Henry Ford wouldn't hire cigarette smokers for his assembly lines

 

[aaronleland]

A lot of employers drug test for insurance and liability reasons. As long as you're not bringing it to work I doubt most employers could give two shits what you do at home. Hell, many employers probably don't care if you smoke before work if you're getting the work done.

 

[petro]

A lot of employers drug test for insurance and liability reasons. As long as you're not bringing it to work I doubt most employers could give two shits what you do at home. Hell, many employers probably don't care if you smoke before work if you're getting the work done.

Frankly, for a low paying shitty miserable job it should be provided by the employer.

 

[aaronleland]

It really is silly, since I know so many hardworking potheads, and so many lazy people who don't do any drugs. The last job I worked at was in a warehouse where they were always complaining that nobody wanted to work on the loading docks. I was on the docks throwing 80 pound boxes all day when they pulled me for a random drug test. I found another job in a week, and they were out one more dock worker.

 

[Montrovant]

Anyone who had an accident and tested positive for prescription drugs would be fired. Why is marijuana so sacred?

That is a very broad, and therefore untrue, statement. There are all sorts of prescription drugs that one can take. Do you think all will have an affect on one's work, regardless of what that work is?

I've never heard of an employer (or any entity) "testing for prescription drugs". There's actually an easy way to establish whether somebody's taking prescription drugs. It's called "their doctor". Or "their pharmacist".

Just demonstrates how little thought some people put into their posts just so they can go "look Mom! I'm on the internets!"

I don't think businesses usually test for specific prescription drugs, but they do test for things like opiods. If you don't have a prescription and take prescription opiods, or if you have one but have too much in your system, that could lead to a firing.

I doubt that's what whitehall was talking about, though.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Any worthwhile employer will have a history of dates and times the worker was observed stoned on pot.

 

[my2¢]

Another thread that hits close to home.

After reading the article linked in OP, I then went out to look for a local area story source. Here is some addition info about the employee Tom Lee provided by his lawyer, Joshua Carden. Lee worked as a coder and receiver in a Safeway warehouse in 1996. Then when Albertson's bought Safeway:

After a buyout by Albertsons in 2018, Lee got moved from Tempe to an Albertsons warehouse in Tolleson. In May of last year, Carden says Lee only had about an hour of forklift training before he was put in one on the job and had an accident.

“Nobody was hurt. Some ramen noodles may have been harmed in the process, but that was about it,” Carden said.

Man sues Albertsons, claims he was wrongfully fired over medical marijuana
​

 

[Jarlaxle]

Any worthwhile employer will have a history of dates and times the worker was observed stoned on pot.

Call the Olympic Committee. Wild leaps like that should get you on the track & field team.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What you have none of is cognizance of wtf this is about, This is a wrongful termination case.
I'm getting the impression not a single one o' y'all bothered to read the OP article.

Nothing wrongful about it. That's industry standard. If you cause an accident with a forklift, you're drug tested. If you fail the drug test, you're fired. If you want to be a forklift operator, you cannot do drugs. Not even “medical” marijuana.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Has absolutely nothing to do with any "moral standards". It has to do with state law, which clearly prohibits what the employer did. Those ARE the rules. Failure to read the article doesn't alter that. That's entirely on you.

No.

The rules are, if you cause an accident with a forklift, you get drug tested. If you test positive for drugs, you get fired. Every forklift operator knows this. Every forklift operator agrees to this as a condition of the job.

 

[Pogo]

Has absolutely nothing to do with any "moral standards". It has to do with state law, which clearly prohibits what the employer did. Those ARE the rules. Failure to read the article doesn't alter that. That's entirely on you.

No.

The rules are, if you cause an accident with a forklift, you get drug tested. If you test positive for drugs, you get fired. Every forklift operator knows this. Every forklift operator agrees to this as a condition of the job.

Actually I already posted the relevant part of the state law (post 101 above) so even the article-avoiders couldn't avoid it.


There is no "test positive for drugs" here. There is no "drug". There is a test for metabolites of cannabis (which is not a drug), which not only do not indicate any kind of "drug"; the also CANNOT indicate any kind of intoxication by ANYTHING. What they do indicate is that the subject ingested cannabis (voluntarily or involuntarily) within the past month, NOT that he ingested it at or in temporal proximity TO the job and definitely NOT that it had any effect ON the job. And I posted that too, not that it's not already widely known.

In other words it's an invasive spy technique to snoop on what people might be doing with their free time, to control private behaviour. Yet another way to keep the proletariat submissive --- as we've pointed out here from the beginning. Maybe you were just too stoned to get that.

Let's get right to that state law, the part that applies DIRECTLY to this termination:

"....an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:

1. The person’s status as a cardholder.

2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<​

As already repeatedly noted, and as already known LONG before this event came up, no such test determined any such thing, because it CAN'T.

As for who rolls over for this authoritarian shit ("agrees to this as a condition of the job") I can assure you from experience that's not true. All you have to do is grow a freaking pair and refuse to sign that part. Cross it out, whatever applies. You passives will be surprised how fast authoritarian control freaks will back down when their bluff is called. Just say no.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Some jobs, drug testing is required. (Federal law, for me.)