Some sanity in the politics of drugs.

[idb]

It's fair enough to sack someone for being impaired.
These tests don't check for that though.

 

[TooTall]

User is a Quadriplegic.
User had Medical Marijuana.
User was not stoned at work.

Even if yer an anti Marijuana Zealot like the OP, you still shouldn't be happy with this decision.

The Colorado Court's decision was based on the fact that because marijuana is illegal under federal law use of the drug couldn't be considered legal off-duty activity. There are no exceptions in the federal law for medical marijuana use.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

And if you don't agree with the CEO's politics --- FIRED!!!

I'm right with ya.

Not a christian or muslim, whichever flavor of bullshit the company endorses --- FIRED!!!

Overweight --- FIRED!!!

Underweight --- FIRED!!!

Disabled --- FIRED!!!

Etc....................................................

Precisely.

So you don't think that a company should be able to fire you for failing a drug test?

How does that mesh with your political views?

Literally said the exact opposite.

 

[FA_Q2]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

And if you don't agree with the CEO's politics --- FIRED!!!

I'm right with ya.

Not a christian or muslim, whichever flavor of bullshit the company endorses --- FIRED!!!

Overweight --- FIRED!!!

Underweight --- FIRED!!!

Disabled --- FIRED!!!

Etc....................................................

Precisely.

So you don't think that a company should be able to fire you for failing a drug test?

How does that mesh with your political views?

Literally said the exact opposite.

LOL.
I should have known that considering I have an idea what you support. For some reason I read sarcasm in your comment that was not there. Looking back, I am not sure why. Perhaps just used to some of the silly posters here and slipped.

 

[TooTall]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

 

[Moonglow]

User is a Quadriplegic.
User had Medical Marijuana.
User was not stoned at work.

Even if yer an anti Marijuana Zealot like the OP, you still shouldn't be happy with this decision.

The Colorado Court's decision was based on the fact that because marijuana is illegal under federal law use of the drug couldn't be considered legal off-duty activity. There are no exceptions in the federal law for medical marijuana use.

That is being changed now though,, The war is about to die...

 

[Moonglow]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

So? I didn't vote on the issue nor has my reps in Congress..It was done a long time ago.........I voted for Reagan but didn't after he started his drug wars.....The US is known for not following laws and being rebellious, also to note, it's founding was done by smuggling......

 

[SwimExpert]

Lol no. A high is a few hours at most. With alcohol you can go to bed drunk and wake up for work still drunk. Not the case with marijuana.

That is not true. In fact, that's patently absurd. The reason a person wakes up still drunk is because of the total amount of alcohol consumed a time frame. The same will be true for just about any drug, with the only exceptions being drugs that have extremely short durations of effect.

The duration of effect for marijuana will vary, based on method of consumption, amount consumed, personal tolerance, potency, etc. Just because a person has a high tolerance does not mean that they are not intoxicated. A single joint can have demonstrable effects over 8 hours after ingestion.

http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/267002002.pdf

I have yet to find any that will....

Just because you're too fucked up to notice you're fucked up doesn't change reality, nor science.

 

[Moonglow]

Lol no. A high is a few hours at most. With alcohol you can go to bed drunk and wake up for work still drunk. Not the case with marijuana.

That is not true. In fact, that's patently absurd. The reason a person wakes up still drunk is because of the total amount of alcohol consumed a time frame. The same will be true for just about any drug, with the only exceptions being drugs that have extremely short durations of effect.

The duration of effect for marijuana will vary, based on method of consumption, amount consumed, personal tolerance, potency, etc. Just because a person has a high tolerance does not mean that they are not intoxicated. A single joint can have demonstrable effects over 8 hours after ingestion.

http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/267002002.pdf

I have yet to find any that will....

Just because you're too fucked up to notice you're fucked up doesn't change reality, nor science.

I never get fucked up...I do fuck things up rather well...And it is science in the same manor of the psychologist/psychoanalyst I studied in college....Did it also.....

 

[SwimExpert]

Lol no. A high is a few hours at most. With alcohol you can go to bed drunk and wake up for work still drunk. Not the case with marijuana.

That is not true. In fact, that's patently absurd. The reason a person wakes up still drunk is because of the total amount of alcohol consumed a time frame. The same will be true for just about any drug, with the only exceptions being drugs that have extremely short durations of effect.

The duration of effect for marijuana will vary, based on method of consumption, amount consumed, personal tolerance, potency, etc. Just because a person has a high tolerance does not mean that they are not intoxicated. A single joint can have demonstrable effects over 8 hours after ingestion.

http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/267002002.pdf

I have yet to find any that will....

Just because you're too fucked up to notice you're fucked up doesn't change reality, nor science.

I never get fucked up...I do fuck things up rather well...And it is science in the same manor of the psychologist/psychoanalyst I studied in college....Did it also.....

This is what happens when you draw conclusions before you click the links.

 

[BlindBoo]

Colorado court Workers can be fired for using pot off-duty - Yahoo News

So you can use it but don't fail a test for an employer cause they can fire you even if the State made it legal to use.

Horrah for the Big Government Nanny State Fascist.

"The Colorado justices ruled that because marijuana is illegal under federal law, Coats' use of the drug couldn't be considered legal off-duty activity."

 

[FA_Q2]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

That is not going to last long. MJ will be legal very soon. Would you disagree with this ruling at that point.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

And if you don't agree with the CEO's politics --- FIRED!!!

I'm right with ya.

Not a christian or muslim, whichever flavor of bullshit the company endorses --- FIRED!!!

Overweight --- FIRED!!!

Underweight --- FIRED!!!

Disabled --- FIRED!!!

Etc....................................................

Precisely.

So you don't think that a company should be able to fire you for failing a drug test?

How does that mesh with your political views?

Are you incapable of simple reading and comprehending?

 

[TooTall]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

That is not going to last long. MJ will be legal very soon. Would you disagree with this ruling at that point.

Of course, but until and if that happen, the ruling stands. I heard they were going to raise the speed limit in the Freeway from 70 to 80 mph. Until they do, I suggest not going 80 mph without expecting to get a ticket.

 

[FA_Q2]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

And if you don't agree with the CEO's politics --- FIRED!!!

I'm right with ya.

Not a christian or muslim, whichever flavor of bullshit the company endorses --- FIRED!!!

Overweight --- FIRED!!!

Underweight --- FIRED!!!

Disabled --- FIRED!!!

Etc....................................................

Precisely.

So you don't think that a company should be able to fire you for failing a drug test?

How does that mesh with your political views?

Are you incapable of simple reading and comprehending?

Perhaps you should finish the conversation that we were having before interjecting moronic insults.

 

[Plasmaball]

Colorado court Workers can be fired for using pot off-duty - Yahoo News

So you can use it but don't fail a test for an employer cause they can fire you even if the State made it legal to use.

nobody has said it shouldnt be treated like drinking.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

 

[TooTall]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

What part of using MJ being against federal law don't you understand.

 

[FA_Q2]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

What part of using MJ being against federal law don't you understand.

I would venture a guess as the part where the federal government has chosen to not enforce those laws in states where the local law has legalized it.

I would think that you would support this concept considering that the federal government really should not have purview here - those states have declared it legal.

 

[FA_Q2]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

The only problem here is that this decision, AFAIK, is based entirely on the federal legality of the substance. IOW, it is baseless once the federal law is gone.

It might be the correct decision but based off the wrong reasoning which WILL mean the decision is moot once the federal law is finally changed. That represents, IMHO, a step BACKWARDS. I do not see something like this repeating once the federal law is canned.