Medical Marijuana users can be fired..

EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
edited June 2011 in A Moving Train
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-wa-supr ... hpt=us_bn7

Although the article says this ruling will likely be appealed, it doesn't make much sense to me because if somebody has a legitimate prescription for it, how is it different from any other prescribed medication? I was just wondering what others think about this. For jobs that I have had in the past who do pre-employment, or random, drug screening, there is typically a medication form that is filled out by the employee at the time of the drug test to state which medications they are on so that it should be expected to show up on the screen (if that applies). Again, if it is legally prescribed by a certified physician, how can the person be fired for it?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    because our government promotes the random and planned search and seizure of the contents of your bladder. Science tells us there is no problems with cannabis, so I think they do it in order to "weed out" (sorry for the pun) the non-conformists. You know, cause if I smoke a J on a saturday night, that has a huge impact on my work performance on Monday morning.

    Once again, the 10th amendment is being thrown in the trash heap.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • I'm all for complete legalization of marijuana.

    However, this also falls under at-will employment. I work at a company who has some clients that have strict rules regarding that as well and if you're to visit their premises, their rules also state that even with prescribed medical marijuana, a failed test stands. At these places you also have to take a breathalyzer which is also zero tolerance.

    That's where the argument lies though. A breathalyzer is a real-time results based test where if you had a good weekend, recovered on Sunday, and showed up Monday, that's fine and you're showing a responsible safe work ethic. Marijuana testing that's currently utilized doesn't allow for these same kind of results.

    I believe the discussion of this won't be getting any better or any progress will be made until there's better testing utilized. A way to figure out and pinpoint a usage style similar to a breathalyzer, with real-time results, instead of just a general '(s)he's used at some point in the past month' urine test. With these kind of results, sure, you can weed out the irresponsible users, but at the expense of responsible users.

    A company will almost always take the better safe than sorry approach to this subject, as they will also be slow to change.
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    I work at a company who has some clients that have strict rules regarding that as well and if you're to visit their premises, their rules also state that even with prescribed medical marijuana, a failed test stands. .
    This is very interesting; I have never seen written rules on this from employers. The 'prescribed' part is what gets me. There seems something fundamentally wrong with being able to fire someone if it is legally prescribed. Several years ago when I worked as a nurse on an oncology unit, there were several patients who were prescribed a medication that was THC in pill form for nausea (can't remember the name now--it's been awhile). But they would show positive on a drug screen. It seems very unfair that in that scenario (just one example), it could cause them to lose their job. And to bring up another 'issue', say that someone is on something like Vicodin or Percocet or something for a back problem or something similar.. If they put that down on the medication-taking form, and they test positive for it on the screen, they aren't fired for that. And who's to say that that person isn't taking more than what is prescribed or using it recreationally? Sorry to digress..

    I believethe discussion of this won't be getting any better or any progress will be made until there's better testing utilized. A way to figure out and pinpoint a usage style similar to a breathalyzer, with real-time results, instead of just a general '(s)he's used at some point in the past month' urine test. With these kind of results, sure, you can weed out the irresponsible users, but at the expense of responsible users.

    A company will almost always take the better safe than sorry approach to this subject, as they will also be slow to change.
    Yes, I agree. I think you bring up the actual issue here because there is no way to tell if they smoked on Friday night two weeks ago, or if they did on the way to work that day. It's not possible to establish, so it makes it all or nothing.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    I think that this problem can be fixed if it is taxed. Surely, the government will say that employers can't discriminate employees based on their medicine usage if it is produced by a company that pays Uncle Sam.

    Quite Orwellian, no? "You can have your medicine as long as we get a cut of the profit."
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • shadowcastshadowcast Posts: 2,231
    Feel free to take all the oxycontin you want!!! Doesn't that just seem wrong?
  • marcosmarcos Posts: 2,112
    shadowcast wrote:
    Feel free to take all the oxycontin you want!!! Doesn't that just seem wrong?

    I agree, that is wrong when oxycontin or any pain reliever is definitely more addictive than Mary Jane, Hillbily Heroin is the term for oxy since Rush started taking it. I'm not sure if MJ is really addictive at all though I suppose anybody could be addicted to anything at anytime, but I've worked with substance abusers before and MJ caused the least amount of problems for my people. Alcohol is a hundred times worse in my opinion.
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    shadowcast wrote:
    Feel free to take all the oxycontin you want!!! Doesn't that just seem wrong?
    yes, it does. Especially when you won't get fired for it if you have a prescription. Seems like a weird double standard.
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    marcos- I agree with your opinion regarding alcohol being worse.

    And, I suppose this is all because it's an 'illegal' substance. Although, it's okay to keep vials of liquid cocaine for numbing purposes in medicine. Isn't cocaine illegal?
  • marcosmarcos Posts: 2,112
    EmBleve wrote:
    marcos- I agree with your opinion regarding alcohol being worse.

    And, I suppose this is all because it's an 'illegal' substance. Although, it's okay to keep vials of liquid cocaine for numbing purposes in medicine. Isn't cocaine illegal?

    Yeah, there are so much more dangerous substances than MJ, and people just refuse to understand. While I hardly view MJ as a even a drug. I do understand people see it as a gateway drug but it's only gateway because it's so ridiculously criminalized. It's less addictive than big tobacco for sure. But I suppose it's all about money at the end of the day. At least states are beginning to recognize the medical value, perhaps recreational use will not be too far.
  • Thats why I like to go to work high on Oxy and Valium. :twisted:





    Not really but if I did I couldn't get fired. Thats fucked!!! :evil:
    Memorial Stadium, Seattle - Jul 21 22, 1998
    Key Arena - Nov 05, 2000
    Gorge Amphitheater - Sep 01, 2005, Jul 22,23, 2006
    Key Arena - Sept 21,22, 2009
    Alpine Valley - Sept 3, 4 2011
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 40,302
    regardless of what the states vote in (legalization, etc) , fed law trumps it all. Uncle Sam tight ass that he is , still classifies this as a scheduled drug.

    Although I dont smoke any longer for my own reasons, for those that can handle it, spark it up!!
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • bgivens33bgivens33 Posts: 290
    It is a private company and should be able to fire someone for any reason they want except for the federally(or state) protected classes.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    bgivens33 wrote:
    It is a private company and should be able to fire someone for any reason they want except for the federally(or state) protected classes.

    what is an example of a "protected class" that would be exempt?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • HorosHoros Posts: 4,518
    Look, I'm telling you guys, it's awesome. I can have all the pot I want. I get around faster than walking and wherever I need a seat, I can just sit on my balls.
    randy-marsh.jpg
    #FHP
  • bgivens33bgivens33 Posts: 290
    bgivens33 wrote:
    It is a private company and should be able to fire someone for any reason they want except for the federally(or state) protected classes.

    what is an example of a "protected class" that would be exempt?

    Race, religion, color, age, disability and sex are the biggies. And some states have passed sexual orientation and a few others.

    Which personally, I think they are all absurd and shouldn't be in existence for a private company. Alas, that isn't the case.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    bgivens33 wrote:
    bgivens33 wrote:
    It is a private company and should be able to fire someone for any reason they want except for the federally(or state) protected classes.

    what is an example of a "protected class" that would be exempt?

    Race, religion, color, age, disability and sex are the biggies. And some states have passed sexual orientation and a few others.

    Which personally, I think they are all absurd and shouldn't be in existence for a private company. Alas, that isn't the case.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

    which races, religions, sex, sexual orientations, etc do you think ought to be able to use legal medicine and keep their job?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • bgivens33bgivens33 Posts: 290

    which races, religions, sex, sexual orientations, etc do you think ought to be able to use legal medicine and keep their job?

    None of them.

    If I own a business and you are my employee, I shouldn't need a valid reason to fire you just as you don't need a valid reason to quit. If I think smoking marijuana makes you a worse employee(which I definitely disagree with), then I should be able to fire you. Just as if I think you drink to much, I can do the same.

    With the passing of the 14th amendment, and subsequent judicial interpretations, the aforementioned 'federally protected classes' came into fruition. I can not discriminate on the basis of those categories but I can certainly discriminate outside of them all I want. This idea that an employer has to somehow be justified in firing(or hiring) you is a bit of a misnomer. If you follow some of the bible belt states, stories will pop up of people being fired for being gay. It happens and the business owner, currently, has that right.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    bgivens33 wrote:
    None of them.

    If I own a business and you are my employee, I shouldn't need a valid reason to fire you just as you don't need a valid reason to quit. If I think smoking marijuana makes you a worse employee(which I definitely disagree with), then I should be able to fire you. Just as if I think you drink to much, I can do the same.

    With the passing of the 14th amendment, and subsequent judicial interpretations, the aforementioned 'federally protected classes' came into fruition. I can not discriminate on the basis of those categories but I can certainly discriminate outside of them all I want. This idea that an employer has to somehow be justified in firing(or hiring) you is a bit of a misnomer. If you follow some of the bible belt states, stories will pop up of people being fired for being gay. It happens and the business owner, currently, has that right.

    okay, I was just curious if you thought that maybe SOME people were given a free pass with pot and some weren't... that seemed odd.

    I understand your point. It sucks (for the employee), but yeah, an employer can fire you for anything at all, really. Your only recourse is an expensive and lengthy lawsuit that would probably be thrown out anyway. If I'm an employer I wouldn't want anyone to tell me who I can or can't fire, either.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    he still stands and bgivens33--thank you for contributing to the thread. :) I appreciate the good points you brought up. I totally agree that a private company (or anyone else, I suppose, for that matter), has the right to hire or fire anyone they choose (however...that doesn't mean it's fair, and can't be proven to be, or not to be, so without a long drawn-out legal battle, as was mentioned). bgivens--the issue that you stated about "I shouldn't need a valid reason to fire you just as you don't need a valid reason to quit. If I think smoking marijuana makes you a worse employee(which I definitely disagree with), then I should be able to fire you. Just as if I think you drink to much, I can do the same." --I appreciate this because it made me see the scenario from a somewhat different perspective. I was looking at it more from a 'prescribed medication' context whereas you seem to be coming from an employer perspective. The conflict that I see here is this: if it is a 'personal' preference of the employer regarding a legal prescription for marijuana, and they fire someone based on that alone, it really doesn't seem fair. If said employee's work performance is adequate, or even above, it shouldn't become an issue. This sort of strikes the same chord with me when you brought up firing someone because they are gay in bible belt states....is that really true?? (what about equal employment opportunity?) That seems incomprehensible to me. The employee's performance should be what is ultimately the most important. And as for the analogy that you brought up "..if I think you drink too much, I can do the same"...well, alcohol is legal...if an employer fires somebody based on 'I think you drink too much'...wouldn't that employer have to back that up with some performance deficits based on that assumption? This is the reason for my subsequent post wherein I said that it must be because marijuana is illegal..there are so many loopholes..(of which I am ignorant and unfamiliar, admittedly). But simply a legitimate prescription for medical marijuana?? ..with no repercussions on work performance??
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    EmBleve... an employer *might* get in trouble for explicitly saying that they are firing you for a medical prescription, but in reality, no employer would ever do this.

    In reality, an employer will simply say something VERY vague like; "due to restructuring efforts needed for better organization efficiency and profitability, we regret to inform you..." and oh by the way "we will continue to pay you for six weeks but can stop payment if you make any statements to the media about company X or go public in any way about the company"

    So, by the time you've gotten a few paychecks while looking for a new job, most everyone has let go of any ill will towards that company... and the company did nothing wrong in firing you because no one can prove that the "vague statement" that they gave you was incorrect. That is what happens at all companies that 1) are large enough to have a lawyer or 2) have ever fired someone before
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 11,430
    Of course they can be fired. They can be arrested too. It's against federal law.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    DewieCox wrote:
    Of course they can be fired. They can be arrested too. It's against federal law.

    but not against state law, and the 10th amendment gives the right to the states to create/enforce laws that aren't spelled out in the constitution, such as this. So, the feds aren't following the letter of the law and they are the ones who should be prosecuted.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    DewieCox wrote:
    Of course they can be fired. They can be arrested too. It's against federal law.

    but not against state law, and the 10th amendment gives the right to the states to create/enforce laws that aren't spelled out in the constitution, such as this. So, the feds aren't following the letter of the law and they are the ones who should be prosecuted.

    The Feds have gone into CA though and have arrested medical marijuana users for a while now. I don't know all the specifics, but it's turned into a war between state law and Fed law.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Jeanwah wrote:
    DewieCox wrote:
    Of course they can be fired. They can be arrested too. It's against federal law.

    but not against state law, and the 10th amendment gives the right to the states to create/enforce laws that aren't spelled out in the constitution, such as this. So, the feds aren't following the letter of the law and they are the ones who should be prosecuted.

    The Feds have gone into CA though and have arrested medical marijuana users for a while now. I don't know all the specifics, but it's turned into a war between state law and Fed law.

    yep, no doubt about it. But, please notice that this is not a "war between state law and fed law." The 10th amendment of the constitution is a federal law... so, it is a "war between the feds and federal AND state laws."
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Anybody can basically be fired for any reason at all. The employer doesn't need to state why.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Sign In or Register to comment.