Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-07-2015, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
13 posts, read 23,699 times
Reputation: 47

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
I don't know about that. Weed smoke gets caught in the hair pretty easily; most people can't wash their hair while at work.
What if they are vaporizing? It's the new trend now among potheads. And it's much better for you in comparison to smoking. Instead of inhaling the smoke/tar from the plant, you're mostly getting water/THC vapor. It bakes the weed, man .

Vaporizing is easily masked by letting the fumes air out. Which at work, would be your only option source: Oregon Laws on Smoking in the Workplace | Nolo.com. My workplace classifies vapor in the same category as smoking. So, no one can vape inside. And generally, when you're smoking/vaping outside, the breeze carries the smoke/vapor away from you. There is obviously exceptions to this, but who is really gonna go around smelling peoples hair? If people do that at your work, I would suggest filing a sexual harassment claim against them.

And for the record, I've washed my hair at work. Bathroom sinks are pretty cool.

I'm not trying to be a troll, but there is a lot of information in this thread that is merely a misconception about weed in the workplace. If there is anything I've said that's false, please do correct me. I'm no expert, I've just been around the stuff for quite some time. I've known plenty of people who smoke at work and they hide it very well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2015, 05:24 PM
 
26,586 posts, read 36,518,253 times
Reputation: 29808
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSoulInANewBody View Post
What if they are vaporizing? It's the new trend now among potheads. And it's much better for you in comparison to smoking. Instead of inhaling the smoke/tar from the plant, you're mostly getting water/THC vapor. It bakes the weed, man .

Vaporizing is easily masked by letting the fumes air out. Which at work, would be your only option source: Oregon Laws on Smoking in the Workplace | Nolo.com. My workplace classifies vapor in the same category as smoking. So, no one can vape inside. And generally, when you're smoking/vaping outside, the breeze carries the smoke/vapor away from you. There is obviously exceptions to this, but who is really gonna go around smelling peoples hair? If people do that at your work, I would suggest filing a sexual harassment claim against them.

And for the record, I've washed my hair at work. Bathroom sinks are pretty cool.

I'm not trying to be a troll, but there is a lot of information in this thread that is merely a misconception about weed in the workplace. If there is anything I've said that's false, please do correct me. I'm no expert, I've just been around the stuff for quite some time. I've known plenty of people who smoke at work and they hide it very well.
I don't work for an employer, so I'm not worried about anyone "smelling my hair at work."

As someone who has had a couple of people on staff in the past who liked to indulge on their lunch hours, you don't have to get too close to them to smell it if it's clinging to their hair and clothing. Heavy smokers always think that no one can smell them.

I know little about "vaping" and don't really care to know more. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

Last edited by Metlakatla; 05-07-2015 at 05:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2015, 12:11 PM
 
1,262 posts, read 1,297,571 times
Reputation: 2179
Default We are not on the same page because we live in different worlds I like mine better

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSoulInANewBody View Post
Are you saying that it would be easier to get away with indoors? Dude, no. My place of work, and all of my previous places have had designated smoking spots. I see people vaping daily. DAILY. Do I go up to them and ask if it's pot or if it's e-cig juice? No, because that would be a violation of their privacy. Just because they don't bring their bongs to work, doesn't mean that it's exactly what you think it is. What if they rolled their own cigarettes? They could easily put in a little weed and make it a spliff (spliff is a tobacco and weed cigarette/joint) and no one would know because the smoke would smell like tobacco.

This is incorrect. Let me explain. With smoking, you can effectively hide the smell by a few simple things. Change clothes, use spray deodorant, and brush your teeth. At that point, you can be sitting right next to someone having a normal conversation and no one would be the wiser.. The key here is to breath down and not in someones face. With alcohol, you become less aware of your surroundings and (with all alcoholics I know) you'll breath directly at someone, and it's not easy at all to hide the smell. But, with weed, all you really need to do is eat something or drink something and it will mask your breath. Unlike booze, where you'll still have that boozy smell even after a sandwich or a cup of coffee.

You must live in some fantasy world. Whatever job you have, I want. Workplaces do not care. To them, you are just a number. You are dispensable. Unless you have a degree in something that gives you worth, they can easily find a replacement if you become an issue. If you fail a pee test, they will fire you at most places of employment. They don't just test you for kicks, they are testing you because you've either become a problem, you've been tattled on by a coworker, they just don't like you, or if the insurance requires tests annually. My father was tested 10 times over the course of 2 months because his employer hated his guts.

So, you're basing your argument on your place of work, which doesn't come close to being the same as every other workplace out there? Yes termination "should" be based solely on performance, but it's not. Have you actually seen anyone get fired at all? What gives you the impression that the information as to why they were fired would be disclosed to you? That's unrealistic.

So, the fact that I was never tested at Jack in the Box but I've been tested several times since I've worked in security has nothing to do with how "real" a job is. Sure. From what you've seen, this may be true, but what you've seen doesn't outline the facts. It doesn't accurately describe anything that happens outside of your own little world. Things happen differently in different locations. In Oregon, if you're caught with anything in your system you'll be fired. Almost regardless of workplace.

Do you actually get out of your house? Ever? You should. According to this About Marijuana it says that ~100 million Americans have smoked pot. There is currently 318.9 million people living in the US, as of 2014. That's roughly around 30%. Also, is there no in between with casual users and habitual users? What defines a casual user and a habitual user? If I were to smoke one bowl everyday, would I be a habitual user? Not from my perspective. And I definitely wouldn't be spending my day more or less stoned. Being high only lasts roughly 8 hours. The higher your tolerance, the less it lasts, and vise versa. And after the first few hours, you begin to regain your sobriety. You'd still technically be stoned/high, but the strongest effects hit you first, then you slowly return to the sober world.

Before you start taking apart someone else's comment, you should do your research. Sorry man, but you're here acting as if you know everything and nearly everything you said was completely false. If you really want to know the facts, there are plenty of useful sites with accurate information out there.
No I'm not saying it would be easier to get away with indoors. I'm saying it wouldn't be easy to get away with it at work at all, at least where I work, in a professional office environment in a crowded city. I guess vaping is very big at your company. I see plenty of smokers (tobacco) outside our buildings, but only one or two vapers a day.

I know what a spiff is. Spiffs are also more harmful that either substance alone. I know they are popular in Europe, not so much here. Don't see too many people in the corporate world of New York City rolling their own, but I suppose they could.

I suppose if you were dedicated to toking at work, (which I think shows very poor judgment), that you could have a change of clothes to help you do so, but it sounds like a lot of trouble for not much reward. With just a small bit of self control you could just avoid the issue and do your thing in the privacy of your own home. Statistically out of 600 people here where I work, there has to be some people using marijuana, but I haven't spotted any. I can tell the drinkers though, especially the heavy drinkers.

I do live in a fantasy world, I live in NJ (which, according to our Governor, is better than Colorado ). Now that's a fantasy! I work in the legal/financial services sector at the professional level. I have very specialized training dealing in risk management, and experience in that field that is in high demand. As a profession, our biggest problem is that not enough young people are entering the field, so salaries are ridiculously high. My employer interviewed 42 people before they hired me. When I had to go on dialysis, the COO told me, just take care of yourself and don't worry about your job. For the next 6 years I came into the office on Tuesday and Thursdays at 2 pm, after 3 hours in dialysis, and worked essentially a half day. It was never mentioned in my annual reviews. I got the same pay raises and bonus as the rest of the management team. So yes, at least SOME companies DO care about their employees, I'm sorry yours doesn't.

Most times termination IS based on performance. In my job as a manager I've both hired and terminated hundreds of people, but never for drugs or alcohol. There are still companies that haven't tasted the testing Kool-Aid, and don't test their employees. I have always worked at such companies. I've turned down jobs at companies, not because I can't pass the test, but because I'd prefer that my employment be based on qualities other than a chemical assessment of my body fluids. You have the same choice, or if you don't it's because of the choices you have already made.

My job is very real and important to my company. They don't test. Your company tests you. I wonder if they test the CEO. I bet not. Testing in general is for sensitive jobs with a safety component, or for the lower level staff, or for insurance reasons.

I have a convertible, I get out of the house whenever it's nice out, or if I have to go to work.

Just because 30% of the population has tried cannabis, doesn't mean that they tried it more than once. I think if you keep researching you will find that the number of actual CURRENT users would be more like 10 to 12%, with a small percentage of that number using a disproportionate amount of the herb.

I would think that the difference between a habitual user and a casual users would be frequency of use and quantity consumed. I'd expect that there would be a middle ground somewhere between the two. I'm not an expert in semantics, so your guess is as good as mine.

I've been researching, donating to organizations, and observing the drug culture for the last 41 years. We disagree on several points, oh well, I think I'll survive your opinions, which is what they are, not facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2015, 02:58 PM
 
2,542 posts, read 3,990,079 times
Reputation: 3615
Recent court ruling in Colorado. Will Oregon do the same?

Colorado Employers Handed Medical Marijuana Victory | Health content from EHS Today

Quote:
This decision is a significant victory for employers. By ruling in this fashion, the Colorado Supreme Court has unequivocally affirmed employers’ rights to prohibit employees from using marijuana in Colorado, and to discipline and terminate employees who violate such prohibitions.

Although the decision only discusses medical marijuana and does not explicitly consider retail marijuana use, its logic can easily be extended to cover recreational marijuana use, which is similarly unlawful under federal law and thus not lawful conduct for purposes of Colorado’s lawful off-duty conduct statute. The court’s reasoning may also have potential future applicability to other conduct that is lawful under state law but unlawful under federal law.

In sum, employers who have policies requiring employees to undergo drug testing and who have disciplined or terminated employees for testing positive for marijuana can continue these actions, knowing now that these policies and termination decisions have been validated by the Colorado Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2015, 03:11 PM
 
Location: The beautiful Rogue Valley, Oregon
7,785 posts, read 18,779,066 times
Reputation: 10783
I was in Colorado last week, and the general consensus in the newspapers there was that the plaintiff lost because of the way the Colorado statute is worded, which uses Federal definitions. The impetus now is to reword the statute so that it reflects what is legal in Colorado, in this particular case medical marijuana.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2015, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
10,988 posts, read 20,510,182 times
Reputation: 8261
Won't make any difference. An employer may establish any policy so long as it is not in violation of state or federal law. There are some occupations where drug testing is mandatory and there are no (not even medical) exemptions. Accommodation is not possible. Thus, if you are taking prescribed codeine for pain you may not work in that occupation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2015, 04:31 PM
 
Location: The beautiful Rogue Valley, Oregon
7,785 posts, read 18,779,066 times
Reputation: 10783
He wasn't in one of those industries - he worked as phone support staff and used medical marijuana to prevent seizures (which is why they thought they had a good case, there could be no argument that his marijuana use would have made him unsafe in any way).

Like I have said earlier, I'd rather Oregon waited to legalize marijuana until some of the early adopter states worked out all the ins-and-outs. I saw a feature on the news in Colorado and the problems involved in being an all-cash business, from security to payroll to bill-paying. Not sure how that will all work out in the end - I did read that someone is proposing an all-marijuana-industry credit union, but that still runs afoul of Federal law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2015, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
10,988 posts, read 20,510,182 times
Reputation: 8261
Personally I think his employer should have accommodated but then I wasn't their employment law attorney.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2015, 08:47 PM
 
2,542 posts, read 3,990,079 times
Reputation: 3615
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal View Post
(which is why they thought they had a good case, there could be no argument that his marijuana use would have made him unsafe in any way).
Colorado Supreme Court Untangles Confusion Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws - In Denver Times

Quote:
By looking solely at past court hearings, one would conclude that Coats is unlikely to win his case; nevertheless, pot supporters across the country are still remaining hopeful.
No absolute right to use medical marijuana - The Denver Post

Quote:
The constitutional amendment establishing medical marijuana in Colorado was pretty clear when it came to employers and pot.

It should not, the amendment said, be construed as requiring "any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place."

That seemed straightforward to us, and apparently to two lower courts that ruled against a man suing his former employer for firing him over his weed use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 02:45 PM
 
400 posts, read 412,932 times
Reputation: 743
Whats the benefit? I think its because many people will not buy from dope dealers and just grow their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:03 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top