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.
The main problem is that no one can tell when the drug was used. Until there's a cheap and easy test like a breathalyzer for marijuana intoxication, that both the courts and (probably more importantly) a company's insurance companies will accept, there's no real way around this.
Sure there is. Base a person's continued employment on his ability to perform the job! Not some blood count or breath count or urine count number that was dreamed up in a room somewhere and cannot be fairly applied to everyone's different body chemistry. Duh!
Do you realize the "research" you quoted is from National Institute of Drug Abuse from 1986???
30-year old government-based research on cannabis is about as accurate and relevant as Reefer Madness is.
I'm sorry you can't count. The bulk of the quoted papers/studies were not government research. I'm curious though, in your medical research, have you found that human physiological response to the chemicals found in marijuana have significantly changed in the past 30 years? That would really surprise me given other inhaled carcinogens seem to produce the same outcome now that they did 50, 100 and hundreds of years ago.
I can smoke MJ in the evening and be perfectly fine for work the next day, more than 2 alcoholic drinks and I'm worthless the next day, but hey, alcohol is legal so .............
If a company does not want you to use drugs while you work for them they have every right to fire you when they find out you do. I guarantee he signed something upon hiring stating this. It's their decision.
Living in Denver and having legal pot doesn't mean you can smoke it and work wherever you want. My bf cannot do any drugs at all as his company does not allow this. If they do a RA and he's caught he's fired. I don't think a little puff puff is worth a $140k year job to him..
I'm sorry you can't count. The bulk of the quoted papers/studies were not government research. I'm curious though, in your medical research, have you found that human physiological response to the chemicals found in marijuana have significantly changed in the past 30 years? That would really surprise me given other inhaled carcinogens seem to produce the same outcome now that they did 50, 100 and hundreds of years ago.
Carcinogens? Well, OK, if you want to try that angle, that is fine with me.
Please show me even one documented case where lung cancer, or any type of cancer for that matter, has been attributed to cannabis use. I don't think you will be successful in finding one.
How do you explain that, especially since you believe smoking it fills your lungs with carcinogens, in light of the fact that 1000's of tons of it PER YEAR has been consumed over the last 50+ years?
In my personal case, I have been using it daily for 44 years. In that amount of time, I have seen a number of friends pass away due to cancer. I took at look at that, and realized that none of those cases involved a long-term cannabis user. I asked another long-term friend about it, and after giving it some thought, he too realized out of all the people we've lost, none were long-term cannabis users.
I agree that is pure speculation at this point. But when I combine those findings with the fact that the health of all the long-term users I know is pretty darn good, it makes me wonder.
And there are millions of us long-term users "in the closet" that you don't know about. Ones that NEVER admit to using it when asked by any study, survey, or doctor's exam. They are too afraid of the draconian consequences should their "secret" get out.
So again, how can you possibly play the "cancer" card when there are no documented cases in the last 50 years? How can you at the same time ignore first-hand reports like what you just read, and the many others easily found by searching?
What about the recent studies easily found by searching that indicates that THC kills cancer cells?
What about this lady, who is up to 50 years of use?
Living in Denver and having legal pot doesn't mean you can smoke it and work wherever you want. My bf cannot do any drugs at all as his company does not allow this. If they do a RA and he's caught he's fired. I don't think a little puff puff is worth a $140k year job to him..
Dish network never claimed he used it at work or that he came to work impaired.
Sure there is. Base a person's continued employment on his ability to perform the job! Not some blood count or breath count or urine count number that was dreamed up in a room somewhere and cannot be fairly applied to everyone's different body chemistry. Duh!
I can't find anywhere that says when this random drug test was taken. I find it hard to believe that this test was taken off-hours, so I'm guessing he tested positive during work hours. He may have smoked it on his free time, but the affects were evident in his system during work hours.
Until anyone can prove that having an illegal drug in his system does NOT affect his ability to perform his job, I'm siding with the employer on this one.
If a company does not want you to use drugs while you work for them they have every right to fire you when they find out you do.
And what other perfectly legal behavior, conducted strictly during off-work hours and not effecting job performance, can an employer ban? Smoking? Drinking alcohol? Riding motorcycles? Rock climbing? Recreational sex? Surfing the internet? Watching TV?
There need to be limits on just how far an employer can encroach on employees private lives, and those limits need to be based on actual work needs. Workers are not the personal posessions of employers.
And what other perfectly legal behavior, conducted strictly during off-work hours and not effecting job performance, can an employer ban? Smoking? Drinking alcohol? Riding motorcycles? Rock climbing? Recreational sex? Surfing the internet? Watching TV?
There need to be limits on just how far an employer can encroach on employees private lives, and those limits need to be based on actual work needs. Workers are not the personal posessions of employers.
It's NOT legal, though, according to the supreme court. If it's a federal law, then the state can not supersede it.
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.
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.
, but hey, alcohol is legal so .............
