Posted on 12/09/2012 3:03:33 AM PST by GeorgiaDawg32
DENVER (AP) -- Pot may be legal, but workers may want to check with their boss first before they grab the pipe or joint during off hours.
Businesses in Washington state, where the drug is legal, and Colorado, where it will be by January, are trying to figure out how to deal with employees who use it on their own time and then fail a drug test.
It is another uncertainty that has come with pot legalization as many ask how the laws will affect them.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
“While I’ll argue the point that no one, not even your employer has any right to intrude on your privacy enough to determine what you do on YOUR time, I’ll also argue they have EVERY right to determine whether or not your fit to do the job they hired you for.”
I’m retired from railroad service (32 years).
Federal regulations for enginemen and trainmen prohibit (banned) drug usage on or OFF duty.
Employees were subject to random testing and would be removed from service if they tested positive.
These regulations were upheld by the Supreme Court of The United States. I believe they also apply to airline employees (pilots, mechanics, etc.). Very few have the gumption to even bother challenging them — the tests are all-but unbeatable.
Brilliant! So, non-smoking rats given extraordinary amounts of THC through injection and forced into a state of lipolysis through starvation after 7-10 days of said extreme injection indicate SOME level of THC returning to the bloodstream.
The best part? The cited article concludes that this may not happen to humans and requires additional studies.
Also, pot smokers typically don’t force themselves into lipolysis through starvation. I don’t know what the opposite is, but it’s done through Cheetos.
My mistake was not providing enough qualification to my statement. What I should have said was “The psychotic properties of THC itself has a very short shelf life.” The article indicates the peak in those poor, now decapatated, rats was around 8 minutes.
That’s a pretty informative article you found, I like it.
And their Constitutional jurisdiction for this is what, exactly?
Other than they SAY they can, of course.
“Pot may be legal”
Not it’s not. It’s still illegal under Federal law, including so-called “medical” pot.
I didn't say specifically THC, I used the general term 'pot'.
The argument whether it the THC itself or the metabolites produced in reaction to the THC is a matter of semantics, IMHO.
HOW?
Employers can even prohibit employees from smoking tobacco in their off hours.
Dopers are dopes to think that their goal of demonizing tobacco and alcohol wasn’t going to bite them on the butt.
I agree with you. The residual remains in the body for awhile, but that does not mean the user is incapable of performing the job during the week, usually. Of course, many exceptions are inferred here, and I agree the employer has the right to handle pot smokers/smoking in any way they want and too dam bad for the employee/prospective employee. What has not been mentioned is second-hand smoke on the non-smoker, but who is tested and terminated or punished in some way. So then thresholds are applied, similar to DUI’s, etc. Over the limit, punished; not over the limit, warning, and other procedures.
Good point. Drug tests actually don't test for a total absence of metabolites, they do test for a certain level, and those exposed to second-hand smoke can have a high enough level to test positive even though they, themselves didn't personally partake.....so you are now into 'freedom of association' territory because of false positives.
Then you have some who DO partake that are intelligent enough to know how to beat the urine teat by creating a false negative, which pretty much nullifies the entire point of 'testing'.
It's just nuts! You can either do your job, or you can't. Whether that 'can't is because you're high, drunk, or just too stupid for words really is a distinction without a difference, IMHO.
“No Smoking” means NO SMOKING
not hard
The business can still make smoking pot against the rules and a firing offense. There are governments that won’t hire smokers, so its okay for a business too
Four words for you
Cirrhosis of the liver
-----
including emotional outbursts
People who have NEVER smoked pot have 'emotional outbursts' too.
What was your point, exactly?
True, a private business can put any kind of restriction it likes on it's hiring practices, PROVIDED it's of their on volition, and not forced ON them by a regulation of government.
Ironically, government cannot drug test except in very specific areas because it's a violation of the fourth Amendment.
The thirty-seven page judicial opinion, issued today by Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, held that the constitutional right to privacy outweighed the government’s interest in drug testing virtually all public school employees without cause
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/federal-court-signs-agreement-permanently-halt-random-teacher-drug-testing-west-virg
and
About 400,000 federal workers in testing designated positions – those who have security clearances, carry firearms, deal with public safety or national security, or are presidential appointees – are drug tested when they apply for jobs.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/work/a/blsam040409.htm
How many MILLIONS of federal jobs are there, again?
-----
This is yet another double standard by government. Forcing private business to adhere to rules they, themselves are not subject to. Many FReepers understand the concept of "A law for thee, but not for me"...but refuse to see it when it's staring them in the face because they personally don't agree with the subject of the rule itself.
Let them. Entire industries will avoid them. I work on oil drilling locations, and yes, I'd be able to pass. I don't drink either.
As far as off-duty use goes, alcohol levels diminish more rapidly than THC. So, while the "use" might be off-duty, the effects continue.
It is a safety issue, and the Government cannot force someone to hire anyone who doesn't pass the criteria for the job.
If they could, imagine the trainwreck (perhaps literally) which would come from that.
Weed is already such a low enforcement priority in NYC that you see people strolling down the street puffing blunts all the time. It’s already decriminalized for practical purposes so the “legalization” laws are just codifying the status quo. People who show up at work obviously stoned will get fired same as if you showed up after a 5 martini lunch—especially if you work in the kind of jobs you describe. The world goes on.
Your HO is incorrect - the metabolites are inactive and have on effect on brain function at any level.
Interesting! But the article says that under ordinary circumstances any stored THC re-enters the bloodstream only very slowly - and that even if lipolysis accelerates that, there is currently no evidence for any functional effects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.