"There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now."
Posted on 11/13/2014 8:02:04 AM PST by C19fan
A graduate student has sued a textile company for refusing to hire her for a two-month internship because she uses medical marijuana to treat frequent and debilitating migraine headaches, a decision her lawyer calls discrimination.
Christine Callaghan, who is studying textiles at the University of Rhode Island, sued Westerly-based Darlington Fabrics Corp. and its parent, the Moore Company, on Wednesday. The Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Callaghan, said it believes it's the first lawsuit of its kind in the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
How in the hell should I know? I’m not Daniel Webster. But I assure you that it is.
Potsies entitled victimhoodlums? Say it ain’t so.
err, let’s try this again.
Potsies as entitled victimhoodlums? Say it ain’t so.
Federal narcotics law are predicated on the unlawful — to be more precise, the usurpation of powers not delegated to the federal government: regulation of intrastate commerce (via WICKARD v. FILBURN) and non-commerce (via GONZALES v. RAICH).
Why doesn’t she just take some THC pill?
Why do they have to smoke pot as it alters their behaviors and thought processes?
this is happening here in the UP of MI too. The users of medical marihauna believe that they employer and the law enforcement have to look the other way. Even with the card they are not exempt from the laws of the land - drug testing , they are not exempt, dui - they are not exempt if they show up as under the influence while driving. I have a neighbor who was offered a job dependent on the mandatory drug test, could not pass the urine test because he was using medical marihuana. i know one got busted for medical marihuana in the bloodstream while driving, he was involved in an automobile accident that was his fault. Another guy got busted in Wisconsin for medical marihuana being done while driving.
The "authority" that is used is that of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce:
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)The problem is that the laws stem from the thoroughly incorrect reasoning of the Wickard decision (expanding the phrase
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
interstate commerceto include intrastate commerce) and the Raich decision (extending that intrastate commerce to non-commerce); that is the
authoritywhich theses laws are predicated upon.
Ironically, if we look at the actual commerce clause we see that this sort of interpretation would be an act of war if claimed against the foreign Nations
mentioned in that same clause, and enforcing it would be [or entail] waging war thereon — this is applicable because there is another place which mentions waging war on the States: Treason. — It is therefore not unreasonable to say that to uphold these laws
is to engage in Treasonous activities.
Good one!
They don’t want someone at risk of being hit by a forklift, either because vision is blurred by a migraine or the mind blurred by marijuana.
"There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now."
God grew it, I smoke it and that settles it. By the way, I retired at 53 with 3 paid for houses (2 rentals) and never went to college.
About 10 or 12 years ago, my employer had everybody in the company tested. About 30 of 150 showed illegal drugs, mostly marijuana. All were given their working papers.
In anticipation of lawsuits, I was told to go through the records of everybody and check the fired peoples sick days off, disciplinary actions, and on-the-job injuries against the people not fired.
I found that the numbers were way, way higher for the ones fired in all cases. Just by firing them, the on-the-job injuries dropped dramatically, along with disciplinary actions, and sick days off. The company hired a few more people (far less than the 30 that were fired) and were able to do as much work with less people and far less drama.
It should have been done a lot sooner.
About 10 or 12 years ago, my employer had everybody in the company tested. About 30 of 150 showed illegal drugs, mostly marijuana. All were given their WALKING papers.
In anticipation of lawsuits, I was told to go through the records of everybody and check the fired peoples sick days off, disciplinary actions, and on-the-job injuries against the people not fired.
I found that the numbers were way, way higher for the ones fired in all cases. Just by firing them, the on-the-job injuries dropped dramatically, along with disciplinary actions, and sick days off. The company hired a few more people (far less than the 30 that were fired) and were able to do as much work with less people and far less drama.
It should have been done a lot sooner.
Excuse me. I missed a word that made a lot of difference.
There are many legal prescription based drugs that people should not be discriminated against in hiring but they can still be restricted in the work place. Working in healthcare, employees may not be under the influence of drugs regardless of how obtained.
She could have been hired but not be allowed to work until she is no longer using marijuana.
Indeed wait until she finds out it’s the marijuana that gives her the headaches.
I don’t think that is actually possible. Marijuana is not like to alcohol when it comes to testing. First, THC is only one of the active ingredients, as there is an entire class of psychoactive chemicals that come along with THC. Drug tests usually test for any/all of them.
Secondly, while the tests can detect whether or not you’ve used marijuana recently, there is no way to correlate the levels of cannabinoids detected to how intoxicated one is, or how long ago it was used. The levels of the chemicals in any sample of marijuana will vary, and how those chemicals effect the brain of every individual also vary. So, you’re missing several variables you would need to solve that equation.
“That alone is a reason not to hire her.”
It might be a good reason, but it’s also a reason the federal government prohibits you from making hiring decisions based on.
“This is to ask, what in the Constitution allows the federal government to do so?”
Don’t hold your breath. I’ve asked FReepers (who advocate the federal drugs laws) that question countless times, and I think only one actually bothered to try to craft a response.
“I have nothing against anyone changing Federal narcotics law(s), but until then the law should be enforced.”
Even if the laws are unconstitutional?
What if we changed the language of your statement a little to reflect a different kind of unconstitutional law?
“I have nothing against anyone changing gun control law(s), but until then, the law should be enforced.”
Is that okay too?
THC is psychoactive, whether you get it from marijuana, or from a pill. Either way, it will affect your behavior and thought processes.
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.