"As a tax payer, I'm all for requiring people who get public money to be free of debilitating chemical influence at work."
See post 255.
Is there a question there?
Are you asking me if I think any trace of pot is debilitating? No. Personally I don't think it would be. I've never smoked pot, but for most tasks that don't involve life or death, I think I'm competent with a beer on board.
If you are asking me if I think your solution is a good one, I don't think so. It would be very time consuming, questionably arbitrary and subject to favoritism, etc. As a practical matter I think it would be a big failure.
I think random checks for substance abuse are a good system, that is fair across the board, even if the levels chosen are not well founded. Keeping in mind that employment is voluntary.
Is there a method of checking for debilitating levels of pot? I have no idea.
Unless you are advocating raising the bar substantially for wrongful termination, I think you have to come up with something better for sending someone home for having too much pot on board. Fair enough?