Posted on 12/10/2012 2:41:24 PM PST by Road Glide
Same as they do with alcohol impairment testing now (i.e., a breathalyzer test).
To my knowledge, there isn't (yet) any objective test that can ascertain this insofar as "marijuana impairment" is concerned.
Since there may currently be no way to "prove impairment" by empirical testing, and since marijuana is now (at least in Colorado) legal to use, and since there may not yet exist a standard by which marijuana impairment is actually measured, my guess is the courts there will say "no testing" UNTIL an empirical method of testing combined with a set standard to establish "impairment" can be implemented.
BTW, I'm not a pot user -- don't even drink or use tobacco... but this -- or perhaps a similar case down the line -- is going to become a very controversial issue in years to come...
I don’t see where any employer has the right to ban any employee from doing anything they damn well please to do while on their own time. The company employs me and pays me for the service I render. They do not own me.
cities and businesses already are allowed to not hire smokers, the same should apply here
Show them a Cheech & Chong movie. If they don’t laugh, or laugh just a little, they are not impaired. If they think it’s hilarious they are definitely impaired.
Cities and businesses are already not hiring smokers in many places
I hope the Disability activists get on this case.
Have you seen this guy’s picture??He is PARALYZED, IN A WHEELCHAIR!
He is working, not on welfare, etc...For God’s sake let the guy smoke WHATEVER he wants.
Anybody who has those kinds of disabilities and still works for a living...while we have able bodied loafers and thugs running around...Yeesh.
Here is the first clue: do they have squinty red eyes?
Here is a field sobriety test: Place individual in room with a TV and a bag of Cheetos or Cheezits or other munchie style treats. Tell them you will be with them shortly and leave the room. Go to the oberservation window and time them on how long it takes them to start eating and watching cartoons or Jackass.
This method should produce postive results on whether they are stoned or not...
wanna bet if this guy was getting on a plane and looked into the cockpit and the pilots were smoking dope... that he would get off the plane?
tell that to pilots are not allowed to drink for EIGHT hours prior to flying.
What does being paralyzed have to do with pot smoking? The guy wants to get high. A business should be able to fire an employee for any reason.
Funny, the Congress, the president, the senators, school teachers, firemen and cops, judges, mayors etc, are not randomly tested...Why should the lowly Home Depot or cubic worker be?
In fact, I'd bet good money those doing the testing, are not randomly tested.
“To my knowledge, there isn’t (yet) any objective test that can ascertain this insofar as “marijuana impairment” is concerned.”
Actually, there is. And unfortunately the ‘pee in the bottle’ industry has done a wonderful job of discrediting it, since it impacts their profits.
The basic problem with testing urine, is that the drug has to leave behind a marker, and the test has to look for it. A drug that doesn’t leave a marker, or a test that doesn’t look for that marker - means someone bombed out of their head walks free. This actually happened to a friend of mine at his business.
A guy that they KNEW was on something, kept passing the drug test. As he was a minority, my friend’s lawyer warned him that terminating the guy after he passed the test was all but impossible. In desperation found, and I later used in a business that I ran, something called the “quick eye” system.
It is a simple way to test the person’s abilities for their eyes to follow an object. And if you can’t - you ARE on something. Several states were letting the police use it during stops. This was back in the ‘90s. Soon the ‘pee in the bottle’ companies felt threatened (or at least their profits threatened) and went on a rampage about how inaccurate it was.
I don’t believe there was any scientific evidence (except for what they paid for) that showed it didn’t work. I can tell you from first hand experience it worked perfectly for us on two occasions.
That is some mighty conservative stuff to post on a site like this! (do I need a sarcasm tag?)
Well said, and I second that opinion.
So now you're ENTITLED to a paycheck?
The employer can fire your ass anytime he wants, for any reason. And if you've got that kind of attitude, he should.
Agreed
On one hand, I support a company’s right to set the conditions of employment. If you get hired on condition of not doing drugs you should honor your agreement or expect to be fired. On the other hand the fact that a company has to test for drugs, that impairment is not apparent due to degraded performance, makes me wonder why the company would care.
Are you suggesting the paraplegic cubicle worker was smoking on the job while in his cubicle? If not, how would this test work?
“Cities and businesses are already not hiring smokers in many places”
Apples and oranges for two reasons, one smoking is baaaaaad, two Obummercare will eliminate company insurance plans.
You’re right, they don’t own you..... and YOU don’t own your employer or even your job.
I’ve always found that those that think they are expendable, are in fact, the most expendable.
I wouldn’t knowingly hire a dope smoker and I wouldn’t retain one if I found out they were. They simply wouldn’t be worth the risk. I would quickly give a dope smoker even more freedom than they think they already had.... LOL
The problem is that marijuana impairs logic even after it ‘wears off’.
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.