Even if they make pot legal, if they test for it at work, and it comes up positive, it's bye-bye job.

(12-31-2008 02:57 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Even if they make pot legal, if they test for it at work, and it comes up positive, it's bye-bye job.

I don't have a problem with businesses putting stipulations on personal behavior as long as it occurs at the time of hiring in the form of a employment contract. If I seek employment..I should be prepared to abide by the employers terms of service.

I wonder if drug screening for a legal substance would be allowed even if the person was not currently under the influence? (random testing).... Maybe if it was part of the employers terms of service?...Looks like a job of a high court to sort this out if it ever comes to past.

There are always unintended consequences to every governmental dictate...This would not be any different.

(12-30-2008 11:24 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(12-30-2008 11:16 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-30-2008 11:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Medical evidence shows that people who use marijuana are resistant to the onset of Alzheimer's disease. Some of the brain cells killed are all those that trigger Alzheimer's. It's good for your vision. It's an excellent pain killer, as well as a good muscle relaxant. It's also known to be beneficial for people with certain types of cancer.

The only harm that legalizing marijuana would cause is that traffic would move slower, and folks would buy more munchies. Or is this another benefit? I never can get that straight...

Can I get it in pill form?

Yeah, you pack that **** tight enough, into a pill as some would say, you can smoke the hell out of it in a bong.

And as you compress it, the oils secreted are pure hashish...

(12-31-2008 08:02 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-31-2008 02:57 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Even if they make pot legal, if they test for it at work, and it comes up positive, it's bye-bye job.

I don't have a problem with businesses putting stipulations on personal behavior as long as it occurs at the time of hiring in the form of a employment contract. If I seek employment..I should be prepared to abide by the employers terms of service.

I wonder if drug screening for a legal substance would be allowed even if the person was not currently under the influence? (random testing).... Maybe if it was part of the employers terms of service?...Looks like a job of a high court to sort this out if it ever comes to past.

There are always unintended consequences to every governmental dictate...This would not be any different.

If they tested for drugs, and not alchohol, there would be lawsuits galore. That would eliminate those 3 martini lunches executives put on their tax returns...

(12-31-2008 11:12 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If they tested for drugs, and not alchohol, there would be lawsuits galore. That would eliminate those 3 martini lunches executives put on their tax returns...

On what grounds? No one has a right to a job. The job is owned by the employer. He/she can pretty much put any stipulation they want on it, so long as it's not against the law.

(12-30-2008 11:41 PM)DgD3 Wrote:  No but there is always Hydrocodone and beer (or your favorite beverage containing alcohol)

Used to be easy to get a 500 count Rx of Hydro-Pop about 14 years ago.

No longer ..... you either have to have Terminal Cancer or you Arm Rob the Doctor ...

They have gotten America hooked on this crap and now the Fed's are haunting them like the Nasghoul and these Pill Pushin' Tard's just almost will not write anything that is remotely connected to Oxycontin.

The Fed's have them sacred too death to give people relief from pain and it is just stupid.

.

(12-31-2008 11:18 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(12-31-2008 11:12 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If they tested for drugs, and not alchohol, there would be lawsuits galore. That would eliminate those 3 martini lunches executives put on their tax returns...

On what grounds? No one has a right to a job. The job is owned by the employer. He/she can pretty much put any stipulation they want on it, so long as it's not against the law.

If both marijauna and alcohol are legal, and one is tested for, while the other isn't, there would be grounds for a discriminatory lawsuit. Ask any lawyer...

marijuana resides in your system much longer than alcohol. But that not the point. Employers have enforced employment rules for obese people and smokers, as well as drugs, because they don't want to pay health costs or they cite safety issues. People in the airline industry cannot be overweight, getting out of a burning plane can be difficult for even a fit person. Employers have a battery of lawyers to make any case they want, and because your damages are limited the case is usually disposed of because lawyers cannot make a killing. You see how they have effectively limited your ability your access the court system so you cannot state your case. Logical outcome of Lawsuit abuse legislation. Unless that is you go pro se.

You cannot make the case, ever, that marijuana does not impair, or that it is not a health risk.

So the only stoners out there will be the lazy, the wealthy, the criminals and the self employed.

(12-31-2008 12:47 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You cannot make the case, ever, that marijuana does not impair, or that it is not a health risk.

Yeah that THC stored deep in your body is still currently getting you high.

It must be, with that "logic".

.

The "Weirdness" of this issue is pretty simple when you look at from this point-in-time:

In 1989, the Director of the DEA had the chance to "Reschedule the Control Rating of Marijuana" and "he Left It at Controlled Substance Schedule #1".

He did this having a ton of Clinical Studies that stated Marijuana has "Certain Medical Purposes", which he ignored completely and forced MJ to stay as a Schedule #1 Controlled Substance.

As I have said, if it helps ONE Person get relief from Pain and Suffering, then let Doctors Prescribe it as much as they need too. Why did this One Unimportant Bureaucrat have the Right to Set Policy on his Passion and Prejudice ?????

If people are sick, give them what it takes to Help Them ...

.

(12-31-2008 12:47 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  marijuana resides in your system much longer than alcohol. But that not the point. Employers have enforced employment rules for obese people and smokers, as well as drugs, because they don't want to pay health costs or they cite safety issues. People in the airline industry cannot be overweight, getting out of a burning plane can be difficult for even a fit person. Employers have a battery of lawyers to make any case they want, and because your damages are limited the case is usually disposed of because lawyers cannot make a killing. You see how they have effectively limited your ability your access the court system so you cannot state your case. Logical outcome of Lawsuit abuse legislation. Unless that is you go pro se.

You cannot make the case, ever, that marijuana does not impair, or that it is not a health risk.

So the only stoners out there will be the lazy, the wealthy, the criminals and the self employed.

I agree with you that an employer should be able to stipulate terms of employment..but..only in the hiring process and with ample time and notice to current employees...including...paying for possible lifestyle reversal treatments, from obesity to alcohol and drug treatment. If an employee chooses to decline to change his or her habits...well then.. I feel the employer is with its rights to terminate its contract with them.

(12-31-2008 02:20 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

The "Weirdness" of this issue is pretty simple when you look at from this point-in-time:

In 1989, the Director of the DEA had the chance to "Reschedule the Control Rating of Marijuana" and "he Left It at Controlled Substance Schedule #1".

He did this having a ton of Clinical Studies that stated Marijuana has "Certain Medical Purposes", which he ignored completely and forced MJ to stay as a Schedule #1 Controlled Substance.

As I have said, if it helps ONE Person get relief from Pain and Suffering, then let Doctors Prescribe it as much as they need too. Why did this One Unimportant Bureaucrat have the Right to Set Policy on his Passion and Prejudice ?????

If people are sick, give them what it takes to Help Them ...

.

What is considered "medicine" is completely a government arbitrary decision made by bureaucrats that want to control the lives of others...I will NOT even go into the influence that the "legal" drug manufacturers and drug dealers have over the entire process.

Does anyone think that the major drug manufacturers want the public to find out the marijuana might actually be medicinal?...Please!