TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Employers can still fire Colorado pot smokers for legal use

ed11563 · Guru

There have been plenty of studies showing that consuming alcohol slows people's reaction times, and clouds their judgement, and the more alcohol the worse the effects.

What have MJ studies shown? Does smoking pot affect people's performance? Would you be okay with an airline pilot smoking pot an hour before your flight? 8 hours?

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

I side with the employers on this. When I worked at Target, we had heavy machinery, forklifts and such in the backroom. I wouldn't want an employee who smoked at home coming to work stoned and driving them around. That could result in serious damage and even death if they ran into the fixtures and the fixtures fell or large items fell.

This is no different than drinking alcohol and going to work. Sure, alcohol is legal to drink but you can't come to work under the influence. It's exactly the same. What is the confusion?

-- Edited by Mellow Momma on Friday 2nd of January 2015 01:07:14 PM

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

No different than showing up to work drunk.

I don't know about office jobs, but anything involving labor where someone could get hurt? Yeah. I agree 100%.

cadiver · Senior Member

The difference is I have not heard of people getting fired on Monday for drinking Friday night.

Since employers can fire someone for smoking tobacoo it is not a surprise they can fire someone smoking weed.

huskerbb · Guru

cadiver wrote:
The difference is I have not heard of people getting fired on Monday for drinking Friday night.

Since employers can fire someone for smoking tobacoo it is not a surprise they can fire someone smoking weed.

If they were driving drunk, they have been--even if their job does not involve driving.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

You can get fired for what you post on Facebook, even if you are a stellar employee. You can get fired for NO reason in most states. So this is no different.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
No different than showing up to work drunk.

I don't know about office jobs, but anything involving labor where someone could get hurt? Yeah. I agree 100%.

Well, actually it IS different. With alcohol you know if someone is acutely intoxicated, under the influence who has previously used. There are quantifiable blood alcohol and breathlyzers. With pot, someone can smoke it Friday night and it is still being metabolized and detectable in their system, even though they are not under the influence of it. So, not at all the same thing. And, I think it opens a whole slippery slope. But, kind of bummer for those pot users who wish to stay employed. But, like anything, the bums of society will now have carte blanche to use it and normal, responsible people will not because they are probably going to want to keep their jobs. I mean, I dont' care either way. I have never tried an illegal drug in my entire life. I have never tried pot nor do I care too. But, it seems that now it's out there and law abiding, working people can't use it but if you are on welfare, puff away! Lol.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
You can get fired for what you post on Facebook, even if you are a stellar employee. You can get fired for NO reason in most states. So this is no different.

Yes, most employment is "At Will". And, they can fire you for anything. They can fire you because they dont' like the outfit you are wearing or whatever. And, of course they can fire you for all the reasons they supposedly aren't allowed to fire you for, but they can just give a different reason.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, if you can get fired from your job from using a legal substance, then we need to start testing welfare recipients too. And, "fire" them from the Govt Dole if they are going to use it. Seems fair.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Well, if you can get fired from your job from using a legal substance, then we need to start testing welfare recipients too. And, "fire" them from the Govt Dole if they are going to use it. Seems fair.

I think we should.

People say it would cost more than it would save. Well, so what? The government spends money on dumber crap.

huskerbb · Guru

Or, you could pass the cost of testing on to the recipient. If they want welfare, they'll come up with the money. After, say, three clean tests--then we could reimburse them and give them a 5 year pass until the next one.

NAOW · Vette's SS

They talked about doing that where I live, but the consensus was that it would hurt the kids who depend on their parents getting welfare.

voiceofreason · Guru

1. I've never once smoked pot.

2. Every single person I know who does smoke pot is over the age of 45 and employed.

3. I can fire you if I don't like your hair.

4. I'll support drug testing welfare recipients the minute we drug test politicians...they too are on the public dole and it's up for debate who does more work...

5. Why don't we drug test politicians?

huskerbb · Guru

voiceofreason wrote:
1. I've never once smoked pot.

2. Every single person I know who does smoke pot is over the age of 45 and employed.

3. I can fire you if I don't like your hair.

4. I'll support drug testing welfare recipients the minute we drug test politicians...they too are on the public dole and it's up for debate who does more work...

5. Why don't we drug test politicians?

I wouldn't necessarily be against that--but it's not the same thing.

We might not like the job they are doing--but they are hired to do a job. That's vastly different then getting a hand out for nothing.

We elected them--we can un-elect them if we don't think they are doing a good job, doing anything, or are on drugs.

We don't get that option with welfare recipients.

huskerbb · Guru

NAOW wrote:
They talked about doing that where I live, but the consensus was that it would hurt the kids who depend on their parents getting welfare.

But I think that's a crock.

What do we do if we find out parents are on drugs? Usually, CPS is involved and the family can get some help to get the parent or parents off of drugs. That would do WAY more good in the long run than simply letting the parents continue their drug use.

NAOW · Vette's SS

Oh I agree. That was just their reasoning for not doing it.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

They drug tested for welfare in Florida for awhile. They caught next to no one. It was like 2% or something small like that. The fact is, people will be sober/clean just long enough to pass the test. Welfare recipients are not stupid. They know exactly how to work the system.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

voiceofreason wrote:
1. I've never once smoked pot.

2. Every single person I know who does smoke pot is over the age of 45 and employed.

3. I can fire you if I don't like your hair.

4. I'll support drug testing welfare recipients the minute we drug test politicians...they too are on the public dole and it's up for debate who does more work...

5. Why don't we drug test politicians?

I agree with this too.

huskerbb · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
They drug tested for welfare in Florida for awhile. They caught next to no one. It was like 2% or something small like that. The fact is, people will be sober/clean just long enough to pass the test. Welfare recipients are not stupid. They know exactly how to work the system.

Well, 2% is 2%.

Beyond that, maybe the procedures need refinement.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
They drug tested for welfare in Florida for awhile. They caught next to no one. It was like 2% or something small like that. The fact is, people will be sober/clean just long enough to pass the test. Welfare recipients are not stupid. They know exactly how to work the system.
Well, 2% is 2%.

Beyond that, maybe the procedures need refinement.

Yep, such as no warning on drug testing perhaps?

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
They drug tested for welfare in Florida for awhile. They caught next to no one. It was like 2% or something small like that. The fact is, people will be sober/clean just long enough to pass the test. Welfare recipients are not stupid. They know exactly how to work the system.
Well, 2% is 2%.

Beyond that, maybe the procedures need refinement.
Yep, such as no warning on drug testing perhaps?

Random testing. Call them on their Obamaphones and say show up tomorrow at 9 a.m.--or lose your benefits, anyway.

It's not like they have a job to go to.

wild_blue · Newbie

huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
They drug tested for welfare in Florida for awhile. They caught next to no one. It was like 2% or something small like that. The fact is, people will be sober/clean just long enough to pass the test. Welfare recipients are not stupid. They know exactly how to work the system.
Well, 2% is 2%.

Beyond that, maybe the procedures need refinement.
Yep, such as no warning on drug testing perhaps?

Random testing. Call them on their Obamaphones and say show up tomorrow at 9 a.m.--or lose your benefits, anyway.

It's not like they have a job to go to.

Still enough time to find a way to purchase some clean urine. It's logistically difficult to have a truly "no notice" test. Also there's no guarantee they are using an "obamaphone".

huskerbb · Guru

wild_blue wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
They drug tested for welfare in Florida for awhile. They caught next to no one. It was like 2% or something small like that. The fact is, people will be sober/clean just long enough to pass the test. Welfare recipients are not stupid. They know exactly how to work the system.
Well, 2% is 2%.

Beyond that, maybe the procedures need refinement.
Yep, such as no warning on drug testing perhaps?

Random testing. Call them on their Obamaphones and say show up tomorrow at 9 a.m.--or lose your benefits, anyway.

It's not like they have a job to go to.

Still enough time to find a way to purchase some clean urine. It's logistically difficult to have a truly "no notice" test. Also there's no guarantee they are using an "obamaphone".

That's why, like truckers, you make them pee in front of you while you watch. If they can do that for truckers who have, you know, JOBS, they can do it for people who don't. If they actually go to the trouble of using a catheter and putting the pee inside their bladder, then whatever.

You could also do a hair follicle test which would not be dependent on timing.

Also, you can call them on whatever phone they have--it doesn't have to be an Obamaphone.

wild_blue · Newbie

huskerbb wrote:
wild_blue wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
They drug tested for welfare in Florida for awhile. They caught next to no one. It was like 2% or something small like that. The fact is, people will be sober/clean just long enough to pass the test. Welfare recipients are not stupid. They know exactly how to work the system.
Well, 2% is 2%.

Beyond that, maybe the procedures need refinement.
Yep, such as no warning on drug testing perhaps?

Random testing. Call them on their Obamaphones and say show up tomorrow at 9 a.m.--or lose your benefits, anyway.

It's not like they have a job to go to.

Still enough time to find a way to purchase some clean urine. It's logistically difficult to have a truly "no notice" test. Also there's no guarantee they are using an "obamaphone".
That's why, like truckers, you make them pee in front of you while you watch. If they can do that for truckers who have, you know, JOBS, they can do it for people who don't. If they actually go to the trouble of using a catheter and putting the pee inside their bladder, then whatever.

You could also do a hair follicle test which would not be dependent on timing.

Also, you can call them on whatever phone they have--it doesn't have to be an Obamaphone.

Being observed while you pee really isn't the norm-my current job requires it, but none of the five previous ones I held did. There's also the mouth swab. I'm not sure why that one isn't more popular, it's very quick and easy.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I would not have someone who regularly smoked pot working for me, legal or not.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

And, you can smell it on people. It has sort of a sickening sweet smell.