I looked it up and marijuana is legal in Washington, so this isn't a problem.

Good. I hope it passes.

Quote:

---

I looked it up and marijuana is legal in Washington, so this isn't a problem.

---

All you libertarians who want this to pass - shouldn't businesses decide if they want to hire pot users? Do you want people to be high who are driving forklifts in warehouse stores in the same spaces you are shopping? Do you want them driving delivery vehicles, installing large items in your homes?

Yes, it's legal in many states, but most states still allow businesses to decide if they want to hire users of the mind-altering product.

That's my view. But many posters here are of the "if it's your free time, none of your boss' business".


Also, I'd you read OP, you'd see it doesn't apply to safety related positions

Based on the excerpts in the OP it looks like this bill excludes most employers or industries that would actively have a drug testing program anyway.

So the end result of this bill is nothing.

We don't need a law for it, but people need to stop working for companies that drug test. How is it their business what you do at home?

The problem is that the tests can't differentiate between 'under the influence' and 'used it three days ago'.

We're drug tested in my industry, and this has been a real problem as weed becomes legal in various states.

Whomever can develop a proper test will make a fortune.

I'm a libertarian and this is a violation of a company's freedom of association. Terrible idea.

chickenfingers said:

---

We don't need a law for it, but people need to stop working for companies that drug test. How is it their business what you do at home?

---

You cool with hiring an alcoholic that runs heavy machinery?

Also, I'd you read OP, you'd see it doesn't apply to safety related positions


I did. The problem is defining safety sensitive.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

I looked it up and marijuana is legal in Washington, so this isn't a problem.

---

All you libertarians who want this to pass - shouldn't businesses decide if they want to hire pot users? Do you want people to be high who are driving forklifts in warehouse stores in the same spaces you are shopping? Do you want them driving delivery vehicles, installing large items in your homes?

Yes, it's legal in many states, but most states still allow businesses to decide if they want to hire users of the mind-altering product.

---

I find this board's (supposedly full of conservatives) obsession with weed so bizarre.

The same types that have a bourbon every night (no problem with that at all) spouting propaganda right out of Reefer Madness in 2023.

- guy who got wasted at the "Thirsty Cowboy" last night and might still blow ".03" the next morning = good 'ol boy

- Guy who takes a few gummies on the weekend = "pothead" who will wreck equipment the next week

Quite a quandary

Really weird to make drug use a protected class. Something tells me this won't make it past a court challenge.

Edit: nevermind, it's preemployment tests only. Still weird to make it so that employers can't make that decision before employment and instead have to go through termination procedures if the employee doesn't quit.

Tergdor said:

---

Really weird to make drug use a protected class. Something tells me this won't make it past a court challenge.

---

On what basis will it fail?

Also, it doesn't make drug users a protected class. I'm against this type of law, but read the OP.

B-1 83 said:

---

- guy who got wasted at the "Thirsty Cowboy" last night and might still blow ".03" the next morning = good 'ol boy

- Guy who takes a few gummies on the weekend = "pothead" who will wreck equipment the next week

Quite a quandary

---

If tested, the good ol boy would be fired for the alcohol in his system.

I worked in a place that lost a few employees due to that.

Should be up to the business to decide. Don't like it? Find another company. End of story.

How much weed makes one "impaired"? Will that positive hair sample prove enough? Did those guys blow .02? .08?

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

I looked it up and marijuana is legal in Washington, so this isn't a problem.

---

All you libertarians who want this to pass - shouldn't businesses decide if they want to hire pot users? Do you want people to be high who are driving forklifts in warehouse stores in the same spaces you are shopping? Do you want them driving delivery vehicles, installing large items in your homes?

Yes, it's legal in many states, but most states still allow businesses to decide if they want to hire users of the mind-altering product.

---

I don't want people driving forklifts while drunk either, but people can go get trashed on the weekend and employers don't care

It's just strange to assume anyone who uses weed must use it 24/7. There are plenty of alcoholics who are constantly drunk, it doesn't mean everyone who drinks has a problem

What about screening due to insurance requirements or because of customer requirements? Another completely unnecessary law because "someone should do something". It's hard to find qualified people, especially at our pay rates. If we could bypass drug testing, we would. But that is a non-starter for us.

All mass shooters have 1 thing in common that is not the attribute you want to hire. Just another risk potheads bring to the table.

What a dumb leftist bill

They admit pot is a legitimate safety concern for sensitive employment but want to dismiss it for YOUR business

And they admit you can still fire them after!

So they want you to waste time and money on potheads

Awesome!

Now do alcohol.

"Conservatives" on every weed thread.



iTs MiNd AlTeRiNg!!!

Quit hiring men?

Okay, you're hired, you start in two weeks

Now that you're an employee, take this drug test

(13 days later) Drug test came in, you're fired

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Okay, you're hired, you start in two weeks

Now that you're an employee, take this drug test

(13 days later) Drug test came in, you're fired

---

And now you, as the employer, are paying out the nose for unemployment.

So it would be okay to use it on your way to work, at lunch, on your break since that is free time?

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

So it would be okay to use it on your way to work, at lunch, on your break since that is free time?

---

for me personally at my company? as long as it didn't affect their work, I would not care.

for a fork lift operator company, that would be a problem.

some people may just not want people that do drugs or drink alcohol employed by them. I have no issue with that. I wouldn't hire someone that goes to rallies and posts about it on social media. (in some states that would be illegal to not hire someone based upon)

I believe the company should be able to set their rules.

Quote:

---

The legislation notes that most drug tests detect only THC metabolites, which can remain in a person's system for weeks after using cannabis

---

As has been said...

OR the person could have been tokening a few minutes before applying. How does the employer know?

BMX Bandit said:

---

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

So it would be okay to use it on your way to work, at lunch, on your break since that is free time?

---

for me personally at my company? as long as it didn't affect their work, I would not care.

for a fork lift operator company, that would be a problem.

some people may just not want people that do drugs or drink alcohol employed by them. I have no issue with that. I wouldn't hire someone that goes to rallies and posts about it on social media. (in some states that would be illegal to not hire someone based upon)

I believe the company should be able to set their rules.

---

And that is how it should work. The company decides whether it matter not the government. A company should be able to hire or fire anyone, anytime, for any reason.

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

So it would be okay to use it on your way to work, at lunch, on your break since that is free time?

---

Is alcohol okay to use on your way to work, at lunch, on your break since that is free time? What is the point of this post?

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

I'm a libertarian and this is a violation of a company's freedom of association. Terrible idea.

---

This. Plain and simple. And I am pro cannabis and legalization. I ate some last night and made some dank ass posts on Texags, enlightening others free of charge...ba-lee-dat.

Because of how long THC lasts in the system it's impossible to definitively prove whether someone was high on the job.

Businesses are responsible for their employees actions while they are on the clock.

An employee comes in high and makes poor decisions that hurt a customer and the business will be at fault. So businesses can't refuse to hire employees who are going to be a safety liability. And in the same broad stroke are going to be forced to be responsible for the actions of that employee who makes poor decisions on the job while under the influence.

This is a ****ty law.