When in doubt I generally lean towards the employer being able to fire people for just about any reason they choose. If you don't like the rules then don't work there, generally.

Drug testing for marijuana is kind of dumb though because it stays in your system so long and isn't a highly addictive and dangerous drug like heroin or meth. So as has been mentioned you can have smoked a joint a week ago and test positive. It's also very possible that if you live in a state that has legal weed you can go to a party or other place where people are lighting up all around you and you end up with some in your system even though you didn't partake yourself intentionally.

I'm guessing though that virtually all of the folks in WA that think you should be able to mandate the hell out of vaccines and fire people for not taking them.

Muktheduck said:

---

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

---

I think the main hurdle, which hopefully someday will be crossed, is technological limitations. If I understand it correctly, a drug test simply can't tell you if I'm high right now, or smoked 5 days ago. If it's a hair follicle test, it could have been months ago.

Until we have some type of testing that can test for current impairment, this is how it's going to be.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

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.

---

nothing in this law prevents you from drug testing an employee or firing them for coming to work high

Seems like pretty extraneous law. Not a fan.

What's even weirder about all this, is that non-medical cannabis is still 100% illegal by federal law. So, anybody with any cannabis in any state is violating a federal law. So, state laws are in violation of federal laws. I'm not sure where the court cases about this that surely exist have proceeded. Checking a bit and it appears the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment has just defunded the feds ability to pursue any action on a federal level. The weirdness continues.

I don't know the ends and out of what has happened in every state, but related to the interplay between State law and Federal law, Colorado law says its generally an unlawful act to fire someone "due to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours"

Colorado Court have held that since marijuana is illegal on Federal level, employers can fire people for smoking marijuana even if it has no effect on their work.

There are a number of folks who say what an employee does on their free time is not the company's business. The times I mentioned are considered free time- but could impair one's ability to function possibly.

To answer your question, in my opinion it is not okay to consume alcohol or any other recreational drug for that matter during those times- but that is just me.

in that scenario, what they do on their free time directly affects their work. I don't think anyone here is okay with that.

What chronic, daily marijuana user is employable?
They generally cannot be trusted for insurance purposes to have normal reflexes around power machinery, including operating motor vehicles, so employability would be restricted to low skill jobs such as Wal Mart greeter.
Maybe Washington state will pick up the insurance for businesses because I don't see private insurance willing to take the risk.

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

There are a number of folks who say what an employee does on their free time is not the company's business. The times I mentioned are considered free time- but could impair one's ability to function possibly.

---

So some kind of weird semantics game to make some "point".

Quote:

---

To answer your question, in my opinion it is not okay to consume alcohol or any other recreational drug for that matter during those times- but that is just me.

---

I am pretty sure literally everyone here agrees with that. Nobody said otherwise.

UTExan said:

---

What chronic, daily marijuana user is employable?
They generally cannot be trusted for insurance purposes to have normal reflexes around power machinery, including operating motor vehicles, so employability would be restricted to low skill jobs such as Wal Mart greeter.
Maybe Washington state will pick up the insurance for businesses because I don't see private insurance willing to take the risk.

---

Some of you truly live in your own word. This isn't the 1950s. I imagine your mind would be blown to learn how many docs, lawyers, finance folks, etc. are daily users. No different from you having a glass of wine at dinner.

Good grief.

Beast of Burden said:

---

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

There are a number of folks who say what an employee does on their free time is not the company's business. The times I mentioned are considered free time- but could impair one's ability to function possibly.

---

So some kind of weird semantics game to make some "point".

Quote:

---

To answer your question, in my opinion it is not okay to consume alcohol or any other recreational drug for that matter during those times- but that is just me.

---

I am pretty sure literally everyone here agrees with that. Nobody said otherwise.

---

i'm okay with people drinking at lunch. just dont' get drunk.

UTExan said:

---

What chronic, daily marijuana user is employable?

---

lol there are a ton of them who are hugely successful in basically any industry you could name. You just wouldn't know unless you knew them well enough personally. They're not wearing beaded headbands and tie-dye and doing bong rips in the office, they look and act like anyone else.

Obviously you're someone who gives off massive narc vibes, so nobody is sharing that part of their life with you, which makes your sampling bias worse because the only people you ID as pot smokers are the ones who fit the stereotype you have in your head.

Quote:

---

nothing in this law prevents you from drug testing an employee or firing them for coming to work high

---

Seriously, you know this is a joke of a point. You cannot test for impairment without drawing blood. Employers are stuck guessing.

as for all of the caterwauling about fear of the drug, I couldn't care less about who does/doesn't use, but don't force an employer to hire someone who does.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

nothing in this law prevents you from drug testing an employee or firing them for coming to work high

---

Seriously, you know this is a joke of a point. You cannot test for impairment without drawing blood. Employers are stuck guessing.

---

you are again showing you didn't read the OP.

this law, which is a dumb law for several reasons, does not apply to employees. it applies to potential employees.

What could possibly go wrong … these people are dumb

Weed.

Beast of Burden said:

---

UTExan said:

---

What chronic, daily marijuana user is employable?
They generally cannot be trusted for insurance purposes to have normal reflexes around power machinery, including operating motor vehicles, so employability would be restricted to low skill jobs such as Wal Mart greeter.
Maybe Washington state will pick up the insurance for businesses because I don't see private insurance willing to take the risk.

---

Some of you truly live in your own word. This isn't the 1950s. I imagine your mind would be blown to learn how many docs, lawyers, finance folks, etc. are daily users. No different from you having a glass of wine at dinner.

Good grief.

---

It's not about my "feels"

It's about a blood tox screen post accident showing a metabolite and shifting liability.

Beast of Burden said:

---

UTExan said:

---

What chronic, daily marijuana user is employable?
They generally cannot be trusted for insurance purposes to have normal reflexes around power machinery, including operating motor vehicles, so employability would be restricted to low skill jobs such as Wal Mart greeter.
Maybe Washington state will pick up the insurance for businesses because I don't see private insurance willing to take the risk.

---

Some of you truly live in your own word. This isn't the 1950s. I imagine your mind would be blown to learn how many docs, lawyers, finance folks, etc. are daily users. No different from you having a glass of wine at dinner.

Good grief.

---

Ur wrong. Every health related professional board I know of is strict on the use of illicit substances.

Just wait til someone who is high operates on u.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

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.

---

nothing in this law prevents you from drug testing an employee or firing them for coming to work high

---

Ahhhh and once again we are to moving the goal posts.

When legalization of weed was first brought up and first became a thing....ALLLLLL the proponents said
just because it's legalized doesn't mean that we will push to prevent employers from being able to drug test applicants

Now it's You can't drug test applicants but you can drug test current employees

Next it will be you can't drug test employees. And if you do ur racist because POC are the ones who are usually fired for testing positive.

Just like how it was Accept us. We were born this way. We just don't want to be stigmatized

Then it was we just want the same rights as heteros let us marry

Now it's Celebrate us. Bake the cake. Use our pronouns. Or you're a bigot and we will sue

Do you guys not see how it works yet?

Serious sheeple.

"We shouldn't have people using mind altering drugs before work."

- Guy who lives in a state where over 1/5 people are prescribed mind altering drugs for daily use.

You most likely drive in every morning to work next to one person who doesn't remember it because of anxiety meds.

Nobody should be working high. A lot of people are, especially with drugs besides MJ.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

UTExan said:

---

What chronic, daily marijuana user is employable?
They generally cannot be trusted for insurance purposes to have normal reflexes around power machinery, including operating motor vehicles, so employability would be restricted to low skill jobs such as Wal Mart greeter.
Maybe Washington state will pick up the insurance for businesses because I don't see private insurance willing to take the risk.

---

Some of you truly live in your own word. This isn't the 1950s. I imagine your mind would be blown to learn how many docs, lawyers, finance folks, etc. are daily users. No different from you having a glass of wine at dinner.

Good grief.

---

Ur wrong. Every health related professional board I know of is strict on the use of illicit substances.

Just wait til someone who is high operates on u.

---

That's not what he said or suggested.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

UTExan said:

---

What chronic, daily marijuana user is employable?
They generally cannot be trusted for insurance purposes to have normal reflexes around power machinery, including operating motor vehicles, so employability would be restricted to low skill jobs such as Wal Mart greeter.
Maybe Washington state will pick up the insurance for businesses because I don't see private insurance willing to take the risk.

---

Some of you truly live in your own word. This isn't the 1950s. I imagine your mind would be blown to learn how many docs, lawyers, finance folks, etc. are daily users. No different from you having a glass of wine at dinner.

Good grief.

---

Ur wrong. Every health related professional board I know of is strict on the use of illicit substances.

---

And yet I've seen it regularly with my own eyes.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

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.

---

nothing in this law prevents you from drug testing an employee or firing them for coming to work high

---

Ahhhh and once again we are to moving the goal posts.

When legalization of weed was first brought up and first became a thing....ALLLLLL the proponents said
just because it's legalized doesn't mean that we will push to prevent employers from being able to drug test applicants

Now it's You can't drug test applicants but you can drug test current employees

Next it will be you can't drug test employees. And if you do ur racist because POC are the ones who are usually fired for testing positive.

Just like how it was Accept us. We were born this way. We just don't want to be stigmatized

Then it was we just want the same rights as heteros let us marry

Now it's Celebrate us. Bake the cake. Use our pronouns. Or you're a bigot and we will sue

Do you guys not see how it works yet?

Serious sheeple.

---

That's quite the post. Do you ever consume alcohol? Does anyone you know consume alcohol? If so, do you give them this same rant?

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

UTExan said:

---

What chronic, daily marijuana user is employable?
They generally cannot be trusted for insurance purposes to have normal reflexes around power machinery, including operating motor vehicles, so employability would be restricted to low skill jobs such as Wal Mart greeter.
Maybe Washington state will pick up the insurance for businesses because I don't see private insurance willing to take the risk.

---

Some of you truly live in your own word. This isn't the 1950s. I imagine your mind would be blown to learn how many docs, lawyers, finance folks, etc. are daily users. No different from you having a glass of wine at dinner.

Good grief.

---

Ur wrong. Every health related professional board I know of is strict on the use of illicit substances.

Just wait til someone who is high operates on u.

---

That's not what he said or suggested.

---

Right? I just don't understand the mania around freaking weed. He's a good poster but people get so emotional over it...and usually the same people who enjoy their booze.

Somehow I don't think he's worried about his ENT doc having a glass of wine with his steak but pop an edible and the world is coming to an end.

Beast of Burden said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

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.

---

nothing in this law prevents you from drug testing an employee or firing them for coming to work high

---

Ahhhh and once again we are to moving the goal posts.

When legalization of weed was first brought up and first became a thing....ALLLLLL the proponents said
just because it's legalized doesn't mean that we will push to prevent employers from being able to drug test applicants

Now it's You can't drug test applicants but you can drug test current employees

Next it will be you can't drug test employees. And if you do ur racist because POC are the ones who are usually fired for testing positive.

Just like how it was Accept us. We were born this way. We just don't want to be stigmatized

Then it was we just want the same rights as heteros let us marry

Now it's Celebrate us. Bake the cake. Use our pronouns. Or you're a bigot and we will sue

Do you guys not see how it works yet?

Serious sheeple.

---

That's quite the post. Do you ever consume alcohol? Does anyone you know consume alcohol? If so, do you give them this same rant?

---

1) no I do not. But by the same token that doesn't mean I give a damn if other people do it. I really don't.

Equating marijuana use with alcohol use is a false equivalency. They are 2 different drugs and to make such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

Post a better analogy and I will respond.

I do not care what people do on their own time. Smoke all u want, use edibles. I couldn't care less.

1) Just don't be shocked or ***** to me if u **** up ur life if you over indulge and noone wants to hire u

2) don't drive or put people in danger when ur using.

3) keep it away from kids.

Regarding drug use that is all I care about. Hell I would be okay with legalizing coke as long as there were applicable laws in place to ensure the above three things were covered.

What I don't like is this law which restricts what businesses can do to ensure they are comfortable with the people they hire.

That is what it comes down to.

If you can't take measures to ensure ur hiring people ur comfortable with but held liable for their actions on the job that is not good for business and pretty rotten to do to business owners.

Beast of Burden said:

---

He's a good poster

---

This is the big take away I got.

I don't think anyone on here has ever tossed me that compliment before.

Thanks!

Beast of Burden said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Beast of Burden said:

---

UTExan said:

---

What chronic, daily marijuana user is employable?
They generally cannot be trusted for insurance purposes to have normal reflexes around power machinery, including operating motor vehicles, so employability would be restricted to low skill jobs such as Wal Mart greeter.
Maybe Washington state will pick up the insurance for businesses because I don't see private insurance willing to take the risk.

---

Some of you truly live in your own word. This isn't the 1950s. I imagine your mind would be blown to learn how many docs, lawyers, finance folks, etc. are daily users. No different from you having a glass of wine at dinner.

Good grief.

---

Ur wrong. Every health related professional board I know of is strict on the use of illicit substances.

---

And yet I've seen it regularly with my own eyes.

---

And the medical profession certainly has been known to abuse pharmaceuticals and controlled substances over the years.
https://www.hazeldenbettyford.org/research-studies/addiction-research/health-care-professionals-substance-abuse

With the crazy hours, the stress, the sleep deprivation and other factors I am surprised it is not higher. Hey, if you or any objective data can prove low volume ongoing pot usage is harmless for medical folks, that's great.
All I have heard so far is anecdotal evidence on nebulous numbers of users.

We stopped testing for marijuana as pre-employment screening because we operate in Colorado, Washington, and California. We did it as a free market decision though. Don't think it should be forced.

Quote:

---

Ahhhh and once again we are to moving the goal posts.

---

I've moved nothing. You can't read apparently. I'm against this law. But you are claiming it does things that it does not.

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

---

Yup. The workaround is probationary employment. As part of the probation you must past a drug test.

This should be up for private industry to figure out, we don't need more regs. Labor is in short supply right now, so these guys can find jobs.

Tests (eta) can also determine based on level how much is in your system, so companies can determine how often they use it and consider risk accordingly along with other issues when considering applicants in a low supply situation.

Quote:

---

you are again showing you didn't read the OP.

this law, which is a dumb law for several reasons, does not apply to employees. it applies to potential employees.

---

Wow - not even really trying now. Employers also deal with "applicants" - they are trying to employ them.

You were wrong. It's okay. Don't keep digging.

No doubt WA will eventually look to expand this law. But for now it just applies to applicants.