Prescription pot does not fly at employee screenings

[1inchgroup]

So....just playing the Devil's Advocate here....but let's say this person went along with someone else screening for the same job.

The other person popped for opiates...then produced a prescription bottle of painkillers.

Difference?

[Kathy63]

Originally Posted by 1inchgroup

So....just playing the Devil's Advocate here....but let's say this person went along with someone else screening for the same job.

The other person popped for opiates...then produced a prescription bottle of painkillers.

Difference?

It depends on what kind of painkillers. If it was an opiatoid, no difference. The rule is against anything that would cause mental impairment. The company has a legal obligation to protect the public from its mentally impaired drivers. To require them to hire a marijuana addict or someone on mind fogging opiates would be to buy the lawsuits that the public would undoubtably bring against them in the expected accidents.

[Twoller]

"Medical marijuana" and its legal status is just more evidence of how corrupt our society has been made by the Drug War. "Medical marijuana" is just a doctor's license to get high. During the prohibition of alcohol, you could also get a medical prescription for alcohol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition



http://cocktails.about.com/od/histor...hibition_2.htm

....

Another interesting provision to prohibition was that alcohol was available via a physician’s prescription. For centuries liquor had been used for medicinal purposes, in fact many of the liqueurs we know today were first developed as miracle cures for various ailments. Despite the fact that in 1916 whiskey and brandy were removed from The Pharmacopeia of the United States of America and in 1917 the American Medical Association stated that alcohol “…use in therapeutics as a tonic or stimulant or for food has no scientific value…” and voted in support of prohibition, there was still a belief in liquor's medicinal benefits among many.

Because of this established belief that liquor could cure and prevent a variety of ailments, doctors were still able to prescribe liquor to patients on a specially designed government prescription form that could be filled at any pharmacy. When medicinal whiskey stocks were low the government would increase its production. A significant amount of the prescription alcohol supplies were diverted from their intended destinations by bootleggers and corrupt individuals during prohibition.

....

Yes, businesses should reserve the right to restrict employees away from being under the influence of mind altering substances like pot and alcohol. But, would this company fire an employee for testing positive for pot if it were legal or decriminalized? Would they even be looking for it? Probably not.

[1inchgroup]

Not sure I want to come off as Mr MedPot....that's not my intention....but I do know a few people of both types.

Ones that benefit greatly from medical pot. Know how your arm or leg feels when it is waking up after you've put it to sleep? That buzzy...tingly...really uncomfortable feeling. Imagine if that was on an entire side of your body...and it wasn't tingly and uncomfortable. It hurts. It never goes away. Day in....day out. PAIN. I watched someone try eating a bit for the first time...and I also saw her relax for the first 4 hour block of time in years. Volunteered at a center in West Hollywood for a while...and there are some seriously sick people going to these places.

...and I know a few that go to score for them and their friends.

None of them hurt anyone...I don't see a problem with it. Going to work intoxicated is another arguement. That's never a good plan...

But you can pop positive for pot up to a month after a single use. How is a urine test proof that person is under the influence? Speed freaks can tweek away a 3 day weekend, and they're clean days afterwards.

The entire THC testing concept is faulty...and an invasion of privacy with no "true" proof at the end.

[Ayatollahgondola]

I smell the stuff on the users. It gets in their clothes, on their breath, etc. They can't function generally, so it's usually apparent.
If I put the two together while they were on the job, I sent them home. happened twice in a month, I gave them 30 days off no pay to get straight. If it became a ritual they were fired.
Drug use on the job injures those around them, and from experience, it cost me in damages. My trucks, tools, landlords buildings, you name it.
If you're so sick that you need cannabis, it's probably best you take up disability

[1inchgroup]

Surprised you'd give em a chance. I'd fire someone that came to work jacked up...first time.

It's the law here in California...and I'd imagine it's going to be decriminalized from the conversations going on. I'd think an employer would have no choice but to comply with it. May take a lawsuit to prove, but it's prescribed by a doctor. There's no difference between medmar and painkillers or antibiotics. Employer should have no say in the matter...unless said person attends work jacked up.

[ilbegone]

I've seen it both ways.

Those who couldn't function after a couple of hits and others who were good help even if smoking pot all day, and the world of cannabis use goes way beyond the flagrantly obvious.

Regardless of age bracket or apparent life style.

Everyone is different.

I am now of the opinion that no one should be high on the job, but that whatever partying a person does on his own time is his own business. It's going away, but there was the old time blue collar notion which involved lots of drinking (thirty years ago there as as much chance of the water cooler being filled with beer as with water) and by extension pot smoking both on and off the job.

The drug tests are a farce. It's been some time now, but I could party like a fiend the night before a pee test and I beat them all.

I don't do it any more for several reasons, not the least that under the present situation the marijuana trade fuels a lot of killing - essentially it's a blood soaked product whose traffickers have no respect for life or environment.

I believe that if it were legal to grow and posses for personal use but greatly illegal to traffic it would take much of the profit away from the cartels.

The other idea of allowing cannabis to be sold over the counter and taxed is nuts as far as I'm concerned. The same killers who move it now will just get a business license and be rewarded for their previous behavior - not unlike awarding amnesty to illegals who have thumbed their noses at our sovereignty.

Quite a few in our society have a notion that harsh punishment or "rehabilitation" will make pot use go away. I think that sort of wishful attempt is something like pissing into a fan, it's useless denial of reality.