• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

I believe that marijuana should be legal (discussion)

lordofthereef said:
I am not sure I would want to walk in to a place where the customer service rep had just blazed up, his eyes are blooddshot, and he is having a tough time concentrating on what I am asking him. We keep comparing drunks here, yet we currently have a way to get the drunks the hell out, and tests can be required. I see someone with symptoms of recent marijuana use, all I can do is assume. I send this guy home, and low an behold it comes back on ME, as the manager, for unjustly sending the guy home since I had no proof he had been smoking.

I am still confused as to why developing a test would be a bad idea here. With a working test there would literally be no ifs, ands, or buts. You seem to be the only one against it here and I seriously can't understand why.
Click to expand...
They don't "blaze" AT work....
I am not against a test. I just don't see the NEED for it to be a REQUIREMENT for LEGALIZATION.
 
The lawsuits against tobacco are centered around their shady business models. You know, purposefully marketing to youth. Adding HIGHLY addictive additives. Denying potential health risks. Has nothing to do with it being legal.
 
nlsme said:
They don't "blaze" AT work....
I am not against a test. I just don't see the NEED for it to be a REQUIREMENT for LEGALIZATION.
Click to expand...

Your guys might not. That's wonderful for you. If MJ gets legalized without any sort of testing or other legal explaination of when/where it can be used, I can guarantee this will become a big problem. Again, maybe not for you, and that is wonderful. But we have laws to protect other business owners, workers, and the public, who this may very well effect.
 
lordofthereef said:
Your guys might not. That's wonderful for you. If MJ gets legalized without any sort of testing or other legal explaination of when/where it can be used, I can guarantee this will become a big problem. Again, maybe not for you, and that is wonderful. But we have laws to protect other business owners, workers, and the public, who this may very well effect.
Click to expand...
There are places that don't allow smoking cigerretes at work. The same could be done for MJ.
 
AFAIK one can go home and have a beer on lunch break and there is nothing wrong with that. Just need to stay under the legal limit. One simply cannot consume the alcohol on work property.
 
lordofthereef said:
If I get sent home for being drunk, I have to be above a legal limit for my employer to do that. There currently is not legal limit for MJ.
Click to expand...
Actually, you don't. If you read a single employee handbook from ANY employer, they maintain a "zero tolerance" rule. The printing facilities used to print Playboy, and National Geographic (same factory), will fire you for having cigerettes IN YOUR CAR.
 
lordofthereef said:
AFAIK one can go home and have a beer on lunch break and there is nothing wrong with that. Just need to stay under the legal limit. One simply cannot consume the alcohol on work property.
Click to expand...
Every employee handbook I have ever seen, says "zero tolerance". Showing up under the influence would be a clear violation of it.
 
I actually have read handbooks. Some, including that of Best Buy, literally spells out that a single beer at lunch is ok. I appreciate the assumption that I have not read one though.

In any case, let's conceed that I was wrong. If you get sent home, do you not have the right to demand a test? And if your BAC is > 0.00 you are in violation?
 
Best Buy, and 99% of NON UNION jobs are "at-will", meaning, they don't even NEED a reason to fire someone. And, I highly doubt, Best-Buy's handbook says it is OK to show up to work under the influence.
 
nlsme said:
They don't "blaze" AT work....
I am not against a test. I just don't see the NEED for it to be a REQUIREMENT for LEGALIZATION.
Click to expand...

Because of pre-screening employment issues, government contracts, the police when they think you are driving while stoned . . . many more reasons why we need to know.
 
nlsme said:
Best Buy, and 99% of NON UNION jobs are "at-will", meaning, they don't even NEED a reason to fire someone. And, I highly doubt, Best-Buy's handbook says it is OK to show up to work under the influence.
Click to expand...
If I remember, when I get home tonight, I will take the book out. My fiance is an operations manager there, and was reading an except from it. We were having a good laugh about it because it turns out one of their employees takes advantage of this "allowance" pretty religiously.

As far as firing for any reason, I am sure that is true. People pull the discrimination card for just about anything, so they better have a damn good reason to fire, though. I can only speak for the two stores she has worked at, but they put employees on a performance plan and there is a 3 strike rule (obviously dependent on the issues). They'd rather not be taken to court.
 
lordofthereef said:
If I remember, when I get home tonight, I will take the book out. My fiance is an operations manager there, and was reading an except from it. We were having a good laugh about it because it turns out one of their employees takes advantage of this "allowance" pretty religiously.

As far as firing for any reason, I am sure that is true. People pull the discrimination card for just about anything, so they better have a damn good reason to fire, though. I can only speak for the two stores she has worked at, but they put employees on a performance plan and there is a 3 strike rule. They'd rather not be taken to court.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, when a company fires a drug user or drunk or refuses to hire a drinker or a pot smoker, it is not discrimination; it is enlightened self-interest. They do not want to be sued because some pothead decides to follow the rainbow or is distracted by shiny objects and drives a load of kittens and puppies off the road into the path of an on-coming school bus filled with Special Olympics children returning from church.

Certainly, they do not want to hit me, I'll sue them to hell and back.

Did you know some companies will test for niccotine? they do not want to hire smokers for any number of valid reasons.
 
lordofthereef said:
If I remember, when I get home tonight, I will take the book out. My fiance is an operations manager there, and was reading an except from it. We were having a good laugh about it because it turns out one of their employees takes advantage of this "allowance" pretty religiously.

As far as firing for any reason, I am sure that is true. People pull the discrimination card for just about anything, so they better have a damn good reason to fire, though. I can only speak for the two stores she has worked at, but they put employees on a performance plan and there is a 3 strike rule. They'd rather not be taken to court.
Click to expand...
If it is an "at-will" employer, discrimination claims better have some documented proof of discrimination, or they will quickly be thrown out. As for Best-Buy's handbook(wich I don't buy is their policy), that is THEIR right. If they choose to allow a person to work under the influence, it is THEIR choice. Not any law requiring someone to be over the legal limit, before action is taken against them. Liike I said, the print shop that prints Playboy and NG, will fire you for bringing cigerettes on their premise. You don't even have to smoke, or take them out of your car.
 
lordofthereef said:
AFAIK one can go home and have a beer on lunch break and there is nothing wrong with that. Just need to stay under the legal limit. One simply cannot consume the alcohol on work property.
Click to expand...

Interesting question: are you on your own time even at lunch? I wonder if this idea has been tested. I am not so sure your lunch time belongs to you.

i know if you have use of a company car and you drive drunk and kill someone, your company will likely be dragged into court.

Anyone know for sure?
 
nlsme said:
If it is an "at-will" employer, discrimination claims better have some documented proof of discrimination, or they will quickly be thrown out. As for Best-Buy's handbook(wich I don't buy is their policy), that is THEIR right. If they choose to allow a person to work under the influence, it is THEIR choice. Not any law requiring someone to be over the legal limit, before action is taken against them. Liike I said, the print shop that prints Playboy and NG, will fire you for bringing cigerettes on their premise. You don't even have to smoke, or take them out of your car.
Click to expand...

And again, if they accuse me of being under the influence, I have the right to demand a test. If we don't have a test for pot, we are screwed. They cannot just kick any odd person out because they MIGHT be under the influence.
 
nlsme said:
Every employee handbook I have ever seen, says "zero tolerance". Showing up under the influence would be a clear violation of it.
Click to expand...

Some people can handle a single beer at lunch. Some people can't. I think most companies simply have a zero tolerance policy to play it safe.

By the way, what the hell is a single beer, anyway?
 
lordofthereef said:
And again, if they accuse me of being under the influence, I have the right to demand a test. If we don't have a test for pot, we are screwed. They cannot just kick any odd person out because they MIGHT be under the influence.
Click to expand...
Sure they can, they don't NEED a reason. Unless it is a union job. At-Will employement is a legal term. It litterally means they can fire you WITHOUT cause. Just like you can quit without reason.
 
BTW, the test already exists. It is just used now for ANY level, but it can determine specific levels.

THC and its major (inactive) metabolite, THC-COOH, can be quantitated in blood, urine, hair, oral fluid or sweat using chromatographic techniques as part of a drug use testing program or a forensic investigation of a traffic or other criminal offense. The concentrations obtained from such analyses can often be helpful in distinguishing active use from passive exposure, prescription use from illicit use, elapsed time since use, and extent or duration of use.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom