Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

81 - 100 of 122 Posts

·
Founder of the STFA
Joined
·
8,667 Posts
The contention is legal use on private time of a recreational mind altering substance (pot or booze) and given enough time for that substance to no longer have an effect.
Biggest issue on this is the testing and more definitive info on THC levels showing up on tests and how they connect to intoxication. When it was illegal, any level that was detected was enough for a flag. Now that theory won't work if they're really after intoxication levels. Alcohol much easier to connect the dots for detection and intoxication. Weed is a work in process and will have to evolve to be treated like alcohol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Well, all of that one will have to be hashed out in the courts, for better or worse. They are set up to "handle" these gray areas of the law not only for this matter, but for most other things that are allowed in one state, and not in another, or while being employed or off-duty. I put "handle" in quotation marks because the judicial system can't come up with some ideal and fair all-around solution once and for all. If you look at similar legal attempts to constrain human behavior it went through several decades of litigation, fine-tuning, testing, and refining before it got to the level where it is now. Alcohol use and abuse has a long history with some wild swings in either direction. Today we have BAC as a normalized objective metric to alcohol intoxication, and the limit 0.08 is based on our current understanding of how much intoxication impairs your ability to function to the level required for driving. It took years to get to this point. In the future we may have to refine the BAC metric, or come up with a different one as we discover more about cognitive function. We may have different thresholds for different tasks, one for driving, one for operating a nuclear reactor, one for working in an office.

For other sources of impairment it's a different story. Impairment from marijuana use has no legally-tested objective measurement right now. Something will be developed eventually. Until then, we cannot do much more than generalize all such activity into one large category. Another activity that causes impairment of one second or less that is also illegal, distracted driving, has no metric either. Eventually there will be lots of special cases.
 

·
RETIRED Super Stealth Moderator
Joined
·
27,899 Posts
since CO is operating in a gray area, the banking industry in CO won't take the money that legal pot dealers are making of their sales. from a business perspective, this makes it tough...
 

·
Founder of the STFA
Joined
·
8,667 Posts
If you look at similar legal attempts to constrain human behavior it went through several decades of litigation, fine-tuning, testing, and refining before it got to the level where it is now. Alcohol use and abuse has a long history with some wild swings in either direction. Today we have BAC as a normalized objective metric to alcohol intoxication, and the limit 0.08 is based on our current understanding of how much intoxication impairs your ability to function to the level required for driving. It took years to get to this point. In the future we may have to refine the BAC metric, or come up with a different one as we discover more about cognitive function. We may have different thresholds for different tasks, one for driving, one for operating a nuclear reactor, one for working in an office.

For other sources of impairment it's a different story. Impairment from marijuana use has no legally-tested objective measurement right now. Something will be developed eventually. Until then, we cannot do much more than generalize all such activity into one large category. Another activity that causes impairment of one second or less that is also illegal, distracted driving, has no metric either. Eventually there will be lots of special cases.
Agreed. I think most people are just trying to figure out the more short term impact on legalizing weed in some states and the position of employers in those states. Both pre-employment and incident testing. It can be anything from disregarding weed positives, not even including weed in the screening, zero tolerance, etc. BAC is still all over the board in the states for driving and for pre-employment testing I'm not sure it's even included. Incident testing it is for sure.
 

·
I'm just itching to be Banned
Joined
·
13,871 Posts
Discussion Starter #87
Banks refusing money from drug sales? They need to take a look at Florida to see how it's done. :crazy:
Banks will accept money if the quantities are large enough, just look at the recent Mexican cartel banking scandals... :p In all seriousness, until the kinks in the system such as this are solved, I foresee serious security issues in the future for the owners of these shops. As it stands, I really see the income earned by these shops as being basically the same as their illegal counterparts. They've got income coming in, but it's not like they can put it in a bank, invest it, etc.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,046 Posts
I don't think anyone is suggesting it should be OK to show up to work stoned (or drunk). The contention is legal use on private time of a recreational mind altering substance (pot or booze) and given enough time for that substance to no longer have an effect. How can one have different rules then the other without being hypocritical? Show up to work with a 0.00 BAC but hung over so bad you can hardly think straight. That's OK by societies standards.

For the record, I'm not trying to champion or demonize pot or booze. I'm trying to look at the entire picture with an open mind and draw some practical conclusions. Some day when I become "King of the World" (and that could be any day now :p), I'll need to have these things thought through so I can make a just and speedy official proclamation on the matter.
You haven't given this up yet? Barring a state law making it illegal, a company can voluntarily CHOOSE to fire someone with the smallest amounts of THC. In most states you can be fired because they didn't like your shoes, let alone having THC in your system. States are free to make laws outlying if they'd like.
 

·
Moderate Moderator
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
What is there to give up? Yes, I know employers can fire people if they choose. It seems you're so focused on arguing your view that you didn't even read what I wrote.
 

·
My intake has Emphysema
Joined
·
7,712 Posts
What is there to give up? Yes, I know employers can fire people if they choose. It seems you're so focused on arguing your view that you didn't even read what I wrote.
I think where we're going here is until it is legal in all states, an employer can and will terminate you or not hire you because you lack moral fortitude by partaking in an activity which is illegal. Even if they are in a state where it is legal and you moved from a state where it wasn't, they can choose not to hire you because you can't prove that you didn't move there just so you could legally get high.
Until it's legal in all states, I don't think this can even be argued.
 

·
I'm just itching to be Banned
Joined
·
13,871 Posts
Discussion Starter #91
I think where we're going here is until it is legal in all states, an employer can and will terminate you or not hire you because you lack moral fortitude by partaking in an activity which is illegal. Even if they are in a state where it is legal and you moved from a state where it wasn't, they can choose not to hire you because you can't prove that you didn't move there just so you could legally get high.
Until it's legal in all states, I don't think this can even be argued.
FWIW, employers in most states can already restrict "drug" usage if they so choose. Take insurance companies for example, they expressly state that you can not use tobacco products if you work for them. If you are found to have used them, you can be fired immediately (despite the fact that a cigarette is a perfectly legal substance for anyone over the age of 18) as a vioation of your employee contract.
 

·
My intake has Emphysema
Joined
·
7,712 Posts
FWIW, employers in most states can already restrict "drug" usage if they so choose. Take insurance companies for example, they expressly state that you can not use tobacco products if you work for them. If you are found to have used them, you can be fired immediately (despite the fact that a cigarette is a perfectly legal substance for anyone over the age of 18) as a vioation of your employee contract.
I think I may have already said that; but I think where Steve is going is the "what if" argument. What it all comes down to is a company can and will hire you based on their rules. If you get high and they don't want you to, even if it's legal, you'll never win the argument. Or court case; which I can see happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
I don't think anyone is suggesting it should be OK to show up to work stoned (or drunk). The contention is legal use on private time of a recreational mind altering substance (pot or booze) and given enough time for that substance to no longer have an effect. How can one have different rules then the other without being hypocritical? Show up to work with a 0.00 BAC but hung over so bad you can hardly think straight. That's OK by societies standards.
The point you are making is clear and succinct (neither of which I am good at, evidently).

If you look at this as two recreational mind altering substances, the rules should be the same, no doubt. But they don't leave the same "signature" on the body and absent a standard to go by, an employer will make a decisions based on biases, their risk tolerance, and a whole slew of factors, many arbitrary, rather than something more concrete and objective.

From the employer's perspective, it's the worst possible outcome to be operating under state laws and rights that contradict employment and labor laws at the national level. Employers find themselves having to walk that very thin edge between two opposing legal arguments all the time, and this is the worst place to be, unfortunately. If you interpret the state law too liberally and don't do any testing, one of your employees may be abusing a substance and cause serious harm to the business or to someone else. If you interpret it too strictly, the state, or the employee may sue for infringement of rights under the state law, etc. Either outcome is a litigation risk, always bad for a company.

The idea of a company trying to control its employees' off-duty activities is odious. But the flip side is that most people do not contain their personal lives outside work either. By far the vast majority of a manager's time (certainly in large companies like the TLA mentioned here) is spent talking about people's performance, positioning, career challenges, advancement and the like, but part of all that is affected by things that are beyond the confines of the company, namely people's own personal worries and problems: substance abuse, gambling, parental challenges (special needs child, a sick elderly parent), financial challenges, illness, divorce, ... it's a long list. The best thing you can do is to help the employees go through the hardship with seminars, time off, counseling, and more flexible arrangements, or setting up space at work (quiet/prayer/lactation/smoking room, etc).

For more elective, or recreational activities no-one really cares either, so long as they don't turn into abuse. If they do, even then most companies will take the route of helping the employee (firing someone creates more litigation risk). For abuse outside work, the employer doesn't really care, per se. But, how likely is it that it won't come to work with the employee? Some can control it but some cannot. Some become zealots of their new-found cause and use the workplace to champion it. Others just quietly come in, tell who they need to tell about their problems, hopefully find someone who understands, and work together to make it a non-issue in the work environment.

Here is yet another recreational activity-turned-addiction that has infected the workplace in very large scale: social media websites. Most people have become addicted to that "drug".

The bottom line is that employers will always look at this as a legal risk type of issue, but that doesn't mean that they will always take a strictly legal approach. They may set company policy of zero tolerance for XYZ, yet, not enforce it all the time. It's like many laws we have in the books that are not enforced until they become a quantifiable risk or real problem.
 

·
Founder of the STFA
Joined
·
8,667 Posts
Until it's legal in all states, I don't think this can even be argued.
Legal in one state or all fifty states, employers can legally do what they want with regards to this issue. If public opinion and hiring demands cause them to be more flexible, that's another story. Using legal substances for recreational purposes isn't a protected class. Race, color, religion, gender (including sexual orientation), national origin, age, pregnancy, citizenship, family status, disability status and veteran status are protected.
 

·
My intake has Emphysema
Joined
·
7,712 Posts
Legal in one state or all fifty states, employers can legally do what they want with regards to this issue. If public opinion and hiring demands cause them to be more flexible, that's another story. Using legal substances for recreational purposes isn't a protected class. Race, color, religion, gender (including sexual orientation), national origin, age, pregnancy, citizenship, family status, disability status and veteran status are protected.
I know that, it it has been said many times here by me, you and others. I was trying to make the point of where I think Steve is coming from, that it cannot be argued. I'm reading that his issue is that no matter what substance, legal or otherwise, if no longer in your system and deterring your ability to do your job, should not be held against you in the job market.....did I get that right Steve (in a round about way).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
Every argument that can ever be said about not legalizing marijuana can generally very easily be applied to alcohol or tobacco or both. There really is no reason for it to be illegal and frankly we waste way too much money on arresting people for crimes like this. And this is coming from someone who has never once tried the stuff!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Every argument that can ever be said about not legalizing marijuana can generally very easily be applied to alcohol or tobacco or both. There really is no reason for it to be illegal and frankly we waste way too much money on arresting people for crimes like this. And this is coming from someone who has never once tried the stuff!
Maybe so. But it is a lot more fun kicking the piss out of some marijuana smoking hippies than dealing with some ornery drunk rednecks that aren't afraid of a fight.
 

·
RETIRED Super Stealth Moderator
Joined
·
27,899 Posts
Maybe so. But it is a lot more fun kicking the piss out of some marijuana smoking hippies than dealing with some ornery drunk rednecks that aren't afraid of a fight.
if the only reason you jumped into this discussion was to make a comment like this, perhaps you should take another look at your priorities and reasons for posting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
if the only reason you jumped into this discussion was to make a comment like this, perhaps you should take another look at your priorities and reasons for posting.
You're right. I'm a sore loser. I'm not a fan of pot but I see that the war on drugs has worked out almost as well as our war on poverty.
 

·
RETIRED Super Stealth Moderator
Joined
·
27,899 Posts
You're right. I'm a sore loser. I'm not a fan of pot but I see that the war on drugs has worked out almost as well as our war on poverty.
sore loser WRT what?

frankly, I don't have an opinion one way or the other if pot should be legal or not - but even if illegal, people are still going to use it. but I think you're right on your point that the war on drugs WRT pot, was a fool's errand from the get-go.

here's a bigger question for the community here - how many people were arrested for selling small quantities of pot, and are presently in jail for it? should they be considered for early release? should their records be expunged?
 
81 - 100 of 122 Posts
Top