Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55
Yes I can't drink 12 hours before work.
But you can still drink if you want. You just need to be able to pass a test that only applies to the window of intoxication.
So if instead of testing for THC-COOH, the non-intoxicating metabolite they currently test for, and instead tested for just straight THC, the real intoxicant, that would make complete sense. That test with a reasonable baseline threshold (like we use for alcohol testing) and we'd be all cool.
But unilaterally saying "you're fired for smokin' weed, period!" is wrong and discriminatory in a hypothetical world in which weed is legal across the board. Firing someone for being intoxicated with anything while on the job is legal, trying to dictate recreational activity is the domain of specialized, literal contracts that both parties agree to before hand (like pro athletes agreeing not to ride motorcycles, etc.)
Originally Posted by cutthemdown
a private company can make emplyment rules as long as they don't infring on race, religion, age. They can for sure say no weed. You guys are kidding yourself if you think they cant. Places like construction etc will still have higher insurance if they dont test for weed.
The reason the started testing for weed had nothing to do with it being illegal. They started testing more and more as insurance companies made them. They don't want higher rates, get it higher rates.
Besides this law violates federal law and Obama wont want to bother with pissing off the justice dept. He will let them sue this law and have it be ruled in violation of federal law.
Sorry you guys but this is how its going down. Why care though legalized weed would just ruin it. They would regulate, tax the hell, probably limit its potency. Better to decriminalize and let govt make the money through sales tax from all the growers.
1. I actually administer a random drug testing program for a mid-sized demolition, engineering, environmental services and remediation company. I know what most companies have for a policy.
2. From a legal standpoint in a world with legalized weed you would never be able to get away with a test for weed that someone would fail while not intoxicated, regardless of their use. That is the current case with alcohol. The test for it needs a threshold that only comes up positive for someone currently intoxicated. That makes complete sense, but it will not be acceptable to discriminate based on simply using weed. That is what the phrasing I'm questioning strongly implies.