View Single Post
Old 11-09-2012, 06:13 PM   #67
A verbis ad verbera
cutthemdown's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,299

Originally Posted by Drek View Post
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.)

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.

Sorry but Colo isn't a world with legalized weed. Companies can just say they have to follow federal law. I'm not questioning your job but i work for a law firm. They will ban it the same way they did medical marijuana. By saying until feds say different we aren't budging.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote