What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
291 Comments
- IntrnetToughGuy, on 11/08/2007, -6/+140Just because it's prescribed, unfortunately, doesn't mean the employer has to tolerate it. Stupid federal laws. Employee's should be judged by the quality of their work, not the quality of their urine.
- thebenchase, on 11/08/2007, -7/+49We shouldn't be putting up with this *****. Legalize it, and take in the tax revenue and put it to good use. Stop the violence in the streets, stop the gangs, stop filling the jails with people relaxing with a drug less harmful and addictive than alcohol. It's time to recognize a person's right to enjoy the herb.
- lambda, on 11/08/2007, -10/+50The founders wouldn't have put up with any of this *****. Hell, they were chopping people's heads off for putting a tax on their breakfast beverage.
- stark23x, on 11/08/2007, -4/+38The problem is, thanks to Lincoln, the Federal law won. We are no longer a group of voluntary states forming a union. We are a single entity with a central power; precisely the kind of thing the Founding fathers were trying to avoid.
- Error601, on 11/08/2007, -6/+39I think we already had out the state law verse federal law issue in the Civil War.
- spyd3rweb, on 11/08/2007, -8/+37Corporations have no business knowing the private lives of their employees. Now they do have every right to make sure you arent intoxicated on the job, on corporate property etc.
- SlipstreamLucas, on 11/08/2007, -5/+26Have you all not seen reefer madness??? Marijuana is far worse then any drug(and the devil) i could possibly think of, it will surely turn you into a cold blooded killer with frequent use. I think the employer took the only logical course of action to rid his work place of a potentially violent and psychotic drug addicted loon. Perfectly reasonable.
- kindrobot, on 11/08/2007, -0/+18. and if your coffee smells like urine, that means you drug tested me. But it's safe to drink, trust me.
- 0Degrees, on 11/14/2007, -4/+21You are correct to a degree. What you are missing here is the fact that we, as free people, have the right to do what we want in our free time. Whether that be boozing, sky diving, dressing up like roger the rabbit, or smoking pot, it's your choice so long as your actions don't affect another's well being (i.e. your rights end where my nose begins).
Being drunk/stoned/whatever while on the job is another issue. - capiCrimm, on 11/08/2007, -1/+15why not? If my urine smells like coffee I demand a promotion.
- FalseAlarm, on 11/07/2007, -3/+17And made black people pick it.
- Shaman760, on 11/08/2007, -1/+15SO don't work for an employer that puts more credence upon people's lifestyle than on their work. And to all you anti-weed types- well...you are SOL because marijuana is NOT going to just up and leave. It's here to stay. As in Forever.
- adrianmonk, on 11/07/2007, -2/+15Not a good analogy. obody mistook anything for anything else here. They tested him and concluded he'd had marijuana, and he had.
- Leksikon, on 11/08/2007, -4/+17But we continue to have it with the DEA raids (federal) on state approved marijuana dispenseries.
- jwensley2, on 11/08/2007, -2/+15I don't drink, smoke or do pot. But I still believe if alcohol and cigarettes are legal why shouldn't pot be; from basically everything I've ever heard alcohol and cigarettes are a lot worse for your health and society then pot.
- inactive, on 11/07/2007, -7/+19Our first president grew marijuana.
- Sroek, on 11/08/2007, -9/+18People need to start doing their own research on Cannabis, instead of just believing the myth and propaganda that constantly surrounds it. We no longer live in the 70's.
- diggeddugg, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9Wow, thanks bingobongony for summarizing all of the scientific literature on pain relief. You clearly know this specific patient's case history, along with what medicines are ineffective for him, including all of his allergies.
- l0g1cal, on 11/07/2007, -7/+161. Sue!
2. Win!
3. Laugh all the way to the bank.
4. Retire with million$.
5. Buy the dream system you always wanted:
1,000w HPS switchable MH with 12 primo cuts.
6. Buy the dream bong you always wanted.
7. Take a huge hit from the bong and laugh at those idiots!
8. Take a huge hit from the bong and laugh at those idiots!
9. Take a huge hit from the bong and laugh at those idiots!
10. Chill and DIGG stories! - compgeek, on 11/07/2007, -2/+10this is really just ***** up. I don't smoke pot myself or cigarettes but I can clearly see the benefit that it has in medical uses and if he had a perscription from his doctor and also the fact that state laws made it legal (granted federal laws supercede state laws but still) it is a very thorny issue whether firing him was perfectly legal I wouldn't be surprised to see a civil suit come out of this
- pkonink, on 11/14/2007, -1/+9That organization does not have the right to tell me what to do when I am at home off the clock any more than I have the right to tell the company what hours and work-schedule I will adhere to. As long as you show up on time, sober and perform your job there should be no problem whatsoever. That is freedom for both employers and the employed.
- ChristPissed, on 11/08/2007, -2/+10To hell with any government or corporation that gets involved in makiing a medical decision for me or my children. Be it regarding any use of pot, or thimersol (mercury) in vaccinations that I our my child is forced to get, flouride forced into my water, toxic pesticides, fertilizers, & unkown genetic and nano material in my food, and uneducated office clerks making medical decisions for my physician.
- physphd, on 11/14/2007, -0/+7But he wasn't drunk or in any way impaired at work.
- mrjit, on 11/08/2007, -3/+10Private company? Right to work state?
- clandress, on 11/09/2007, -5/+12I am all for the legalization of medicinal marijuana and even the decriminalization of recreational use. The fact of the matter is, if you don't agree with an organizations drug policy, you should look elsewhere for employment. You can't have it both ways. You want personal freedom to do your thing, yet want to deny the freedom of an organization to pick their employees? As far as I'm concerned, they current federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender, religion, sexual orientation and creed are acceptable. Digg me down, but medicinal or not, I think they should be able to make the decision.
- adrianmonk, on 11/09/2007, -3/+10My question is this: what did his employment agreement say? Did it specifically mention that he could be fired for smoking marijuana? If it did, then the law isn't really that relevant, and the company had a right to fire him, just as if he'd agreed to work weekends and then didn't do so.
Now, if the employment agreement said something less clear like "illegal drugs", then you've got to determine what's legal and what's not, and that's a lot thornier.
Note that I'm only speaking here of whether the company had, under the current law, the legal right to fire him. I'm not saying anything about what the law *should* be. But, I'm mildly skeptical that he was actually surprised (or should have been).
Also note, I don't really know much about the case. I'm partly just venting here because it's a pet peeve of mine when people assume the world works the way they want and then act surprised when it doesn't (even if it should) and complain about having no idea what would happen. - Matt-lars, on 11/07/2007, -1/+8Doesn't mean it should be my friend, doesn't mean it should be.
- slezzzter, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7Yes, and I'm sure this guy was going to crash the internet because he attempted computer repair with thc metabolites in his system. Of course, however, it's logical that employers should not allow employees to do dangerous jobs under the influence. In fact, if I'm an employer, I'm buying my employee's time and I'm surely not going to pay someone to be high or drunk. But it would be absurd for me to think that I can control my employees in the time that I'm not paying them.
It's one thing to fire someone for actually being or getting high or drunk at work, it's another to fire them for doing those things outside the workplace. - Oea420, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6You do know doctors can't really 'perscribe' it becuase federally it's a schedule I substance.
The most they can do is recommend it. At least this is true in my state, California. - pkonink, on 11/09/2007, -5/+11The company has no right to invade an employees personal life outside of the company. This is what drug tests for marijuana like this do, they do not measure whether you are high at the moment or on the job, but if you have ever smoked at all. Remember that THC stays in your urine for up to 90 days - much longer in blood and up to seven years in fat cells. So why should someone be fired because they smoked a joint last weekend at home during the football game?
People can and will say what they want, but to me it is purely an invasion of privacy to further the national zero-tolerance agenda. Plain and simple. - OswaldKenobi, on 11/09/2007, -7/+13Typical "blame Bush for everything" comment. A private company has a drug policy and chose to terminate the employee's position. Somehow, that's Bush's fault. Any person who calls himself intelligent should digg down reeder's comment as such. Yet I'm sure the digg Libidiots will digg him up simply for the anti-Bush comment.
- SiNN4R, on 11/08/2007, -6/+12So if say I was prescribed some sort of painkiller that could be mistaken for opiates in my system I could be fired?
- skyshock1, on 11/07/2007, -1/+6So THAT's why the harvest always came up slightly short....
- isaactwito, on 11/07/2007, -0/+5What we really need is to not have the school system lie to kids about drugs. I remember back in the summer before my freshman year in highschool my best friend started smoking pot. I was so pissed about it that I just stopped hanging out with him, and I can tell you, it was a ***** waste of a great friendship. As I went through school I learned that pretty much everyone in our school smoked weed (something like 80% in the school anonymous surveys). I isolated myself from this for the longest time until I finally decided to learn for myself what the real deal was. I read up about pot online and then, in some of my dad's medical journals and references. You see my father is a psychiatrist, meaning that I had pretty much the best medical references available on how drugs affect people just sitting on our bookshelf. Well it turns out, as all medical research indicates, that pot isn't that bad for you. The only serious problems caused by it are small changes in your brain's abilities to sort short term memories into long term memories, and that there is a small chance of developing low grade psychosis. These results were, however, primarily observed in people who would smoke at least one joint every for 5 plus years on end. Now if moderation is any factor, then pot is a completely benign drug as far as drugs go. It's about time we start legalizing it.
The government needs to start acting like adults when it comes to drug laws. It is ***** that the interest and opinions of the majority of the United States are not being taken into consideration on this issue. Any other sector of US law with such unfounded reasoning would surely be reformed. It's time for this country to wake up and look at the pure, unadulterated, medical facts about marijuana. - atomicrobot, on 11/07/2007, -4/+9Down with the federal government.
- diggduggjoe, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5I was talking to a friend last nigh about states rightst and we would need to remove the 14th and 17th Amendments to get back to what the founders wanted. They could have put those in, but they chose not to. They wanted the states to have their own rules, except when trade came into play. If, we had kept it like it was Canada and Mexico could become members and still maintain their sovereignty. Instead of having the NAU forced upon us we could have become the United States of North America. The Feds must be brought back down to what the founders envisioned.
- Dingoboy, on 11/07/2007, -2/+7Actually in the state of CA. there is a law that an employer can not fire or punish an employe for doing anything that is legal on his or her own time. (This would be a good court case as it is illegal federally but legal state wide.)
- Corman420, on 11/07/2007, -4/+9And that's why I live in Canada....
- aelias, on 11/07/2007, -2/+73. is Profit.
- gropo, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6Opiates can cause dependency. Anti-inflammatories can (rarely) cause hyperkalemia and renal failure.
Cannabis is safe barring psychotic predispositions. But thanks for doing your part to spread disinformation. - dacheetah, on 11/07/2007, -2/+7He WASN'T high, drunk or intoxicated. He uses it at home, and the effects wear off in a few hours. By your standards, anyone who has had a few drinks on Friday night should be fired for being drunk, even if they don't start work till Monday, some 60 or so hours later.
Corporations have no business knowing what you do with your private life unless it affects your work. If you turn up to work intoxicated, sure, let them fire you. If you spend your weekends beating up your clients, this will affect how they see you during work hours, so sure, you should be fired, but if you stay home and smoke a little weed to give you some well needed pain relief, and are sober by the time you get to work, then it's fine. - Chongo, on 11/08/2007, -2/+7Even if weed became completly legal in the states, businesses would most likely still have the right to administer drug tests. Havn't people been fired for having nicotine show up in their blood?
- Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6You think that some doctor's don't prescribe opiate pain killers like candy? Where do you think Rush Limbaugh got all his oxycontin? Having an alternative to a medicine is not a reason to ban or be against the medicine. I use ibuprofen when I have a headache. That doesn't mean I am against people using aspirin or acetaminophen. Its up to this guy and his doctor to choose what is the best choice for his condition, not you and the government.
- probrian, on 11/07/2007, -0/+5i logged in to digg that =]
- Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5Does anyone really want to have another civil war over allowing people to choose what medications people get to use?
- vengefuldrx, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5Dearest Douche Bag,
Just because a person has THC in the bloodstream doesn't mean that they are high. In fact, THC can stay in your body for days before you would test negative, even if you hadn't continued smoking.
Sincerely,
The Association Of Douche Bag Correction - MAnt, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4Dug up for saying "do pot"
- MindStalker, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Then fire him appropriately. You can legally get rid of someone for whatever reason you want to, ie, you don't think the are a good worker. But its a process you have to go through. If you fire someone on the spot for an infraction is has to be for a specific legal reason. In California smoking marijuana is not one of those reasons.
- 80hd, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4hire
- dacheetah, on 11/07/2007, -1/+5"You can quit anytime for any reason, and the employer can let you go anytime for any reason."
You have to give two weeks notice, unless you contract permits otherwise, and you cannot be let go for ANY reason. I couldn't fire someone for being a homosexual black jew, even if I wanted to. -
Show 51 - 100 of 291 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is