So..The Co supreme ct will decide

Can't believe there is no banter about this. The Colo. Supreme court will decide if you can be fired for using POT. It's Illegal federally, but legal in state. So what say you? For me, I'm federally licensed so I would certainly loose whats left of my career. No question there. But for those of you not under the federal microscope. What about future employment. Can a prospective employer use that as a reason not to hire you? Say you are protected class status, can they use your recreational/medical use of pot, as a reason for not hiring you? Landmark decision with far reaching long term repercussions. Stay tuned.

Interesting...

I'm not experienced with labor laws but I think a company could have a policy that states no MJ use or alcohol use inside or outside of work. Heck, they can say you can't have a beard, face jewelry, tattoos etc. MJ seems to be just another "policy" they can enforce. Again, not a lawyer, just thinking out loud for the sake of discussion.

I didn't pay much attention to the 9 News clip but it appeared the defendant was in a wheelchair. Could it be a case of Medical use rather than Recreational use or would that even make a difference?

Dave

Yes it is medical use. But this will set precedence for the future.

I don't know Wheel chairs can get a little boring. He might need a distraction.


The way that I see it is in terms of impairment. The courts are not about to decide on what level of TSC in your blood signals impairment. I know that I for one don't want co-works who are impaired working next to me.

You bring up a very good point about the content of a chemical found in evidence in one's body vs. the potential impairment level. I'm not fully up on the chemistry and biology of how testing can show past recent use of MJ that might have no effect on physical/mental performance vs. immediate use in the workplace parking lot which could be an actual hazard to the employee and/or coworkers. Until alcohol use was able to be fairly strictly measured in terms of impairment, DUI was a fuzzy legal issue. It will be interesting to see where MJ goes on this issue.

where can I get a medical alcohol license?

I think it should be job dependent. Just like someone on pain pills can not run a FORK lift.

Does a store clerk matter, or the bag boy, or cart getting, or Wal-Mart greeter...NOPE

I think that's the problem from a practical standpoint. There's no real test\research on impairment as opposed to use right now. I think most people would say it's reasonable to use outside of work, but not at work or if you show up to work impaired, the same as for alcohol.

As an employer, honestly I could care less as long as it doesn't affect performance, but I'm in software so I generally deal with smarter people and there's no potential for someone to get high and start operating heavy machinery. If I ran a construction company, I would probably have a different outlook.

I think for recreational use, employers can and should be able to create whatever policies they see fit and there are market mechanisms which will work themselves out. While in the general public I think most stereotypes about potheads are true, being in the software field, I know some very smart, productive people that smoke a lot of weed and I would put myself at a competitive disadvantage if I didn't consider hiring them based on their use.

The tricky question, which I believe is what this case seeks to answer, is medical use. If something has been deemed by a doctor as beneficial to a person's well being, legal in the state, and yet illegal federally, what happens there? I'm not so sure what the answer is on that one.

Of course an employer can fire (or refuse to hire) for using MJ. As long as their discriminatory policy doesn't involve a protected class of employee (race, religion, sex, age, etc), it's all fair game. It needs to be spelled out in a policy, like "Widgit corp will not employ fat people, tobacco users, alcohol users, white men under 40, people with facial hair, people with tattoos", or whatever they want as long as it's not a protected class.

Now, if this guy was fired because of MJ use, but was never made aware of the policy, he's probably got a case. Medical use may also give him a case, but that's not a guarantee. The key is that there was a policy in place, and he was made aware of it (signed a copy). If they adopted a new policy after his hire date, he would have had the option to be let go if he refused to comply, and probably been eligible for unemployment compensation.

I don't think legal/illegal would play a role unless their policy is just a broad definition of "no illegal drug use", which wouldn't be surprising.

Two years ago FatWife had to fire a nurse at the hospital who had a medical MJ license. Don't know if they even had to show impairment. The law was poorly crafted and there can be consequences for those who use contrary to federal law.

THC....tetrahydrocannabinol

firms that follow federal laws rather than state are watching this one closely - I know that's the case where I work.

Marijuana makes as good a religion as any

+100

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Tqd4aPs5WTA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For me, it's the whole "drug free" work place statement that needs to change. Alcohol is a drug, scripts are drugs, yet those wont loose you your job unless your drunk on the job.

If someone askes me if I can pass a drug test, I'd be asking them if they are testing for alcohol as well. Pot is far less invasive than alcohol on the usage basis, it's just that pot stays in the system for weeks after the 2 - 4 hour high goes away. To me the whole deal is bullshit.

If a company will deny your for using pot, it should also deny you for drinking beer at night.......

My $0.02........

Pretty sure Colorado is an at will state, you can be fired for whatever reason your employer wants (as long as it is not discriminatory for race, religion, sex, age, disabilities). I could be wrong but this is the way I understand the rules. I have fired a guy on the spot for coming into work smelling of booze.

Just heard on the radio.....dude is a quadriplegic, works for Comcast. He failed a drug test, and they fired him because it's an illegal drug (federally), but he claims it's for medical use. No mention of actual policy that's in place at the company.

Also mentioned was that Colorado DOES have a law that makes tobacco users as a "protected class".....can't be fired for smoking cigarettes while off the clock.

Uses it in the evening to treat severe muscle spasms.

We had a guy with rheumatoid arthritis back in Michigan. Guy was doped up on pain killers. Could not touch him for firing as it was a medical condition, and no it was not a Union Shop either and he was an Engineer. Nice guy too, felt bad as he was in his mid-40's and shuffled his feet around to walk. Aerospace company and all his work had to always be rechecked, last thing you want is the FAA in investigating.

So here we have a guy in a wheelchair, obviously not doing a hard or dangerous task for Comcast. At least I could not imagine Wheelchair and Comcast anything being hard or dangerous. Smokes a little pot at home for muscle spasms and probably pain and gets fired because he smokes MEDICAL pot. However would he be fired if he was doped up on pain pills and barely able to function at work! Or would that be seen as okay?

I admire the guy he is in a wheelchair and WORKING instead of sitting at home on Welfare. Now I guess he will be at home and on Welfare...THANK YOU COMCAST