Interesting court case involving legal marijuana & work.

[SgtSpiderMan]

The short version is that in Colorado pot is legal, so can an employer fire you for smoking it?

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/colo-high-court-hears-medical-marijuana-case

 

[Amberchgo]

You can get fired for being drunk. I assume you can get fired for being high.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You can get fired for being drunk. I assume you can get fired for being high.

But you can't get fired for having some drinks in your own house when you're not at work.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Growing pains.....shit's going to take several years if not a solid 10. Here we go

 

[Amberchgo]

But you can't get fired for having some drinks in your own house when you're not at work.

Of course not. Unless you go to work drunk.


I would think they'll come up with some sort of "too much" level like they have for alcohol.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Growing pains.....shit's going to take several years if not a solid 10. Here we go

I have no idea what the legal answer is, but I'm interested to find out.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Of course not. Unless you go to work drunk.


I would think they'll come up with some sort of "too much" level like they have for alcohol.

THC stays in your system much longer than alcohol. I think the bigger question here is, can your employer fire you for doing something in your own home that's 100% legal?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I have no idea what the legal answer is, but I'm interested to find out.

Me either...but if legalizing booze is any sort of guidepost (and it's not really...but it is the closest comparison we have) it's going to be all the fuck over the place for quite some time before any sort of standard is agreed upon. Esp if the fed doesn't change it's tune soon.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Me either...but if legalizing booze is any sort of guidepost (and it's not really...but it is the closest comparison we have) it's going to be all the fuck over the place for quite some time before any sort of standard is agreed upon. Esp if the fed doesn't change it's tune soon.

Maybe alcohol isn't the closest comparison we have. I don't know the specifics of Colorado but in most states pot is a medically prescribed drug. Do employers have the right to tell an employee what legally prescribed medicine they can take?

 

[Bidin~Time]

But you can't get fired for having some drinks in your own house when you're not at work.

The transportation industry has been dealing with this for 20 yrs now. That shit shows up on a random and the best driver in the world gets his/her walking papers. They are given the chance to retest, but a second fail and they have to be gone or the company faces a HUGE fine.

There is a laundry list of drugs on the no no list, and I can agree with most of them, but the penalty for smoking a joint at someone's party, on their own time, 3 weeks ago? I never could get behind that one.

 

[Amberchgo]

Maybe alcohol isn't the closest comparison we have. I don't know the specifics of Colorado but in most states pot is a medically prescribed drug. Do employers have the right to tell an employee what legally prescribed medicine they can take?

A company does have a right to get rid of an employee if they can't do their job. If there is a medication which prevents them from doing the tasks assigned, they will be gone.

Same standard(?) may apply in this case. But I agree that there will be many legal cases involved.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Maybe alcohol isn't the closest comparison we have.

I can't think of any single substance so prohibited being legalized at the tip of a pure cash cow sword that you could compare it too....

I don't know the specifics of Colorado but in most states pot is a medically prescribed drug.

Yep.

The laws in both WA and CO were written and lobbied for by uber bux aggies like Monsanto who want to corner the market into their pockets. That's why it's such an insanely expensive proposition to even consider getting in the biz, for the rich by the rich. Toss in the fact that we sold it to the public on "Tax the worlds problems away on it!!" And that's why they are paying 30/g for 10% thc shake and as a medical patient I pay 30 bucks for 3.4g of 27% thc top shelf buds. Now they are pissed b/c people are realizing their bullshit...so they are already pushing and pushing HARD to get rid of medical.

Fuck legalization...shit is horrible LOL

Big cronies are going to try and run that shit? L oh fuckin L....black market will be over the fuckin' top boomin'. CO is buying CA weed by the metric shit ton right now....so is WA and they will continue to do so as long as Monsanto is writing the laws just as they did when it was all black market.

Do employers have the right to tell an employee what legally prescribed medicine they can take?

It's not legal federally which means if you want to try and fight it you're probably not even going to be seen by anything in robes because they wont touch it with a 10ft cattle prod.

This however could push and start the legit bugging of the feds to cut the fuckin' bullshit already....so who knows. The GOP could take back over and shut all this shit down and go full SS on us. Or we could get another Obama type democrat who says "Yea I'll be cool" and then turn out to be the biggest pro drug war POTUS since fucking Reagan.

 

[eyer]

I think the bigger question here is, can your employer fire you for doing something in your own home that's 100% legal?

Why must you outright lie, SgtSchultz?

If you'd actually read and comprehended the piece you linked to, you'd know that a large issue in this specific case is that pot use is not 100% legal, and since it's not legal at all under federal law, a large question in this specific case is how can the state's law then be legal.

However, I see no constitutional allowance for the federal government to have any say whatsoever on individual marijuana use - it's none of their business and the 10th intentionally refers that type of business to the states and the people...

...but, bozos like you embolden the fed to involve itself to legally grant approval or disapproval to a myriad of your personal opinion issues, and the feds, as is the nature of the government beast, is giddy there're bozos enough around to grant them such unconstitutional, tyrannical power.

At worst, this case is exactly where it legally belongs, where it legally should be decided, and where it should legally end: in the State Supreme Court...

...at best - hopefully - there's still enough respect for the free market within Colorado's Supreme Court that a unanimous decision will be rendered honoring the capitalistic fact that an employer deems its own guidelines, and as long as those guidelines violate no individual's constitutional rights, no one else but the employer and its employees should have any legal say in the matter.

Funny though, isn't it, that the same article states the "victim" hasn't been able to secure any employment at all in the 4 years since he was fired...

...because of his pot use, too.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Why must you outright lie, SgtSchultz?

If you'd actually read and comprehended the piece you linked to, you'd know that a large issue in this specific case is that pot use is not 100% legal, and since it's not legal at all under federal law, a large question in this specific case is how can the state's law then be legal.

However, I see no constitutional allowance for the federal government to have any say whatsoever on individual marijuana use - it's none of their business and the 10th intentionally refers that type of business to the states and the people...

...but, bozos like you embolden the fed to involve itself to legally grant approval or disapproval to a myriad of your personal opinion issues, and the feds, as is the nature of the government beast, is giddy there're bozos enough around to grant them such unconstitutional, tyrannical power.

At worst, this case is exactly where it legally belongs, where it legally should be decided, and where it should legally end: in the State Supreme Court...

...at best - hopefully - there's still enough respect for the free market within Colorado's Supreme Court that a unanimous decision will be rendered honoring the capitalistic fact that an employer deems its own guidelines, and as long as those guidelines violate no individual's constitutional rights, no one else but the employer and its employees should have any legal say in the matter.

Funny though, isn't it, that the same article states the "victim" hasn't been able to secure any employment at all in the 4 years since he was fired...

...because of his pot use, too.

There was no lying.

I did read the article and did see that part of DirectTv's defense is that pot is not legal federally. I suggest you do some research about what reading is.

Personally I don't care if marijuana is legal or not. That's for ascribing me that position.

 

[BotanyBoy]

...but, bozos like you embolden the fed to involve itself to legally grant approval or disapproval to a myriad of your personal opinion issues, and the feds, as is the nature of the government beast, is giddy there're bozos enough around to grant them such unconstitutional, tyrannical power.

Yea it would be nice for a lot of folks out there to be able to just pay taxes and spend their money like a normal fucking person. So we kinda need them to grant the industry it's blessing otherwise it's pretty much just a black market.

At worst, this case is exactly where it legally belongs, where it legally should be decided, and where it should legally end: in the State Supreme Court...

State Supreme Court is not in any position to really do anything...doesn't have the authority. The whole inter state commerce, drug money, IRS, employer/employee rights issue...yea...not a state supreme court issue.

If the employee is working for a company HQ'ed in another state that's not legal who get's the last say? Ohhhh it IS a federal case...and until the feds tell the states what is what it's going to be an endless cluster fuck from one jurisdiction to another.

...at best - hopefully - there's still enough respect for the free market within Colorado's Supreme Court that a unanimous decision will be rendered honoring the capitalistic fact that an employer deems its own guidelines, and as long as those guidelines violate no individual's constitutional rights, no one else but the employer and its employees should have any legal say in the matter.

So you don't think there should be any labor laws and companies should be able to fire employees for what they do off the clock now? LOL you're a real piece of shit ....

Funny though, isn't it, that the same article states the "victim" hasn't been able to secure any employment at all in the 4 years since he was fired...

...because of his pot use, too.

Actually it's pretty sad, a good reflection of what oppressive laws we have here in the land of "Freedumb" lol what a fucking joke.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But you can't get fired for having some drinks in your own house when you're not at work.

Of course you can, if you work in an "at will" employment state, which Colorado just happens to be. The entire thrust of employment at will is that the employer may terminate any employee without the necessity of showing "just cause."

The vast majority of at will employment states have a specific "public policy exception" to the general rule which, for example, protects a whistle-blower from retaliatory dismissal when his words or actions reveal an employer's illegal or unethical conduct.

Additionally, as Wiki points out, "Thirty-six U.S. states (and the District of Columbia) also recognize an implied contract as an exception to at-will employment. Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee "when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists." Proving the terms of an implied contract is often difficult, and the burden of proof is on the fired employee. Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract."

Unfortunately for defendant Coates, the very constitutional amendment that legalized marijuana use in Colorado has a provision that reads:

a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.

Unless Colorado has a specific law governing the use of medical marijuana that conflicts with that specific language of the recent state constitutional amendment, I'm not a big fan of Mr. Coates' chances for a favorable judgment.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Of course you can, if you work in an "at will" employment state, which Colorado just happens to be. The entire thrust of employment at will is that the employer may terminate any employee without the necessity of showing "just cause."

The vast majority of at will employment states have a specific "public policy exception" to the general rule which, for example, protects a whistle-blower from retaliatory dismissal when his words or actions reveal an employer's illegal or unethical conduct.

Additionally, as Wiki points out, "Thirty-six U.S. states (and the District of Columbia) also recognize an implied contract as an exception to at-will employment. Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee "when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists." Proving the terms of an implied contract is often difficult, and the burden of proof is on the fired employee. Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract."

Unfortunately for defendant Coates, the very constitutional amendment that legalized marijuana use in Colorado has a provision that reads:

a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.

Unless Colorado has a specific law governing the use of medical marijuana that conflicts with that specific language of the recent state constitutional amendment, I'm not a big fan of Mr. Coates' chances for a favorable judgment.

So here's my question, and it could be that I'm just ignorant, but is the term "in the workplace" literal? Meaning they can only restrict use while you're at work?

 

[eyer]

There was no lying.

Whatever you say...

...warrior queen.

So here's my question, and it could be that I'm just ignorant, but is the term "in the workplace" literal? Meaning they can only restrict use while you're at work?

Your "it could be that I'm just ignorant" is a given...

...yet, it's your completely ridiculous obtuseness which is glaring in your latest offering above.

The government should rule that an employer has no say concerning an individual's legal use of, say, pot or alcohol, as long as that use is conducted away from the place of employment...

...no matter, then, that the employee then comes to work under the influence.

And the employer should legally have no cause for termination of employment?

Bozo the Clown was a good man, SgtShultz...

...why do bring such shame to his name?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So here's my question, and it could be that I'm just ignorant, but is the term "in the workplace" literal? Meaning they can only restrict use while you're at work?

Paragraph (a) has two parts. The first part does, indeed, address the use and handling of marijuana in the workplace literally. The second part affirms the right of employers to "have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees" generally.

The two parts are separated and therefore distinguished as two distinct provisions by the word "or."

 

[bronzeage]

I've had to deal with this problem in an "at-will" state, where marijuana is still illegal, even for medical purposes. What my employees do in their private time is pretty much their own business, but anyone who shows up for work smelling like they just finished off a joint will be fired, just the same as if they showed up with whisky on their breath.

In a former life, I had to administer my employer's drug policy. No one would be fired if they tested positive. The employee signed the drug policy agreement. Once caught, the employee can't return to work until paying for counselling and attending the session. There is a follow up test, and if it's clean, all is good. Another positive test requires much more expensive counselling. Most people just quit at that point. The third positive test requires a 30 day rehab, which cost $30k, in those days. As I said, no one was every fired for drugs. They lost their job for not following the agreed procedure.

 

[MichaelinChina]

Makes note: never ride with Colorado taxidrivers, or fly with Colorado based pilots.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I've had to deal with this problem in an "at-will" state, where marijuana is still illegal, even for medical purposes. What my employees do in their private time is pretty much their own business, but anyone who shows up for work smelling like they just finished off a joint will be fired, just the same as if they showed up with whisky on their breath.

In a former life, I had to administer my employer's drug policy. No one would be fired if they tested positive. The employee signed the drug policy agreement. Once caught, the employee can't return to work until paying for counselling and attending the session. There is a follow up test, and if it's clean, all is good. Another positive test requires much more expensive counselling. Most people just quit at that point. The third positive test requires a 30 day rehab, which cost $30k, in those days. As I said, no one was every fired for drugs. They lost their job for not following the agreed procedure.

But I think the point should be emphasized that, as a legal matter, the policy of an employee's private actions being "his own business," is simply that -- YOUR policy -- and has no legal basis whatsoever. In fact, according to Wiki, Louisiana has no implied contract exception to the "at will" rule, so an employee could not even legally hold you to your established policy.

This would seem to be particularly true in any state where the possession and/or use of marijuana is patently illegal. No employee would be able to find refuge, however incidentally, from state law based on an employer's liberalized policies vis-a-vis that same state law.

 

[dolf]

if there's no test to show whether it was consumed in the last hour or the last week, people working under the influence is a legitimate health & safety concern, so companies have to have the right to bar its use as a condition of employment.

I can't see a fair & safe way around it.

 

[Garnate]

Plenty of jobs these days won't hire cigarette smokers so I'm guessing this is legal.

 

[about_average]

I'm willing to bet that medical marijuana is the only drug you can be fired for using in a way that has no impact whatsoever on your job performance.
The principle of companies being allowed to control your private life, when they can't demonstrate a negative impact to the company, is pretty bad.