Colorado court: Workers can be fired for using marijuana off-duty

[Dexter]

I disagree.  There's all sorts of downside when government gets involved in things. I don't want private, victimless activities enmeshed in politics – please, no.

They will definitely find a way to tax and regulate it once it's legal.

[aligncare]

They will definitely find a way to tax and regulate it once it's legal.

Then we the people need to say to government, decriminalize – not legalize.

[Carling]

OK, let's try something.

By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?

I used to smoke in college and still do at times if offered.

The high lasts a few hours and you don't wake up with a hangover.

The worst thing I did while high on a Friday night in college was eat Doritos and watch Clerks.

Alcohoism is much worse than smoking an occasional bowl.

[Carling]

Pot is legal in Oregon starting July 1st.  I'd buy some if the kids were out of the house.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I used to smoke in college and still do at times if offered.

The high lasts a few hours and you don't wake up with a hangover.

The worst thing I did while high on a Friday night in college was eat Doritos and watch Clerks.

Alcohoism is much worse than smoking an occasional bowl.

Twinkies and cold milk, that was my true addiction.

The weed was just the enabler.

[rb224315]

When it comes to drugs (and almost everything else, for that matter) I am probably the straightest arrow you folks are acquainted with.  Now in my mid-forties, I've had a total of 2 sips of beer.  Never tried cigarettes, I've never even seen an illegal drug, and I don't recognize the smell of marijuana.  I've been in the presence of people who said "hey, do you smell that?" but didn't know what they were talking about.  Yeah, I'm potentially the world's most boring human.  :-)  Part of it is due to the way my parents live and part is from watching my grandfather die of health problems caused by alcoholism when I was 13.  I never felt I was missing anything by not partaking in substances, so it worked out well for me so far.

So here's my $.02 worth on drugs and alcohol.

It goes without saying that the whole issue can become very complicated.

It's hard to reconcile the legality of alcohol with the completely opposite treatment of marijuana and other substances.

I think marijuana use should be decriminalized but not legalized.  Maybe the same should be done for harder drugs, I can't say for sure.  The economist in me says that we should decriminalize or even legalize all of them but I can't yet get myself to say so.  The libertarian in me says that we should legalize all of it and have a 100% prohibition against the use of taxpayer funds to fix the people who cause major problems for themselves as a result of drug use.

What is society's obligation in protecting children, for example, from parents who aren't responsible in their use of drugs?

Legalizing pot may lead us down the same road we're on with tobacco.  Big companies will certainly get involved and claim there are no ill effects from their products.  We'll have Congressional hearings where guys testify under oath that they don't believe their products are harmful.  Then there will be a government shakedown of those companies along with a movement to ban the substances in every location except the hood fan over the stove in your man cave.  (There are signs at our local hospital which say tobacco use is prohibited on hospital property, including inside personal vehicles.)

There's a lot more but I don't have time to continue spewing forth.  Talk amongst yourselves.  ;-)

[Luis Gonzalez]

When it comes to drugs (and almost everything else, for that matter) I am probably the straightest arrow you folks are acquainted with.  Now in my mid-forties, I've had a total of 2 sips of beer.  Never tried cigarettes, I've never even seen an illegal drug, and I don't recognize the smell of marijuana.  I've been in the presence of people who said "hey, do you smell that?" but didn't know what they were talking about.  Yeah, I'm potentially the world's most boring human.  :-)  Part of it is due to the way my parents live and part is from watching my grandfather die of health problems caused by alcoholism when I was 13.  I never felt I was missing anything by not partaking in substances, so it worked out well for me so far.

So here's my $.02 worth on drugs and alcohol.

It goes without saying that the whole issue can become very complicated.

It's hard to reconcile the legality of alcohol with the completely opposite treatment of marijuana and other substances.

I think marijuana use should be decriminalized but not legalized.  Maybe the same should be done for harder drugs, I can't say for sure.  The economist in me says that we should decriminalize or even legalize all of them but I can't yet get myself to say so.  The libertarian in me says that we should legalize all of it and have a 100% prohibition against the use of taxpayer funds to fix the people who cause major problems for themselves as a result of drug use.

What is society's obligation in protecting children, for example, from parents who aren't responsible in their use of drugs?

Legalizing pot may lead us down the same road we're on with tobacco.  Big companies will certainly get involved and claim there are no ill effects from their products.  We'll have Congressional hearings where guys testify under oath that they don't believe their products are harmful.  Then there will be a government shakedown of those companies along with a movement to ban the substances in every location except the hood fan over the stove in your man cave.  (There are signs at our local hospital which say tobacco use is prohibited on hospital property, including inside personal vehicles.)

There's a lot more but I don't have time to continue spewing forth.  Talk amongst yourselves.  ;-)

Good post.

Here's what I think is lost in this issue.

What happened to Federalism?

The Colorado Supreme Court just said that irrespective of whatever Colorado law may say about pot use, the only pertinent law here is Federal. It's not legal just because the States say so.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, but the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to make pot illegal. The Feds had to amend the Constitution to make alcohol illegal, why does standard not hold true for pot?

[Free Vulcan]

If you sign the contract with the employer that states these things up front - then you're on the hook. Unless state or federal law supercedes. If you don't like it, don't apply for the job. That includes drinking, smoking, or drugs off the clock.

[Carling]

If you sign the contract with the employer that states these things up front - then you're on the hook. Unless state or federal law supercedes. If you don't like it, don't apply for the job. That includes drinking, smoking, or drugs off the clock.

I agree 100%.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If you sign the contract with the employer that states these things up front - then you're on the hook. Unless state or federal law supercedes. If you don't like it, don't apply for the job. That includes drinking, smoking, or drugs off the clock.

Colorado State law explicitly forbids employers from firing people for legal activities, off site, during non-working hours.

[olde north church]

Well, just some food for thought.  The feds are now targeting sugar.  We stand up or we gladly accept the yoke.

[Free Vulcan]

Colorado State law explicitly forbids employers from firing people for legal activities, off site, during non-working hours.

You are only telling half the story. Bottom line is federal law supercedes and a federal court would overturn that.

[truth_seeker]

Like you said there are way too many people, of all colors, behind bars for dealing/using marijuana.  They should all be released.  Especially when you can drive across an intersection and suddenly be in a State where it's legal. 

So if widely held beliefs now indicate it should be at least decriminalized, why is the Obama led Federal government sticking to its guns, and keeping laws in place?

One lasting legacy of his administration, may be the President who legalized pot. Got the picture?

Here is the truth on the ground, so to speak: My California town has no "legal" dispensaries, but does have "illegal" ones.

At the opposite end of the strip mall from my AA meeting rooms, one such "illegal" dispensary is operating. There is a steady stream of cars into and out of that section of the center. They must be doing a "bang up" business.

I think the police simply look the other way, under direction of the city manager and/or city attorney, under direction of the city council.

The city council are far more interested in finding money sources, not uses, to pay the pensions of their retired 50 something yr. old employees, who's unions in turn fund their campaigns.

I fully expect the pot issue to be resolved with regulation and taxation. Sacramento can field teams of "pot potency assayists," who can appear unannounced to test the bud in the baggie. 

There is big money in it. I went online the other night, and learned an ounce (formerly "lid") sells for $360 today, versus $10 in my day.

I would be willing to support a "grow your own" movement, for feeble old folks.

However for myself, in keeping with my "clean and sober" lifestyle, Ringo said it best in the "No-No song":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZN_8M4OpMo

[mountaineer]

   I was going to beat this dead horse, but I was too stoned to care.

[mountaineer]

Since I'm not a pothead, and this new transfat nonsense was mentioned above, I post this for your viewing pleasure:

Why The Trans Fat Ban Is Worse Than You Think
Food fascists ban a perfectly benign ingredient


“In an effort to curtail heart disease, the Obama administration said Tuesday it’s cracking down on artificial trans fats,” writes National Journal. “The government’s goal is to prevent cardiovascular disease and advocates are cheering the move as a historic win for public health,” says Politico.

The administration supports cardiovascular disease prevention, so this is okay. How about you? Do you want Americans to die needlessly?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final decision this week, giving the food industry three years to phase out bad trans fats, still used in a wide variety of products like Pillsbury’s Ready To Bake cookies and cake frosting. Now, if you’re ingesting large quantities of either, perhaps partially hydrogenated oils aren’t your biggest concern in life. But if the government’s goal is to prevent cardiovascular disease, and preventing cardiovascular disease is all that matters, why stop there?

Phasing out trans fat will allegedly prevent around 7,000 premature deaths each year, the FDA estimates. (If you believe these things can be quantified with that sort of precision, you have far too much faith in crusading bureaucracies. Years ago, I attempted to tally up total deaths that various studies, public interest groups, and government agencies attributed to obesity, smoking, salt, trans fats, meat, etc … and came up with number larger than all the Americans who’d passed away that year.) But 610,000 Americans die from cardiovascular disease each year. Will 603,000 be left for corporate America to slaughter because we won’t act? The negative externalities of allowing people to eat whatever they desire is huge.

So if we can ban trans fats in an effort to curtail heart disease, I wish someone would explain what stops the state from banning any unhealthy ingredient it feels like.  ...

More at The Federalist

[truth_seeker]

If you sign the contract with the employer that states these things up front - then you're on the hook. Unless state or federal law supercedes. If you don't like it, don't apply for the job. That includes drinking, smoking, or drugs off the clock.

True enough in principle. But I recall from law classes, that a contract must NOT involve a contract to break the law. If it does, it is not a valid contract.

Airline pilots are not supposed to drink, for a certain number of hours before they fly. In AA I met a man who lost his pilots license, for violating the rule.

Eventually he got his license back, obviously doesn't drink, etc.

I have doubts the airline could require a contract that pilots not drink, at any time.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are only telling half the story. Bottom line is federal law supercedes and a federal court would overturn that.

I get that, but the Federal laws superseding the State laws in this case are not Constitutionally sound. They are all based on the Commerce Clause, and the commerce Clause does not apply in cases where you grow some weed in your State to be sold and/or distributed in your State.

This all goes back to Robert F. Kennedy's assault on property rights with the Heart of Atlanta and Ollie's Barbecue cases.

[Carling]

They are all based on the Commerce Clause, and the commerce Clause does not apply in cases where you grow some weed in your State to be sold and/or distributed in your State.

If the company does any business outside of Colorado, the Commerce Clause and federal law certainly apply to any employee of the company, as do federal laws such as drug prohibition.  Dish Network conducts business in every US state. 

It's akin to football players in Oregon, WA, and CO trying to sue the NCAA for being suspended for marijuana use, really.

It sucks for the employee, but I don't see how this decision is incorrect.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If the company does any business outside of Colorado, the Commerce Clause and federal law certainly apply to any employee of the company, as do federal laws such as drug prohibition.  Dish Network conducts business in every US state. 

It's akin to football players in Oregon, WA, and CO trying to sue the NCAA for being suspended for marijuana use, really.

It sucks for the employee, but I don't see how this decision is incorrect.

You don't see how the decision is incorrect because you buy into the expanded definition of the Commerce Clause created by Bobby Kennedy and his DoJ.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is pretty straight forward:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Where is the power to regulate marijuana at all, under any circumstance, specially when that power not granted to the United States by the Constitution, was acted upon by the state of Colorado?

Why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol sales, but just mere laws to ban marijuana sale, distribution and use?

The Controlled Substances Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause powers and infringes the fundamental liberties of the people under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

In addition, the War on Drugs is destroying the Fourth Amendment.

[mountaineer]

The expansion (or overexpansion, if you will) of the commerce clause began under FDR.

[Carling]

You don't see how the decision is incorrect because you buy into the expanded definition of the Commerce Clause created by Bobby Kennedy and his DoJ.

I'm not saying I buy into the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause.  I'm saying that's how the courts are going to rule and that decision of the court is not at all a surprise.  I'm living in that reality when reading about this case.  Do I wish federalism was viewed by the courts as the first option?   Of course I do, but that's not reality at this point in our history.

[Paladin]

ONC revealed the reason Maryjane was made illegal in the first place:

In the United States, most marijuana use was Mexicans and Blacks, prior to the mid-1950s.

Then, kinda like icing on a cake, it was classified as a Schedule 1 drug, equivalent to heroin and cocaine and worse than Schedule 2 drugs like oxycodone and methamphetamine. Ridiculous.

[Carling]

You don't see how the decision is incorrect because you buy into the expanded definition of the Commerce Clause created by Bobby Kennedy and his DoJ.

I like the substance of your posts, but your tendency to insult other posters and assume their motives gets a bit old. 

You didn't know my thoughts on the modern application of the Commerce Clause, and it's a bit offensive that you constructed that strawman and then proceeded with a lengthy post that had nothing to do with how I based my opinion.  I subsequently offered my personal take on the modern application of the Commerce Clause, and you've yet to reply with so much as a simple apology for misrepresenting my opinion on the Commerce Clause.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I like the substance of your posts, but your tendency to insult other posters and assume their motives gets a bit old. 

You didn't know my thoughts on the modern application of the Commerce Clause, and it's a bit offensive that you constructed that strawman and then proceeded with a lengthy post that had nothing to do with how I based my opinion.  I subsequently offered my personal take on the modern application of the Commerce Clause, and you've yet to reply with so much as a simple apology for misrepresenting my opinion on the Commerce Clause.

Then shouldn't the correct way to put that have been that it is an incorrect decision based on an incorrect application of the Clause?

I don't mean to be insulting, but I don't see how you can say that the decision is correct yet agree that the premise that it was based on is incorrect.

I get what you're saying about it being based on the modern application of the Clause, but (for example) Kelo v. New London is simply incorrect, irrespective of the currency of the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause because the Court expanded the Clause far beyond its original boundaries thus making the current interpretation (and any cases decided based on that interpretation. Kelo included) simply incorrect.

[Carling]

It's not a binary issue, Luis.

I already explained my thought process.