using marijuana off-duty
Published June 15, 2015
Associated Press
Facebook0 Twitter0 Email Print
Colorado's Supreme Court has ruled that a medical marijuana patient who was fired after failing a drug test cannot get his job back.
The case has big implications for employers and pot smokers in states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational pot in 2012.
Though the Colorado case involves medical marijuana, the court's decision could also affect how companies treat employees who use the drug recreationally.
Brandon Coats is a quadriplegic who was fired by Dish Network after failing a drug test in 2010. The company agreed that Coats wasn't high on the job but said it h
That makes no sense.
How can you be fired from your job for doing something completely legal on your own time?
This decision will be challenged and probably overturned.
I doubt it will be overturned. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think a substance has to be illegal for your employer to fire you for using it.
Luis wrote above:
[[ That makes no sense.
How can you be fired from your job for doing something completely legal on your own time?
This decision will be challenged and probably overturned. ]]
Not by the United States Supreme Court, Luis.
That court has already affirmed that employees can be disciplined or terminated for the use of certain drugs during "free time" (read on).
I was a railroad locomotive engineman for 32+ years (for Conrail, Amtrak and Metro-North).
This issue first came before the courts after the Federal Railroad Administration put into place regulations regarding railroad employee drug use and testing.
One of those regulations prohibited the use of illegal drugs not only "on duty", but OFF DUTY as well. That is to say, if one is a railroad employee in a "safety sensitive" position, that employee is prohibited from any usage of certain drugs AT ALL. And such employees are subject to random drug testing, that will enable the employer to discover such usage.
I believe it was either the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, or the United Transportation Union (which represents conductors and trainmen) that filed suit over this regulation, and that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court UPHELD the regulation and as such, railroad employees can be disciplined and/or dismissed for off duty drug use as well as being under the influence while on duty.
It's been this way since at least the mid 1990's.
I believe the airlines may also have such a policy as well for their own personnel in safety-sensitive positions.
One might argue that (at least in Colorado) marijuana is no longer classified as an "illegal" drug. But I doubt any case can be made there, based both on the Colorado court ruling as mentioned in the article, or the reality that marijuana -- whether legal or illegal -- can be considered a behavior-altering drug.
It's quite possible that this may get adjudicated all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But the precedent already exists (see above) to uphold the Colorado decision.
This is mostly based on the thought that marijuana stays in your system 30 days, much longer than alcohol does. But, I'd like to see some studies on the length of time that the intoxicating effects linger, since marijuana is a fat soluble substance and would be stored in your body longer.
Still, I think a company should have the right to hire and fire who they want - so as long as they stipulate that up front, an employee knows the rules.
I agree that companies should have the power to hire and fire at will, but should they be able to fire you because you are using legally-obtained prescriptions for pain killers or sleeping pills to help you overcome some sort of medical issue that makes it difficult for you to sleep?
This is mostly based on the thought that marijuana stays in your system 30 days, much longer than alcohol does. But, I'd like to see some studies on the length of time that the intoxicating effects linger, since marijuana is a fat soluble substance and would be stored in your body longer.
Still, I think a company should have the right to hire and fire who they want - so as long as they stipulate that up front, an employee knows the rules.
So a company could require that their employees not drink alcohol when off duty?
So a company could require that their employees not drink alcohol when off duty?
They can fire people who smoke tobacco. "Mommy State" likee.
OK, let's try something.
By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?
OK, let's try something.
By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?
IMO, it depends on your current overall state of mind. Some as alcohol.
Some people are "mean drunks". Some get uninhibited. I fall asleep.
I have never met a mean marijuana high. And unlike drinking, they tell me you wake up in the morning completely 'normal'. :laugh:
OK, let's try something.
By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?
I smoked it regularly in my youth and lots of times since. I prefer it ti alcohol, as alcohol abuse has almost gotten me killed and it has gotten me arrested in the past. I drank alcohol for all the wrong reasons. Pot never treated me like that - I find that it takes the rough edges off of life without causing me to act like a jerk.
OK, let's try something.Smoked it occasionally until about age 35. Grew my own for awhile. Just stopped; didn't like the feeling anymore.
By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?
Let's face it, if you're in your 60's you grew up in the 60's and probably used. In my group we didn't use alcohol, instead we used every other chemical that happened to be circulating the streets that day.
I have not used mj or any other illegal drug, mostly because I saw what a jerk my druggie older brother was and still is. He's not exactly an advertisement for the product.
But our own personal experiences really aren't relevant to the question of whether an employer should be able to fire a drug user.
I have not used mj or any other illegal drug, mostly because I saw what a jerk my druggie older brother was and still is. He's not exactly an advertisement for the product.
But our own personal experiences really aren't relevant to the question of whether an employer should be able to fire a drug user.
OK, let's try something.
By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?
I smoke almost every day. I have anxiety issues and it helps a lot.
That's why I like it. I have struggled with depression and anxiety most of my life and have tried lots of prescription meds that doctors have given me and have tried self-medicating too - I ended up hating them and finding out that what helped me relieve some of that anxiety was the humble herb that I could grow in my back yard if they would let me. I wish it would be legal where I live, I would use it more. I know many people that have used it regularly - for decades. They have held down good-paying jobs and raised families, live in nice houses. They are good tax-paying citizens, responsible and productive.
I think most potheads that decide they're too lazy to be productive members of society would have made that decision regardless of the pot.
Geesh....I shouldn't be admitting this on a web forum but what the hell....
My sons and I....we've had a decades-long 'thing' where we'd all go to see a movie together. They were all over the age of 21 when we would smoke some weed before entering the theater.
It has provided us wonderful memories to which we still hold our stomachs laughing our heads off.
I can still 'see' Adam crouched down in his seat, his mouth agape, staring intently at the screen. He loves Star Wars to this day. His twin Bret, after graduating from Emory University went out and bought himself a $1500 light saber, which he uses every Halloween when he dresses as Darth Vader.
He said it was the weed to this day. Love my boys. :laugh:
I have not used mj or any other illegal drug, mostly because I saw what a jerk my druggie older brother was and still is. He's not exactly an advertisement for the product.
But our own personal experiences really aren't relevant to the question of whether an employer should be able to fire a drug user.
I think most potheads that decide they're too lazy to be productive members of society would have made that decision regardless of the pot.
Marijuana use does no create junkies per se.Good grief. I didn't say that it did.
aligncare wrote above:
[[ Let's face it, if you're in your 60's you grew up in the 60's and probably used. In my group we didn't use alcohol, instead we used every other chemical that happened to be circulating the streets that day... ]]
I've never been high.
I've never been drunk.
I wes probably one of a very few who went to the original Woodstock festival in 1969, and didn't try drugs or grass, and didn't even drink.
I'm probably the only person you'll meet in your life who (as a soldier, no less) went to the Hoffbrau Haus in Munich -- one of the most famous beer halls anywhere -- and had a "cola" with my pizza. No beer for me.
Approaching 70, I see no reason to change my ways now...
Good grief. I didn't say that it did.
By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana
Just saw this. In fact, just read the thread.
In my misspent yoot I was a bartender and threw back more than my share, However, like Alicewonder (post #21) I did some remarkably stupid things when drunk and I seriously hated the next morning feeling. Then along came Mary, courtesy of a good friend, and I essentially quit drinking (occasional brandy is all) and stayed stoned for several years. I enjoyed the high and had no serious after effects. Not sure just why I quit, nor even when. I just stopped.
Now I am as pure as the driven snow (well, close anyway). Rarely booze, no cannabis, don't gamble...I am just so boring.
What I hate most regarding this issue is the hypocrisy and ignorance. In terms of health, alcohol is devastating with no comparison to cannabinol. Yet, alcohol is legal while people have been jailed for using weed. Weed is a walk in the park in it's effects on an individual's life compared to getting sucked into the criminal justice system. That's what's stupid and destructive.
What I hate most regarding this issue is the hypocrisy and ignorance. In terms of health, alcohol is devastating with no comparison to cannabinol. Yet, alcohol is legal while people have been jailed for using weed. Weed is a walk in the park in it's effects on an individual's life compared to getting sucked into the criminal justice system. That's what's stupid and destructive.
It comes down to the fact, that unlike alcohol, which requires a process to 'create', marijuana could be grown out back with the tomatoes and corn.
The government cannot control it, so the best way to not have their version of a 'Zombie Apocalypse' is to outlaw and/or regulate it.
We all 'know' and believe that it's healthier than alcohol, etc.. We wonder...were people not aware of that before we were born? Are WE the enlightened ones?
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.
It should be legalized and taxed. They could probably pay for Obamacare and lower everyone's premiums. :laugh:
I don't know if growing it with the tomatoes and corn is right. "Home grown" was a derogatory in my youth. Have you noticed the "best" pot comes where the "best" coffee is grown?
It should be legalized and taxed. They could probably pay for Obamacare and lower everyone's premiums. :laugh:
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.
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.
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. ;-)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why The Trans Fat Ban Is Worse Than You ThinkMore at The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/17/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. ...
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.
You are only telling half the story. Bottom line is federal law supercedes and a federal court would overturn that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Misrepresenting, misunderstanding, or not understanding are completely different concepts.
I did not misrepresent what you said.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court overrules you and has done so since the FDR days. This is the world we live in.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court overrules you and has done so since the FDR days. This is the world we live in.
That's all well an good, but as you yourself have argued on other threads, the ruling of SCOTUS is the final word. All else is academic whether any of us agree or not.
It's a subtle distinction, but I never said that the ruling of SCOTUS was the final world. Hard to make that argument when SCOTUS can overturn their own decisions.
The argument that I did make was that neither Congress, nor the President could overrule the SCOTUS to the degree that both Obama and Rick Santorum have suggested.