PDA

View Full Version : First legal pot purchaser in Washington fired for smoking pot



garhkal
07-14-2014, 07:45 PM
Egads. With the legalization of Pot in Washington state, i was wondering how long it would be before we saw a news report of someone who is seen purchasing/smoking pot, getting fired from their job cause of it. This afternoon, Fox reported someone already has been fired (though rehired real quickly due to the public uproar there cause of it)..

What i would like to know for all those who raised heck, would they like to see their deliverymen, bus drivers etc, be high on pot and driving around? Also, some say they shouldn't fire someone for using a "Legal" product, but many seem to have NO issue with CVS and other orgs, doing the same for people who smoke tobacco?

What do you all say?

PS though it was on Fox news (the show), i can't find it on their website..

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/washingtons-first-legal-pot-purchaser-fired-after-drug-test-then-rehired

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/10/first-person-to-legally-purchase-pot-in-wa-fired-after-being-seen-on-local-news-buying-it/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jul/10/spokanes-first-legal-pot-buyer-says-he-lost-his/

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/weird/First-Guy-in-Line-for-Legal-Marijuana-at-Washington-Pot-Store-Fired-After-Boss-Spots-Him-on-the-News-266631051.html

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 07:52 PM
Egads. With the legalization of Pot in Washington state, i was wondering how long it would be before we saw a news report of someone who is seen purchasing/smoking pot, getting fired from their job cause of it. This afternoon, Fox reported someone already has been fired (though rehired real quickly due to the public uproar there cause of it)..

What i would like to know for all those who raised heck, would they like to see their deliverymen, bus drivers etc, be high on pot and driving around?

No, not while driving. There is no indication this guy was high while driving or while working.

No one wants their deliveryman to be drunk either...does that mean he should be fired for purchasing alcohol while not working?


Also, some say they shouldn't fire someone for using a "Legal" product, but many seem to have NO issue with CVS and other orgs, doing the same for people who smoke tobacco?

What do you all say?

PS though it was on Fox news (the show), i can't find it on their website..

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/washingtons-first-legal-pot-purchaser-fired-after-drug-test-then-rehired

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/10/first-person-to-legally-purchase-pot-in-wa-fired-after-being-seen-on-local-news-buying-it/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jul/10/spokanes-first-legal-pot-buyer-says-he-lost-his/

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/weird/First-Guy-in-Line-for-Legal-Marijuana-at-Washington-Pot-Store-Fired-After-Boss-Spots-Him-on-the-News-266631051.html

I say, the product is legal, he should not be fired for having purchased and used it...so long as he is not high while working.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 07:55 PM
What makes it difficult is that with alcohol you can test a person's blood alcohol level. With pot, there is no way to test a person to know if they are currently high or not.

I agree with MM, though, that if it's legal that you should not be able to be fired (though we know there are companies that don't hire smokers). Now if you are impaired at work, that's different.

garhkal
07-15-2014, 06:24 AM
I agree with MM, though, that if it's legal that you should not be able to be fired (though we know there are companies that don't hire smokers). Now if you are impaired at work, that's different.

My point exactly SJ. We already have showed a precedent for it to happen, when the law has allowed companies to fire (and in many cases not even hire) people who smoke, but only when at home. So why is it wrong now to fire someone for purchasing MJ?

sandsjames
07-15-2014, 11:22 AM
My point exactly SJ. We already have showed a precedent for it to happen, when the law has allowed companies to fire (and in many cases not even hire) people who smoke, but only when at home. So why is it wrong now to fire someone for purchasing MJ?

Because 2 wrongs don't make a right. This should be the policy...is someone impaired at work? If yes then fire them. If no then get over it.

Chris_1991-2011
07-15-2014, 11:49 AM
I agree with MM, though, that if it's legal that you should not be able to be fired (though we know there are companies that don't hire smokers). Now if you are impaired at work, that's different.


So why is it wrong now to fire someone for purchasing MJ?


Because 2 wrongs don't make a right. This should be the policy...is someone impaired at work? If yes then fire them. If no then get over it.

I think that if something is legal to purchase, possess, and use, than as long as it doesn't interfere with your attendance, performance, and safety, there should be no problem. BUT, then there's company policy and the law:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/puff-puff-pink-slip-legal-weed-use-still-carries-job-n153841


Workers still can be booted –- or never hired in the first place –- for puffing cannabis if anti-pot rules exist in their employers’ HR handbooks. So, if adults in Colorado and Washington legally consume weed after work, away from the job site or the office, they must remain mindful of the drug rules at the shops and offices where they ply their trades, according to labor-law experts in both states.

“Employers do hold all the cards. You’re not guaranteed a job. If not using marijuana is in the contract, or in the terms of the job, you can get fired,” said David Rheins, CEO of the Seattle-based Marijuana Business Association, considered the cannabis industry’s chamber of commerce.

“A lot of employees still don't understand that, and they seem to think that the recreational or medical marijuana use gives them carte blanche to use on their own time,” said Mike Parcheta, a staff attorney for the Mountain States Employers Council. The Denver-based group represents 3,500 companies. “Employers still get to enforce their drug and alcohol policies.”

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jul/10/spokanes-first-legal-pot-buyer-says-he-lost-his/


But employers are allowed to continue testing their workers pursuant to their internal employment policies, according to the Washington Liquor Control Board, which is handling the implementation of marijuana rules. This includes screening applicants for jobs.

I think it’ll be some time before pot use/sales gets 100% ironed out in the states in which it’s sale and use (recreational and medical) gets ironed out. I’ve heard on TV that pot dispensaries, not sure about growers, are having issues with banks accepting their money. While legal under state law it’s still illegal under federal law, and that makes the banks nervous. I think I’ve heard that the fed’s have told the banks it’s fine to accept the money but it still makes the nervous/leery, but I’m not 100% sure. The dispensaries are having to hire security, to guard their facilities and transport the ass loads of cash their making, and I assume find alternate ways of storing/securing their profit/cash.

Here’s an article http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/puff-puff-pink-slip-legal-weed-use-still-carries-job-n153841 that touches on the guy getting fire/re-hired, but it also shows another example of a pot related issue WA has. Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes acknowledged he violated Seattle’s “drug free workplace” policy by bringing pot to city offices. He apologized and volunteered to donate $3K to a shelter; wonder if he’ll be fired.

garhkal
07-15-2014, 08:41 PM
Because 2 wrongs don't make a right. This should be the policy...is someone impaired at work? If yes then fire them. If no then get over it.

So all those firms who won't hire smokers, are wrong for doing so IYO.

hustonj
07-16-2014, 12:53 PM
I'm not going to go look for it right now, but I read an article a few years back that claimed as part of a study on the use of mj, they discovered that the mental impairment caused by active use can manifest again days later, without warning, and can directly impair the ability to perform.

I didn't run the study and don't remember any of the specifics, but that unexpected complication stuck in my head as significant.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 12:58 PM
I'm not going to go look for it right now, but I read an article a few years back that claimed as part of a study on the use of mj, they discovered that the mental impairment caused by active use can manifest again days later, without warning, and can directly impair the ability to perform.

I didn't run the study and don't remember any of the specifics, but that unexpected complication stuck in my head as significant.

If this study was valid, it would be no different than the impairments to the ability to perform for those who drink too much. There are many studies that show lower performance following a night of drinking.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 01:00 PM
So all those firms who won't hire smokers, are wrong for doing so IYO.

Yes, they are wrong. Absolutely. Smoking is legal. The hiring comes down to nothing more than insurance costs. They would be wrong for the same reasons if they didn't hire overweight people or diabetic people or people who eat fast food 3 times a week...or people who drink alcohol...or people who do "extreme" sports, high risk activities, etc.

hustonj
07-16-2014, 01:13 PM
If this study was valid, it would be no different than the impairments to the ability to perform for those who drink too much. There are many studies that show lower performance following a night of drinking.

Again, not the next day and not predicatable. That includes that it was not after every exposure, didn't happen to everyone, and they indicated no understanding of why or how it happened. That's a pretty nasty safety concern if true.

Safety issues cost people jobs all the time. For good reason.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 02:40 PM
Again, not the next day and not predicatable. Right, cuz hangovers don't affect you the next day.


That includes that it was not after every exposure, didn't happen to everyone, and they indicated no understanding of why or how it happened. That's a pretty nasty safety concern if true. Ahhh...so it was anecdotal? That's good research.


Safety issues cost people jobs all the time. For good reason.Indeed they do. So, if a guy is working and it not performing safely and at the level expected, then let him go. But firing a guy for buying a legal substance without any proof that it affected his performance is wrong.

I'd bet that if someone was smoking a high volume of pot on a regular basis that the results are quite different than a guy that smokes a joint once in awhile. Just as the volume of alcohol drinking, along with how often, plays a big part in the negative impact of alcohol use. The fact is that pot is legal and to fire someone solely based on the fact that he purchased it is wrong.

hustonj
07-16-2014, 03:34 PM
Ahhh...so it was anecdotal? That's good research.

Nope. My understanding is that it was a formal research project/program, and they made observations they didn't expect which fell outside of what they were funded to examine in detail.

But you go right on finding ways to dismiss stuff you don't want to hear! Anything else would be intellectual and un-American, right?

Oh, and I love the fact that you are ignoring the military fires people for using legal items . . .. Popping positive is what gets you thrown ou,t not what you used that maks you pop positive. "Spice" is legal (or was) but has ended military careers, right?

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 04:29 PM
Nope. My understanding is that it was a formal research project/program, and they made observations they didn't expect which fell outside of what they were funded to examine in detail.

But you go right on finding ways to dismiss stuff you don't want to hear! Anything else would be intellectual and un-American, right? Listen...companies can do what they wish. If they have a policy about hiring, or not hiring people, based on certain criteria then go for it. That's up to them...and to legislate differently would be wrong.


Oh, and I love the fact that you are ignoring the military fires people for using legal items . . .. Popping positive is what gets you thrown ou,t not what you used that maks you pop positive. "Spice" is legal (or was) but has ended military careers, right?Not ignoring that fact at all. The military is a completely different entity. Hence the UCMJ. We give up certain freedoms when we sign. Please don't ignore that fact. Nice try, though.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 04:53 PM
Listen...companies can do what they wish. If they have a policy about hiring, or not hiring people, based on certain criteria then go for it. That's up to them...and to legislate differently would be wrong.

I found it interesting to learn that 40 states incl DC, actually have protections in place to prevent companies from discriminating on the basis of smoking.

http://www.hrmorning.com/ban-hiring-smokers/

Some of those specifically protect smokers...while others simply prevent companies from making hiring decisions based on off-duty legal activities.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 05:27 PM
I found it interesting to learn that 40 states incl DC, actually have protections in place to prevent companies from discriminating on the basis of smoking.

http://www.hrmorning.com/ban-hiring-smokers/

Some of those specifically protect smokers...while others simply prevent companies from making hiring decisions based on off-duty legal activities.

Interesting. Had no idea smokers were a protected class. Seems strange to me. I don't like the idea that some businesses can avoid hiring...or fire...someone who smokes. I understand that it's claimed to be done due to insurance costs, which makes a little sense. I still don't think it should be regulated by the government whether they can or can't, though.

garhkal
07-16-2014, 07:46 PM
Yes, they are wrong. Absolutely. Smoking is legal. The hiring comes down to nothing more than insurance costs. They would be wrong for the same reasons if they didn't hire overweight people or diabetic people or people who eat fast food 3 times a week...or people who drink alcohol...or people who do "extreme" sports, high risk activities, etc.

Glad you feel that way. When i discussed this with a bunch of gamers (Origins game fair), many who were all against the MJ Ban, were actually all FOR firms not hiring "Those damn smokers". To a lot of people, it seems tobacco users are the new Lepers.


I found it interesting to learn that 40 states incl DC, actually have protections in place to prevent companies from discriminating on the basis of smoking.

http://www.hrmorning.com/ban-hiring-smokers/

Some of those specifically protect smokers...while others simply prevent companies from making hiring decisions based on off-duty legal activities.

Thanks for posting that site. I wish it was more states than that which had laws against the practice (Fl and OH especially). Though i wonder, how many of those states which DO have that law on the books, actually enforce it?

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 08:02 PM
Glad you feel that way. When i discussed this with a bunch of gamers (Origins game fair), many who were all against the MJ Ban, were actually all FOR firms not hiring "Those damn smokers". To a lot of people, it seems tobacco users are the new Lepers. Don't get me wrong...I also don't think the government should be telling people who they can and can't hire.