General Discussion

Rex

(65,616 posts)

53. No not at all, just if someone shows up stumbling around obviously not in their right state of mind.

Reply to pipoman (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 9, 2015, 07:50 PM

Jun 2015

What people do on their off time is none of my business.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Legal Use of Marijuana Clashes With Job Rules [View all] Egnever Jun 2015 OP

I agree that there needs to be some consonance on this issue. MADem Jun 2015 #1

Legalization is one issue, drug testing is another pipoman Jun 2015 #2

Exactly dreamnightwind Jun 2015 #8

That was the major issue w/legalizing pot, as I saw it. KittyWampus Jun 2015 #9

Saliva Test Half-Century Man Jun 2015 #28

I had no idea and appreciate the link. Thanks. It's important. KittyWampus Jun 2015 #43

That's what I was thinking gollygee Jun 2015 #14

I Read What Appears To Be A Synopsis of The Times Article ProfessorGAC Jun 2015 #33

k & r & thanks! n/t wildbilln864 Jun 2015 #3

really want President O to mandate that darn plant off the Federal drug list. Let the Rs rant. Sunlei Jun 2015 #4

Nicotine free workers has been upheld at the federal level. MohRokTah Jun 2015 #5

Is it legal to discriminate against people who use "legal" opiates? tridim Jun 2015 #6

No more illegal than discriminating against people who use legal tobacco. WillowTree Jun 2015 #41

I'm not aware of the tobacco discrimination dreamnightwind Jun 2015 #45

At many companies, including the one I work for....... WillowTree Jun 2015 #47

Well, that's still a long ways from blood or piss tests dreamnightwind Jun 2015 #62

You apparently didn't understand what I meant....... WillowTree Jun 2015 #63

That sucks dreamnightwind Jun 2015 #68

Yes, it is legal discrimination madville Jun 2015 #55

So there are no jobs where being drug free will help ensure public safety? KittyWampus Jun 2015 #7

Why? dreamnightwind Jun 2015 #10

The cost of business insurance for one thing. hack89 Jun 2015 #11

Exactly! If the employer has a bad employee that's prone to fuck up, fire them. No B Calm Jun 2015 #12

Ah, so no toxicology report necessary for train engineer in latest train tragedy in PA? KittyWampus Jun 2015 #15

What part of fire him do you not understand? B Calm Jun 2015 #17

Ah, so no law suits. Not from passengers, certainty. KittyWampus Jun 2015 #20

A pee test doesn't prove the worker is impaired. B Calm Jun 2015 #23

It can widely limit potential for a company to be held liable in the case of an accident though. KittyWampus Jun 2015 #24

Because the drugs may be an influencing and causitive factor, that's why. KittyWampus Jun 2015 #13

Great post. Pooka Fey Jun 2015 #18

Workers who are responsible for others' lives should be held to high standards, B Calm Jun 2015 #22

It can determine drug use… and there is a high correlation to drug use and accidents KittyWampus Jun 2015 #25

So you are going on the premise that drug tests are reliable. But, drug screens are NOT always B Calm Jun 2015 #27

Insurance companies require it for some jobs gollygee Jun 2015 #16

Everyday it seems some can't wait to agree with the authoritarian, right wing agenda TheKentuckian Jun 2015 #19

what? KittyWampus Jun 2015 #21

He's accusing you (and others) of being authoritarians who argue to subvert the public's rights... Chan790 Jun 2015 #26

Authoritarianism comes in two flavors: Left Wing and Right Wing Pooka Fey Jun 2015 #29

Who's insisting the right to party? We're insisting on preserving the right to B Calm Jun 2015 #30

And your opinion about society's right to reserve certain job categories for the non-impaired? Pooka Fey Jun 2015 #31

Why don't you share your opinion with the unmarried mother who was subjected B Calm Jun 2015 #32

I refuse to DIE to provide evidence of job-fuck-up for a pilot, train conductor, or surgeon Pooka Fey Jun 2015 #34

Yes, the Supreme Court has carved out limited exceptions to allow for drug testing. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2015 #36

Good post. Pooka Fey Jun 2015 #39

You'd have a better case if most of the people being tested weren't in nonsensitive jobs TheKentuckian Jun 2015 #50

She thought maybe the her employer wasn't going to notice she was pregnant? WillowTree Jun 2015 #40

whoosh... B Calm Jun 2015 #56

Critical public safety job holders should not be impaired. I agree. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2015 #35

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a blood test would be better than a urine test Pooka Fey Jun 2015 #38

Please don't confuse the pot people with the PC crowd. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2015 #37

Zero tolerance for drug use at/in the workplace...except for doctor prescribed medication...imo. Rex Jun 2015 #42

Same standard for alcohol? Didin't think so... dreamnightwind Jun 2015 #44

Duh. Rex Jun 2015 #48

Except that it isn't dreamnightwind Jun 2015 #61

There are a lot of prescribed medications that will get you much higher than weed. JTFrog Jun 2015 #49

Yes, because if it turned out it was legal meds...it would not mean instant termination. Rex Jun 2015 #51

It seems like it's not really impairment you're concerned with. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2015 #64

It is but also if it is illegal or not. Would you want contraband in your office? Rex Jun 2015 #66

I agree, unless you are saying that the employer also pipoman Jun 2015 #52

No not at all, just if someone shows up stumbling around obviously not in their right state of mind. Rex Jun 2015 #53

This is the problem with testing, they can't actually tell if someone is intoxicated pipoman Jun 2015 #54

Let me clarify better, there is no drug testing I am against it. Rex Jun 2015 #57

If I'm managing machine operators or forklift drivers I would to.. pipoman Jun 2015 #59

LOL yeah maybe I would overlook Hollywood and some places. Rex Jun 2015 #60

iirc, there was a software company in recent news that required applicants... 0rganism Jun 2015 #46

This same logic could be used to fire anyone on pain or psych meds...nt Jesus Malverde Jun 2015 #58

we need legislation addressing these employer drug tests bigtree Jun 2015 #65

This is discrimination. ellisonz Jun 2015 #67