Calif. court: Medical pot not OK at work

[Angel Heart]

I agree with Angel Heart.


If RGS wasn't so used to having his meds given to him by Gary the orderly he might realize that unlike MURDER, HOSE breaking and his slew of stupididty, an individual who is smoking pot bears absolutely no danger to anyone else moreso than our completely legal alcohol.


IN fact, I garentee that a person can overdose quicker on the cocktail of meds it takes to keep RGS alive than anyone ever could with smoking grass. Go ahead, RGS.. ask me why I'm so confident in the non-lethal nature of pot. I'll wait until you get done watching Matlock to give you the answer.

There has never been a single OD on weed alone. Heck, it doesn't even cause lung cancer and has been shown to shrink cancer.

Why is it still illegal? There is no reason behind it, other than ignorance.

 

[Angel Heart]

he meant house breaking... or what non-stroke victims call Burglary. Clearly the same thing as personal recreational use of pot.

The topic at hand isn't even recreational usage. This is someones right to do something medically while off the clock. Not even someone caught on the job doing it, just popped on a piss test.

 

[Steerpike]

Another example of the Fed usurping the states' authority.

Not really. It's an example of the government usurping the rights of a private employer (or trying to).

 

[Shogun]

WERD

Here is a screen cleaner for the next time you laugh out loud and spit soda at your screen.
http://www.linein.org/media/screenclean.swf

 

[Steerpike]

If I smoked 30 days ago then why should a positive test result get me fired if I have never been stoned at work? Testing for indication of use in the past 30 days is NOT the same as testing for inebriation at work.

I'd say that's up to the employer. We're talking about private businesses here, and if they don't want to have people on staff that use a substance, that's up to them. Likewise, if a potential employee doesn't like the policy, that's up to the potential employee - they can refuse to work for that employer.

 

[Angel Heart]

Show me where marijuana is the great evil that the 'war on drugs' says it is. The only sites supporting it are funded by the government or the alcohol/drug companies.

It isn't the gateway drug they say it is. Actually the drug that's legal is. It doesn't lead to long term brain damage. It doesn't cause people to become violent. The legal drug (alcohol) causes more violence. The violence around it is due to the legality of it, not the use of it. We learned that even when it's illegal people will drink. When the government couldn't control us through that, they put in the marijuana laws.

Here's a video that Woody Harlson put together that really explains the history of the laws. Sorry it's so long but if you really want to learn you'll watch it:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6292495874353671062&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think it is evil to begin with.

I just think the employer has the right to make the decision they made.

For some there can be bad effects over time, such as schizophrenia. Numerous studies have shown correlations, particularly if there is a genetic predisposition. A recent study, if I can find it, purported to show causation.

At any rate, I think the risk is minimal and other drugs, like alcohol, carry other medical risks.

 

[Angel Heart]

My point exactly. It should be up to the employer and the state. It's infringing on our rights to make choices for ourselves.

It's been trumped up for longer than any of us have been around as being the biggest of the drug issues. Currently the Feds still don't face the meth issues like they do the marijuana issue. The dangers they speak of with marijuana are all true of meth.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ah, Woody Harrelson. Whose father is rotting in prison for murder of a judge.

If he's not a qualified social commentarian, well then, nobody is.

 

[Angel Heart]

Ah, Woody Harrelson. Whose father is rotting in prison for murder of a judge.

If he's not a qualified social commentarian, well then, nobody is.

You are judging someone on the actions of their father. I'm not going to judge you on who's in your family. That's putting the sins of the father on the child. Not very Christian.

Oh and before you judge it maybe you should watch it. It's very in-depth. Shows dates, names, and the data behind the governments. They destroyed data, turned a blind eye on clearly proven facts.

 

[AllieBaba]

You're just a pothead. You're probably high right now.
I guess what they say about pot and paranoia really IS true!

 

[Angel Heart]

Whatever. You want to be ignorant. Go for it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not as ignorant as a kid who is a Woody acolyte.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Isn't it cute how Shogun claims to know what I take for medication and how I take it? Nothing more than a red herring he uses to cover up his ignorant posts.

Rather then debate an issue he would rather pretend he knows my personal life and my medical conditions. But then losers usually resort to that kind of tactic in hopes then can confuse an issue with out providing any real substance to the conversation.

 

[AllieBaba]

Diversionary tactics.

Extremely frustrating to deal with.

 

[Angel Heart]

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

See if you can argue with those facts that where taken right out of the government's data bases. I doubt you can.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol. Well at least you have a cause.

I'll be you believe everything Peta says, too.

 

[Shogun]

I'd say that's up to the employer. We're talking about private businesses here, and if they don't want to have people on staff that use a substance, that's up to them. Likewise, if a potential employee doesn't like the policy, that's up to the potential employee - they can refuse to work for that employer.

Indeed, and Missouri is an "At Will" state regarding employment. However, it seems that detection of THC in the past 30 days hardly proves employer liability if the urine test cannot show a difference between past and present use.

Also, take a look at this case from the Missouri court of appeals:
http://www.uchelp.com/law/mo/christensen.htm

Opinion Summary:
The division of employment security appeals the labor and industrial relations commission's decision finding that April Christensen is not disqualified from gaining unemployment benefits. The commission found that Christensen was not discharged by American Food & Vending Services, Inc., for misconduct connected with work.


While a private business is capable of deciding who it wants to employ a former employee will qualify for Unemployment if company policy cannot determine that using marijuana is a detriment to her job performance. A prescribed substance, be it pot or lithium, is a matter of privacy between Dr and patient and a urine test that indicates use in 30 day time frames really doesn't prove a work related hazard. As an employer I love this At Will state. As a citizen I see it's use in this circumstance as a prohibition-style witch hunt that seems to violate privacy on par with asking what mental disorders a candidate has ever been prescribed pharmies for.

 

[Shogun]

You're just a pothead. You're probably high right now.
I guess what they say about pot and paranoia really IS true!

You should find out for yourself, Allie. If you can stop burning some witches long enough to stop generalizing people.

I'll take the non-overdosable, naptime causing, hilarity that is pot over the killer, drunk driving hazard, liver killer, violent rage that is alcohol any day.

 

[Shogun]

Not as ignorant as a kid who is a Woody acolyte.

Woody is the man. I don't expect you to hang for the sins of your geneology and it is stupid that you do the same with Woody. I mean, if you just want to antagonize I have the rest of the day to paw at you like a cat with a mouse.