Grocery store fires Arizona medical marijuana patient after drug test

[Papageorgio]

Let’s see how union handles it, however employer has a right to mitigate their losses or potential losses, their is not right to use drugs and work at the employers expense.

I don't know if they have a union but it's irrelevant --- the state law declares they cannot fire somebody on the basis they did.

And again --------- there are no "drugs" involved, NOR is there any evidence that he used anything within the workplace or the workday. AGAIN, the test for cannabinoids DOES NOT identify any kind of current intoxication as would, say, a breathalyzer would identify alcohol content in the blood. It can't. What it does indicate is that the subject had some contact with cannabis some time in the last MONTH. That has zero to do with whether he's impaired in the present.

And AGAIN, if such an employer were actually genuinely interested in worker impairment and workplace safety, they could easily administer a simple reflex test at the start of the shift that would identify ANY such impairment whether from a legal drug, an illegal drug, cannabis, alcohol, creeping illness the worker may or may not be aware of, fatigue, distraction by personal issues, or any other cause, and they would have their answer instantly and they would spend less money doing it and they would be honest about it.

But that's not what they do, is it.

Ever see an employer administering breathalyzer tests to everybody as they come in? Because I worked with an alcoholic who was schnockered every day (and everybody knew it) --- and he was a truck driver. So this is what hypocrisy looks like.

SEE the context. What's going on here is institutional behavior control, right down to "what you're doing at home in your off time". Would you kneel down if an employer insisted they could read all your emails and listen in on all your phone calls? How 'bout if they made installing a camera in your bedroom a condition of employment?

This is the same thing.

I don’t give a damn what the state law is, they have a right to limit risk and if that person got hurt at work, he would most certainly sue the employer because he was a dumb shit.

But the state does. And it doesn't allow this.

We posted this back in 101 and apparently it was ignored but it's not going away. Still looks like this:

>> Section 36-2813 of the AMMA reads, in part:

B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:

1. The person’s status as a cardholder.

2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<
​

They're not allowed to fire him for that test. Simple as that.

And AGAIN --- "risk" is not in play here at all, because, AGAIN --- the piss test does not, and can not, establish impairment. And that simple fact is not going away either.

Like I said, we will see how it plays out, the same as I said before. No difference in my stand.

I know you said that. You always say that, even when presented with the facts. But gods forbid you should actually acknowledge them.

God forbid you don’t get your way all the time. I believe the state law will not stand. What else do you want? You want me to lie to you to make you go away? That is not going to happen. I believe it is a right for a business that takes the risk of hiring employees to determine what they allow as risk. You don’t like my opinion, too bad soo sad.

 

[dblack]

Grocery Store Fires Arizona Medical Marijuana Patient After Drug Test

Sue the state, , the state issues a card which says it is legal if it is legal the store has no legal right to fire someone unless of course it was used like booze lets say don't drink on the job.

Say it with me now: a business has the right to fire someone for any reason they want (with the exception of the "protected classes" nonsense). So, yes, they can fire someone for smoking pot, off or on the job.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know if they have a union but it's irrelevant --- the state law declares they cannot fire somebody on the basis they did.

And again --------- there are no "drugs" involved, NOR is there any evidence that he used anything within the workplace or the workday. AGAIN, the test for cannabinoids DOES NOT identify any kind of current intoxication as would, say, a breathalyzer would identify alcohol content in the blood. It can't. What it does indicate is that the subject had some contact with cannabis some time in the last MONTH. That has zero to do with whether he's impaired in the present.

And AGAIN, if such an employer were actually genuinely interested in worker impairment and workplace safety, they could easily administer a simple reflex test at the start of the shift that would identify ANY such impairment whether from a legal drug, an illegal drug, cannabis, alcohol, creeping illness the worker may or may not be aware of, fatigue, distraction by personal issues, or any other cause, and they would have their answer instantly and they would spend less money doing it and they would be honest about it.

But that's not what they do, is it.

Ever see an employer administering breathalyzer tests to everybody as they come in? Because I worked with an alcoholic who was schnockered every day (and everybody knew it) --- and he was a truck driver. So this is what hypocrisy looks like.

SEE the context. What's going on here is institutional behavior control, right down to "what you're doing at home in your off time". Would you kneel down if an employer insisted they could read all your emails and listen in on all your phone calls? How 'bout if they made installing a camera in your bedroom a condition of employment?

This is the same thing.

I don’t give a damn what the state law is, they have a right to limit risk and if that person got hurt at work, he would most certainly sue the employer because he was a dumb shit.

But the state does. And it doesn't allow this.

We posted this back in 101 and apparently it was ignored but it's not going away. Still looks like this:

>> Section 36-2813 of the AMMA reads, in part:

B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:

1. The person’s status as a cardholder.

2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<
​

They're not allowed to fire him for that test. Simple as that.

And AGAIN --- "risk" is not in play here at all, because, AGAIN --- the piss test does not, and can not, establish impairment. And that simple fact is not going away either.

Like I said, we will see how it plays out, the same as I said before. No difference in my stand.

I know you said that. You always say that, even when presented with the facts. But gods forbid you should actually acknowledge them.

God forbid you don’t get your way all the time. I believe the state law will not stand. What else do you want? You want me to lie to you to make you go away? That is not going to happen. I believe it is a right for a business that takes the risk of hiring employees to determine what they allow as risk. You don’t like my opinion, too bad soo sad.

AGAIN --- third time today now --- there is no "risk". Prove there is.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don’t give a damn what the state law is, they have a right to limit risk and if that person got hurt at work, he would most certainly sue the employer because he was a dumb shit.

But the state does. And it doesn't allow this.

We posted this back in 101 and apparently it was ignored but it's not going away. Still looks like this:

>> Section 36-2813 of the AMMA reads, in part:

B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:

1. The person’s status as a cardholder.

2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<
​

They're not allowed to fire him for that test. Simple as that.

And AGAIN --- "risk" is not in play here at all, because, AGAIN --- the piss test does not, and can not, establish impairment. And that simple fact is not going away either.

Like I said, we will see how it plays out, the same as I said before. No difference in my stand.

I know you said that. You always say that, even when presented with the facts. But gods forbid you should actually acknowledge them.

God forbid you don’t get your way all the time. I believe the state law will not stand. What else do you want? You want me to lie to you to make you go away? That is not going to happen. I believe it is a right for a business that takes the risk of hiring employees to determine what they allow as risk. You don’t like my opinion, too bad soo sad.

AGAIN --- third time today now --- there is no "risk". Prove there is.

So if a person is high, you say that has the same risk as a person who isn’t? Call DOT and tell them that, I am sure they will want to know.

 

[Pogo]

But the state does. And it doesn't allow this.

We posted this back in 101 and apparently it was ignored but it's not going away. Still looks like this:

>> Section 36-2813 of the AMMA reads, in part:

B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:

1. The person’s status as a cardholder.

2. A registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. <<
​

They're not allowed to fire him for that test. Simple as that.

And AGAIN --- "risk" is not in play here at all, because, AGAIN --- the piss test does not, and can not, establish impairment. And that simple fact is not going away either.

Like I said, we will see how it plays out, the same as I said before. No difference in my stand.

I know you said that. You always say that, even when presented with the facts. But gods forbid you should actually acknowledge them.

God forbid you don’t get your way all the time. I believe the state law will not stand. What else do you want? You want me to lie to you to make you go away? That is not going to happen. I believe it is a right for a business that takes the risk of hiring employees to determine what they allow as risk. You don’t like my opinion, too bad soo sad.

AGAIN --- third time today now --- there is no "risk". Prove there is.

So if a person is high, you say that has the same risk as a person who isn’t? Call DOT and tell them that, I am sure they will want to know.

And you know a person is high -------------------------------------- how?

This is an open book quiz. You've already been given the answer, three times.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Somebody asked for another definition of drug, so here's Merriam-Webster:

>>

Definition of drug
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication

b according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (see FORMULARY sense 3)

(2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseaseprescription drugsdrugs for treating high blood pressure

(3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body

(4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
​

2: something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation (see HABITUATION sense 2b), or a marked change in consciousness

// keeping teens off drugs
// heroin and other hard drugs
​

3: a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand (see DEMANDentry 1 sense 3a) —used in the phrase drug on the market


4 obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations <<​

-- that's the entire Merriam-Webster entry number one, unedited. The other two entries are for the verb, and for the dialectal past tense of drag.

As you can see, cannabis doesn't fit in any of them.

Now I'm spaced out, man. I'm seeing hallucinations of meatballs. Far out.

As you can see, cannabis doesn't fit in any of them.

I think cannabis very clearly meets definition 2…

something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation (see HABITUATION sense 2b), or a marked change in consciousness​

In any event, I see nothing in that definition that supports your earlier claim that naturally-occurring substances cannot be drugs; that drugs must be artificially made in a laboratory.

 

[Papageorgio]

Like I said, we will see how it plays out, the same as I said before. No difference in my stand.

I know you said that. You always say that, even when presented with the facts. But gods forbid you should actually acknowledge them.

God forbid you don’t get your way all the time. I believe the state law will not stand. What else do you want? You want me to lie to you to make you go away? That is not going to happen. I believe it is a right for a business that takes the risk of hiring employees to determine what they allow as risk. You don’t like my opinion, too bad soo sad.

AGAIN --- third time today now --- there is no "risk". Prove there is.

So if a person is high, you say that has the same risk as a person who isn’t? Call DOT and tell them that, I am sure they will want to know.

And you know a person is high -------------------------------------- how?

This is an open book quiz. You've already been given the answer, three times.

If I answered three times already, maybe you should go back and read my answer.

 

[WheelieAddict]

This should be easy. You show up for work with beer on breath, obviously stoned, or messed on opioids your employer can fire you. If you have so much pain you need weed or opioids you are disabled and shouldn't be at work. Or am I missing something?

 

[Montrovant]

I’ll go with the dictionary and not your opinion on this matter.

And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.

No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.

Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.

He likes to split hairs, it’s petty and frustrating.

Sorry I was away doing drugs. Had a YUGE bowl of killer tomato sauce. Even now I am basking in the radiance of its physiological effects. Gotta do that again one of these days.

Somebody asked for another definition of drug, so here's Merriam-Webster:

>>
Definition of drug
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication

b according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (see FORMULARY sense 3)

(2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseaseprescription drugsdrugs for treating high blood pressure

(3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body

(4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
​

2: something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation (see HABITUATION sense 2b), or a marked change in consciousness

// keeping teens off drugs
// heroin and other hard drugs
​

3: a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand (see DEMANDentry 1 sense 3a) —used in the phrase drug on the market

4 obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations <<​

-- that's the entire Merriam-Webster entry number one, unedited. The other two entries are for the verb, and for the dialectal past tense of drag.

As you can see, cannabis doesn't fit in any of them.

Now I'm spaced out, man. I'm seeing hallucinations of meatballs. Far out.

I'm going to guess that 1b(a) fits marijuana, but I can't confirm it. I can say that 1b(2) fits, as marijuana is used in the treatment/mitigation of diseases. It's actually the basis of the thread!
2 clearly fits, as marijuana causes "a marked change in consciousness."

You're free to use your own personal definition of the word drug, but I'm not sure why you'd expect anyone else to accept it as valid.

 

[Pogo]

And you'll ignore the bolded part, which means, again, dishonest.

No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.

Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.

He likes to split hairs, it’s petty and frustrating.

Sorry I was away doing drugs. Had a YUGE bowl of killer tomato sauce. Even now I am basking in the radiance of its physiological effects. Gotta do that again one of these days.

Somebody asked for another definition of drug, so here's Merriam-Webster:

>>
Definition of drug
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication

b according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (see FORMULARY sense 3)

(2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseaseprescription drugsdrugs for treating high blood pressure

(3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body

(4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
​

2: something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation (see HABITUATION sense 2b), or a marked change in consciousness

// keeping teens off drugs
// heroin and other hard drugs
​

3: a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand (see DEMANDentry 1 sense 3a) —used in the phrase drug on the market

4 obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations <<​

-- that's the entire Merriam-Webster entry number one, unedited. The other two entries are for the verb, and for the dialectal past tense of drag.

As you can see, cannabis doesn't fit in any of them.

Now I'm spaced out, man. I'm seeing hallucinations of meatballs. Far out.

I'm going to guess that 1b(a) fits marijuana, but I can't confirm it. I can say that 1b(2) fits, as marijuana is used in the treatment/mitigation of diseases. It's actually the basis of the thread!
2 clearly fits, as marijuana causes "a marked change in consciousness."

You're free to use your own personal definition of the word drug, but I'm not sure why you'd expect anyone else to accept it as valid.

By the same token I'm not willing to accept the posit that cannabis causes a "change in consciousness". A change in perception, I'd go with. But no I'm not taken an unproven claim as a given.

If we need dissect the difference, with a change in perception one remains in control of one's faculties. With a change of consciousness, not necessarily. The former means one sees the same senses in a different way, whereas the latter means one sees different senses.

 

[Pogo]

This should be easy. You show up for work with beer on breath, obviously stoned, or messed on opioids your employer can fire you. If you have so much pain you need weed or opioids you are disabled and shouldn't be at work. Or am I missing something?

Yeah. None of those occurred here.

What we have is an employer who thinks they can fire people on the basis of having cannabinoids in their system, which tells them absolutely nothing about their employee's present condition, but tells them something about what that employee does off the job on his own time.

The bolded words are the cruciality, for their implications.

What we also have here is a state law that specifically prohibits them from doing that.

 

[Montrovant]

No, reasonable, I won’t allow you to change a definition to suit an agenda. I’m for legalizing all drugs. However a drug is a drug and rules are rules, you don’t like them, change them, until Albertsons is well with in their rights. If an person doesn’t like the employers rules...they are free to leave.

Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.

He likes to split hairs, it’s petty and frustrating.

Sorry I was away doing drugs. Had a YUGE bowl of killer tomato sauce. Even now I am basking in the radiance of its physiological effects. Gotta do that again one of these days.

Somebody asked for another definition of drug, so here's Merriam-Webster:

>>
Definition of drug
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication

b according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (see FORMULARY sense 3)

(2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseaseprescription drugsdrugs for treating high blood pressure

(3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body

(4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
​

2: something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation (see HABITUATION sense 2b), or a marked change in consciousness

// keeping teens off drugs
// heroin and other hard drugs
​

3: a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand (see DEMANDentry 1 sense 3a) —used in the phrase drug on the market

4 obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations <<​

-- that's the entire Merriam-Webster entry number one, unedited. The other two entries are for the verb, and for the dialectal past tense of drag.

As you can see, cannabis doesn't fit in any of them.

Now I'm spaced out, man. I'm seeing hallucinations of meatballs. Far out.

I'm going to guess that 1b(a) fits marijuana, but I can't confirm it. I can say that 1b(2) fits, as marijuana is used in the treatment/mitigation of diseases. It's actually the basis of the thread!
2 clearly fits, as marijuana causes "a marked change in consciousness."

You're free to use your own personal definition of the word drug, but I'm not sure why you'd expect anyone else to accept it as valid.

By the same token I'm not willing to accept the posit that cannabis causes a "change in consciousness". A change in perception, I'd go with. But no I'm not taken an unproven claim as a given.

If we need dissect the difference, with a change in perception one remains in control of one's faculties. With a change of consciousness, not necessarily. The former means one sees the same senses in a different way, whereas the latter means one sees different senses.

And again, one would need to understand how you (and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) are defining consciousness to decide if the definitions you are providing are valid.

Regardless, unless you are going to argue that marijuana is not used in the treatment of diseases, it clearly fits in the definition of drug from MW that you provided.

 

[Pogo]

Actually they're not "within their rights". We've already quoted the state law earlier in the thread that demonstrates that.

He likes to split hairs, it’s petty and frustrating.

Sorry I was away doing drugs. Had a YUGE bowl of killer tomato sauce. Even now I am basking in the radiance of its physiological effects. Gotta do that again one of these days.

Somebody asked for another definition of drug, so here's Merriam-Webster:

>>
Definition of drug
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication

b according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (see FORMULARY sense 3)

(2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseaseprescription drugsdrugs for treating high blood pressure

(3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body

(4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
​

2: something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation (see HABITUATION sense 2b), or a marked change in consciousness

// keeping teens off drugs
// heroin and other hard drugs
​

3: a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand (see DEMANDentry 1 sense 3a) —used in the phrase drug on the market

4 obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations <<​

-- that's the entire Merriam-Webster entry number one, unedited. The other two entries are for the verb, and for the dialectal past tense of drag.

As you can see, cannabis doesn't fit in any of them.

Now I'm spaced out, man. I'm seeing hallucinations of meatballs. Far out.

I'm going to guess that 1b(a) fits marijuana, but I can't confirm it. I can say that 1b(2) fits, as marijuana is used in the treatment/mitigation of diseases. It's actually the basis of the thread!
2 clearly fits, as marijuana causes "a marked change in consciousness."

You're free to use your own personal definition of the word drug, but I'm not sure why you'd expect anyone else to accept it as valid.

By the same token I'm not willing to accept the posit that cannabis causes a "change in consciousness". A change in perception, I'd go with. But no I'm not taken an unproven claim as a given.

If we need dissect the difference, with a change in perception one remains in control of one's faculties. With a change of consciousness, not necessarily. The former means one sees the same senses in a different way, whereas the latter means one sees different senses.

And again, one would need to understand how you (and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) are defining consciousness to decide if the definitions you are providing are valid.

Indeed we would. Hence, does not apply.

The condition of the government definition, which we already know bullshitiously calls it a "narcotic", may be dismissed out of hand, for that very reason. It becomes a "drug" only on a false basis.

Regardless, unless you are going to argue that marijuana is not used in the treatment of diseases, it clearly fits in the definition of drug from MW that you provided.

I believe marinol is --- but that's a drug, as it's synthesized in a lab.

And in context, the employment screening does not represent itself as screening out employees who are treating diseases or pain, so also does not apply.

 

[dblack]

It seems the only safe way to fire someone is to not say why. Employers shouldn't have to hide their reasons, but their reasons shouldn't be subject to being overruled by government.

 

[Pogo]

It seems the only safe way to fire someone is to not say why. Employers shouldn't have to hide their reasons, but their reasons shouldn't be subject to being overruled by government.

In that case you could fire (or not hire) people on the basis that they're black. Or female, or Irish, or Hispanic, or Jewish or.... you get the idea.

 

[dblack]

It seems the only safe way to fire someone is to not say why. Employers shouldn't have to hide their reasons, but their reasons shouldn't be subject to being overruled by government.

In that case you could fire (or not hire) people on the basis that they're black. Or female, or Irish, or Hispanic, or Jewish or.... you get the idea.

Yep. Any goddamned reason you might dream up. Just like you might decide not to shop and Kroger for whatever reason that suits you. No one should have to ask permission from the government to not do something. That's insane.

 

[Pogo]

It seems the only safe way to fire someone is to not say why. Employers shouldn't have to hide their reasons, but their reasons shouldn't be subject to being overruled by government.

In that case you could fire (or not hire) people on the basis that they're black. Or female, or Irish, or Hispanic, or Jewish or.... you get the idea.

Yep. Any goddamned reason you might dream up. Just like you might decide not to shop and Kroger for whatever reason that suits you. No one should have to ask permission from the government to not do something. That's insane.

 

[dblack]

It seems the only safe way to fire someone is to not say why. Employers shouldn't have to hide their reasons, but their reasons shouldn't be subject to being overruled by government.

In that case you could fire (or not hire) people on the basis that they're black. Or female, or Irish, or Hispanic, or Jewish or.... you get the idea.

Yep. Any goddamned reason you might dream up. Just like you might decide not to shop and Kroger for whatever reason that suits you. No one should have to ask permission from the government to not do something. That's insane.

Your incisive response leaves me dumbfounded, the power of your argument overwhelming.