Walmart Worker Fired for using Medical Marijuana (Legal in Michigan)

That's ridiculous. Half of the guys I know who work at places like Walmart are total stoners. The ignorance of the American public regarding cannabis and its effects never fails to disappoint me.
 
While I don't agree with WalMarts decision, I believe they have the right to do so.

How the fuck ?

If a doctor prescribed it, and it is then legal, how the fuck is that action defensible?

What if WAL MART took a moral stance against insulin? Maybe the company suffered a hostile takeover from C Scientists? Would economic sanctions against blood transfusions be ok with you? What about dialysis?

Equal
protection.
under
the
law.

The fucking law.
How hard is that to follow, really?
 
He was also employee of the year, but I guess using medical marijuana for his cancer was too much for Wally World.


Toke of the Town - WalMart Fires Associate Of Year, Cancer Patient For Medical Marijuana


the war on marijuana is an abomination.

it's a terrible indictment of America that we would wage war on people....
to the point of destroying their lives....
merely for smoking a plant that is LESS DANGEROUS than

alcohol
tobacco
nuclear power plants
nascar
football
boxing
hockey
mountain climbing
unjustified invasions of foreign nations
eating mcdonalds burgers and fries

MILLIONS of good, HARD WORKING, decent Americans smoke pot and

get college degrees
get married
buy houses
own businesses
pay taxes
have children
send these children to colleges

laws against marijuana are based on lies, fear and ignorance

they should be overturned NOW.

they are an abomination

legalize pot
regulate it
tax it

In your list of "less thans" you missed a few key points.

Medical Cannabis is also less toxic to the human respiratory system than many drugs currently prescribed for cancer, to cite just one medical condition.
 
While I don't agree with WalMarts decision, I believe they have the right to do so.

How the fuck ?

If a doctor prescribed it, and it is then legal, how the fuck is that action defensible?

What if WAL MART took a moral stance against insulin? Maybe the company suffered a hostile takeover from C Scientists? Would economic sanctions against blood transfusions be ok with you? What about dialysis?

Equal
protection.
under
the
law.

The fucking law.
How hard is that to follow, really?

Equal protection under the law doesn't protect in this case. Drug users are not a protected class.

Like I said, WalMart has the right to do this, even though I disagree.
 
The aspect of this that always amazes me is how quickly the 'right' comes to the defense of corporations? If individual freedom meant what they say it does, then why fire a person for something that has nothing to do with their work? Are rights only on the side of corporations?


See this movie if you get a chance. WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Price
Value and Values at Wal-Mart -- Behind That Implacable Smiley Face
As Union Nears Win, Wal-Mart Closes Store
Majority Says Wal-Mart Bad for America: Poll
Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First
 
There are probably people working there on much worse drugs. Too bad, the guy seemed like a good employee. I'm sure Walmart can take that into consideration.

The dummies.

yea like prescription Drugs....the Antidepressants come to mind...my wife is a Epilectic...they gave her Tegretol....she said she felt like a Zombie....does not take it anymore....
 
There are probably people working there on much worse drugs. Too bad, the guy seemed like a good employee. I'm sure Walmart can take that into consideration.

The dummies.

yea like prescription Drugs....the Antidepressants come to mind...my wife is a Epilectic...they gave her Tegretol....she said she felt like a Zombie....does not take it anymore....

Yes, prescription drugs can hurt more than they help sometimes.
 
The aspect of this that always amazes me is how quickly the 'right' comes to the defense of corporations? If individual freedom meant what they say it does, then why fire a person for something that has nothing to do with their work? Are rights only on the side of corporations?

ok a question.....if you were the manager of this store,and this guy came to work with a buzz....and it wasnt medical pot,he just smokes the stuff,what would you tell him?....
 
He was also employee of the year, but I guess using medical marijuana for his cancer was too much for Wally World.


Toke of the Town - WalMart Fires Associate Of Year, Cancer Patient For Medical Marijuana

They rules in favor of the company in a similar case here. I think it is crap, for one they have no problems with you taking prescription drugs. Plus Marijuana also has to be prescribed by a doctor.
This is my biggest problem with the whole drug thing, Wally World wouldn't have a problem with him taking Oxy Contin as prescribed, which is pretty much like doing heroine. But God forbid we let them smoke a joint during their free time, and having done both I think I would go with the Pothead.
 
The aspect of this that always amazes me is how quickly the 'right' comes to the defense of corporations? If individual freedom meant what they say it does, then why fire a person for something that has nothing to do with their work? Are rights only on the side of corporations?

ok a question.....if you were the manager of this store,and this guy came to work with a buzz....and it wasnt medical pot,he just smokes the stuff,what would you tell him?....

And that's the crux of the matter. Not all that long ago, I sat in court helping defend a business in a work comp claim involving denial of part of the claim and the firing of the employee. The employee failed a drug test--marijuana--required following a work related accident.

This isn't an issue about Wal-mart policy. This is an issue whether any business or entity has a right to have a zero policy regarding any substance, legal or not, prescription or not, that can affect a person's judgment or performance on the job. Marijuana and some other drugs that are detectable in the system for long periods is particularly an issue. They can affect a person's judgment or performance, and there is no way to determine in a drug test when the person last used it within the last two to six weeks. So if the policy is that the policy is violated if there is ANY found in the system, and the employees know that when they hire on, then that is a reasonable policy.

We won the case.
 
The aspect of this that always amazes me is how quickly the 'right' comes to the defense of corporations? If individual freedom meant what they say it does, then why fire a person for something that has nothing to do with their work? Are rights only on the side of corporations?

ok a question.....if you were the manager of this store,and this guy came to work with a buzz....and it wasnt medical pot,he just smokes the stuff,what would you tell him?....

And that's the crux of the matter. Not all that long ago, I sat in court helping defend a business in a work comp claim involving denial of part of the claim and the firing of the employee. The employee failed a drug test--marijuana--required following a work related accident.

This isn't an issue about Wal-mart policy. This is an issue whether any business or entity has a right to have a zero policy regarding any substance, legal or not, prescription or not, that can affect a person's judgment or performance on the job. Marijuana and some other drugs that are detectable in the system for long periods is particularly an issue. They can affect a person's judgment or performance, and there is no way to determine in a drug test when the person last used it within the last two to six weeks. So if the policy is that the policy is violated if there is ANY found in the system, and the employees know that when they hire on, then that is a reasonable policy.

We won the case.

If you are a lawyer you know that WalMart has to equally enforce that rule. If someone is taking a prescription dru be it marijuana or whatever then they have to either fire them all that take it or not fire anyone.
It is an issue of policy. I can not believe you would deny that. You state yourself about the "zero policy".
Which is it?
Name one company in America that has a "zero tolerance" for prescription drugs.
 
ok a question.....if you were the manager of this store,and this guy came to work with a buzz....and it wasnt medical pot,he just smokes the stuff,what would you tell him?....

And that's the crux of the matter. Not all that long ago, I sat in court helping defend a business in a work comp claim involving denial of part of the claim and the firing of the employee. The employee failed a drug test--marijuana--required following a work related accident.

This isn't an issue about Wal-mart policy. This is an issue whether any business or entity has a right to have a zero policy regarding any substance, legal or not, prescription or not, that can affect a person's judgment or performance on the job. Marijuana and some other drugs that are detectable in the system for long periods is particularly an issue. They can affect a person's judgment or performance, and there is no way to determine in a drug test when the person last used it within the last two to six weeks. So if the policy is that the policy is violated if there is ANY found in the system, and the employees know that when they hire on, then that is a reasonable policy.

We won the case.

If you are a lawyer you know that WalMart has to equally enforce that rule. If someone is taking a prescription dru be it marijuana or whatever then they have to either fire them all that take it or not fire anyone.
It is an issue of policy. I can not believe you would deny that. You state yourself about the "zero policy".
Which is it?
Name one company in America that has a "zero tolerance" for prescription drugs.

I am not a lawyer. In this case it was a oil production company and the accident was on a rig, one of the more dangerous high risk environments in the world of work. And they did have an absolute zero tolerance policy for ALL substances, including OTC medications or prescription medications, as well as illegal substances, that had any history of impairing judgment, causing drowsiness, or that could slow response/reaction time. Once the policy was implemented, they went from a high claim experience rating to a near zero claim experience rating.

But you're right. The policy is either enforced for all or there is the implication of tolerance which makes it difficult to enforce for anybody.

Some companies with zero tolerance policies do have a provision where an employee can go to H.R. with a doctor's note explaining the necessity for a medication and that in the doctor's opinion it will not hinder the employee's performance. I doubt any doctor would be able to write such a note regarding medical marijuana however.

But sometimes life just sucks. We all feel deep compassion for cancer patients or others who might legitimately be prescribed medical marijuana. And certainly there are professions in which the risk would be negligible and it would be acceptable. But it is sometimes not justifiable to create problems or dangers for everybody in order to show compassion for one.
 
While I don't agree with WalMarts decision, I believe they have the right to do so.

How the fuck ?

If a doctor prescribed it, and it is then legal, how the fuck is that action defensible?

What if WAL MART took a moral stance against insulin? Maybe the company suffered a hostile takeover from C Scientists? Would economic sanctions against blood transfusions be ok with you? What about dialysis?

Equal
protection.
under
the
law.

The fucking law.
How hard is that to follow, really?
Opinion follows: I think in some states an employer can fire any employee without cause. They don't like to do that because it opens them up to costs incurred through the unemployment system, so they usually fire people for cause...no matter how slight, no matter what description and depending on the will of the other employees and supervisors driving the issue, no matter how true.

Wal-Mart certainly had the legal right to fire the man. They decision was neither illegal nor what I would call a bad business decision. It was insensitive, unenlightened, archaic, insincere and downright unforgivably fuckwitted to fire the man. I'm sure there must have been a way to move him upwards in the management scheme.

It likely became "public" when the first bible-thumpin', blue-haired greeter heard the gossip from the water cooler about the test results. All of a sudden it's a corporate image thing. We can't allow dope...err... known dope smokers to be in our midst. It's bad for business, you know, marijuana bein' illegal an' all.

There are probably people working there on much worse drugs. Too bad, the guy seemed like a good employee. I'm sure Walmart can take that into consideration.

The dummies.

yea like prescription Drugs....the Antidepressants come to mind...my wife is a Epilectic...they gave her Tegretol....she said she felt like a Zombie....does not take it anymore....

Yes, prescription drugs can hurt more than they help sometimes.
It's all a big experiment.

The aspect of this that always amazes me is how quickly the 'right' comes to the defense of corporations? If individual freedom meant what they say it does, then why fire a person for something that has nothing to do with their work? Are rights only on the side of corporations?

ok a question.....if you were the manager of this store,and this guy came to work with a buzz....and it wasn't medical pot,he just smokes the stuff,what would you tell him?....
Your fired.

Here's six weeks severance pay.


My brother in law's company is hiring if you're interested in some...
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top