Calif. court: Medical pot not OK at work

[Taomon]

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.

You would fall asleep before you could OD on pot.

 

[Taomon]

I don't need to reread the Constitution. The Constitution does not say Federal law supercedes state law. The US Civil War decided THAT, and Lincoln violated the Constitution at every turn in conducting the war.

Basically, the issue was decided by force of arms. That may mean the US won, but it does not make the US right.

Nor does it make the Fed government right sticking its nose into the states' business. The Constitution also clearly states that any powers not given to the Fed government specifically fall to the states.

Marijuana laws are stupid, archaic, and based on superstitious BS. As long as alcohol is legal, then pot should be as well because I damned sure don't see much difference between the two except when I used to see those red lights in the rearview I could get straight REAL fast if I was just high. When you're drunk, youre drunk.

Our current Marijuana laws are about as realistic and effective as Prohibition was.

The problem is that the alchohol and tobacco industries have very powerful lobbies, so they will never be illegal. Marijuana does not have a power lobby. If it did, it would be legalized tomorrow.

 

[Taomon]

The Story DOES end there. So long as the Federal Government is acting in accordance with the Constitution the laws they create are SUPREME. No State can over rule them or ignore them. GunnyL and now you are claiming States can ignore the fed and that the fed is not supreme law of the land. Your both simply totally wrong.

Unfortunately I have to agree. A state can legalize marijuana, but the Feds will still be able to arrest users and dealers.

In MA, same-sex marriage is legal. The only way to supercede that is to add an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. And that is why dipshits like Senator Sam Brownback try and create a Federal outline because the people of MA have already spoken, we are for same-sex marriage.

And before you start in on the whole Judges legislating from the bench thing, Mitt Romney tried to showboat and demand that the question be put to the ballot in the (then) upcoming state election. The people shot that down. We signed petitions and contacted our legislators in droves to let them know that it would be unethical to vote on a ruling based on bigotry.

And again, we won.

But I have strayed here. The basic message is that Federal law does supercede State law.

 

[Gunny]

The problem is that the alchohol and tobacco industries have very powerful lobbies, so they will never be illegal. Marijuana does not have a power lobby. If it did, it would be legalized tomorrow.

That's because anyone that might lobby for pot usually has the munchies and is looking for some donuts or something ....

 

[Angel Heart]

The problem is that the alcohol and tobacco industries have very powerful lobbies, so they will never be illegal. Marijuana does not have a power lobby. If it did, it would be legalized tomorrow.

Exactly why this has to be a 'grassroots' (pun intended) lobbying.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately I have to agree. A state can legalize marijuana, but the Feds will still be able to arrest users and dealers.

In MA, same-sex marriage is legal. The only way to supercede that is to add an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. And that is why dipshits like Senator Sam Brownback try and create a Federal outline because the people of MA have already spoken, we are for same-sex marriage.

And before you start in on the whole Judges legislating from the bench thing, Mitt Romney tried to showboat and demand that the question be put to the ballot in the (then) upcoming state election. The people shot that down. We signed petitions and contacted our legislators in droves to let them know that it would be unethical to vote on a ruling based on bigotry.

And again, we won.

But I have strayed here. The basic message is that Federal law does supercede State law.

Also itis a misnomer to equate the marriage debate to bigotry alone. And I think the people of Massachusetts are wrong about that if they refused to allow the people to vote based on that assumption.

 

[Taomon]

That's because anyone that might lobby for pot usually has the munchies and is looking for some donuts or something ....

Or forget what they are lobbying for.

 

[Taomon]

Exactly why this has to be a 'grassroots' (pun intended) lobbying.

That has a good ring to it...Grassroots movement.

 

[Taomon]

Also itis a misnomer to equate the marriage debate to bigotry alone. And I think the people of Massachusetts are wrong about that if they refused to allow the people to vote based on that assumption.

No not really, would it be ethical to vote whether or not we should revoke the ban on slavery? Would it be ethical to vote on whether we should instill interim camps for Muslims?

We are talking about voting whether or not a group of people should be treated differently than the rest of us, and that is the very definition of discrimination.

 

[Steerpike]

The argue about supremacy of law is missing something important - the legitimacy of the purported government power.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal law trumps State law to the extent the federal government is acting within Constitutionally-provided authority. If they are outside of that, then under the Constitution, the States are given the power to regulate and the federal government is not supposed to be able to intrude on that.

The federal government claims most of its power through the Commerce Clause, though the Supreme Court has finally, in the last decade or so, shown a willingness to actually review federal powers claimed under the Commerce Clause rather than just rubber-stamping them.

To the extent medical marijuana within a State affects interstate commerce, arguably the federal government has the authority to regulate it. Outside of that, though, the State is supposed to have the authority under the Constitution and its laws would trump any unconstitutional federal law on the issue.

If the source of marijuana was wholly intra-state, and if all the use was intra-state, then the State's argument becomes stronger, although even in that case you could put a good argument together for extension of federal powers under the Commerce Clause.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The argue about supremacy of law is missing something important - the legitimacy of the purported government power.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal law trumps State law to the extent the federal government is acting within Constitutionally-provided authority. If they are outside of that, then under the Constitution, the States are given the power to regulate and the federal government is not supposed to be able to intrude on that.

The federal government claims most of its power through the Commerce Clause, though the Supreme Court has finally, in the last decade or so, shown a willingness to actually review federal powers claimed under the Commerce Clause rather than just rubber-stamping them.

To the extent medical marijuana within a State affects interstate commerce, arguably the federal government has the authority to regulate it. Outside of that, though, the State is supposed to have the authority under the Constitution and its laws would trump any unconstitutional federal law on the issue.

If the source of marijuana was wholly intra-state, and if all the use was intra-state, then the State's argument becomes stronger, although even in that case you could put a good argument together for extension of federal powers under the Commerce Clause.

Not true. The Federal Government regulates ALL "medical" substances, this would INCLUDE illegal types. Has nothing to do with intra or Inter at all.

Using your claim, if I manufacture Crack in my house and it is from materials only obtained IN State, the Federal Government has no authority to arrest or try me. That is simply not true.

If I were a medical Company if I made some medical compound, drug, what ever from only sources inside my State and only sold it INSIDE my state, the FDA would, according to you, have no authority to regulate it at all.

 

[Steerpike]

Retired:

Re-read the last sentence of my last post. It really helps if you actually read what someone says before you respond to it and (inaccurately) restate it.

 

[Steerpike]

By the way, Retired...

I looked up a CNN news story on the Supreme Court decision that allows federal prosecution of doctors prescribing medical marijuana. Here's an excerpt:

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

...

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."

But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.

Now why do you think the Supreme Court focused on Interstate Commerce, and why do you think the Justice Department and defense attorneys focused on it, if as you say it has nothing to do with inter or intra?

Because you're wrong, that's why.

 

[Gunny]

No not really, would it be ethical to vote whether or not we should revoke the ban on slavery? Would it be ethical to vote on whether we should instill interim camps for Muslims?

We are talking about voting whether or not a group of people should be treated differently than the rest of us, and that is the very definition of discrimination.

In a true democracy, yes it would be ethical to allow people to vote on issues. The government is supposed to represent the will of the people, and the laws the government makes are supposed to express that will.

You have your facts backwards. What you are voting on is whether or not to create a special set of laws that applies solely to an abberant minority that is defined by its sexual behavior. Homosexuas currently have every right that every other US citizen has.

That is the very definition of allowing the will of the minority to tyrannize the will of the majority. Hardly a democratic principle.

 

[Foxfyre]

No not really, would it be ethical to vote whether or not we should revoke the ban on slavery? Would it be ethical to vote on whether we should instill interim camps for Muslims?

We are talking about voting whether or not a group of people should be treated differently than the rest of us, and that is the very definition of discrimination.

Exactly. And to allow gays to 'marry' in the definition of the word as it is in 49 states and federally is to treat gays differently. Right now gays have 100% equal rights with all other people. If of legal age and unmarried, a gay person can marry any unmarried person of legal age willing to marry him/her provided the other person is of the opposite sex. That law applies to everybody, black, white, polka dot, tall, short, medium, gay, straight, or anything in between. So the issue doesn't involve gays at all. The issue involves whether gays or straights of the same sex can marry. To allow that would so change the definition of marriage as to render it something entirely different from what it now is.

Far better to add a provision for civil union--call it anything anybody wants to call it--so that ANYBODY--straight gay, tall, short, fat, thin etc. etc. etc.--who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry can form themselves into legally recognized family groups with right of inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. Any who wanted to could add a religious ceremony but it would not be a requirement any more than that is a requirement for marriage.

Likewise in the issue of medical marijuana, the feds do need to deal with that and soon to make the law uniform for everybody. If it is legalized as a prescription drug, then doctors could prescribe it as the doctors deem necessary, and any who procure and use it illegally would be subject to arrest and prosecution as they are in illegal use of any prescription drug. All that would be necessary is for the FDA to authorize marijuana as a prescription drug.

As for those who want to use it recreationally, that is a different subject and needs to be dealt with at a different level.

Meanwhile, it is entirely just and important that employers be able to deny use of ANY substance, legal or illegal, that can impair judgment or reflexes on the job.

 

[Shogun]

Didn't make rational sense to me back then. Did it make rational sense to you? I wasn't talking about 'back then', however. I am talking about rational common sense now.

Again, according to WHOME? You or William Joyce? Me or R"Cockface"GS? I pointed out a stark difference in opinions then and now to illustrate the varied degrees of opinion that are no less prevelant now than they were then.



I wasn't referring to actor roles in this context. I was referring to real life. Let's keep some focus please.

Real life? Are you telling me it wasn't real life to choose to paint whites up in blackface as an accepted COMMON SENSE? Indeed, please stay focused. I'm not dousing you with bullshit here. You said a standard should be COMMON SENSE and I'm asking you whose opinion do we consider COMMON?



But the employer has no way to know if the employee is smoking or snorting or shooting up or imbibing on or off the job so if they flunk a drug test, that should be it. If you work in HR (as I have also) then you know that many employers require a mandatory drug test following every on the job accident. And many employers also require random drug tests to enforce no 'controlled substances' policies. Anybody who goes to work for these companies knows the risks, and if they are stupid enough to engage in controlled substances anywhere that will show up on a drug test later, they are probably too dumb to work there anyway.


If the drug test could PROVE inebration related to jub function then I'd agree. But, since a drug test CANNOT indicate inebriation like a breathalizer can with alcohol I am inclined to disagree. Should I be able to fire you because you like poppy seeds and I, as your employer, don't know if you enjoy opium or not?

Indeed, the post-accident test makes sense since it is a necessity of their work comp insurance. BUT, you are no more a hazard to business by smoking a joint 30 days ago than you are drinking a case of beer over memorial day weekend. Indeed, assuming that people who smoke pot are too stupid to work somewhere probably conveys a thing or two about your own cognitive ability.




Yup, but lets focus on what is actually being said here, and concentrate on work policies as that seems to be the intention of the thread.


Sure, and when you can show me how a drug test with a 30 day window of use indicates a job hazard then perhaps I can come to understand how drinking a 5th of jack over labor day makes me a work hazard on monday morning.

 

[Shogun]

Right because their lives or those of their coworkers can depend on them not having impaired judgment or unusually slow reflexes. Shogun mentioned birth control pills in his above 'rebuttal' too. I think we can safely eliminate most antibiotics, Alipurinal, birth control pills, or other prescription medications that do NOT impair judgment or slow reflexes from this discussion and agree that we are only talking about those substances that do or can.

And how do you figure? If I am a christian company and only want to hire christians who do not use birth control or, in some jahovas witness sort, use ANY prescribed drugs why can't I use the same rules of my At Will state that are used against stoners?

You and your babykilling behavior don't have to work for me, RIGHT?


How does smoking a joint 30 days ago impair judgment again?

 

[Shogun]

And in certain jobs you are required to tell your supervisors if you're taking any prescription drug that can affect your ability to fuction in that job.

That means codeine cough syrup, decongestants, Ty3 or painkillers, etc.

Can I terminate your employment because your DR prescribed Tylonol 3 or oxycontin for a chronic medical condition? if you develop cancer can I term you because your treatment shows up on a drug test 30 days after application?

 

[Foxfyre]

And how do you figure? If I am a christian company and only want to hire christians who do not use birth control or, in some jahovas witness sort, use ANY prescribed drugs why can't I use the same rules of my At Will state that are used against stoners?

You and your babykilling behavior don't have to work for me, RIGHT?


How does smoking a joint 30 days ago impair judgment again?

A person being or not being a Christian nor one's opinions on abortion does not affect the health of the business nor the welfare of his/her coworkers in any material way. Therefore to use those for comparison to drug use is a huge red herring.

Smoking a joint 30 days ago probably doesn't impair your judgment or reaction time. Sneaking a joint or three 3 hours ago could; ergo the zero tolerance policy enforced by many employers. If you think you might flunk the pre-employment drug test, its best to wait more than 30 days before you take a pre-employment drug test. If that isn't possible, fess up and state you've been clean for 30 days and offer to retake the test a short time later if you test positive. If you're convincing you might get a break. If not, you will likely be out of luck.

My son works in an industry in which good judgment and rapid reflexes can mean the difference between a safe environment and serious injury/death for several to dozens or hundreds of employees. In New Mexico a few years ago a freight train blew a stop sign and plowed into another maiming, killing, and injuring dozens. The engineer, who was killed, tested significantly positive for marijuana. You don't want the guy running the crane on a construction project or flying the airplane you're riding in or sharing the freeway with you or balancing on a walkway 30 floors up being high on anything.

A zero tolerance policy is both reasonable and makes sense for all concerned. If you don't like it, then work for somebody who doesn't care. The Supreme Court got it right.

 

[Steerpike]

Exactly. And to allow gays to 'marry' in the definition of the word as it is in 49 states and federally is to treat gays differently. Right now gays have 100% equal rights with all other people. If of legal age and unmarried, a gay person can marry any unmarried person of legal age willing to marry him/her provided the other person is of the opposite sex.

That's a bad argument, Foxfyre. If your own argument that right now gays are treated equally is true, then the very same will be true if you legalize gay marriage because any two people of the same sex, whether "black, white, polka dot, tall, short, medium, gay, straight, or anything in between" would still be equal under that law. It's exactly the same argument whether you have gay marriage or don't, so if you are opposed to it you need a better one.