Some sanity in the politics of drugs.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

What part of using MJ being against federal law don't you understand.

No part, what part of my response makes you think I don't understand that fact? What part of my response makes you think my opinion hinges on legality at any level when I explicitly say the exact opposite?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As it should be. Should be able to fire people who smoke and drink too if you like.

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

The only problem here is that this decision, AFAIK, is based entirely on the federal legality of the substance. IOW, it is baseless once the federal law is gone.

It might be the correct decision but based off the wrong reasoning which WILL mean the decision is moot once the federal law is finally changed. That represents, IMHO, a step BACKWARDS. I do not see something like this repeating once the federal law is canned.

This is true.

 

[TooTall]

It has always been OK to fire someone who comes to work under the influence if alcohol. I don't think a hangover qualifies. Since I don't do pot, I don't know how long the mind altering high lasts.

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

What part of using MJ being against federal law don't you understand.

I would venture a guess as the part where the federal government has chosen to not enforce those laws in states where the local law has legalized it.

I would think that you would support this concept considering that the federal government really should not have purview here - those states have declared it legal.

A lot of states declared slavery legal many years ago. How did that work out?

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not referring to somebody who shows up to work drunk; I'm talking about somebody who shows up sober to work but drinks in their free time.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

What part of using MJ being against federal law don't you understand.

I would venture a guess as the part where the federal government has chosen to not enforce those laws in states where the local law has legalized it.

I would think that you would support this concept considering that the federal government really should not have purview here - those states have declared it legal.

A lot of states declared slavery legal many years ago. How did that work out?

And? You don't seem to have a point here.

I can point directly to the part of the constitution that makes slavery illegal and that trumps states rights. Unless you are advocating that there is going to be an amendment proposed to make MJ illegal your 'point' is nothing more than a deflection.

I had thought that you were one of those on the board that backed states rights. If I am incorrect simply say you do not think there are states rights. If i am correct then your backing only goes so far as you agree with the law in question.

 

[TooTall]

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not against Federal or State law. Using MJ is.

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

What part of using MJ being against federal law don't you understand.

I would venture a guess as the part where the federal government has chosen to not enforce those laws in states where the local law has legalized it.

I would think that you would support this concept considering that the federal government really should not have purview here - those states have declared it legal.

A lot of states declared slavery legal many years ago. How did that work out?

And? You don't seem to have a point here.

I can point directly to the part of the constitution that makes slavery illegal and that trumps states rights. Unless you are advocating that there is going to be an amendment proposed to make MJ illegal your 'point' is nothing more than a deflection.

I had thought that you were one of those on the board that backed states rights. If I am incorrect simply say you do not think there are states rights. If i am correct then your backing only goes so far as you agree with the law in question.

A judge ruled that a person can be fired for violating a federal law. Until the federal law that makes using MJ illegal is repealed, it is a violation of the law to use it. The States cannot change the federal law.
Did you ever hear of the Missouri compromise?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Maybe some of our more seasoned tokers can explain how long thc stays in the body. I have no problem with private business testing for drugs and alcohol. Theyre protecting their interests. However, a test needs to be developed, other than the one that shows thc in the body, in terms of how intoxicated one is on marijuana.

*Edit: Misread post.

The "high" lasts 2-6 hours. THC dissolves in your body's fat and is slowly metabolized over 30 or so days (during which time you will fail a urine test), depending on a number of factors such as body fat, etc.

 

[FA_Q2]

Marijuana is legal according to some state laws, however, and yet this state is saying that it's ok for employers to fire you based on your ingesting a legal substance. Furthermore, legality says nothing about what's right and what isn't. Alcohol is every bit as harmful as marijuana at the very least, regardless of whether it's legal.

What part of using MJ being against federal law don't you understand.

I would venture a guess as the part where the federal government has chosen to not enforce those laws in states where the local law has legalized it.

I would think that you would support this concept considering that the federal government really should not have purview here - those states have declared it legal.

A lot of states declared slavery legal many years ago. How did that work out?

And? You don't seem to have a point here.

I can point directly to the part of the constitution that makes slavery illegal and that trumps states rights. Unless you are advocating that there is going to be an amendment proposed to make MJ illegal your 'point' is nothing more than a deflection.

I had thought that you were one of those on the board that backed states rights. If I am incorrect simply say you do not think there are states rights. If i am correct then your backing only goes so far as you agree with the law in question.

A judge ruled that a person can be fired for violating a federal law. Until the federal law that makes using MJ illegal is repealed, it is a violation of the law to use it. The States cannot change the federal law.
Did you ever hear of the Missouri compromise?

A simple no, you do not support state's rights would have worked.

 

[TooTall]

What part of using MJ being against federal law don't you understand.

I would venture a guess as the part where the federal government has chosen to not enforce those laws in states where the local law has legalized it.

I would think that you would support this concept considering that the federal government really should not have purview here - those states have declared it legal.

A lot of states declared slavery legal many years ago. How did that work out?

And? You don't seem to have a point here.

I can point directly to the part of the constitution that makes slavery illegal and that trumps states rights. Unless you are advocating that there is going to be an amendment proposed to make MJ illegal your 'point' is nothing more than a deflection.

I had thought that you were one of those on the board that backed states rights. If I am incorrect simply say you do not think there are states rights. If i am correct then your backing only goes so far as you agree with the law in question.

A judge ruled that a person can be fired for violating a federal law. Until the federal law that makes using MJ illegal is repealed, it is a violation of the law to use it. The States cannot change the federal law.
Did you ever hear of the Missouri compromise?

A simple no, you do not support state's rights would have worked.

I support States rights, but that does not mean a state can invalidate a federal law.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would venture a guess as the part where the federal government has chosen to not enforce those laws in states where the local law has legalized it.

I would think that you would support this concept considering that the federal government really should not have purview here - those states have declared it legal.

A lot of states declared slavery legal many years ago. How did that work out?

And? You don't seem to have a point here.

I can point directly to the part of the constitution that makes slavery illegal and that trumps states rights. Unless you are advocating that there is going to be an amendment proposed to make MJ illegal your 'point' is nothing more than a deflection.

I had thought that you were one of those on the board that backed states rights. If I am incorrect simply say you do not think there are states rights. If i am correct then your backing only goes so far as you agree with the law in question.

A judge ruled that a person can be fired for violating a federal law. Until the federal law that makes using MJ illegal is repealed, it is a violation of the law to use it. The States cannot change the federal law.
Did you ever hear of the Missouri compromise?

A simple no, you do not support state's rights would have worked.

I support States rights, but that does not mean a state can invalidate a federal law.

Then what do states rights mean?

 

[TooTall]

A lot of states declared slavery legal many years ago. How did that work out?

And? You don't seem to have a point here.

I can point directly to the part of the constitution that makes slavery illegal and that trumps states rights. Unless you are advocating that there is going to be an amendment proposed to make MJ illegal your 'point' is nothing more than a deflection.

I had thought that you were one of those on the board that backed states rights. If I am incorrect simply say you do not think there are states rights. If i am correct then your backing only goes so far as you agree with the law in question.

A judge ruled that a person can be fired for violating a federal law. Until the federal law that makes using MJ illegal is repealed, it is a violation of the law to use it. The States cannot change the federal law.
Did you ever hear of the Missouri compromise?

A simple no, you do not support state's rights would have worked.

I support States rights, but that does not mean a state can invalidate a federal law.

Then what do states rights mean?

The Tenth Amendment defines it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And? You don't seem to have a point here.

I can point directly to the part of the constitution that makes slavery illegal and that trumps states rights. Unless you are advocating that there is going to be an amendment proposed to make MJ illegal your 'point' is nothing more than a deflection.

I had thought that you were one of those on the board that backed states rights. If I am incorrect simply say you do not think there are states rights. If i am correct then your backing only goes so far as you agree with the law in question.

A judge ruled that a person can be fired for violating a federal law. Until the federal law that makes using MJ illegal is repealed, it is a violation of the law to use it. The States cannot change the federal law.
Did you ever hear of the Missouri compromise?

A simple no, you do not support state's rights would have worked.

I support States rights, but that does not mean a state can invalidate a federal law.

Then what do states rights mean?

The Tenth Amendment defines it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So then the power of nullification which is not prohibited to the states in the Constitution.

 

[TooTall]

A judge ruled that a person can be fired for violating a federal law. Until the federal law that makes using MJ illegal is repealed, it is a violation of the law to use it. The States cannot change the federal law.
Did you ever hear of the Missouri compromise?

A simple no, you do not support state's rights would have worked.

I support States rights, but that does not mean a state can invalidate a federal law.

Then what do states rights mean?

The Tenth Amendment defines it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So then the power of nullification which is not prohibited to the states in the Constitution.

The problem is the conflict between federal and state law on the legalization of MJ. The Judicial has the Constitutional duty to settle disputes between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, etc., etc. This is what the Judge ruled on and if the state wants to nullify the federal law, they can file suit in a federal court. In the meantime, it is against a federal law to use MJ and that is the end of this discussion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A simple no, you do not support state's rights would have worked.

I support States rights, but that does not mean a state can invalidate a federal law.

Then what do states rights mean?

The Tenth Amendment defines it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So then the power of nullification which is not prohibited to the states in the Constitution.

The problem is the conflict between federal and state law on the legalization of MJ. The Judicial has the Constitutional duty to settle disputes between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, etc., etc. This is what the Judge ruled on and if the state wants to nullify the federal law, they can file suit in a federal court. In the meantime, it is against a federal law to use MJ and that is the end of this discussion.

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

 

[FA_Q2]

I support States rights, but that does not mean a state can invalidate a federal law.

Then what do states rights mean?

The Tenth Amendment defines it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So then the power of nullification which is not prohibited to the states in the Constitution.

The problem is the conflict between federal and state law on the legalization of MJ. The Judicial has the Constitutional duty to settle disputes between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, etc., etc. This is what the Judge ruled on and if the state wants to nullify the federal law, they can file suit in a federal court. In the meantime, it is against a federal law to use MJ and that is the end of this discussion.

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

And it is working.

 

[TooTall]

I support States rights, but that does not mean a state can invalidate a federal law.

Then what do states rights mean?

The Tenth Amendment defines it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So then the power of nullification which is not prohibited to the states in the Constitution.

The problem is the conflict between federal and state law on the legalization of MJ. The Judicial has the Constitutional duty to settle disputes between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, etc., etc. This is what the Judge ruled on and if the state wants to nullify the federal law, they can file suit in a federal court. In the meantime, it is against a federal law to use MJ and that is the end of this discussion.

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

One Judge did not ignore the federal law and that is why we are having this discussion. If a person ignores the federal law and smokes dope, he/she may get fired from their job.

 

[FA_Q2]

And that is ultimately irrelevant. Pot laws are not enforced by in 2 states.

NOT ENFORCED.

The states are doing away with the federal law. This time the feds are complicit and that is why it is going away so readily and easily.

 

[Katzndogz]

If someone can be fired for drinking or smoking cigarettes they can be fired for drug use.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then what do states rights mean?

The Tenth Amendment defines it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So then the power of nullification which is not prohibited to the states in the Constitution.

The problem is the conflict between federal and state law on the legalization of MJ. The Judicial has the Constitutional duty to settle disputes between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, etc., etc. This is what the Judge ruled on and if the state wants to nullify the federal law, they can file suit in a federal court. In the meantime, it is against a federal law to use MJ and that is the end of this discussion.

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

One Judge did not ignore the federal law and that is why we are having this discussion. If a person ignores the federal law and smokes dope, he/she may get fired from their job.

And the rest of the state has.

 

[guno]

User is a Quadriplegic.
User had Medical Marijuana.
User was not stoned at work.

Even if yer an anti Marijuana Zealot like the OP, you still shouldn't be happy with this decision.

User is a Quadriplegic.
User had Medical Marijuana

Something the op conveniently left out of his post

 

[TooTall]

And that is ultimately irrelevant. Pot laws are not enforced by in 2 states.

NOT ENFORCED.

The states are doing away with the federal law. This time the feds are complicit and that is why it is going away so readily and easily.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can be fired if you use MJ.