[CNN] Medical marijuana users risk job loss

As fair warning. I realize 'mind-altering substances' are a violation of TOS. I have emailed the staff about this particulr kind of issue with no reply...

So Here goes. I hope you can all look passed the drug prejudice to see what's really going on here.

www.cnn.com...

To date, 14 states have laws allowing the use of medical marijuana, which shield legal users from criminalization but don't protect them from them penalties enforced by their employers. As more people are being prescribed marijuana across the nation, they are wrestling with a caveat: They could be fired.

As I understand it, the law requiring companies to screen potential and current employees is a federal one. Which blatantly violates an individuals right to privacy.

So the privacy issue aside. How can a business operating in a state, ignore state law on prescribed cannabis? This truthfully should be no different than an employee testing with Opiates and having a valid prescripton.

So long as the person is not partaking while at work unless required by a doctor.

In this sense, I ask you to just replace all the cannabis words with 'prescription'. Which it is. And I ask you to form your basis from there if you can.

Michigan is an at-will employment state, which means employers can terminate a worker for any reason except for being in a federally protected class such as race, gender and religion.

Just to reiterate. I thought my right to privacy was federally protected? Mentioned in both the US and State Constitutions.

It's because we need to put an end to the demonization of this particular plant species. It is ridiculous, and time to move on.

That's all i can say. It just grinds my gears!

[edit on 24-3-2010 by elcapitano75]

reply to post by elcapitano75


I just don't understand how it's quite legal if your employer can fire you for it being illegal.

And if you read the article..

In 2008, the California Supreme Court backed up employers, ruling a private company could fire an Air Force veteran whose doctor prescribed him marijuana for his chronic and disabling back pain.

If this was any other prescription it would read.

In 2008. the California Supreme Court upheld that employers may fire individuals for using prescription medications.

I find it odd that the staff here is so hostile against Medical Cannabis.

Nowhere in the rules paragraph at the top of this forum have any of the words "Medical", "medicine", "health"...

They lock such medical threads when in reality it is not against the rules.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by jjjtir]

reply to post by jjjtir


I think it stems from a confusion of terms. This thread is not advocating the illicit use of cannabis as a mind-altering substance.

Rather that it has legitimate medical, theraputic values that somehow demonize your right to privacy.

Oxycontin and Fentanyl are far stronger than illegal versions of opiates. But those are generally okay in a drug test with a valid prescription.

reply to post by mryanbrown


And medical cannabis is as legitimate a conspiracy as most of the threads discussed here.

There is proof of that.

A poll made with hundreds of doctors and physicians published in the peer reviewed journal "Annals of Internal Medicine" showed that a large number would prescribe cannabis to cancer patients if it was not illegal.

Doctors WANT to prescribe, but the DEA is forcing their hands.

reply to post by mryanbrown

As I understand it, the law requiring companies to screen potential and current employees is a federal one. Which blatantly violates an individuals right to privacy.

Show me where in the constitution you are given the right to privacy? If that were so we would not even have to fill out job applications.

How can a business operating in a state, ignore state law on prescribed cannabis?

Easy, they just write a company policy that says "do not hire people who use pot". Hospitals and slowly more places will no longer hire tobacco smokers and you do not even need a prescription for that.

Just to reiterate. I thought my right to privacy was federally protected? Mentioned in both the US and State Constitutions.

No. You are protected against unreasonable search from the government and state nowhere does it say anything about privacy.

We may find out what happens if marijuana get legalized.

www.latimes.com...

What would happen to drug testing for marijuana if they legalized it.
How could they tell if you were under the influence or had smoked it a week before.

reply to post by zaiger


Arizona

8. Right to privacy

Section 8. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

Literally, WHATEVER you do in private is no one elses business w/o dun dun dun.....

Due process of law.

Maybe I'm wrong. But when I read it. To me it clearly states....

No one may force you to reveal your personal business. And to refuse to hire someone for not disclosing their personal affairs to me, is quite unconstitutional.

If someone has an accident at work, granted you should be within your right as a company to test to ensure no intoxication while on the job.

However testing for say cannabis. Will NEVER be accurate as to when it was consumed.

So if you want to fire someone, fire them for nothing, or for a valid reason.

Not for what they do in their privacy.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by mryanbrown


www.azleg.gov...
check out Article 14 Drug Testing of Employees

23-493.04. Testing policy requirements

A. Testing or retesting for the presence of drugs or alcohol by an employer shall be carried out within the terms of a written policy that has been distributed to every employee subject to testing or that has been made available to employees in the same manner as the employer informs its employees of other personnel practices, including inclusion in a personnel handbook or manual or posting in a place accessible to employees

Yeah they can drug test in arizona too. When you walk into a place for employment and ask to work there for them you are not being disturbed in your private affairs.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by zaiger]

[edit on 25-3-2010 by zaiger]

reply to post by zaiger


Read the context. You may test an employee. No where in there does it state you may test for potential employees? Just that once a person has accepted the policies by beocming an employee, then they are bound to them as they are contractual.

However until you are an employee. Your privacy is your privacy.

People will jump and shout, then don't apply.

So my question immediately to that is. What if EVERYONE drug tested pre-employment.

Then those who have a valid medical necessity, would be discriminated against and unable to obtian employment.

So If you can't obtian employment due to your medical nature, may you collect SSI?

[edit on 25-3-2010 by mryanbrown]

Sidenote, the ARS statute, is granted authority under federal drug testing policies. Which are only applicable to those with a SSN. (Some of you know what I mean by this)

[edit on 25-3-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by mryanbrown

23-493.01. Collection of samples

A. In order to test reliably for the presence of drugs, an employer may require samples from its employees and prospective employees and may require presentation of reliable individual identification from the person being tested to the person collecting the samples. Collection of the sample shall conform to the requirements of this article. The employer may designate the type of sample to be used for this testing.

23-493. Definitions

6. "Prospective employee" means any person who has made application to any employer, whether written or oral, to become an employee.

Yeah they can drug test those people too

reply to post by zaiger


Well I didnt want to but.

Those STATUTES are granted authority under the federal drug policy guidelines for employers. Which are only applicable to employees with a SSN.

Let's take my unique example for a moment.

I got rid of my SSN. I am no longer bound to federal statutes requiring testing. So the "may" clause of testing which is only applicable to users with a SSN is no longer applicable to me.

And as those statutes are not applicable to me, what is applicable defaults to the state Constitution. Which recognizes my right to privacy.

But I ask again....

WHAT IF EVERYONE required testing. Then people with legitimate prescriptions would be unable to work. Or make a choice not to use their medication...

Seems like such a fair and reasonable law to me...

[edit on 25-3-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by mryanbrown

I got rid of my SSN. I am no longer bound to federal statutes requiring testing. So the "may" clause of testing which is only applicable to users with a SSN is no longer applicable to me.

Im not sure where you got the information that federal statutes no longer apply to you because you no longer use a ssn.

reply to post by zaiger


Certain ones don't.

Stop derailing.

reply to post by mryanbrown


You keep bringing false information and claims to the board and im derailing?
The topic is medical marijuana useres risk job loss, im saying they do and employers have the right to drug test their people.
You bring "facts" out of la la land and ask me to stop derailing?

Originally posted by ANNED
How could they tell if you were under the influence or had smoked it a week before.

Actually test for the cannabinoids themselves and not the metabolites they create in our bodies.

And I agree with the OP. Medical cannabis should be treated no differently than lawfully perscribed opiates.

reply to post by mryanbrown


I cant speak for other states but in Michigan, medicinal marijuana is NOT prescribed by a doctor, only recommended. When a doctor recommends you as a MM candidate, you fill out the proper paper work from the state, get your doctors signature and you are allowed to possess and use a limited amount.

Because it is not prescribed, it does not fall under normal drug testing exceptions. ie. people using vicoden or other opiate based pain killers can use their prescription as a justifiable reason to drop dirty for opiates.
While it may seem unfair that this individual was fired because of this law, they were operating correctly under the law with regards to his termination. Now its up to an employer if they choose to make an exception but it is not required under the law.