http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402163.html?hpid=sec-health

It kind of sucks for this guy. he gets fired for using prescription marijuana. this is my only take on the matter...would the same company fire some one for using a different prescription drug that fucks you up way worse like oxycotton?

1/25/2008 11:36:24 AM

according to GrumpyGOP

I have to post in this thread

1/25/2008 11:39:57 AM

just another example of hypocricy in the "war on drugs"

In our current state, it doesn't matter what proven health benefits stigmatic drugs have, they will always be shown in a negative light

Quote :

"would the same company fire some one for using a different prescription drug that fucks you up way worse like oxycotton"

a better question is, would he have been fired for taking marinol? basically the same thing chemically, just in government sanctioned pill form....

1/25/2008 11:45:53 AM

true....yeah its pretty fucked up

1/25/2008 11:49:48 AM

Quote :

"But the company fired him, arguing that drug use was illegal under federal law........"No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law, even for medical users," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the majority."

Quote :

"But while federal criminal law still bars marijuana across the board, employers would not necessarily run afoul of federal law by employing people who use marijuana away from work, said Noel Ragsdale, an expert on employment law at the University of Southern California."

there's no easy answer here, except that the federal ban is stupid, and is the fundamental root of this conflict

employers should be able to fire you for just about whatever they want, but I must admit, this is stupid

if someone comes to work so drunk or high that their performance is obviously affected, then boom: "you're fired"

but this is more about this particular company's drug bigotry (and possible civil liability)
(the compassionate use act is for criminal, not civil law)

I agree with the guy who got fired:

Quote :

"What we're fighting here is the stigma of the history of the '60s against the elderly generation that's in power."

1/25/2008 11:54:00 AM

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3752777n

1/25/2008 4:32:09 PM

who cares that an employee works really hard, is never late to work, puts in 110% effort, has a Masters in (insert field here); if he smokes pot he's a bad person drugs are bad so lets fire him .
Meanwhile one of the guys co-workers goes home and beats his wife every night, and another guy is a raging alcoholic.

1/25/2008 4:43:24 PM

eh, if the company has a drug free policy and the guy tests positive they should have every right to fire him. Imagine if he is in a salaried position where they may need to call him up in some sort of emergency and he is high as a kite when they call. This guy was working for a professional firm, not some burger joint. Not to mention marijuana is still illegal despite what the California lawmakers say....

1/25/2008 6:14:06 PM

What's wrong with firing someone because his or her on-the-job performance is below standards? I don't think an employer has any right to know what I do in my spare-time off of work. Employers don't ask how frequently their employees drink or what specific brands of liquor are consumed. If an employee shows up to work drunk or misses work due to a hangover, they are fired due to their poor performance at work.

The same should apply towards marijuana. If consumption begins to become a detriment to one's employment, that employee should be reprimanded due to the quality of his or her work - not in anticipation of said behavior.

1/25/2008 6:28:05 PM

i support the company's right to fire, but also sympathise with the guy. Mary Jane is a much better alternative than a lot of pain medications out there that are highly addictive.

1/25/2008 6:29:56 PM

well the difference is his DOCTOR recommended it.

your hypothetical situation could also go


"call him up in some sort of emergency and he is..."

- sedated from his perscription ambien
- doped up on oxycontin prescribed for chronic back pain
- drunk from going to the bar with his buddies.

all three of those are reasonable and possible scenarios where someone would be too under the influence to make responsible decisions during an emergency. So are they going to fire all drinkers or anyone prescribed to pscyho actives for any other medical purpose??

1/25/2008 6:31:53 PM

Quote :

"What's wrong with firing someone because his or her on-the-job performance is below standards? I don't think an employer has any right to know what I do in my spare-time off of work. Employers don't ask how frequently their employees drink or what specific brands of liquor are consumed. If an employee shows up to work drunk or misses work due to a hangover, they are fired due to their poor performance at work. "

my first sentence was meant to be sarcastic.

1/25/2008 6:32:53 PM

I wasn't really directing that at anyone. Sorry for the confusion.

1/25/2008 8:57:37 PM