lettuce goes with the "chink" race card again, ...you asshat.

and Mitch, thanks for posting, but who gives a shit if you supprt unions or not. i don't. but since you asked... yes!

I have a few questions...

If walmart didn't fire the guy, after he tested positive, what would happen if he hurt someone?

If he came to work stoned and someone got hurt... how many on here would think that walmart should have to pay for damages?

If he came to work and WASN'T stoned, AT THE MOMENT he had an accident, what would the dr jury say about walmart's guilt?

Personally, I can here it now... "they knew he was stoned, and let him drive a fork-lift... now my baby is dead... walmart owes me a gazillion bucks for not preventing this".

Anyone want to bet that some bottom-feeding lawyer wouldn't file the lawsuit before they had even gotten the blood washed off the sidewalks?

Libertarians are for decriminalization of drugs and personal freedom.

Are you one of those ashamed Bush voter like the rest who call themselves "Libertarians" nowadays?

Nope... but unless you also remove the LIABILITY to walmart from having a pothead on the payroll, then you are just inviting the company to be RAPED by lawyers.

And if you can get that past the party of lawyers, more power to you.

Dude, the guy's a CANCER PATIENT

Drugs don't effect people in pain the same way they do healthy people.

And, you're supposed to be a "Libertarian".

OK, so you're really an ashamed Bush voter and libertarian in name only. NP

I've known Libertarians. Libertarians are friends of mine. You, 1Libertarian are no libertarian.

You, sir, probably don't have any friends, libertarian or otherwise.

You want to smoke pot. I say FINE... smokem if ya got em. I don't give a ratfuck what you do.

You say walmart shouldn't be able to fire potheads... and I point out that you would need to change to laws to remove walmart's liabilities, or that the conflicting laws will put them out of business.

Instead of attacking the point that walmart would be responsible for damages from the pothead, you attack me for not being a libertarian? How fucking stupid.

I don't care what you do... but your freedom to smoke pot should end if it harms your employer. Either remove the harm, or remove the pothead. Walmart can't remove the potential harm, so they fired the pothead. Best business decision they have available. Also about the only valid decision based on the current laws. Don't like it, then fix the damn laws.

Make pot legal, and hold the business harmless if some fucking pothead kills himself, or kills someone else. Put up a big sign at the border that warns people "FUCKING POTHEADS LIVE AND WORK HERE... ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK."

Making pot legal, but leaving the business responsible for the pothead's actions while at work is like the don't ask, don't tell bullshit. It is a measure that is sure to cause NO ONE to be happy. As long as business is liable for what you do while their employee, they MUST have the right to protect their interests.

You don't 'know' anything. About cancer patients either.

The 'You, sir...' is a dead giveaway to your being a conservative talk radio head.

Nice try. :-)

Dude, the guy's a CANCER PATIENT

OK. So fucking what? In CA they get pot for a droopy dick or whatever reason pops into their already smoked-out brains. Easy to find 1 person who might have a valid reason to want pot and use it to paint everyone with the same brush. That is as poor a logic as saying 'some guy is a rapist, so all guys are' or 'some girl lied about being rape, so all claims are fake.'

Drugs don't effect people in pain the same way they do healthy people.

Again, so fucking what? Would you risk EVERYTHING you own to start a business and then be told that you couldn't fire someone whose behaviour could cost you your business? Can you tell me that his (or the next 10,000 walmart pot-smokers) smoking pot COULD NEVER, in ANY circumstances, create a liability to walmart?

And, you're supposed to be a "Libertarian".

And you are supposed to be seeking UNITY...

OK, so you're really an ashamed Bush voter and libertarian in name only. NP

#6 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Nope, I was HAPPY to vote for BUSH, as the lesser of 2 evils each time. I could not force myself to vote for McCain. I just got tired, year after year, of always voting for the guy that was the LEAST socialist / communist / whack-job. Decided to work from the outside, see if I could make any difference. [and the answer is, probably not].

Unity...

You said 'you, libertarian...' and I followed with 'you, sir...'.

Not a talking point. I know, easy to try and dismiss anyone who is capable of thinking for themselves as some 'robot'. Not true, but think what you will. Roll yourself a fattie and enjoy your unemployment.

Actually trying to hold a discussion is probably not something you have a lot of experience with.

You aren't a libertarian. Just something you like to think you are. Phony libertarian. Why?

If you WERE a libertarian, you'd be saying pot should be legal, and thus the guy's drug test would have been like him testing positive for aspirin, giving WalMart no grounds to dismiss him.

Actually trying to hold a discussion is probably not something you have a lot of experience with.

Oh, I'm good at discussions, but you're horribly misguided and not a libertarian. Just something 'cool' you like to think you are.

I've known libertarians for decades. You aren't one. Your posts on this topic are a dead giveaway.

Call yourself a 'neo-libertarian' or something like that. You're no more a libertarian than Bush and the drunken spending GOP were 'conservatives'.

A libertarian would NEVER have voted for Bush.

You missed the "Libertarian" candidate on the ballot in 2004 and 2008? Yep. Too many like you like to call yourself 'libertarians' so you can consider yourself cutting edge or something.

Study up on libertarianism and get back to us. You don't know much about where real libertarians stand, and you certainly haven't supported 'libertarians' at the ballot box as you've admitted yourself.

A real libertarian would have posted:

"Marijuana should be legal and this guy should never have been fired. He should sue the shit out of WalMart because he had a prescription and was a cancer patient to boot."

Ok... AU, Glad to know that you are now the official spokesman for all things libertarian. WOW, doctor, lawyer, business expert, voice of GOD and now libertarian expert.

...Phony libertarian. Why?

Phony in whose books? Yours? Pfft. I could call you a phony American (which you might be), or a phony at promoting unity (which also appears to be the case)... but I digress.

If you WERE a libertarian, you'd be saying pot should be legal,

What part of smokem if you got em are you to stoned to understand?

and thus the guy's drug test would have been like him testing positive for aspirin, giving WalMart no grounds to dismiss him.

Only you turn over a forklift and test positive for asprin, they don't sue walmart. What part of YOUR liberties should not impinge on someone else's liberties are you to stupid (or stoned) to understand?

Oh, I'm good at discussions, but you're horribly misguided and not a libertarian. Just something 'cool' you like to think you are.

I don't think... "duuuuuude... puff puff pass" qualifies as discussions.

I've known libertarians for decades. You aren't one. Your posts on this topic are a dead giveaway.

I've known self-indulgent assholes a lot longer than that, and your positions EXACTLY matches.

Call yourself a 'neo-libertarian' or something like that.

Why not call yourself an anti-business liberal? It would be closer to the truth, based on your postings.

A libertarian would NEVER have voted for Bush.

And NO one who wanted any freedoms could have ever voted for Al Whore.

Study up on libertarianism and get back to us.

Sure. You study up on law, business, god, finance, etc. Then this discussion may progress.

You don't know much about where real libertarians stand,

Yes, I have read the websites, the supporting materials, etc. I don't agree 100%, but they are the closest match. You however, no almost nothing about god, law, freedoms, responsibility or any other subject so far as I have been able to determine.

A real libertarian would have posted:

Like you have a fucking clue. Next time you are being banged by one, ask him.

"Marijuana should be legal

I agreed with this part.

and this guy should never have been fired.

Don't agree with this part. If he has a right to smoke, does his employer not have a right to chose WHO they employee? Does he have a RIGHT to a job?

He should sue the shit out of WalMart

Because you are ANTI business. He has a RIGHT to get high, they don't have a right to not have him work there.

because he had a prescription

Which he could have gotten for anything. Cancer might be a legitimate reason for pot. Headache? PMS? Haven't been laid in a week? Where do you draw the line on what is a valid condition?

and was a cancer patient to boot."

Big hairy fucking deal. So his rights to drugs obligate walmart to keep him employed, even if doing so would make them liable for lawsuits.

AU, in your little pretend-libertarian world, if the pothead hurts someone at work through inattention or distraction or whatever, who has to pay?

The pothead? The pothead's dealer? His Employer? People who get hurt by potheads at walmart deserve it cause they shop at walmart?

1Libertarian doesn't have a fucking clue wot a libertarian actually is.

This much is obvious.

Here's a clue, fuckwit...

The core principle of Libertarianism is it's rejection of undue authoritarianism.

You know, ...like in this farking article.

Walmart has no right to fire someone for a legal activity.

1Lib's assessment of the dangers pot smokers pose in the workplace are laughably blown out of proportion here.

People who drink or who work two jobs and suffer from sleep deprivation pose a far greater threat to customer and employee safety.

This guy needs to sue the living shit out of Walmart and Spud hopes he makes a mint.

1Libertarian needs to change his handle.

Be Well.

I think wal-mart should be able to hire and fire who they want when they want its their company. If i owned a company i wouldnt want anyone telling me who i had to hire or who i couldnt fire. It is simply a personal decision if you get fired from wal-mart for failing a drug test you have a choice to make quit smokeing pot or get another job that doesnt drugtest.

I think wal-mart should be able to hire and fire who they want when they want its their company.

This story is about an illegal firing but let's look at both parts of yer statement there.

Do you think Wal-Mart should be able to hire only white folks? Only Men? Only children?

Should Wal-Mart be allowed to fire anyone for any reason at any time?

If yer answers to any of these questions is yes then yer a moron with absolutely no understanding of how labor has struggled over the decades to achieve the few protections they still enjoy.

Be Well.

Should Wal-Mart be allowed to fire anyone for any reason at any time?

Spoken like a true socialist. Big Gubmint should control all private company personnel matters? Dumbspud. Stay over the border.

Spoken like a true socialist.

That wasn't a speech.

It was a question.

One you FAILed to answer.

Do you even know wot socialism is?

At it's heart, if you remove all the trappings, socialism just means that a worker has a say in the means of production. A voice at the table when negotiating hours and wages. What is so wrong with that? Do you know wot the world was like before those things occured?

Big Gubmint should control all private company personnel matters?

Who sed that?

Should employers have all the rights and employees none?

Are you a total moron or do you just play one in blog-world fer kicks?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

Be Well.

As everyone can tell now, Libertarians are such independent thinkers that there is often more disagreement among then than there is among Liertarians and non-Libertarians.

This medical marijuana law is useless then if employers can just thumb their nose at it. What was the point of voting for it, I don't know.

"Liertarians(sic)"

LOL!!

Join the Libertine Party, we don' need no steenkin' prescription.

Should employers have all the rights and employees none?

Posted by dethspud

Do employees have a guaranteed right to their job in perpetuity regardless? Does an employer have the right to hire and fire? Is it HIS business? Employees have some obvious humane rights- period.

Did YOU ever run a business? Hire and fire? Supervise anyone? Any responsibility for business success? or are you like Obama ....

Do employees have a guaranteed right to their job in perpetuity regardless?

That's a ridiculous argument that nobody is making.

Does an employer have the right to hire and fire? Is it HIS business?

Nobody's arguing that an employer doesn't have the right to hire and fire just that it isn't an absolute right and that it must be balanced with the needs of the worker.

Employees have some obvious humane rights- period.

Wot rights are those?

Did YOU ever run a business? Hire and fire? Supervise anyone? Any responsibility for business success?

Spud's been coming here fer how many years now and refusing to talk about his real-world particulars? Did you really think Spud would stop now just cos you asked?

You gotta take Spud's arguments at face value or not at all.

Be Well.

OK tater - this is an opinion-driven forum. Not Gubmint controlled yet. lol

"1Libertarian doesn't have a fucking clue wot a libertarian actually is."

Well, he's a right-libertarian, and the only liberty they care about is liberty for capital. That's why these frauds should really call themselves propertarians.

AU, in your little pretend-libertarian world, if the pothead hurts someone at work through inattention or distraction or whatever, who has to pay?

What if a non-pothead hurts someone through inattention or distraction or whatever?

And, one could just as easily posit that a (non-pothead) cancer patient hurt someone at work because s/he was distracted by the pain associated with their condition.

OK tater - this is an opinion-driven forum. Not Gubmint controlled yet. lol

So... no free cheese then?

Dang!

Be Well.

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-13 03:43 AM | Reply | Flag: SAME TIRED OLD SONG, VERSE 42

"1Libertarian doesn't have a fucking clue wot a libertarian actually is."

I know that 1Libertarian is a big boy and can defend himself and has, but I can see a principled Libertarian defense of WalMart. Or course, if WalMart is free to do this, then people are free not to shop at their stupid store if they arrogantly disrespect our law.

Just because you Liberals always march in goosestep on every issue, doesn't mean Libertarians do. Only on very very extreme circumstances would I question someons LIbertarian's credentials.

Actually,
It is pretty damn simple.

The guy can smoke pot. Sad to hear he has an inoperable tumor. But it is his choice to smoke it.

Walmart can fire someone for whatever reason other than those laws on the books against certain kinds (race, etc.) discrimination. Michigan is not a "right to work state", so there may be some other applicable laws.

I can fire someone from my business if there is a clear policy that applies to everyone.

And letusprey...I shop there from time to time. Value received for value given. Same exact stuff I can get elsewhere but for a better price.

Your choice is OK too..pay more for the exact same thing elsewhere. Foolish, but your choice.

Would they fire him if he was taking a handful of vicadin every few hours at work for pain (or something stronger, perkoset (sp?)maybe)?

Nope (and anyone that takes that is "stoned" while on it).

Don't muddy this issue with whether or not he may be stoned at work, lots of people are as we speak. The only issue here is which drug he was taking and that is what makes this wrong.

#11 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-12 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag: SAME OLD SONG, DIFFERENT VERSE

#21 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-12 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag: SAME SONG, VERSE 37

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-13 03:43 AM | Reply | Flag: SAME TIRED OLD SONG, VERSE 42

But it's really AmericanUnity who's the one repeating himself?

Damn yer stupid, Vern.

Be Well.

It seems like WAL*MART should be required to demonstrate that his legal, doctor-prescribed marijuana use impaired his work.

Let's say he tested positive for opiates, despite having a prescription? Okay to fire him for that too?

My question is if this guy tested positive for opiates would wal-mart be free to fire him? What about benzodiazepines? If they are free to fire him becuase he has a prescription to pot why not vicodin, percoset, valium, clonazepam? Once employeres are allowed to fire people due to their perscriptions where will it stop? Do you really think a stoned guy on a fork lift is any more dangerous than a guy on percoset and valium? Actualy if I had to chose to stand infront of a forklift piloted by a stoned guy and one high on opiates and benzo's I'll take the stoned guy every time. Hell he's probably only going one mile an hour anyway.

Why in the fuck is Walmart testing its employees for drugs, anyway? Who cares if a stock clerk is stoned? You would think that "libertarians" would be opposed to drug testing as well, but of course, as propertarians, they are only interested in the liberty of employers, not employees.

I can see an unprincipled Propertarian defense of WalMart.

FTFY.

Just because you Liberals always march in goosestep on every issue, doesn't mean Libertarians do.

Lawls!

Here's a clue...

The right are far more cohesive and prone to group think than the liberals are. Liberals have the real big tent and within that tent many different ideas are championed. Getting a room full of Libs to all agree on the same thing is like herding cats.

The worst of the left are Nanny staters.

The worst of the right are neo-fascists.

Goosestepping comes much more naturally to the rigid right.

Liartarians are largely just disgruntled Rethugs who like to smoke pot.

Be Well.

Oops I was slow snoofy and boyracer beat me too it.

I would have to check the ADA but there are lots of protections out there.

so by this logic, shouldn't they fire anyone who has drank over the last 30 days? they could come to work drunk and kill someone even easier.

Oops I was slow snoofy and boyracer beat me too it.

Well, that is what happens when you smoke pot while blogging, lol!

From the article:
But last November, Casias sprained his knee at work. Marijuana was detected in his system during the routine drug screening that follows all workplace injuries.

It is important to know if the "routine" drug screening is WAL*MART policy or some sort of Michigan worker's comp requirement.

If it's the former, then WAL*MART has the drug screen policy in place so they can fire, and then use the positive drug test as reason to deny unemployment benefits, as they are now trying to deny this guy's benefits.

Propertarianism/
libertarianism:

"a uselessly abstract ahistorical ideology for socially retarded adolescent white guys."

#45 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2010-03-13 10:46 AM | REPLY | FLAG: Has a serious problem with people owning property.

Seriously, Nulli, the crap you push reminds me of Soviet Union Cold War propaganda.

The biggest gripe I have with libertarians is they think libertarianism is a one-size-fits-all solution that can be applied to every problem.

The real world just doesn't work (efficiently) like that. One-size-fits-all solutions lead to stupid things like the "zero tolerance" policies that expel kids from school for bringing over-the-counter medicines, and clog our prisons with "three strikes" offenders doing twenty years for petty theft.

Mostly I sense libertarians simply don't want to pay taxes for programs that are of no perceived benefit to them. But more than that, they've deluded themselves into thinking there's an actual political basis for their greed, rather than simply recognizing themselves as being greedy.

It's an elaborate facade for selfishness which does not survive the first pass of Occam's Razor.

There are a few good ideas in libertarianism (e.g. trade good, war bad) but it's not like they're the only (or first) political sect to figure that out.

Actually, a libertarian would say that someone has a right to smoke pot, and a private firm has a right not to hire someone that smokes pot. The pot smoker doesn't have more liberty or rights than the person opposed to smoking pot. This is how liberals tend to misunderstand everything that doesn't line up with their own prejudices: they're happy with getting government out of our lives, unless it's something on which they really want government in our lives.

I wonder if Michigan has one of those silly no-tolerance rules? Could this guy get a job as a janitor in a Michigan public school? How about as a principal?

RiR, I think a libertarian would go farther and say a private firm has a right to not hire darkies.

Libertarians wouldn't have national parks. You encounter the limitations of the philosophy right there.

"Has a serious problem with people owning property.

#46 | Posted by Ray at 2010-03-13 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong again, Ray. I have no problem with you owning property. When property becomes a means to owning people, that's another thing.

"When "property" is purely what you, as an individual, use (i.e. possession) it is not a source of power. In capitalism, however, "property" rights no longer coincide with use rights, and so they become a denial of freedom and a source of authority and power over the individual. "

"A real libertarian would have posted:

Marijuana should be legal and this guy should never have been fired. He should sue the shit out of WalMart because he had a prescription and was a cancer patient to boot."

I disagree..A REAL Libertarian might have posted, The guy should be allowed to smoke marijuanna if he so desires and it doesn't affect the rights and freedoms of anybody else, WalMart should have the right and freedom to hire and fire anybody they want for any reason they see fit!"

"(If) it (marijuana) doesn't affect the rights and freedoms of others...."

Yeah, right. Let's try to convince any committed doper of that. You lost this argument.

"The guy should be allowed to smoke marijuanna if he so desires and it doesn't affect the rights and freedoms of anybody else, WalMart should have the right and freedom to hire and fire anybody they want for any reason they see fit!"

Propertarians want a level playing field. The rich and the poor should have the same rights to sleep under the bridge.

The worst of the left are Stalins gulags.

How soon you forget....

The worst of the right are not neo-fascists, they are anarchists, study a little of Marx, and his argument with the anarchist.

Understand far righters have no intention of giving control to the state, they are about the individual, and his property rights. The fact that you try to throw that on the right is your denial of the tragedies that the leftist ideas culminate would be laughable if the endings were not so tragic.

Fascism is nothing more than an instantiation of communism, at the national level.

But I give you one point for trying to workin my favorite saying about the programmers I manage.

Libertarians wouldn't have national parks. You encounter the limitations of the philosophy right there.

On the other hand, one way to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons is to simply not have any commons at all.

:)

In capitalism, however, "property" rights no longer coincide with use rights, and so they become a denial of freedom and a source of authority and power over the individual.

That's bullshit. Consumers have free choice where they spend. With government, try refusing to pay taxes and see how far you get.

It's because the uncertainties of free choice, why corporations hate free markets. That's why the incestuous relationship between government and big business. For every regulated corporate monopoly, there's a government sponsor.

snoofy

Libertarianims is precisel the opposite of one sizie fits all. Libertairanims is all about decentralizing decision-making and about individuals deciding for themselves what works for them.

Liberalims is a once-size-fits-all concepts under which a Wahington bureaucrat decides what he thinks is best for you.

Seriously, Ray, the crap you push reminds me of US cold war propaganda. Your basic retort to any argument is to call someone a Marxist. Was one of your heroes Joe McCarthy?

Propertarians want a level playing field. The rich and the poor should have the same rights to sleep under the bridge.
#55 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

More bullshit! In an egalitarian society, everybody is poor except those in power. WTF do you want, Nulli? To live in a slave state? Because that's the direction this country is going.

Seriously, Ray, the crap you push reminds me of US cold war propaganda. Your basic retort to any argument is to call someone a Marxist.
#60 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Try to be more original than repeating what I say to you, son of Marx.

"The worst of the right are not neo-fascists, they are anarchists, study a little of Marx, and his argument with the anarchist."

You don't know you are talking about. The anarchists who argued with Marx were leftists. I'm quite familiar with the debate between Marx and the anarchists, obviously more so than you.

Try to be more original than repeating what I say to you, son of Marx.

#62 | Posted by Ray at 2010-03-13 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Like I said, every retort from Ray is just old-fashioned McCarthyism. He doesn't have an argument.

"That's bullshit. Consumers have free choice where they spend"

That's the only freedom that propertarians give a shit about.

That's why the incestuous relationship between government and big business. For every regulated corporate monopoly, there's a government sponsor.

#58 | Posted by Ray

That is so true.

Oh please, Nulli. You're weak.

He doesn't have an argument.

If you can read Atlas Shrugged several times over and come to the conclusion that Rand supported ALL corporations no matter how crooked, you're too screwed up to waste much time with.

As for Wal Mart or any other business--they do have the right to fire and hire at will. Unless there is a contract to show differently.

I know I don't want anyone--on pot or pills or alcohol operating heavy equipment.

As for this guy and his medicinal pot--they don't say what his job duties are.

He was injured on the job--maybe not enough to warrant a worker's comp claim.

Maybe his 'medicine' affected him maybe not.

Isn't there a pot test to determine if the pot was recent versus the night before?? We know pot stays in the system for weeks after taking it. But that there is no longer an influence.

In AZ--they passed a law by the populace that if someone is injured on the job and found to have drugs in their system or under the influence--they are denied WC benefits.

Not sure if this is still in effect.

no they fired the cancer patient because they didn't want to pay the cost for his treatment.

If you can read Atlas Shrugged several times over and come to the conclusion that Rand supported ALL corporations no matter how crooked, you're too screwed up to waste much time with.

#67 | Posted by Ray

Null doesn't really think that does he??

#58 | Posted by Ray

That is so true.

#66 | Posted by MURPHY

lol. Ray's backup has arrived.

#70 | Posted by pragmatous at 2010-03-13 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag: BINGO

The pot's legal in this case but it's still a good excuse. This guy will be dead soon, anyway.
~The Walton kids

Well if the guy did not test positive for pot--he would still be working.

That gets a FF for Null..lol

"If you can read Atlas Shrugged several times over" you must be one sick puppy.

If you can read Atlas Shrugged you must be one sick puppy.

If you can read the first page Atlas Shrugged you must be one sick puppy.

What pathetically simplistic trash.
No wonder Alan Greenspan liked her so much.

"Null doesn't really think that does he??"

No, Murphy. That's just another of Ray's strawmen. Neither Rand nor anybody else likes corrupt, criminal organizations. Ray tries to pretend it's only a crime issue. The crime is what is legal.

Libertairanims is all about decentralizing decision-making and about individuals deciding for themselves what works for them.

Well, what if I decide what works for me is a strong central government?

Again, there's nothing unique or noteworthy about libertarianism if all it can claim is it's "about individuals deciding for themselves." You're just speaking in platitudes which have no functional impact on the task of governance.

Well, what if I decide what works for me is a strong central government?

Use the First Amendment to try to promote that, but don't expect others to agree with you.

As far as governance, it is not about micromanaging people, especially at the federal level. The type of governance is different according to it's jurisdiction, local, county, state, federal, each type of government has certain authorities and powrs that other ought not to have.

Well if the guy did not test positive for pot--he would still be working.

#74 | Posted by MURPHY

The corporation gets to determine his treatment options not his doctor? Is that what you are saying? Oh he is free to choose not to take a prescribed medication and keep working? This one pisses me off not so much because of the pot aspect but because of what it means if we let it stand for people who take legal drugs for their intended purpose.

Are individuals who are properly prescribed medications required to inform the prospective employer prior to the drug test and/or hiring of their medication?

No. Under the ADA, an applicant who is taking properly prescribed medication is not required to disclose this information to his/her prospective employer. In addition, an employer is not permitted to ask questions concerning any medications that an applicant is taking or has taken in the past. If a person tests positive for illegal drug use, an employer must offer the employee or applicant an opportunity to explain a positive result, such as lawful use of a controlled substance or other treatment that might cause a false positive test result.

Just wondering for all you righties out there who support wally world on this one, Here is a hypothetical for you to answer - I have MS I take both opiates and benzo's for it should employers be allowed to not hire me because of the drugs I take? If they are then I can not get a job and would have to get on disability, the drugs are not an optional treatment in my case they are necessary to function. So would you rather I stock shelves at wally world or would you rather pay me disability?

Those are good points Tao, all of them. Up to me, I would allow anyone to smoke pot, for any reason, but not hold a gun to the head of their employer for wanting them let go.

WalMart probably wouldn't mind someone taking prescription drugs, even at work, but even the most liberal workplace might not look kindly on the employees taking a smoke break to light up a joint outside their front doors. As time goes by, hopefully there will be an accommodation made, from both sides. I've read about patients who are so wracked with pain, no appetite, and smoking pot had tremendous benefits. There but the grace of God go I, and all that.

This whole debate is kind or interesting. I bet nobody knew you could get medical marijuana prior to all these laws. 60 minutes aired the piece about 20 years ago. It came from a handful of farms that had/have federal permits to grow it. I do believe there was a tremendous amount of hoops you had to jump through to get it. I remember it because at the time I had an uncle dieing of cancer and they were talking about all the benefits.

All that said. Did they test for all other prescription medications? From personal experience I can tell you that those can rock your world hard. How about some of the over the counter stuff that can have the same effect? No?

This guy has a case and you can bet I would be using the court system. I bet Jeffery Figer would take it. (LoL) Walmart is technically breaking Michigan law which he should be protected by for firing him unless he was stoned when it happened. Which is sort of like showing up to work drunk...

unless he was stoned when it happened.

That ultimatly is the problem with most drugs that employers are concerned about Marijuana can show up 2 days to 11 weeks after use, Valium 1-6 weeks and Vicodin 1-6 days so simply testing for the drugs does not show if the dude was wasted at the time or not. However as I understand worker comp law it really does not matter if it is in your system your out of luck. I am not sure though how worker comp handles legal perscriptions.

I agree with an employer not wanting to hire a pot head however to call someone using it for pain managment of a serious illness you run head long into ADA issues. These are all things that have to be resolved. Sadly the ease of getting a pot script makes it harder to justify it being protected by the ADA.

Personly I think that it should be a situation where if your disease would be protected by the ADA then your scripts should be as well no matter what the script was for. If your disease is not protected by the ADA then any drugs in your system are dealt with the way they would be for any normal employee. Just my personal opinion though.

#3 LIB... excellent questions.

If this guy had a scrip for Oxycontin for pain could he have been fired?

He had a scrip for marijuana.

Who says he was 'under the influence' at work? It stays in your system for months.

"It stays in your system for months."

More like just one.

Thing is workers with hangovers are a vastly bigger issue.

Since I first studied Cognitive Dissonance in a sophomore survey course in Social Psychology in the Spring semester of 1970, the Descent of Man has been a most entertaining tragicomedy.

Barring massive US/Russia nuclear exchange (No one else has those kind of numbers.) this tragicomedy might have a distillate; The product of reality.

All the stupid children left behind.

Zat,

2 days to 11 weeks in your system it depends on how much and how often you smoke and your metabolizim, how much fat there is in your body and probably some other factors. For me I have found 10 days is pretty safe I have a friend who went 1 month and still tested positive. If I go 3 days and drink a ton of water I can usualy pass.

Biggest scare I ever had was when I was randomly tested at a job they picked 4 of us to go and one was my direct manager, he drove me to the place so I couldn't even stop and buy that clean out stuff that I don't really think works anyway. Some how I passed I was amazed having smoked a mere 15 hours before hand. Turns out the company was after one employee and didn't pay for the analisis on the rest of us. They had to pick multiple people to hide it.

light up a joint outside their front doors.

#81 | Posted by rightisright

There are other way to use it without smoking it.

light up a joint outside their front doors.

#81 | Posted by rightisright

No medical marijuana organization is advocatng that, so you ought to just STFU rather than cementing your reputation as a cement-head.

Once again "Praise Wallmart" that true-blue American bastion of "Ethics & Morality!"

You airheads may be missing an important point in this thread---the thread stated that the gentleman fired was "recommended" by his physician to use marijuana for his condition---by law if he doesn't have a valid prescription for the illegal substance or any other illegal substance he may be fired by his employer---did Joseph Casias say that his physician "recommended" it and then didn't have a valid prescription.

Zat,

2 days to 11 weeks in your system it depends on how much and how often you smoke and your metabolizim, how much fat there is in your body and probably some other factors. For me I have found 10 days is pretty safe I have a friend who went 1 month and still tested positive. If I go 3 days and drink a ton of water I can usualy pass.

Biggest scare I ever had was when I was randomly tested at a job they picked 4 of us to go and one was my direct manager, he drove me to the place so I couldn't even stop and buy that clean out stuff that I don't really think works anyway. Some how I passed I was amazed having smoked a mere 15 hours before hand. Turns out the company was after one employee and didn't pay for the analisis on the rest of us. They had to pick multiple people to hide it.

#87 | Posted by TaoWarrior

If you're hair tested you can't hide a doggone thing and you're dead meat. If you're a heavy user the stuff can stay in your urine for more then 10 days otherwise often no more then 3-4 days. The "clean out stuff" is bogus.

That ultimatly is the problem with most drugs that employers are concerned about Marijuana can show up 2 days to 11 weeks after use, Valium 1-6 weeks and Vicodin 1-6 days so simply testing for the drugs does not show if the dude was wasted at the time or not. However as I understand worker comp law it really does not matter if it is in your system your out of luck. I am not sure though how worker comp handles legal perscriptions.

#83 | Posted by TaoWarrior

This issue has nothing to do with work comp law except that an employer has to supply a safe work environment.

Are individuals who are properly prescribed medications required to inform the prospective employer prior to the drug test and/or hiring of their medication?

No. Under the ADA, an applicant who is taking properly prescribed medication is not required to disclose this information to his/her prospective employer. In addition, an employer is not permitted to ask questions concerning any medications that an applicant is taking or has taken in the past. If a person tests positive for illegal drug use, an employer must offer the employee or applicant an opportunity to explain a positive result, such as lawful use of a controlled substance or other treatment that might cause a false positive test result.

The employer in all likelyhood will then ask the prospective employee to sign a release of information form to acquire medical information concerning the need for the drugs--on receiving the info, they'll then make the judgement on whether the prospective employee can perform the essential functions of the job and he may very well not get the job based on the info received.

In AZ--they passed a law by the populace that if someone is injured on the job and found to have drugs in their system or under the influence--they are denied WC benefits.

Not sure if this is still in effect.

#69 | Posted by MURPHY

Good for them---do you know that in the past, close to 50% of injuries are caused by people on drugs? Guess what, when companies have drug policies instituted for post injuries, reportable injuries drop.

It is important to know if the "routine" drug screening is WAL*MART policy or some sort of Michigan worker's comp requirement.

#44 | Posted by snoofy

Drug screening in Michigan has nothing to do with workers compensation but instead with the individual employer's policies.

Mat,

Did not know that about michigan. NC is like AZ if you have drugs in your system no benifits. I am not a heavy user I also have low body fat and high metabolisim. 10 days is generous I have passed within 12 hours before but it was pre-employment not post.

My point about the length of time was not beating drug test but how it does not tell you if the employee was under the influence at the time. I agree that an employer should have the right to demand a drug free workplace however how far does that right go? Can they not hire me because I would test positive for opiates and benzodrine? Can they demand my medical records to see if I really should be using them? Where do their rights end and mine begin? Or do I have any left?

Just wondering for all you righties out there who support wally world on this one, Here is a hypothetical for you to answer - I have MS I take both opiates and benzo's for it should employers be allowed to not hire me because of the drugs I take? If they are then I can not get a job and would have to get on disability, the drugs are not an optional treatment in my case they are necessary to function. So would you rather I stock shelves at wally world or would you rather pay me disability?

#80 | Posted by TaoWarrior

First, sorry to hear about your MS. My sister-n-law has MS. She is in very bad shape, and it is very upsetting that if a drug was discovered TODAY that would fix her MS problem, she would probably be dead before the FDA gets if approved for human trials. Yet another reason that I am anti-big-gov't.

Ok, I'll take this challenge. Yes, the employer should be allowed to know what drugs you are taking, and if your drug useage could cause a problem. For example, you may be fine to stock a shelf at walmart (what, you drop a can of soda on your toe?)... but drive a forklift or a semi? If your medical condition requries you to take drugs that could put other people's lives and health at risk, don't they have a right to know about it? If you are saying that walmart has NO jobs that you can do based on your level of required medication, then find a different company. While I would hate for anyone to be on disability, I would prefer that to having people's lives put at jeopardy.

Q. If you decide to fly to florida for the weekend, wouldn't you like to know if the pilot started flying an hour earlier with booze or pot or whatever? If it was YOUR life on the line, wouldn't you care?

Q. If you owned the store, and were going to be responsible for the damages that someone caused if they tipped over a forklift or drove a semi into a crowd cause they were 10 seconds too late hitting the brakes... then what? Does it matter if the person was on LEGAL meds or LEGAL pot or LEGAL booze? The damage was done, and you are financially responsible.

Q. Would you agree to amend the laws in MI (or wherever) to say that you cannot sue Wally if you are hurt on their property? Then the liability of having a pothead worker would go way down, and Wally wouldn't be as concerned.

1Lib,

I would never try to get a job I was not physicaly capable of doing or would not be safe doing. For one thing I kinda like living so anything I would not be safe to do around others I'm probably not safe for myself to be doing.

An employer does have a right to know what drugs you are on, mine does except the one, and I don't do that one at work, and frankly what I don't do at work is none of their busines.

Finaly yes I would gladly agree to a covenant not to sue as long as it only included things that happened while I was under the influence and not me falling down the steps because there is no ramp and sometimes my legs get sketchy.

Tao, thanks for the conversation. I feel that this is going much better than with AU.

I would never try to get a job...
Great. Can u tell me that everyone has the same self control? Drunk driving, drunk pilots, etc. Remember, the laws that have to be passed must cover you and my younger brother (who has lost his DL so many times for driving under the influence that he will probably NEVER be legal again).

An employer does have a right to know... except the one, and I don't do that one at work, and frankly what I don't do at work is none of their busines.

I disagree with this. If it impairs your ability to do your job, the employer has a right to know, as long as they are responsible for your actions. That was my original argument (about 200 posts back, it seems). Telling an employer that they couldn't fire someone on drugs, without removing their liability if the employee or a customer was harmed, would destroy the business.

Finaly yes I would gladly agree to a covenant not to sue as long as it only included things that happened while I was under the influence and not me falling down the steps because there is no ramp and sometimes my legs get sketchy.

That is 1/3 of the issue. You would hold them harmless if you were hurt based on your actions.

What about someone that you hurt? If you drop a case of soda on a child's head or something... if you are stoned and harm someone else, they would sue WalMart. Unless walmart is held harmless for your actions, the only option they have to deal with an employee that is using drugs is to fire them. Would you hold walmart harmless if some action of yours caused harm to a customer? If some action of one of their employers caused harm to you or your family?

Actually, how would walmart know if you hurt your knee because you were stoned and missed a step, or because you weren't stoned and your knee gave way? Is there any test that they could do to see if you were stoned at the time?

so by this logic, shouldn't they fire anyone who has drank over the last 30 days? they could come to work drunk and kill someone even easier.
#42 | Posted by sendeth at 2010-03-13 10:28 AM

This is the real problem with drug testing - marijuana stays in the body for on average of 30 days, regardless how little you inhaled and depending upon your metabolism.

Marijuana is harmless and the people who test for it are causing far more expense to our economy through unwarranted incarceration, unemployment and basically putting families on the streets or on welfare than if they were to permit the same regulations used for alcohol. The DEA act unfair, unjust and unethical and enforcement of their propaganda is entirely unAmerican.

Claiming that any amount of marijuana in the body is tantamount to being stoned is ridiculous, but that's how it has been handled by this nations drug enforcement policies which invents a non-criminal criminal class. We need marijuana legalization and Walmart needs to be sued through both nostrils.

"1Libertarian doesn't have a fucking clue wot a libertarian actually is."

Well, he's a right-libertarian, and the only liberty they care about is liberty for capital. That's why these frauds should really call themselves propertarians.
#29 | Posted by nullifidian at 2010-03-13 09:12 AM

Beautiful vernacular invention and I couldn't agree more.

TAO and 1LIB, good comments---have been involved in these areas for years---ADA, workers' comp. (state of Michigan), nonoccupational disability, FMLA, and wellness. In fact, helped start a company 7 years ago to help employers in all these areas to increase their productivity--will grow a minimum of 30% this year. The employer is between a rock and a hard place and always has to juggle their legal responsibility between the afore-mentioned areas and their need to run a safe work place and yet make money and stay in business. They're often "damned if they do and damned if they don't"--as a company, we have background legal support and expertise and often work closely with management of these companies to try and make the right decisions concerning these areas---it always amazes me why more businesses aren't leaving these god-forsaken shores to other countries to survive, not only because of wage differentials but all these other issues piled on them---I have yet to work with a company that wants to abuse their workers and take advantage of them---it's more often the other way around---it's a certain amount of employees (sometimes with the help of unions) that are the abusers---I have a gut feeling that there may be more to this case then just the positive testing for THC---it may be that Mr. Casias had been a chronic discipline problem and abuser of the system---Walmart may have finally found a way to rid themselves of another problem employee---most employers I've worked with will bend over backwards for a good employee---on the other hsnd I've helped a number of employers rid themselves of abusers of the work-place and avoid the hiring of other potential abusers.

TAO and 1LIB---just another comment---when I read some of the comments by some of the "airheads" on this thread and others, you can realize why this country is going to the dogs--they're just the type you wouldn't want as employees since the only ones they care about are themselves and their next chance of inebriation %/or "stoning"---they are a cost on the responsible employees, businesses, and ultimately society at large.

Marijuana is harmless...

Simply not true. Studies have shown that smoking just one marijuana joint reduces reaction time by 41 percent, while two joints reduces it by 63 percent. I have seen my younger brother 'slightly high' and so fucked up he can just manage to make it to the car.

... and the people who test for it are causing far more expense to our economy through unwarranted incarceration, unemployment and basically putting families on the streets or on welfare than if they were to permit the same regulations used for alcohol.

I would say that people who use pot, while it is illegal, have more to do with the 'families on the street' line of bullshit you sprouted above. I drink on occasion, but if it were illegal, I would stop until I could get the laws changed.

The DEA act unfair, unjust and unethical and enforcement of their propaganda is entirely unAmerican.

I don't agree with the drug laws. I feel that what you do to your body is your choice... but don't claim it is harmless.

Claiming that any amount of marijuana in the body is tantamount to being stoned is ridiculous,...

Until they come up with a test that determines how 'high' you are when they stop you, what are the cops supposed to do? If they apply a standard 'roadside test' and you fail, you are impaired.

but that's how it has been handled by this nations drug enforcement policies which invents a non-criminal criminal class.

Simply not true. It is a crime. You want to legalize it. I don't MIND if it is legalized, but I recognize that you and your kind are currently breaking the law.

We need marijuana legalization...

I have said that the laws don't work and should be repealed.

... and Walmart needs to be sued through both nostrils.

Fucking clueless. They are as much a victim as you potheads are. If they don't fire the pothead, they can be sued. You say sue them if they fire you. What the fuck should they do? Go out of business? Then where will you potheads get your munchie fix at 4 am?

Beautiful vernacular invention and I couldn't agree more.

#101 | Posted by redlightrobot

Because you are probably to stoned to think straight. I will type slowly... just for you.

If you come to work fucked up, and walmart doesn't fire you, then they are agreeing that it is ok for you to be fucked up at work. Then, if you harm someone, they have to pay. See? Like if you ran a day care, and you hired a known child molestor, you would be responsible (financially) if the molestor harms a child.

Now, we have a few options:

1) If you own a business, hire and fire who you want. My personal favorite.

2) If you own a business, have the govt tell you who you can hire and fire. If the govt says to hire potheads, or fire potheads, you obey. This is called fascism, and something that I don't much care for.

3) You can let lawyers tell business who to hire and fire. Each business has to dance on a string, based on the last judge's rulling. Last judge punished a company for firing a pothead, I have to keep my potheads employeed. Oops, new ruling where a pothead cost some company a gazillion bucks, now I have to fire my potheads. This is call anarchy, and is about where we are now.

4) Close the doors, put all the potheads out of work and take the business to another country. This is where we are headed.

We need to develop an intelligent solution. Lawsuits are not the answer. They are PART of the damn problem.

when I read some of the comments by some of the "airheads" on this thread and others, you can realize why this country is going to the dogs--they're just the type you wouldn't want as employees since the only ones they care about are themselves and their next chance of inebriation %/or "stoning"

Very true. Very sad. If we are truly on the road to hell, these people are greasing the wheels.

---they are a cost on the responsible employees, businesses, and ultimately society at large.

#103 | Posted by matsop

Also very true. And have you noticed that the first reaction of EVERYONE on the left is SUE. Its like they are playing the fucking lottery.

Course, with people as stoned and fucked-up as they are on the jury, I guess it really is like the lottery.

Also very true. And have you noticed that the first reaction of EVERYONE on the left is SUE. Its like they are playing the fucking lottery.

Course, with people as stoned and fucked-up as they are on the jury, I guess it really is like the lottery.

#105 | Posted by 1libertarian

It's the difference between the person who is responsible and takes responsibility for their decisions and choices versus the person who won't and then wants government to take care of them and hold others responsible for their lifestyle, wants, juvenile behavior, and constant screw-ups.

1libertarian, it's nice to know that everyone is "stoned and fucked-up" who disagrees with you. I can't begin to tell you how relieved I am that you can discourse without any inhibitions, regardless these junkies and their incessant illegality.

You are the worst excuse for a libertarian I've ever seen. Whatever you are, it isn't recognizably sober.

it's nice to know that everyone is "stoned and fucked-up" who disagrees with you. I can't begin to tell you how relieved I am that you can discourse without any inhibitions, regardless these junkies and their incessant illegality.

You are the worst excuse for a libertarian I've ever seen. Whatever you are, it isn't recognizably sober.

#107 | Posted by redlightrobot

Not even a good attempt at deflection, leftwingrobot. I was answering the rantings about pot not having any harmful side effects and how the ebil people enforcing the laws were kicking families out on the streets and starving children. Ya know, that kind of over-the-top bullshit paranoia that potheads tend to display.

Now, back to the subject at hand. What should a business do if they will be sued if they keep a pothead and he harms someone (even himself) and will also be sued if they fire the pothead.

Somehow you completely missed that I don't give a flying fuck if you smoke your body weight in pot every day of your worthless fucking life. If that isn't libertarian enough for you, go fuck yourself and your 12 favorite pet animals. I don't care what you do, its your damn life. As long as you cause no harm, then do as you please.

Now, if your life choices cost someone else, then I have a problem. This is one on those cases. They guy can have a job, or he can smoke pot... but doing both presents a risk to his employer.

Again, you didn't read what I typed. Instead of attacking me cause I am trying to defend an ebil corporation, you should be going after the lawyers and the bad laws. If a company keeps a pothead on the payroll, and ANYTHING happens, they would be sued. So, to prevent a lawsuit, they fire the pothead. You suggest they should be sued for firing the pothead.

You have never answered my previous question. I will try and simplify my question.

If a company can get sued for not firing a pothead, and can get sued for firing a pothead, what is a business supposed to do? Can we say 'move to a foreign country'? Damn, wonder why so many business have done just that.

Whatever you are, rob-pot, it is far from intelligent. And probably stoned.

Great. Can u tell me that everyone has the same self control? Drunk driving, drunk pilots, etc.

Except drunk is legal. No everyone does not have the same self-control but a test that test something you did a month ago off the job does not tell you who has that self control and who doesn't.

I disagree with this. If it impairs your ability to do your job,

Me smoking a bowl at night does not have any effect on doing my job so no the employer has no right to know. Should an employer have the right to know how many beers you had last night? It is more likely to have an effect on your performace the next morning than my bowl does.

That is 1/3 of the issue. You would hold them harmless if you were hurt based on your actions.

What about someone that you hurt?

Yes they would be my responsibility too. Of course I'm the kind of person who doesn't take a job beyond my abilities so I can't say anyone else would be as reasonable. Frankly I would be afraid of me on a forklift too but it has nothing to do with the bowl I smoked last night it has a lot more to do with the Vicodin and Valium I am taking while driving the forklift.

Actually, how would walmart know if you hurt your knee because you were stoned and missed a step, or because you weren't stoned and your knee gave way? Is there any test that they could do to see if you were stoned at the time?

Nope no test and since I look drunk half the time I walk I doubt eye witness could say either. However if they don't have a ramp they are pretty much screwed anyway and if I fall down a ramp with a railing I doubt I have much case anyway since they did their part. Of course my first answer is not to sue someone so maybe I'm not looking at the situation correctly.

Story Time: I was installing gas logs at this guys house and he was landscaping as I was walking up the front walk I got to the place where the new walkway started and the old ended I tripped fell flat on my face. Dude was so worried I was going to sue him (the pool house was as big as my whole house so I supose it was a reasonable thought for someone so rich) I got up dusted off and told him I was fine don't worry. No million dollar settlement but I do annual service so to my mind it's a win.

Fire potheads? Where would we get burgers and fries?

Me smoking a bowl at night does not have any effect on doing my job so no the employer has no right to know.

I don't know the duration of the effects, so maybe it wouldn't. What if your 'bowl' was this morning? Or at lunch while you ran down the street for a burger? How would a manager know the difference in most cases? There is no test for 'how high are you right now'. Maybe someone needs to create one.

Should an employer have the right to know how many beers you had last night?

I worked with a guy in GA that was told to go home if he came to work with a hangover. After the 3rd or 4th warning, they took his badge and said 'go away'.

they would be my responsibility too.

Again, you might make that choice. My brother has been known to smoke and drive, or smoke while he drives, etc. If pot were legal in his state, he would find / create / invent a reason to get a doctor to give him a scrip. If he worked someplace like Wally, what should they do?

Frankly I would be afraid of me on a forklift too...

I agree, in your case. What about the person that gets a script for, oh, say, a toothache?

...if I fall down a ramp with a railing I doubt I have much case anyway since they did their part.

This goes to defensive practices. Installing a railing so you have a defense if someone falls. Firing someone (pothead) that MIGHT cause a problem. Doctors running unnecessary tests to give them a defense.

I suppose it was a reasonable thought for someone so rich

When I first started my business, I was so happy to print business cards and pass them around. My attorney handed it back with a simple instruction. Remove the INC from the card, it will reduce lawsuits.

Story Time: I was installing gas logs at this guys house and he was landscaping as I was walking up the front walk I got to the place where the new walkway started and the old ended I tripped fell flat on my face. Dude was so worried I was going to sue him (the pool house was as big as my whole house so I supose it was a reasonable thought for someone so rich) I got up dusted off and told him I was fine don't worry. No million dollar settlement but I do annual service so to my mind it's a win.

#109 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Another story time---my wife and I were taking a walk past this house where a woman was driving into her garage with groceries---she entered the house with bags in hand and the dog slipped out and came running down the sidewalk and caught me in the back of my calf---man, she came running out with fear etched on her face---I told her I wasn't the suing type and not to be concerned---that I would look at the bite when I got home and would inform them if anything untoward occurred. It's sad to see what we have allowed to happen to this society in its' litigiousness.

I don't know the duration of the effects, so maybe it wouldn't. What if your 'bowl' was this morning? Or at lunch while you ran down the street for a burger? How would a manager know the difference in most cases? There is no test for 'how high are you right now'. Maybe someone needs to create one.

If a manager can't tell the difference does it matter? Chances are the performance is not affected. Duration can be 30 min to 2 hours depending on quanity and quality.

I worked with a guy in GA that was told to go home if he came to work with a hangover. After the 3rd or 4th warning, they took his badge and said 'go away'.

Good for them however you are proposing firing people who come to work totaly sober on the basis of a screen that it is well known to show effects a month old.

Again, you might make that choice. My brother has been known to smoke and drive, or smoke while he drives, etc. If pot were legal in his state, he would find / create / invent a reason to get a doctor to give him a scrip. If he worked someplace like Wally, what should they do?

If they were putting people in danger they should be fired regardles of drug use.

I agree, in your case. What about the person that gets a script for, oh, say, a toothache?

They should inform their employer if it will affect their ability to do their job. Once again you are putting saftey ahead of liberty.

Final story. Years ago I worked in the stock room of a toy store they had drug testing. It was Christmas and we were slamed getting 2 54ft trucks a day. We got this new guy and in one day 3 people the 2 regulars and him unloaded both trucks before the night crew got there. The next day he showed up and was sent home because his drug test came back positive. The 2 of us barely managed to get 1 truck done before the night crew came in. The one guy was that good. However because he smoked some weed he couldn't work there. Was this a good business decision? (BTW we drove no forklifts we had a pallet jack and a box crusher those were the two most dangerous things at our work place)

Medical issue's a red herring.

Only point is it's their choice who to hire or fire. Period.

Tobacco's legal. If they had a policy that using it is grounds for dimissal, then they may be a**holes and a terrible company.

But it's not a covered discrimination condition and so it's legal.

Don't like it? Don't work there, don't shop there.

"Don't like it? Don't work there, don't shop there."

Yeah, and if you don't like murder, don't murder anybody and don't get yourself murdered.

These libertarian/propertarian shmucks will always side with big business against a citizen/worker/employee.

These libertarian/propertarian shmucks will always side with big business against a citizen/worker/employee.

#115 | Posted by nullifidian

Nully, I don't think these guys are saying that at all---employers have been forced to put policies in place in the workforce in order to protect their employees and themselves---if they didn't have the policies then they would be open to all kinds of other lawsuits based on the perverseness of the very legal environment that has forced them into these policies.

Null,

You can bitch about how evil walmart was for firing some pothead and talk about his having a right to work, but you can BET money, if your skanky ass was in walmart, and some pothead puke that was too stoned to walk straight harmed you in any mannor, you would cream your panties and run straight to an attorney to file a suit against walmart.

I realize that you hate business. I just don't know if it is because you are a communist / socialist / union thug; or are just one of those self-indulgent assholes that believes the world owes you everything your little brain can dream up, from free drugs to free medical to free abortions.

"if they didn't have the policies then they would be open to all kinds of other lawsuits based on the perverseness of the very legal environment that has forced them into these policies."

Matsop, excellent point, Nulli hasn't figured out that that big government and big business are different sides of the same coin. I am working that problem, progress has been slow ;-)

I doubt in a "liberitarian" world, this would be an issue. There might be other issues, but this wouldn't be one of them.

#116 | Posted by matsop

You have any objection to a patient's bill of rights which would protect medical marijuana users and their employers? If not, we don't have an argument. Of course, my general point is that propertarians/libertarians almost always side with employers. There may be exceptions to that but I never see them on the Retort.

my original idea, hundred posts or so back, was to hold walmart harmless and to post signs in the state saying that this was a pothead state, to enter at your own risk.

If NO ONE could sue walmart, they would probably love to have potheads working there. Think of how many bags of chips they could sell. No need to pay the employees, just give them pot, twinkies and chips. [didn't evil companies pay Indians with booze? Talk about full-circle]

Seriously, I don't believe the problem is that Nulli hasn't figured out that that business would be harmed, its just that Nulli (whatever sex it happens to be) appears to be ANTI business and hopes they will fail.

not really sure i get the point.....

smoking prescribed MJ for medical reasons..which is legal

taking prescribed oxycontin for medical reasons..also legal.

Both are just as illegal when taking w/out a script.

smoking pot will get you fired and taking oxy wont.

liability or not it makes no sense...

I'm guessing WalMart's going to take a page from the Insurance companies playbook and tie this up in court until he dies....

"Nulli hasn't figured out that that big government and big business are different sides of the same coin. I am working that problem, progress has been slow ;-)"

You are incorrect, Andrea. Big business is America's "oppressed minority" according to the Ayatollah Rand. Big business doesn't love big government. It loves whatever enhances its profits. That could mean regulation or deregulation, free trade or tariffs, depending on the individual business or industry. The auto industry lobbied against regulations on safety, emissions, fuel standards, etc., while simultaneously lobbying for protective tariffs on imports.

Both are just as illegal when taking w/out a script.

smoking pot will get you fired and taking oxy wont.

liability or not it makes no sense...

I'm guessing WalMart's going to take a page from the Insurance companies playbook and tie this up in court until he dies....

#121 | Posted by Lohocla

My understanding was that the guy was hurt, had a drug test and failed it. If he popped for any drug that was illegal he would have been fired. If he was tested and was drunk at the time of the accident, he would have been fired as well.

I just don't know if it is because you are a communist / socialist / union thug; or are just one of those self-indulgent assholes that believes the world owes you everything your little brain can dream up, from free drugs to free medical to free abortions.

I'm both. Especially free drugs. In fact, I support the Partnership For A Free Drug America.

Big business doesn't love big government. It loves whatever enhances its profits. That could mean regulation or deregulation, free trade or tariffs, depending on the individual business or industry. The auto industry lobbied against regulations on safety, emissions, fuel standards, etc., while simultaneously lobbying for protective tariffs on imports.

#122 | Posted by nullifidian

The only reason for that is because GOVT has grown so large and overbearing. If you remove the power from the feds, the 'evil' corporate money would also dry up.

116 | Posted by matsop

You have any objection to a patient's bill of rights which would protect medical marijuana users and their employers? If not, we don't have an argument. Of course, my general point is that propertarians/libertarians almost always side with employers. There may be exceptions to that but I never see them on the Retort.

#119 | Posted by nullifidian

Nulli, if marijuana is legalized for LEGITIMATE medical reasons and there is legislation guaranteeing that, legislation can be developed protecting both employee and employer rights---then I don't have a problem with medical marijuana users---I've dealt with issues like this for years (other drugs)with employers and overall the legitimate employee has always been respected and helped.

The only reason for that is because GOVT has grown so large and overbearing. If you remove the power from the feds, the 'evil' corporate money would also dry up.

#125 | Posted by 1libertarian

Resurrecting the gold standard would be a great first step---would lead to decreasing the power of the Fed and ultimately the influence of lobbying groups in Washington----would limit the power both government, lobbyists, and big corporations---it would create real competition, unloose small business, decrease corruption----if banks got into trouble they would be squashed just like in the panic of 1907 (before the fed) whereas, mainstreet was relatively unscathed.

"The only reason for that is because GOVT has grown so large and overbearing. If you remove the power from the feds, the 'evil' corporate money would also dry up."

Yeah, shrink government to the size it was in the "good old days", like the late 19th century when giant trusts and robber barons ran the show. The concept that "big government" is necessary for the growth of corporate monopolies is a standard propertarian fallacy that is disproved by history.

The reason we've needed regulatory agencies is because corporations are not 'self policing' and do whatever they can get away with whenever and wherever they can. Read about America before Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican BTW).

Back on topic: Does WalMart fire people on other prescription pain meds?

People with cancer do not react the same way to the same substances recreational drug users do. And, since marijuana stays in the system for weeks, how could they determine whether he was 'high' at work. He had a prescription. He was legal. Marijuana is the only thing that enables some cancer patients to maintain an appetite.

Would right wingers prefer he were on public assistance rather than working for a living? He could just as easily have gone on disability, and would have been better off with the other benefits that provides since WalMart pays crap wages.

You have any objection to a patient's bill of rights which would protect medical marijuana users and their employers?

How, exactly, do you think this will work? Let's play this out. Pothead works at wally. He comes to work and has an accident. He tests positive for drugs. [that brings us up to the current point]. Instead of firing the pothead, they say 'oh, ok. go back to work'. So pothead goes back to work. He then does something else stupid, like pushes a case of vegies off a shelf, where they smash a child's head in. Cost of the pothead working at wally, 1 dead 2 year old child. Pot head whips out a 'get out of jail free "pothead script" card'. Walmart whips out a 'get of jail free "pothead has a script" card. Poor parents get nothing for their dead child. So sad, thanks for shopping.

If not, we don't have an argument. Of course, my general point is that propertarians/libertarians almost always side with employers. There may be exceptions to that but I never see them on the Retort.

#119 | Posted by nullifidian

So, if you are saying that, as a lib [anti-propertarian?], you are ok with no one being punished for the death of a child, and with the parents getting NO COMPENSATION for their dead child, I would be surprised. So, who goes to jail? Who do the parents sue? The pot dealer? The pot grower? The state?

Come on... you know that walmart would be sued, and you know that the jury would hear about the poor little dead child and give the parents huge bucks. So, if wally is going to have to pay for the child, shouldn't they be allowed to protect their interest and fire the pothead?

" Pothead works at wally."

We're not talking about potheads, shithead. We're talking about patients with a valid medical prescription, just as valid as a script for oxycontin.

"I have seen my younger brother 'slightly high' and so fucked up he can just manage to make it to the car. "

Well he had something other than pot, then, or an extremely high dose of concentrates. Your preposterous stories of people becoming falling down drunk on cannabis are a joke. I doubt you have ever used it.

How, exactly, do you think this will work? Let's play this out. Pothead works at wally.

The guy's a CANCER PATIENT! Wish there was an 'OBTUSE' flag

You're no libertarian either.

Some points from the article:

In 2008, Casias was the Associate Of The Year at the WalMart store in Battle Creek, despite suffering from sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor.

"No, I never came to work under the influence, never," he says.

But last November, Casias sprained his knee at work. Marijuana was detected in his system during the routine drug screening that follows all workplace injuries. Casias showed WalMart managers his state medical marijuana card, but he was fired anyway.

So was he a good employee? Yes. Was he under the influence when the accident happened? No. Did he ever work high? No.

Lets face it spraining a knee at work can happen to anyone, we have had 2 employees at my company do it and neither one was under the influence of any drugs, both had to take drug test when the injury happened. So we are not talking about a liability issue we are not talking about a crappy employee, walmart fired a good employee because he legaly treated a serious medical condition.

Your preposterous stories of people becoming falling down drunk on cannabis are a joke. I doubt you have ever used it.
#132 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I passed out a couple of years ago. How do you explain that?

We're not talking about potheads, shithead. We're talking about patients with a valid medical prescription, just as valid as a script for oxycontin.

#131 | Posted by nullifidian

Bull fucking shit. If you pass a law based on one sob story, then that same stupid law will apply to everyone. So, this pothead has cancer. The next has a hangnail. Tell me that doctors in CA don't write scrips to anyone who will pay the office visit price.

Well he had something other than pot, then, or an extremely high dose of concentrates. Your preposterous stories of people becoming falling down drunk on cannabis are a joke. I doubt you have ever used it.

#132 | Posted by nullifidian

No, nulli, I am not a pothead. In fact, I have never taken any illegal drug. My younger brother, however, has been a pothead since he was about 12 years old. And, yes, I have seen him pretty messed up. He has been so messed up that he failed roadside DUI tests and went to jail (numerous times).

I don't care if you have used drugs in the past, if you are using drugs right now, or if you want to use drugs in the future. I am not trying to "ruin" your fun. Feel free to smoke / pop / drink / shoot up if you want... but don't pretend that your right to get fucked up should force someone else to be harmed by your choice.

The concept that "big government" is necessary for the growth of corporate monopolies is a standard propertarian fallacy that is disproved by history.
#128 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIANK

Still singing that same old stupid song, I see. Corporate monopolies would not be possible without government regulatory sponsorship. The worst of them is the banking cartel created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the same one getting all that bailout money.

After seeing how pot fucked up your brain, I'll never smoke the stuff again.

I passed out a couple of years ago. How do you explain that?

And were still waiting for you to come out of it.

No seriously would need to know a lot more about the situation. However did you pass out or simply fall asleep?

"In fact, I have never taken any illegal drug. "

Just as I thought. You don't know anything about cannabis. I don't give a shit about your brother. Sounds like he is as much an idiot as you are.

"I passed out a couple of years ago. How do you explain that?"

That doesn't mean anything. If you have a glass of wine in the afternoon you can nod off. I don't know what your circumstances were or what you had. All I know is I'm very functional on cannabis and don't know anybody who isn't. These scare stories are mostly Reefer Madness bullshit.

1Lib,

I have to agree with Null here your brothers experiance is not usual for a pothead. I personaly pretty much sit on the couch and lounge out rotting my brain with TV or DR. Pretty much all the stoners I know do about the same. The only one who is different is an Alky too. So I would assume that his behavior is more from the alcohol than the pot. He is always drunk but only occasionaly stoned.

Maybe stop watching all the scare info on Pot and get some real info before forming an opinion on the fitness of potheads and the workplace.

.. walmart fired a good employee because he legaly treated a serious medical condition.
#134 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2010-03-14 02:14 PM

No, they fired a pothead and a sinner - he's obviously lying regarding his cancer too. Pot is evil, that's why it's called "the devil's weed" and to know otherwise implies first-hand experience with evil. Besides, it's illegal for some reason, even if that means incarcerating and firing otherwise "good" people. Fuck hippy liberals!;]

The guy's a CANCER PATIENT! Wish there was an 'OBTUSE' flag

You're no libertarian either.

#133 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

AU-hole, lets try explaining things slowly for the fucked-up section. If you pass a law based on one sob story, then that same stupid law will apply to everyone. So, this pothead has cancer. The next has a hangnail. Tell me that doctors in CA don't write scrips to anyone who will pay the office visit price.

Why is it so hard to get this thru your head. As far as I am concerned, your right to persuit of happiness can include drugs. However, your right to happiness ends when it impinges on someone else's rights.

So, you can't get drunk or fucked up and go driving a car or flying a plane, as you are a danger to everyone. By the same token, you can't go to work fucked-up and not expect to be fired. The company also has the right to set working conditions.

This pothead's employer has NO WAY to know WHEN he used pot, if he was stoned at that moment, etc. All they knew was they had a policy that said 'no potheads'. They should have that right. If you want to work there, follow the rules. You do not have a right to a job at walmart.

So, stop smoking that shit, or find a job that doesn't care how fucked up you get on your own time. Determine for you which is more important for your particual persuit of happiness.

It's ridiculous attempting to discuss this with the 'libertarian' who calls a cancer patient a 'pothead'.

In any case, the worst thing anyone smoking pot ever did was eat a whole bag of Doritos or Oreos in one sitting.

#143 | Posted by 1libertarian

You can't explain anything because you're a clueless hijacker of the term 'libertarian'.

Nothing you say on this matter is credible.

1Lib,

You really loose all credibility when you call a cancer paitent a pothead.

Would it suprise you to know than when one of my friends grandmother was dying of cancer another friend who was a cop got him some pot for grandma? He continued to supply her until she passed away. Why because it worked as a medicine, grandma wasn't trying to get fucked up grandma was trying to survive and not suffer.

You can ignore my MS and call me a pothead because I smoked beforehand however you do not know that is the case with this gentleman.

So, stop smoking that shit, or find a job that doesn't care how fucked up you get on your own time. Determine for you which is more important for your particual persuit of happiness.

Posted by 1libertarian

If I were the fired former WalMart worker/cancer patient I'd go straight to the disability folks, get himself every bit of public aid he can get (since he lost his job). No doubt you'd then whine about him being a lazy cancer patient who wouldn't work. You'll probably call him different names then , won't you big guy?

That doesn't mean anything. If you have a glass of wine in the afternoon you can nod off. I don't know what your circumstances were or what you had. All I know is I'm very functional on cannabis and don't know anybody who isn't. These scare stories are mostly Reefer Madness bullshit.
#140 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I had been drinking beer throughout the day, but I wasn't drunk. My cousin said it might be too strong for me (he was used to it), but my previous experiences had been pleasant. Once it hit, my first reaction was to throw up violently. After that passed, I was sitting on a picnic bench when I passed out and fell over backwards to the ground. I had no memory of it.

"Corporate monopolies would not be possible without government regulatory sponsorship"

Only a corporate charter is required. No other action by "big government" is necessary to create a monopoly. In fact, not even that's required. Private monopolies have existed throughout history, long before capitalism or corporate charters existed. Ever hear of feudalism?

It's a preposterous argument to claim that large concentrations of economic power need "big government" to develop. Once they have a monopoly they aren't averse to using government to protect themselves. Their interest is profits, not ideology.

Ray,

Personaly I can't drink and smoke at the same time it is never fun. You could be like me in that respect a bit of alcohol and pot and you have an ugly mix, especialy if it was strong weed and you had been drinking throughout the day so you had a good high BAC.

"I had been drinking beer throughout the day, but I wasn't drunk. My cousin said it might be too strong for me (he was used to it), but my previous experiences had been pleasant. "

Well that explains it, Ray. Even if you weren't drunk, drinking beer all day is usually very sedating at some point. Give cannabis another chance without the liquor. Maybe try an edible like a brownie rather than smoking it. People who aren't tobacco smokers sometimes have a problem getting used to smoking it.

It's a preposterous argument to claim that large concentrations of economic power need "big government" to develop. Once they have a monopoly they aren't averse to using government to protect themselves. Their interest is profits, not ideology.

#149 | Posted by nullifidian

Government's interest is bigness, revenues, ideology, and control.

1LIB

You're clueless about cancer or MS. But, boy, do you have opinions. You know what they say about opinions ...

(or maybe you don't).

I have to agree with Null here your brothers experiance is not usual for a pothead.

As I said, he has been smoking pot for a LONG time... he started very early.

I personaly pretty much sit on the couch and lounge out rotting my brain with TV or DR. Pretty much all the stoners I know do about the same.

That is about all he does now... after the state took his DL away (again and again and again). TV and Video Games.

The only one who is different is an Alky too. So I would assume that his behavior is more from the alcohol than the pot. He is always drunk but only occasionaly stoned.

No, he doesn't drink anything but the occasional beer (weak beer), and usually only 1 can.

Maybe stop watching all the scare info on Pot and get some real info before forming an opinion on the fitness of potheads and the workplace.

#141 | Posted by TaoWarrior

I don't watch the scare info. I have a real-world example of how your life can go 20 years and the only change be a different couch. I can attest that his memory is really shitty (I reminded him 3 times to call my father to tell him happy birthday -- finally asked his girlfriend to call and put my brother on the phone).

If you have a company, hire who you want. If my business needed a worker, and the person being a pothead wouldn't cause me a liability, I wouldn't hold it against them. However, if the position did require something like driving... then I would fire them if they popped a drug test.

I had been drinking beer throughout the day, but I wasn't drunk. My cousin said it might be too strong for me (he was used to it), but my previous experiences had been pleasant. Once it hit, my first reaction was to throw up violently. After that passed, I was sitting on a picnic bench when I passed out and fell over backwards to the ground. I had no memory of it.

#148 | Posted by Ray

Hey, Ray, great time eh? I just don't get it---I have a great time in life without alcohol, weed, etc.---I live a "high" every day without this stuff--not to say I didn't use alcohol when I was younger, immature and stupid.

"I have a great time in life without alcohol, weed, etc.---I live a "high" every day without this stuff-"

You can get too "stoned" on cannabis, in the sense of experience physical discomfort, if you take too high a dose, but it's hard to get too "high" in the sense of euphoria.

Wow, AU-hole, you are still batting 0.

If I were the fired former WalMart worker/cancer patient I'd go straight to the disability folks

I am sure you would.

get himself every bit of public aid he can get (since he lost his job). No doubt you'd then whine about him being a lazy cancer patient who wouldn't work. You'll probably call him different names then , won't you big guy?

#147 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Nope. I have NO PROBLEM with people who cannot work being helped (although I would prefer it to not be done at the federal level).

You're clueless about cancer or MS. But, boy, do you have opinions. You know what they say about opinions ...

(or maybe you don't).

#153 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Let's see... my sister-n-law has MS, and has been fighting it for more than 20 years. Her symptoms started when she would walk along and then fall over. They originally thought it was a problem with her balance, etc. Numerous tests later, they eliminated all other options. At that time, the didn't have a test for MS. Don't know if they have one now. In the last 20+ years, it has progressed from the point where she needed a walker, to the point where we could barely bend her legs to get her into the car, to where she had to have a motorized wheelchair, then to loss of control so she could no longer drive a wheelchair, to where she can no longer feed herself. It takes hours to feed her, she cannot control her bladder or bowels, etc. Do I need to mention bee stings and radioactive dyes?

My father had colon cancer a few years back and had most of his colon removed.

Any other mistakes you can make?

So, AU-hole, where did you get your business degree? Your law degree? You appointment from GOD as his spokesperson?

"AU-hole"? OK, kid, you don't have a credible point to make.

Ever taken care of a cancer patient? Didn't think so.

The guy wanted to work. He was working - WITH CANCER. If he hadn't you'd be making some other idiotic statement about how he's a 'lazy liberal' or some moronic talk like that.

You've lost all credibility on this thread. Later.

Nope. I have NO PROBLEM with people who cannot work being helped (although I would prefer it to not be done at the federal level).

He WAS working, little man.

And, no, you didn't fail to disappoint. Had he gone on disability (which IS a Federal Program Mr. Uninformed 2010) you would say what you just did.

As to the rest - your sister with MS, your dad with cancer - I call you a liar.

If your father had REALLY had cancer, you'd have seen him puking during chemo, without an appetite, losing weight at a fast pace. You wouldn't be arguing against medicinal marijuana - about the only thing that works with cancer patients going through chemo.

You're a liar.

Libertarian,

Not sure what your point is.

If he was taking oxycontin legally for a medical condition it wouldn't be an issue but for MJ it is.

In either way you can test if the drug is in your system, not aware of any tests for "are you high now" like with alcohol. There may in fact be, i'm just not aware of it.

As for getting hurt on the job, the assumption may be that he was stoned and that was the cause of the accident but I doubt it. I smoke weed as well...illegally of course because my state hasn't legalized it even for medical), but I only smoke at night or occasionally during my days off if I want to enjoy a game (for me, FPS games are more fun high :) )

Dunno, just think its a double standard something as benign as MJ being bad when pharmacutical meds are A-OK.

As for the rest of your diatribe into the fuzzy logic, was an amusing read and will likely be more so later tonight when I re-read it stoned out of my gourd :)

As for the impinging on the rights of others, that's amusing as hell...imagine, a responsible adult being held hostage because some fear mongering parrot with a bullshit opinion based on someone elses belief that something is bad (remember, parrots dont think, they just repeat what they hear).

Loh

Hey, Ray, great time eh? I just don't get it---I have a great time in life without alcohol, weed, etc.---I live a "high" every day without this stuff--not to say I didn't use alcohol when I was younger, immature and stupid.
#155 | POSTED BY MATSOP

I just enjoy drinking with company. I've always been a moderate drinker. As far as marijuana goes, what I thought would be a mild high, turned into something my body can't handle. That was the last time for me.

1Lib,

Still no test for MS they use MRI's and LP's to make guesses about it. They have drugs now which slow the progression (I don't think they show up on drug tests)

Your sister-in-law sounds pretty typical of someone with MS that long I have hopes though that mine will be a bit slower since we have all the fancy (and expensive) drugs now. I have had MS for going on 6 years now and I can still walk, with some dificulty, my cognitive function has dropped some I used to be able to multi-task 3 things at once now I can't. My memory is still as sharp as ever. No problems with bladder or bowles so far. Most people who know me do not know anything is wrong however I take lots of drugs to keep myself pushing at a level that most people think is normal. I only smoke pot at night and it does provide relief, however I do not claim to use it medicinaly even though I do because of my past useage I feel saying I was using it as medicine would feel a bit hypocritical. However some days are bad enough that I can't wait for my night time bowl and the knowledge that when the day is over I can have that gets me through the day. I know thats not exactly a recomendation but I bet your sister-in-law would understand and probably had she tried it 10 years ago before she was in the state she is in now she would agree.

When you have to concentrate to walk 100 yards when your muscles spend the day spasming and you have to focus 100% concentration on anything you do it leaves you whiped out, remember I work a full time job and run my own business part time (I hope to make it full time in a couple years but I don't have the client base yet) So if to get through a day I need to be able to look forward to a bowl in the evening then I will and anyone who says diferently can go fuck themselves. Of course if my employer were to find out I would probably be fired however it is possible that they would understand, if that happened I would go on disability or try and get my part time business going full time (or both)

As far as marijuana goes, what I thought would be a mild high, turned into something my body can't handle. That was the last time for me.

Part of the reason I quit drinking Ray. It made smoking not enjoyable and hanging with friends is much more likely to include smoking than drinking so given a choice I chose bud not alcohol. I once mixed delsym with vicodin (totaly on accident) it was the worst high ever and I am very careful to never do that again. We each have things we can handle and things we can't it's good to know and to listen to the bodies advice.

#162 | Posted by Ray at 2010-03-14 03:33 PM | Reply

The first time use of cannabis could be disorienting to a newbie, just like alcohol is. After a few times, it's nothing. It's easy to "maintain".

Tao,

Like I said, I don't have a problem with people who smoke pot, even for recreational purposes. However, I also think that, if you have a job where it COULD effect the employer, they should know.

So, if you worked at walmart stocking shelves, and might thru inattention or otherwise, drop something on a passing customer, that would be a problem.

And while you sound responsible, a lot of people who smoke (and drink, for that matter) do not.

TAOWARRIOR

I respect you a lot. You're living with a debilitating disease. As a pragmatic American I support your doing whatever you need to do to live as high a quality of life as you can. You don't whine or complain. You're supporting your entire family when many would give up - just like the WalMart employee was.

Your opinion on this is far more credible than some young Turk right winger who calls himself a 'libertarian' but obviously isn't by any stretch of the imagination. How convenient that suddenly 1LIB has family members with MS AND cancer! BS. If he had he'd know about the puking, loss of appetite, and other effects chemo has on cancer patients. He'd know about the excruciating muscle pain MS patients suffer. He'd be sympathetic to whatever gets those suffering from cancer or MS as comfortably as possible.

When cancer patients get marijuana as part of their regimen during chemo, the puking stops, they quit losing alarming amounts of weight that doesn't happen because of the cancer but because of a loss of appetite and inability to keep food down. The body needs to be as nourished as possible for cancer treatments to be effective and the immune system to have a chance.

1LIBERTARIAN's opinion isn't worth the cyberspace it's typed on.imagination. He's full of hot air and hyperbole.

The first time use of cannabis could be disorienting to a newbie, just like alcohol is. After a few times, it's nothing. It's easy to "maintain".
#165 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

My first experience was paranoia. It's funny when I look back at it. I had one roommate who was a pussycat. That night, on a high with other roommates, I was making a lot of noise, happy noise. My pussycat roommate came of of his bedroom wanting to know who made the noise that woke him up. I ran into my bedroom and locked the door.

"You're a liar."

#160 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Your username cracks me up given the fact that there is nothing ever "unifying" about your comments. Is that username a personal joke?

It seams to me as if all you are attempting to do is wind people up.

"My first experience was paranoia."
...
#168 | Posted by Ray

That's not uncommon. I suspect many cannabis users have experienced mild anxiety attacks at least once. It fades very quickly and lessens noticeably with experience.

Tao,
Like I said, I don't have a problem with people who smoke pot, even for recreational purposes. However, I also think that, if you have a job where it COULD effect the employer, they should know.
So, if you worked at walmart stocking shelves, and might thru inattention or otherwise, drop something on a passing customer, that would be a problem.
And while you sound responsible, a lot of people who smoke (and drink, for that matter) do not.
#166 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-03-14 03:53 PM

Wow, back-peddling can be a bitch, huh?

You don't know that this guy is not driving a company vehicle around or a heister lifting pallets.. you assumed he is and that Walmart would do nothing to avoid putting their medically fragile employee and others in harms way through the course of their duties. You mocked a dying man with an inoperable brain tumor. "Just desserts" are never without at least one crooked smile, right?

If you come to work fucked up, and walmart doesn't fire you, then they are agreeing that it is ok for you to be fucked up at work.
1Lib, you've completely missed the point. As usual.
There is no evidence that the guy came to work fucked up. None at all.
He was fired based solely on the results of a drug screening.

Walmart whips out a 'get of jail free "pothead has a script" card. Poor parents get nothing for their dead child. So sad, thanks for shopping
What? Earlier it's been expressed that the whole libertarian attitude is "If you don't like getting your child's head smashed in, nobody's forcing you to shop at WAL*MART."
You're arguing in circles and you don't even realize it.
I can't say if you're truly a libertarian, since nobody will explain what it means, but your intellectual capability seems equivalent with those who identify themselves as such.

Pot-bot, have you fried what few brain cells that GOD gave you to start with?

Wow, back-peddling can be a bitch, huh?

You don't know that this guy is not driving a company vehicle around or a heister lifting pallets

And you should know that this law will not just apply to this one pothead, right?

you assumed he is and that Walmart would do nothing to avoid putting their medically fragile employee and others in harms way through the course of their duties.

If he had DISCLOSED that he was smoking pot PRIOR to having an accident at work, Wally may have moved him to a paper shuffling kind of job. He didn't. Do you expect that all potheads are going to go tell their boss "i have a hang nail and got a script for pot"?

You mocked a dying man with an inoperable brain tumor. "Just desserts" are never without at least one crooked smile, right?

Mocked? No. There was no ridicule or contempt. It was a description. I would call someone who drinks to much a drunk, someone who has sex with chidren a pedophile (or a kiddy diddler), etc. It is in an attempt to label their behavior, not to belittle his condition. Called him a pothead? Yup. So, the fact that THIS pothead has cancer means we should make a bunch of new laws to protect his right to get high and then go to work at walmart if he wants. There are how many other potheads in the US? Can you not put down the joint, open the windows, and get a little clear air? Maybe just a little oxygen would help.

Just so you know the difference, pot-bot, I am mocking your lack of intelligence.

"Pot-bot, have you fried what few brain cells that GOD gave you to start with?"

You believe in theism as well? I thought most right-libertarians were non-theists.

.. Just so you know the difference, pot-bot, I am mocking your lack of intelligence.
#173 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-03-14 04:35 PM

#91 | Posted by matsop

Gotta agree with Matsop here. Absent a prescription, he was an unlawful user.

This is independent of my thoughts on the subject of marijuana.

You airheads may be missing an important point in this thread---the thread stated that the gentleman fired was "recommended" by his physician to use marijuana for his condition---by law if he doesn't have a valid prescription for the illegal substance or any other illegal substance he may be fired by his employer---did Joseph Casias say that his physician "recommended" it and then didn't have a valid prescription.

#91 | Posted by matsop

That's a non-issue. Cali medical patients get "recommendations" from doctors, which are necessary to gain entrance to a dispensary. They don't issue a script that you can give to a pharmacy. It's just semantics. You have a doctor sign something, that's all you need.

This guy was legal. From the linked article - which 1LIB apparently hasn't read:

BATTLE CREEK, Mich. (WZZM) - Now that medical marijuana is legal in Michigan, can an employer fire a worker who tests positive for the drug?

WalMart says it can, so it did. "I was terminated because I failed a drug screening," says former WalMart employee Joseph Casias.

In 2008, Casias was the Associate Of The Year at the WalMart store in Battle Creek, despite suffering from sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor. (nice reward, eh?)

At his doctor's recommendation, Casias says he legally uses medical marijuana to ease his pain.

"It helps tremendously," he says. "I only use it to stop the pain. To make me feel more comfortable and active as a person."

During his five years at WalMart, Casias says he went to work every day, determined to be the best.

"I gave them everything," he says. "110 percent every day. Anything they asked me to do I did. More than they asked me to do. 12 to 14 hours a day."

But last November, Casias sprained his knee at work. Marijuana was detected in his system during the routine drug screening that follows all workplace injuries. Casias showed WalMart managers his state medical marijuana card, but he was fired anyway.

"I was told they do not accept or honor my medical marijuana card," says Casias.

(Gee, what a way to reward an employee who worked 12 to 14 hours a day, had been Associate of the the Year in 2008, and NEVER had a problem at the store. "Libertarians" suggest he was a pothead stoner who was a danger to his fellow employees. Well, DUH, until he sprained his knee there was never a question, was there?)

I take my hat off to anyone who goes to work with an inoperable brain tumor and works his ass off.

Libertarians evidently don't.

"You have a doctor sign something, that's all you need."

So he has to sue. Hopefully somebody takes his case pro bono. Sounds like he's out of luck though.

There is no evidence that the guy came to work fucked up. None at all. He was fired based solely on the results of a drug screening.

So, the fact that there is no test to show how recently he smoked pot [which is illegal] should prevent them from firing him? Even if he was hurt on the job?

What? Earlier it's been expressed that the whole libertarian attitude is "If you don't like getting your child's head smashed in, nobody's forcing you to shop at WAL*MART."

Wow, you can't remember more than 1 post at a time. MY FIRST ARGUMENT was to change the laws to hold walmart harmless if the pothead harmed someone. I even went so far as suggesting they put signs up at the state lines warning people that potheads worked here and to enter the entire state at your own risk.

You're arguing in circles and you don't even realize it.

No, I am arguing the same thing over and over to differnt people. Ok, sometimes to the same person who keeps going around and around and around.

I can't say if you're truly a libertarian, since nobody will explain what it means, but your intellectual capability seems equivalent with those who identify themselves as such.

#172 | Posted by snoofy

I have a great time in life without alcohol, weed, etc.---I live a "high" every day without this stuff-"

You can get too "stoned" on cannabis, in the sense of experience physical discomfort, if you take too high a dose, but it's hard to get too "high" in the sense of euphoria.

#156 | Posted by nullifidian

Learn something all the time.

Hey, Ray, great time eh? I just don't get it---I have a great time in life without alcohol, weed, etc.---I live a "high" every day without this stuff--not to say I didn't use alcohol when I was younger, immature and stupid.
#155 | POSTED BY MATSOP

I just enjoy drinking with company. I've always been a moderate drinker. As far as marijuana goes, what I thought would be a mild high, turned into something my body can't handle. That was the last time for me.

#162 | Posted by Ray

Smart---Years ago was in a restaurant with some "friends"---had one drink and went to the bathroom--came back to the table, finished my drink, and went home---halfway home never remembered the rest of the trip---a mickey?--after that and one other episode with significant drinking swore off of "mind-altering" drugs---will occasionally have a drink when out eating---love being in control of my decision making.

You airheads may be missing an important point in this thread---the thread stated that the gentleman fired was "recommended" by his physician to use marijuana for his condition---by law if he doesn't have a valid prescription for the illegal substance or any other illegal substance he may be fired by his employer---did Joseph Casias say that his physician "recommended" it and then didn't have a valid prescription.

#91 | Posted by matsop

That's a non-issue. Cali medical patients get "recommendations" from doctors, which are necessary to gain entrance to a dispensary. They don't issue a script that you can give to a pharmacy. It's just semantics. You have a doctor sign something, that's all you need.

#177 | Posted by nullifidian

Nulli, according to the article this guy is from Michigan and having been involved in these type of cases a MRO (Medical Review Officer) usually needs a prescription signed by a physician to okay it---in other words he's dead-meat if he doesn't have it--this'll force me to look at the Michigan law to see if anything has changed versus THC and other drugs that are tested for by employers--

blah blah blah... Gee, what a way to reward an employee who worked 12 to 14 hours a day, had been Associate of the the Year in 2008, and NEVER had a problem at the store. "Libertarians" suggest he was a pothead stoner who was a danger to his fellow employees. Well, DUH, until he sprained his knee there was never a question, was there?

#178 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

And you KNOW that if something happened that was a complete accident, like dropping something off of a shelf or over correcting when driving one of those pallet moving machines, that an attorney would sue the FUCK out of walmart, and win, based on this guy having drugs in his system. Why you are so ANTI business I just don't understand.

I take my hat off to anyone who goes to work with an inoperable brain tumor and works his ass off.

Libertarians evidently don't.

#179 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Once again, AU-hole, you are off your rocker. I prefer to change the law so that walmart wouldn't be sued for having this pothead on the payroll. Problem solved, except that the libs LOVE the FUCK out of lawyers, and would never think of doing anything that would prevent lawyers from making huge money by bleeding corporations to death. Money that, as it happens, is funneled into the Dem bank accounts.

Lets go back to stage one.

Should this pothead be allowed to smoke pot. I say YES, if he wants to.

Should walmart be responsible if this pothead does something that results in someone being hurt or killed? I say NO.

If walmart is responsible, should they be allowed to fire this pothead to prevent being raped by lawyers? Again, if they are responsible for his actions, they must have authority to fire him if he has a greater than normal chance of causing financial harm.

If walmart is not responsible for damages caused by this pothead, should they be able to fire him if they want to? I say yes, they own the business and you do not have a right to a job.

If walmart is not able to fire someone, are employees required to continue at walmart as long as walmart wants them? Are the walmart shoppers required by law to continue to shop there? Just how much govt control are you shooting for?

The Michigan Law appears to be contradictory and leaves employers hanging---there is yet no test case but this may be the one to clarify what rights the employer/employee has.

"Nulli, according to the article this guy is from Michigan and having been involved in these type of cases a MRO"

I don't know a lot about Michigan law. I'm familiar with Cali. Here you get a recommendation, which doesn't look like the typical small prescription pad, but has your photo id and an embossed stamp, like a notary stamp. That's your entrance ticket to a dispensary.

1LIB

I don't usually say things like this:

YOU'RE A MORON!

"Afraid the world will see exactly what kind of a fuckstain you really are?"

You sound like a real moron, libertardian. Are you from Texas?

1TEAPARTYTARIAN

FTFY

AU-hole, What an intelligent comeback. I notice you didn't answer any of my questions... Is this because you are to stoned? To stupid? Afraid the world will see exactly what kind of a fuckstain you really are?
Oh, maybe you were just so messed up that you couldn't remember them. I will post them with smaller words. Maybe that will help.
1) is it OK to be a Pothead? Vote Yes or No.
2) Pothead's job has to pay if pothead fucks up? Vote yes or no.
3) If pothead's job has to pay, can they fire pothead before he kills someone? Vote yes or no.
4) If pothead's job can't fire pothead, then what should they do? This is a bonus question. You should probably think about this one while you roll your next fattie.
#189 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-03-14 06:41 PM

Which actions are illegal? Is the doctor an accessory inventing a new criminal? Could Walmart sue this doctor for provoking law suits from any theoretical pothead-induced accidents? What about preventative suits - and in their absence why not sue the DEA for allowing medical dispensaries to enable even more criminals?

Where is your gusto? Shouldn't all medically invented prescription criminals be regularly rounded up and "detained"? Perhaps medical experimentation is in order to determine how an otherwise productive Walmartian can be transformed into a useless, dangerous law-suit provocateur? It's not like he's going to live happily or for very long anyhow.. and now that he can't pay his rent perhaps that is the best option?

Nulli, AU-hole has this routine of 'your not really xxxx ' but not answering any questions. I was hoping that (s)he would actually try and focus long enough to read and answer a post. Once again, it didn't.

So, if you and AU-hole are on the same mental wavelength, maybe you can guess what its answers might be. Or at least let me know what your answers to the questions would be.

Instead of repeating my questions here, would you reply to the questions at the bottom of #185?

1TEABAGITARIAN

FTFY

#193 | Posted by 1TEAPARTARIAN

I would if you weren't an idiot. Anyone who wasn't an idiot wouldn't be calling a guy working his ass off at WalMart, Associate of The Year, 12-14 hours a day with a BRAIN TUMOR a "Pothead" and stand up for WalMart.

There's no such thing as a reasonable discussion with a tea partier.

Which actions are illegal?

Pot-bot, Read the entire thread. There was a discussion as to whether a script is required, or only a recomendation. The rest was just random stupidity...

I also noticed that you refused to answer the basic question. Would walmart be responsible if some pothead hurt someone while working? Is it so very hard to get one of you leftist / anti-business types to admit that your ultimate goal is to RAPE business like walmart?

If that is what you really think, just say it.

I would if you weren't an idiot.

You would, If you had an answer that didn't prove to the world you were a self-indulgent shitstain.

Anyone who wasn't an idiot wouldn't be calling a guy working his ass off at WalMart, Associate of The Year, 12-14 hours a day with a BRAIN TUMOR a "Pothead" and stand up for WalMart.

There's no such thing as a reasonable discussion with a tea partier.

#195 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

And, once again, AU-hole refuses to answer a simple question. Oh, so because I called someone who smokes pot a pothead, that invalidates the question?

What's wrong, can't admit that you want to be able to smoke pot, keep your job, and have your employer get raped in court if you fuck up? Just admit you are anti-business.

All people with inoperable brain tumors should go straight on Federal Disability at the second of diagnosis so teabagitarians can whine about them mooching off the government rather than working 12-14 hours a day for years without problem, Associate Of The Year, for a company who, for all we know, pulled this to nix his health insurance.

You airheads may be missing an important point in this thread---the thread stated that the gentleman fired was "recommended" by his physician to use marijuana for his condition---by law if he doesn't have a valid prescription for the illegal substance or any other illegal substance he may be fired by his employer---did Joseph Casias say that his physician "recommended" it and then didn't have a valid prescription.

#91 | Posted by matsop

That's a non-issue. Cali medical patients get "recommendations" from doctors, which are necessary to gain entrance to a dispensary. They don't issue a script that you can give to a pharmacy. It's just semantics. You have a doctor sign something, that's all you need.

#177 | Posted by nullifidian

In Michigan, you have to be registered.

#197 | Posted by 1TEABAGITARIAN at 2010-03-14 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sits in judgment of people with inoperable brain tumors who work 12-14 hours a day for years without incident and calls them 'potheads'.

I don't smoke pot BTW. I've smoked plenty in my life and never experienced a single one of the anecdotes this teabagitarian shared of other people's 'experiences'. Ate Doritos. That's about it.

If I had cancer and had to go through chemo (as I've experienced first hand) or was diagnosed with MS the first thing I'd do is make pot brownies so I can maintain my appetite and not lose alarming amounts of weight while keeping nutrition going into my system ... important to maintaining an immune system and general health otherwise.

Clarfication:

If I had cancer and had to go through chemo ... as I've WITNESSED first hand (previous word not clear enough...my bad). Immediate family members have - for extended periods of time.

All people with inoperable brain tumors should go straight on Federal Disability at the second of diagnosis so teabagitarians can whine about them mooching off the government rather than working 12-14 hours a day for years without problem, Associate Of The Year, for a company who, for all we know, pulled this to nix his health insurance.

#198 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Poor AU-hole... can't answer the questions... all he can do is spin and lie and spin and lie... Damn if you don't sound like Clintorus.

If you want potheads to keep their jobs, then it is a simple A-B decision. Who gets fucked?

A) Walmart (and any future business that has a pothead for an employee) because they can't fire the pothead and are liable for his mistakes.

B) The citizens of MI, who will have no one to collect from if they are hurt by some pothead.

Just chose one. Easy peasy. You just don't like to admit you want to destroy the jobs in this country.

"Which actions are illegal?"

Pot-bot, Read the entire thread. There was a discussion as to whether a script is required, or only a recomendation. The rest was just random stupidity...
I also noticed that you refused to answer the basic question. Would walmart be responsible if some pothead hurt someone while working? Is it so very hard to get one of you leftist / anti-business types to admit that your ultimate goal is to RAPE business like walmart?
If that is what you really think, just say it.
#196 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-03-14 07:37 PM

I think that it is not Walmart's place to second-guess physicians willy-nilly. It's also my belief that this was done without factual analysis regarding the law suits that you are happy to envision on behalf of injured customers.

Do you really believe that your scenario in this instance is plausible? I've implied a number of times that I do not, mainly because there is no evidence indicating this was likely or even possible to begin with. Unless you really do think marijuana makes Mexican's hunger for White women uncontrollably or causes hipsters to go on psychotic murderous rampages. I just don't see where this danger is present anywhere. Prove he was a menace or possibly inept and you could have a good point.

What did you think of the neurogenesis data? Interesting how this is still not even used for soldiers with brain injuries or commonly dispensed as a panacea? Who benefits other than the "legal" drug cartel? Who made this substance illegal and rates marijuana as dangerous as PCP?

You seem to know very little about marijuana and hemp or even their historic cultivation and subsequent prohibition here in America, let alone it's thousands of years of known use without one death across the planet.

I think that it is not Walmart's place to second-guess physicians willy-nilly.

Not willy-nilly. The doctor can tell the pothead to smoke a pound a day if he wants to... but his being stoned at the doctors orders does not provide immunity to walmart from a lawsuit.

...done without factual analysis

A lawyer will look for ANYTHING to assign guilt. It helps the payout, which puts more money in the attorney's pockets. Believe me, a company the size of wally has all of their policies reviewed.

Do you really believe that your scenario in this instance is plausible?

Do I believe that people might make a mistake and someone could get hurt? Sure. That if I worked for wally, was sober and didn't put down a sign that said 'wet floor', walmart would be guilty and have to pay the slip-n-fall damages. That if some pothead didn't put the same sign down for the same reason, that some bottom feeding piece of shit lawyer would use that to attempt to get more money out of walmart? Absofuckinglutely.

Unless you really do think marijuana makes Mexican's hunger for White women uncontrollably

Don't know where your racist rant came from. I'll just chalk it up to your general racist tendencies and skip it.

or causes hipsters to go on psychotic murderous rampages.

Dude, think the cronic is making you a little paranoid.

I just don't see where this danger is present anywhere.

And because YOU can't see it, it must not really exist?

Prove he was a menace or possibly inept and you could have a good point.

No, prove that some bottom-feeding lawyer would use it to attempt to rape walmart for a few extra bucks.

Who benefits... as dangerous as PCP?

Personally, I would legalize both. As well as viagra or insulin or beta blockers, etc. If you are over 18, take whatever the fuck you want. If you die, to fucking bad. Walmart and big pharma should be immune.

know very little about marijuana and hemp or ...

Are you kidding? My brother rants and raves about the damn stuff. Again, I don't care what you do. You want it to be legal, and I don't have a problem with that. But making it legal creates NEW problems.

Q1) Does the pot head have a right to keep his job, even if he MIGHT be getting high at work, on his way to work, at lunch, etc. [as has been pointed out, there is not test that will determine if you are 'ok' to work or 'too high' to pay attention to your job]

Q2) If pothead keeps his job, what happens WHEN an accident occurs. Does his employer have to pay compensation?

Q3) If pothead's employer is liable for damages, then you are fucking over the business. They now have employees that are liabilities, and they can do nothing to reduce the risk.

Q4) If pothead's employer is not held liable, what do you tell the person injured by the accident? Sorry, you can't collect? This would piss off the attorneies MORE than the people who were actually harmed by the above-mentioned slip-n-fall injuries.

"The 'You, sir...' is a dead giveaway to your being a conservative talk radio head.
Nice try. :-)"
#9 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

You are confusing it with Keith "You SIR!" Olbermann, left wing talking hack on MSNBC.

"Here's a clue, fuckwit...
Be Well."
#18 | Posted by dethspud

You contradict yourself.

"I think that it is not Walmart's place to second-guess physicians willy-nilly."

Not willy-nilly. The doctor can tell the pothead to smoke a pound a day if he wants to... but his being stoned at the doctors orders does not provide immunity to walmart from a lawsuit.

"...done without factual analysis"

A lawyer will look for ANYTHING to assign guilt. It helps the payout, which puts more money in the attorney's pockets. Believe me, a company the size of wally has all of their policies reviewed.

That's not evidence of his guilt or probable cause for his firing other than the presumption that he is in violation of their separation clause for testing positive. The fact that he is action upon a medically recognized treatment with legal documentation as well as being a superior worker suffering an inoperable condition that requires medication clarifies this issue to be entirely based upon his testing positive, not the rationale that it's conditionally also his medical treatment. In fact his medical card might even exclude him from a piss test, I dunno what tissues and substances are protected from corporate investigations.

"Do you really believe that your scenario in this instance is plausible?"

Do I believe that people might make a mistake and someone could get hurt? Sure. That if I worked for wally, was sober and didn't put down a sign that said 'wet floor', walmart would be guilty and have to pay the slip-n-fall damages. That if some pothead didn't put the same sign down for the same reason, that some bottom feeding piece of shit lawyer would use that to attempt to get more money out of walmart? Absofuckinglutely.

"In this instance", meaning would Joseph Casias pose a threat in your opinion?

"Unless you really do think marijuana makes Mexican's hunger for White women uncontrollably"

Don't know where your racist rant came from. I'll just chalk it up to your general racist tendencies and skip it.

"or causes hipsters to go on psychotic murderous rampages."

Dude, think the cronic is making you a little paranoid.

"Who benefits... as dangerous as PCP?"

Personally, I would legalize both. As well as viagra or insulin or beta blockers, etc. If you are over 18, take whatever the fuck you want. If you die, to fucking bad. Walmart and big pharma should be immune.

Spoken sommat like a libertarian, at last! Walmart and Big Pharma are phucking us royally both in terms of employee privacy rights but also dependency upon their shill. I want neither deregulated - government has it's purpose and bureaucracy historically has it's place.

"know very little about marijuana and hemp or ..."

Are you kidding? My brother rants and raves about the damn stuff. Again, I don't care what you do. You want it to be legal, and I don't have a problem with that. ..

No, I do not believe that you appreciate what this issue is really about whatsoever. You feel that this ex-employee is only after monetary compensation and have voiced as much a couple of posts. I do not mean to ignore this concern, because it's always a component to most law suits, but his actual issue is that Walmart do not recognize the Medical Marijuana program and have selectively determined this without much consideration for his future employment - as you've outlined they are merely following legal precedence.

.. But making it legal creates NEW problems.
Q1) Does the pot head have a right to keep his job, even if he MIGHT be getting high at work, on his way to work, at lunch, etc. [as has been pointed out, there is not test that will determine if you are 'ok' to work or 'too high' to pay attention to your job]
Q2) If pothead keeps his job, what happens WHEN an accident occurs. Does his employer have to pay compensation?
Q3) If pothead's employer is liable for damages, then you are fucking over the business. They now have employees that are liabilities, and they can do nothing to reduce the risk.
Q4) If pothead's employer is not held liable, what do you tell the person injured by the accident? Sorry, you can't collect? This would piss off the attorneies MORE than the people who were actually harmed by the above-mentioned slip-n-fall injuries.
#203 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-03-14 09:16 PM

I'm pretty certain all of these issues are already legally determinately mundane enough, it's that as a responsible productive citizen he possess rights to treatment that Walmart are selectively discounting and purposefully misconstruing with their stance on prohibited substances. This issue should be handled no differently from any other instance of responsible use of a controlled substance. This employee has demonstrated no ill effects impacting his work. Walmart has overruled a medical prescription with particular exception to marijuana. This needs to be addressed as discrimination. Hey, that's something that I can't help but notice oozing from your every post! Do you hate your brother so much as to project his behavior onto every marijuana user both medical and recreational? There is a long history of marijuana and successful people who did not appear to succumb to reefer madness.

That's not evidence of his guilt or probable cause for his firing other than the presumption that he is in violation of their separation clause for testing positive.

You might have a valid point, but it was different from the argument I was making. I was saying that if someone was hurt, and the person who made the mistake was on pot (even if it were legal), that the lawyer would use the potheads drug use IN COURT to win a bigger settlement from walmart. IE. Walmart failed to protect their customers from this dangerous pothead. Doesn't matter if pot is less or more dangerous than water or air, only what the people on the jury will award as damages. If walmart keeping him as an employee will cost them more money, they have an interest in letting him go that outweighs his being a good employee in the past.

As for probable cause, that is dependent on local laws. If MI were right to work (which I am SURE they are not), it wouldn't be an issue at all. However, there was discussion up thread about a recommendation vs a script. It might not be 'legal'.

... as being a superior worker suffering an inoperable condition that requires medication clarifies this issue to be entirely based upon his testing positive, not the rationale that it's conditionally also his medical treatment.

But you can't make laws or rules than only pertain to 1 employee. If you allow this 'good worker' who doesn't abuse pot to stay, then the one who gets a script for a hangnail is also allowed to stay.

In fact his medical card might even exclude him from a piss test, I dunno what tissues and substances are protected from corporate investigations.

Do you believe that his immunity to a piss test from the corp would hold any weight if a judge ordered him to provide a hair sample? [had a friend ordered to provide a hair sample when her ex accused her of being strung out. She passed, and he had to pay the court costs].

"In this instance", meaning would Joseph Casias pose a threat in your opinion? He might, if the level of pain and the amount of drugs he takes causes him to be unable to perform his duties. Like I suggested, not putting down a sign that said we floor or something. Doesn't have to be distracted by the drugs (could have been a nice piece of ass walk by) but everyone will assume it is drugs.

That's my point - he is not endangering anyone, thus there is no evidence for your preventative law suit scenario. Plus, he's a superior worker - taking pride in his actions, setting examples - I'm also leaning towards believing his claim that he is telling the truth and did not work "high".

#206 | Posted by redlightrobot

Lots of points, try to cover them quickly... 4000 byte limit sucks. He might endanger someone, the stockholders of walmart, the manager and shift managers that have profit sharing, etc.

Doctors practice defensive medicine to keep from being sued. Run tests that they know are not needed, cause it keeps them from losing their homes. This is the same type of thing. Put a policy in place that might harm this one 'non-abusing' pot smoker (pothead), but will prevent having to fight 1 million other potheads who have much less grounds for being at work high.

He might not get high at work, on on the way to work, or at lunch. But how can walmart separate him from the millions of other potheads? And you KNOW, if they keep him and fire the next one, there will be a lawsuit. This is the most litigious bunch of fucks on the planet.

MY FIRST ARGUMENT was to change the laws to hold walmart harmless if the pothead harmed someone.

1Lib: The pothead didn't harm anyone.

He was injured on the job.

Now, for sake of argument, perhaps he injured himself? So then, WAL*MART needs special laws protecting them from allowing their own workers who come to work intoxicated and injure themselves?

You claim to be a libertarian yet your solution to a problem involving this man's lost liberty is... more laws! Charade you are.

All your talk about liability and lawsuits has nothing at all to do with the issue. He was fired when, ex-post-facto, he tested positive for a substance he is not only legally allowed to use, but uses for a legitimate medical reason under a doctor's supervision. Nobody should be allowed to be fired for that.

People should be allowed to be fired for coming to work intoxicated. There's no evidence this guy ever did that. To the contrary, there's plenty of evidence WAL*MART considered him an exemplary employee.

Perhaps WAL*MART should never have hired him, but they did. WAL*MART for example could have simply decided not to hire him based on a positive test for marijuana on a pre-employment drug screening. But they didn't do that. They don't get to have it both ways.

Of course, in your dreamworld, WAL*MART should be able to fire someone simply for being black. You're fucked in the head, son.

..marijuana makes Mexican's hunger for White women uncontrollably or causes hipsters to go on psychotic murderous rampages..

The pothead didn't harm anyone. He was injured on the job.

This time, yes. What about the next time there is an accident? Do you think the fact that he tested positive for drugs this time MIGHT cause walmart problems in the future? Please re-read this until it sinks into your thick skull

Now, for sake of argument, perhaps he injured himself? So then, WAL*MART needs special laws protecting them from allowing their own workers who come to work intoxicated and injure themselves?

Yes. Take TAO for example. He said he has health problems and falls down. Would a company hire him, with his current condition, if the next fall might cost them a butt-load of money? If they were not liable for his falls, then he might have more options for a job.

You claim to be a libertarian yet your solution to a problem involving this man's lost liberty is... more laws! Charade you are.

You are an idiot. You want to force the business to keep the pothead, and then you want to allow him and anyone else that gets hurt to sue them. You have NO CONCERN for the business, for the stock holders, etc. The only rights you worry about is can he get high and can we keep his right to sue people.

All your talk about liability and lawsuits has nothing at all to do with the issue.

That's the problem we are having. I am talking about the STUPID FUCKING LAWS that cause a company like walmart to fire the pothead because the potential cost of keeping him as an employ outweigh his value. Please read this a few extra times as well... it hasn't sunk in yet either

He was fired when, ex-post-facto, he tested positive for a substance he is not only legally allowed to use, but uses for a legitimate medical reason under a doctor's supervision. Nobody should be allowed to be fired for that.

He was fired because he is a liability to the company.

People should be allowed to be fired for coming to work intoxicated. There's no evidence this guy ever did that. To the contrary, there's plenty of evidence WAL*MART considered him an exemplary employee.

True, possibly true, possibly true and besides the point. You might have been a good boytoy a year ago and now be tossed overboard by your partner. When an employee becomes a liability, the company should have a right to terminate his employment.

Perhaps WAL*MART should never have hired him, but they did.

Perhaps he wasn't a pothead when they hired him? Or maybe he was, who knows?

WAL*MART for example could have simply decided not to hire him based on a positive test for marijuana on a pre-employment drug screening. But they didn't do that. They don't get to have it both ways.

So, if you date someone, then decide after the first date, that things aren't going to work, you are just stuck?

Of course, in your dreamworld, WAL*MART should be able to fire someone simply for being black. You're fucked in the head, son.

#209 | Posted by snoofy

Yes, they should. And people should be able to band together outside of the walmart stores and protest. People should be able to go to target or cosco or piggly wiggly, etc. Funny how those things called personal choice means NOTHING to libbies. You are only allowed the choices they want you to have.

You can have free speech, as long as you say what they want to hear. Fucking hypocrites. Every fucking leftie.

Of course, in your dreamworld, WAL*MART should be able to fire someone simply for being black. You're fucked in the head, son.

#209 | Posted by snoofy

Yes, they should.

Well there you have it folks. WAL*MART should be able to fire someone simply for the color of their skin.

Let Freedom Ring!

1Lib,

Ok the bottom line question for you is that legaly this guy might cost walmart a pile o cash in a law suit.

My question (and I really don't know) If I worked at wally world droped a case of coke on a 2 year olds head and she died. They test me (we are going to assume that since I am not in a medical marijuana state that I only do my legal perscriptions) I come up positive for opiates and benzodrine I pull out the scripts. Now what legal protection does walmart have for those, can the breived father sue? I know acording to the ADA walmart can not hold legal scripts against me so they have to hire me they can't protect themselves by not hiring me so do they also gain protections?

If they don't why do you want to make an exception for pot. If they do why would pot not be covered the same way?

does federal law trump state and is smoking medicinal pot still a federal crime?