In California, employers are not allowed to ask about weed convictions more than 2 years old. Right on the application it specifically states “Do not tell us about pot busts more than 2 years old.”
Cite? What if it was a felony conviction?
Do they specifically use the words “pot” and “busts” on the applications? That’s pretty casual.
The wording I have seen is something like list all convictions “excluding misdemenor traffic violations and minor marijuana possession charges.”
Yeah, usually that’s right, but Happy Wanderer put “Do not tell us about pot busts more than 2 years old.” in qutations which is why I ask.
Once again I ask for a cite. Is that actually the law? What if it’s an application for police officer?
Actually I was paraphrasing. Sorry if you thought it was a verbatim quote. Anyway, it must be the law because it is on all the forms I saw on my recent job hunt.
:rolleyes:
It must be the law that the Captain of a ship can marry people because I saw it on happy Days.
Still sounds like too much of a hassle to me. As a former resident of the Bay Area, I say find different people to move in with.
Yeah, all the employers are putting it on the form all of a sudden because um, Donald Trump told them to. Why do YOU think the forms are saying that now?
You’re the one that said they weren’t allowed to ask about marijuana convictions more than 2 years old.
If you are going to make a statement as though it is fact, back it up with a cite please. That’s how we do it here.
- Criminal history. In California, criminal histories or “rap sheets” compiled by law enforcement agencies are not public record. Only certain employers such as public utilities, law enforcement, security guard firms, and child care facilities have access to this information. (California Penal Code §§11105, 13300) With the advent of computerized court records and arrest information, however, there are private companies that compile virtual “rap sheets.”
Employers need to use caution in checking criminal records. Information offered to the public by web-based information brokers is not always accurate or up to date. This violates both federal and California law when reported as such. Also, in California, an employer may not inquire about a marijuana conviction that is more than two years old.
From here.
I hope this silences the doubters.
I don’t know about the law where you live-- in Ann Arbor, MI, the legal risk is low, especially if you get busted by the campus police.
But setting aside all legal considerations, I would not advise you get yourself into a household with people actively using drugs. I once roomed blind for the summer with five major drug addicts. Not just marijuana, but shrooms and cocaine-- which they would leave out on the living room coffee table after a hard night. I don’t even smoke dope. Living with these people was supremely irritating. Three times a day, “Let’s invite twelve people over and get high!” Once I had to crawl in through my bedroom window when I forgot my key and none of them would open the door and let me in the living room. Why? “We thought you might be the police.” :rolleyes:
Not to mention having to hear all the stories about being convinced they didn’t actually exist or being caught in the television or all other kinds of inane and immature bullshit that stemmed from the use of hallucinogens. If they were not legally dangerous, they were in the very least nauseating and tiresome.
And there were definitely times I got contact highs.
Trust me, if you’re not into the drug culture, it’s just a bad idea.
Are you sure this applies to the CA Pot possession for personal use law?
Yeah, that was just silly. It was voter passed suggestion of policy to the police department that they don’t have to follow but they already do.
I know of three shops on or just off of upper State that openly sell medical marijuana. You have to have a perscription to buy it or get past the first counter but if you ask they’ll give you a list of doctors who will give pretty much anyone a 'scrip for a couple hundred dollar office visit. I’ve seen people openly walking out of those places with paper bags full of weed. There isn’t a cop in town who doesn’t know about those places. There must be several pounds of pot in each one at any given time.
Well, I’m not sure about the California law on pot possession, but remember two things:
-
You may end up moving out of California, in which case the law of the state to which you move will govern what the employer can ask, and
-
You don’t have to be busted on pot possession, though I’d have to research what California did with drug paraphernalia laws regarding marijuana paraphernalia.
I still maintain that it is not a good idea to dismiss casually the potential implications of being in a living residence with people who are using prohibited drugs. Unless and until society as a whole in the US gets more tolerant of marijuana use, you simply are putting a potential roadblock in your way. Fair? Not necessarily, but that’s life. :dubious:
Oh and as regards that one referenced website on background checks,Happy Wanderer, I note they don’t cite a statute for that claim on California law, so I’d have to do some research to find what they are using as a reference for that claim. However, I do suspect that, if the forms are all showing that as a statement, there is likely to be a law behind it somewhere.
I dunno.
I sort of like the fact that it formalizes, at least in some measure, a policy that the department was already following. It lets the cops know what the community’s priorities are, and that the people of Santa Barbara support the police department’s current way of operating.
It also sends a message to people who get all indignant about marijuana use and, perhaps more importantly, to the Feds who have taken such ridiculous efforts over recent years to undermine California’s more lenient attitude to weed.
Sure they do.
At the beginning of that section, under the heading “Arrest Information,” they refer to California Labor Code §432.7.
That section can be found here, although it’s actually the following section, §432.8 (on the same page), that deals specifically with weed. §432.7 goes into considerable detail about what employers can and cannot ask. §432.8 then says:
Subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 11375 refer to marijuana possession. Subdivision (b) relates to possession of less than an ounce, and (c) to more than an ounce.
Sections 11364 and 11365 deal mainly with the possession of drug paraphernalia, and with the issue of being present in a place where illegal drugs are being smoked (something that would seem to be directly relevant to the OP).
And I hope you realize the value of having a cite when you make claims about something.
Bad law, by the way.
Why?
One of the things I do in the course of my job is backgrounds on applicants.
I want to know all about the person, including any arrests and police contacts they’ve had. Luckily here I can do that.
People must be more honest around here. About 50% of the time someone cops to owning it in my experience. Usually not at first.