Let’s pretend that Nevada actually legalizes marijuana.
What will happen to people who are subject to drug testing at their jobs? If Joe Sixpack takes a weekend trip to Vegas, smokes some legal weed, and goes back home to his state, and his job demands a drug test, do they have cause to fire him for testing positive? Could a company legally forbid someone from smoking pot, even if they do it, where it is legal, withing the borders of the United States? Would legal pot, even if it’s only in one state, really send the piss Nazis into a tail spin. Would “I spent the weekend in Vegas” be a valid defense to testing positive for weed?
Lastly, say Nevada makes pot legal. It is still illegal under federal law. Would this be what employers use against an employee who tests positive?
pkbites, in the large number of instances in America, workers are “at will” employees - that is, they are employed at the will of the employer. So if an employer wants to fire someone for smoking pot, regardless of whether that pot was legal, the employer can fire that employee.
But in any event, we don’t have to worry about it.
is not happening here. Even if Nevada legalizes pot, pot will still be illegal in Nevada; Nevada’s legalization will have no impact on federal laws, which still criminalize pot.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte * in the large number of instances in America, workers are “at will” employees - that is, they are employed at the will of the employer. So if an employer wants to fire someone for smoking pot, regardless of whether that pot was legal, the employer can fire that employee.
But what about union employees? Would legal dope give them an arguement to remove pot from the drug tests?
Even if Nevada legalizes pot, pot will still be illegal in Nevada; Nevada’s legalization will have no impact on federal laws, which still criminalize pot.
Sure, it’s an argument, but it probably wouldn’t work. Drug tests on the job are not justified by an assertion that the employer has to make sure their employee is acting legally in his/her off hours, but instead by an assertion that being on drugs will impair the employee’s ability to do the job safely/effeciently.
After all, even in union situations, an employer is able to fire an employee for drinking (legal) booze on the job.
(I recognize that pot, because it stays in the system much longer, is not the same as alcohol)
Hopefully, it will result in a switch from past-use tests to present impairment tests.
If the justification is really “we want to make sure you have a clear head before driving that forklift”, and not “we can save a few bucks on insurance if you don’t smoke pot on vacation”, an impairment test is just as effective as a past-use test.
In fact, it’s even better, because it tests for impairment no matter what the cause: smoking pot an hour before work, taking antihistamines for a cold, waking up with a hangover, or staying up all night watching TV.
I believe that there is a provision in Proposition 9 that will forbid employers from testing for pot.
As has been pointed out earlier, though, Nevadans posessing pot would still be in violation of Federal laws, so I imagine if employers (or, more likely the labs that do the drug testing, as they would stand to lose a lot of money) were to “take it to a higher court” as it were, we wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
OTOH, assuming the Feds leave us alone (the price they pay for using our state as a nuke testing/dumping ground, perhaps?), it might provide an interesting case study right here in the good ol’ US of A on the benefits or hazards of legal weed.
It might also provide a jumping-off point for a court case challenging the Constitutionality of drug prohibition.
Ah yes, Question 9. We had a conversation about this with our boss at the Casino where I work, and the consensus was the same as with booze - show up impaired or do it on the job, you’re fired. But if on the 4th it passes, our Casino will no longer screen for marijuana when they drug test us. I do not have a cite for this and I apologize for that, but employee policies such as this are confidential.
For some interesting reading on both sides of this issue:
When screening the results of federal drug tests for the Dept. of Transportation, the Medical Review Officer is obliged to call each individual with a positive test and ask them if they have a legitimate prescription for the substance they tested positive for. If a legitimate prescription for a valid medical diagnosis can be produced, the test is reported back as negative.
Of course under federal law, there are no legitimate prescriptions or valid reasons for using heroin. But if the Test is positive for THC, and the testee provides evidence that he’s been prescribed Marinol (synthetic THC) to combat the nausea of chemotherapy, then it’s a legitimate use, and a negative drug test.
The kicker is of course that the Rx must be validly given for an appropriate reason. Doc pillpusher’s Rx for cocaine for intractable nasal pain won’t cut it. And the feds decide the rules.