# My friend just got summarily fired from her job for a pot brownie **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 7, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553 "2013-08-07T03:38:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/61 "2013-08-07T18:51:30Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Specifically since the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988. > > It isn’t that the law **allows** employers to drug test, but rather **that the law requires them to** , if they want to do business with the Federal government. > > [http://www.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/screenr.htm](http://www.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/screenr.htm) > > The Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 is a Reagan era law requiring that certain policies be put in place for employees of the Federal government. This law also applies to many/most private companies that either do business with them or receive grant money from them. This covers a lot of companies. I had a problem with that, since my company definitely does business with the government but does no screening of employees. [Here](http://www.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/require.htm) are the details for organizations. Notice it talks about a drug free workplace. I interpret this to mean no drug use on the job, and not being under the influence under the job. That’s reasonable. I don’t see how these rules require either random testing or testing based on hearsay. One big company I worked for did have pre-employment testing - the other did not. It probably depends strongly on company culture. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/62 "2013-08-07T18:53:33Z")
> [@GameHat](#): > > After the test and results (lab called her first to try to shame her into admitting she’s a junkie :mad: which she is absolutely not) This got me. Junkie? From pot use? Did this clown just step in here from the 1930s? Did he just watch Reefer Madness or the Gene Krupa Story? Did he accuse her of smoking LSD next? What a maroon. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/63 "2013-08-07T19:09:46Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Then the insurance companies began giving favorable accident insurance rates to companies with the DFWP policies in place and more companies instituted these programs. Yep. My workplace tests before hiring and that’s it unless there is a compelling reason to do so. It’s because of insurance rates. I wouldn’t be surprised if they ignored cannabis. I can assure you that no one in my management chain gives a shit that I smoke occasionally and a couple of them probably do as well. If there was a 100% drug screen here tomorrow and they canned people for pot use, we’d lose a very significant percentage of the workforce. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/64 "2013-08-07T19:16:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I had a problem with that, since my company definitely does business with the government but does no screening of employees. > [Here](http://www.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/require.htm) are the details for organizations. Notice it talks about a drug free workplace. I interpret this to mean no drug use on the job, and not being under the influence under the job. That’s reasonable. I don’t see how these rules require either random testing or testing based on hearsay. > > One big company I worked for did have pre-employment testing - the other did not. It probably depends strongly on company culture. I agree about the company culture comment. But HR departments tend to err on the side of protecting the organization from the employee. This is another reason that companies will be reluctant to shed these drug testing policies. And as to the post from GameHat about the lab calling the testee to berate her about drug use, that didn’t happen anywhere in the real world. These labs are under strict guidelines where the result is either positive or negative. They would not report you as ‘a little bit pregnant’ and would never call the actual testee to talk to them. Partial results are not reportable. It is a pass or fail report. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/65 "2013-08-07T19:30:05Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Agreed. I find this whole employee drug testing thing ridiculous. I’ve never heard of it here, it seems a little police state to me, and quite contrary to the libertarian image the US\* tends to project (or I tend to receive). I would say it’s very libertarian. The employer has complete liberty to make random drug tests part of the job requirements, with an absolute right to dismiss if there’s a positive result. The employee has complete liberty to take the job or not, depending whether the employee is okay with those job conditions. The government stays out of the employment relationship on this issue and does not attempt to regulate it. Sounds pretty libertarian to me. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/66 "2013-08-07T19:30:25Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > a “drug-free workplace” can get lower insurance premiums IIRC. Pretty much this. An employer who can’t guarantee that his employees are not hepped up on goofballs is going to be paying much higher premiums than one who can legally state that he has a drug-free workplace. > [@aNewLeaf](#): > > Imagine an employer telling you not to use coffee. Or any caffeine. > Not just at work- anywhere, ever. In your own home, on your day off, you are forbidden to consume coffee. > Can you imagine that a slip in discipline could be possible, and can you imagine yourself enjoying a cappuchino in that situation? This is a bad comparison for one big glaring reason - caffeine is _not_ an unlawful controlled substance under federal law. Yes, some states have passed medical marijuana laws. Those laws are exactly as valid as the law North Dakota just passed banning all abortions, because no state has the constitutional authority to abrogate the Pure Food and Drug Act or the Controlled Substances Act. At the end of the day, using marijuana is a federal crime, and an employer has a right to know whether his employees are committing federal crimes. It’s not like this should come as any surprise, either - employers that do drug testing generally make this fact quite clear during the hiring process, and in most instances you have to pass one just to get the job in the first place. Personally, I’d like to see Congress deschedule marijuana and allow adults over 21 to buy and use it responsibly, but until the day that happens, I’m afraid I don’t have much sympathy for the people who know using it is a crime, are fully aware of the risks to their career, their livelihood, and their freedom that it brings, and decide that a cheap buzz is worth possibly going to prison over. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/67 "2013-08-07T19:32:21Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > I agree. > > There have already been cases where the courts have upheld the firing of employees who have tested positive for pot use while possessing valid medical marijuana cards, in states where medical marijuana is legal. > > Legal does not mean that the employers have to change the agreements that a person works under. You can be prohibited from working because of other medical drugs- a pilot or surgeon can’t work on opiates and could be fired if caught. So even valid medical use isn’t necessarily protected. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/68 "2013-08-07T20:06:36Z")
> [@Laggard](#): > > The difference being of course that caffeine is legal. Under the current law in an at-will state, your employer can fire you for testing positive for caffeine. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/69 "2013-08-07T20:23:07Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > “do” pot? Nobody has ever claimed to “do” pot. Pot just ain’t something you “do”. Sorry Tony Montana, I’m not on my drug lingo. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > Under the current law in an at-will state, your employer can fire you for testing positive for caffeine. Or for testing negative for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/70 "2013-08-07T20:29:08Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > I agree about the company culture comment. But HR departments tend to err on the side of protecting the organization from the employee. This is another reason that companies will be reluctant to shed these drug testing policies. I’ve been fortunate enough to only work for tech companies where HR follows orders and does not make them. I have no evidence that the CEO for one of the companies I mentioned ever smoked dope - but I’d be surprised if he hadn’t. (He’s a billionaire, not Joe Schmoe.) Companies that allow HR to set the rules, no doubt. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/71 "2013-08-07T20:57:21Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > These labs are under strict guidelines where the result is either positive or negative. They would not report you as ‘a little bit pregnant’ and would never call the actual testee to talk to them. Yes, they do. Or, at least, at the company I was with before, if there was a positive drug test, someone with the lab or affiliated with the lab was required to contact the employee and ask for a list of over the counter and prescription medications that the person was taking to attempt to rule out good reasons for a positive test They would follow up with any prescriptions (you were violative of the rule if you tested positive for a prescription drug that wasn’t your prescription) and rule out any possible interactions that could cause the positive test. There was also a step somewhere, though I don’t remember who handled it, where the employee could be offered or could volunteer to go to substance abuse counseling instead of being terminated. ---
**Author:** ![Plumbkrazy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Plumbkrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plumbkrazy)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/72 "2013-08-07T20:59:31Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Wait…is your friend A-Rod and “pot brownies” a euphemism for something else? > > There’s something that doesn’t ring true about the OP’s story. Not that I think the OP is lying. But maybe the friend is taking liberties with the truth. > > The story has the habitual drug users tone of downplaying her habit, acting as if everyone is out to get her (the lab likely did nothing more than process her test, the “story” did not “somehow get back to her office”) and bemoaning how unfair the policy is. > > I mean who just up and decides to eat pot brownies “just this once” when they know their workplace does random testing if they aren’t already regularly doing pot? > > I suspect the actual story is closer to “I was caught by my company’s random drug screening and fired because I do pot all the time”. Bingo. You don’t fail a drug test because you ate one pot brownie a month ago. Even amateur stoners know that. The friend is probably embarrassed at the whole situation, and is trying to save face with the Single Brownie Theory rather than admit her regular weed usage. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/73 "2013-08-07T21:48:27Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > LSD is normally not tested for, or psilocybin. In addition there are “research chems” that can be used without showing on a drug test. > > My problem with most drug testing is the arbitrary nature of it all. > You can use alcohol, and tobacco, and caffeine, all of which are dangerous and kill many, many people each year. > But because current drug law has no basis in fact, less dangerous drugs are strictly forbidden. Especially the caffeine. My uncle was a java junkie. He tried rehab several time through Maxwell House, but those jitter demons proved too much to overcome. The last time I saw him…let’s just say he was no longer the funny, erudite uncle I once knew. They found his cold, lifeless body lying on a beat-up sofa in a dingy Starbucks with a half-empty black Grande coffee in his left hand hand, and an uneaten Asiago cheese pretzel in the right–Adele playing in his ear buds. The laptop screen showed BSDM pics of Raggedy Ann dolls. Cops told me the local dealer had bought a batch of java that was of much higher purity then the normal run-of-the-mill stuff. When the cops came to door to inform her of the bad news, she was devastated. She later told me later that naturally she doesn’t remember much of actual conversation, except for one thing: the smell of coffee and donuts on the cops breath. My aunt was later killed by tooth decay. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/74 "2013-08-07T21:49:49Z")
> [@GameHat](#): > > Man, this situation is just stupid and sad. It may or may not be stupid and/or sad that pot is illegal. It is stupid and sad that a person would let herself get into that situation. > [@](#): > > After the test and results (lab called her first to try to shame her into admitting she’s a junkie :mad: which she is absolutely not) This has got to be a perception error, or misrepresentation. From the training materials they provide me, if the lab gets a positive response they may contact you prior to reporting to clarify what prescriptions you are taking, or other possible causes for a false-positive. > [@DataX](#): > > 1. I think people underestimate how petty other people are. Don’t go bragging about stuff on Facebook or telling casual friends about stuff you can easily lose your job over. Amen to that. Anecdote, some years ago a lady I know lost her job over pot. As she explained to me, she was having an argument with her “best friend”, and it got nasty. Her “friend” called her up to make up, and they were hanging out and the friend offered her pot, so she did it. The “friend” then called the company the next day and reported her, so they did the drug screen and fired. True story? I don’t know. Maybe that lady lit up like a lightning bug. But sure sounds vindictive. > [@Icarus](#): > > What is the evidence that a small amount of marijuana use in off-hours has any direct measurable affect on safety or productivity or profitability? Can you demonstrate that there are other, more socially acceptable, behaviors that have a greater affect on safety or productivity or profitability? My company’s drug policy education materials talks about this. Drug use may start as off hours and non-impacting, but it often escalates. It leads to things like routinely late to work, leaving early, long lunches, etc. Missed days, lowered productivity, etc. These aren’t specifically identified to pot, but aren’t exclusive of pot either. > [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Maybe they’re [unnecessary quotes.](http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/) Apparently some subset of the population thinks quote marks are a way to mark emphasis, in the same way bolding, underlinging, italics, and larger font can be used. They are in-line punctuation marks to make something “stand out” more. That seems to be the operative principle in all of the examples shown. There’s a sign in the restrooms at work, ```auto Please "FLUSH" after use ``` I keep thinking, “What else is it called? _Flush_ is the correct verb, it’s not a euphamism.” > [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > There have already been cases where the courts have upheld the firing of employees who have tested positive for pot use while possessing valid medical marijuana cards, in states where medical marijuana is legal. Remember, just because a state makes it legal doesn’t change the federal laws regarding marijuana. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/75 "2013-08-07T22:14:46Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Sorry Tony Montana, I’m not on my drug lingo. You wanna fuck with me? Okay. You wanna play rough? Okay. Say hello to my little friend! ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/76 "2013-08-07T22:23:16Z")
> [@Plumbkrazy](#): > > The friend is probably embarrassed at the whole situation, and is trying to save face with the **Single Brownie Theory** rather than admit her regular weed usage. So, was that _her_ on the “Grassy Knoll”? ---
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/77 "2013-08-07T22:30:21Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > So, was that _her_ on the “Grassy Knoll”? Bakushka Lady ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/78 "2013-08-07T23:04:05Z")
I’ve worked as a contractor several times over the years for a really large software company headquartered in Redmond Washington and I’ve never had any sort of drug screen. So it’s not the case that every large company in America has drug screens. But at another company that did educational software they required a pre-employment drug test. Not sure what the point of that was. ---
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/79 "2013-08-07T23:31:30Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I’ve worked as a contractor several times over the years for a really large software company headquartered in Redmond Washington and I’ve never had any sort of drug screen. So it’s not the case that every large company in America has drug screens. Heh - I worked full time for that very same company for 17 years and not once, from first being hired, to at any point in my career, did I or anyone I ever worked with ever have to take a drug test. I was an SDEII through Principal in various Office business units during that time and let me tell you, they would have lost at least 70% of their engineers in that unit. Including me. I have personal knowledge that the Dev groups at Apple and Adobe do not, and Oracle and Intel _do_, for new hires only. ---
**Author:** ![Tethered\_Kite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a5b964/32.png) [@Tethered\_Kite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tethered_Kite)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553/80 "2013-08-08T00:03:45Z")
I’m with the others who think that her story doesn’t sound right. Perhaps the drug testing company did call her but I’ve had to deal with those guys quite a few times and they don’t care one way or the other how much people use. They just make the report and go on to their next customer. Seems more likely that the drug company would call her employer with the results. Now if she dealt with Human Resources it is possible that they were trying to get a handle on the extent of her mood-altering chemical use. And sometimes they rehab people. It seems odd to me that she feels they were trying to shame her. Doesn’t sound very business-like. But then I wasn’t there. Could just be she is feeling ashamed, though. It’s a bummer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-just-got-summarily-fired-from-her-job-for-a-pot-brownie/665553.md?page=5)