Many places will fire you if you need to be on certain medications as well.

If a job requires you to work with heavy machinery for instance, they won't let you work if you have to be on pain killers. Medical marijuana, being classified as a pain killer, would likely apply.

Sarissa Candyangel

Granted, this is true, however "recreational drug use" would seem to imply that you're responsible enough to not pick up your bowl and smoke it before you leave for work.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I work with heavy machinary, and explosives. I am subject to random ATF inspection. Regardless of any concerns about them showing up under the influence, I'd rather they not.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

What about people who drink alcohol on a regular basis? Do you apply the same standard? Frequent overindulgence in alcohol does have an effect on attention span, memory, coordination and overall job performance. Most people I've seen hungover in the work place were less than reliable, conscientious and detail oriented.

What's wrong with the man not wanting to work with potheads?

Alcohol isn't illegal, and if I catch someone showing up at work drunk I'll drop their ass like a bad habit. We're a small business and we know everyone who works for us fairly well. My life depends on those that I work with, the smallest machine I deal with on a daily basis weighs 28,000 pounds. I've been hit with a 45,000 pound machine before, and that was by someone who was completely sober at the time, it was just a freak accident. The last thing I need are mitigating factors. On top of that I don't need an ATF agent showing up to inspect us with anyone on site carrying anything illegal, especially drugs.

The job isn't *that* dangerous as long as people are on their toes, but when there are 2-5 pieces of machinary moving around on the job site I need everyone alert and paying attention so they don't kill someone or fuck up a $50,000+ piece of equipment. Down time kills construction.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

So by that line of thought, if I even have the slightest headache, or any kind of sickness, I should call in sick to work? Most employers I've worked for frown at that and would rather I just worked through it.

I wanna work for you! haha.

_________________
-Rileigh (aka Golliwog)

Sorry I should clarify.

My point is towards sijandistraightarrow, and just that you don't need to drink alcohol to have those symptoms.

_________________
-Rileigh (aka Golliwog)

I'm well aware Fribur, as I pay a Mello-Roos tax where I live. People moan about taxes for all sorts of things they don't use I'm sure. People probably moan about having to pay for prisons even though they may never be incarcerated, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. As for education, I don't know for certain, and I don't see how you can be either, that if people are allowed to choose whether or not to fund education, that the current funding levels are going to decrease. How do you know they won't increase? The reason education is underfunded isn't because we don't pay enough collectively in taxes, it's because not enough is budgeted towards education by the government. If citizens were allowed to vote more where there tax dollars go, such as the Propsition initiatives in California, then it's possible there would be more funds available rather than less for education. I also wonder how you feel about someone like Oprah spending millions of her dollars starting up a school in Africa, or Bill Gates donating millions on combating disease in Third World countries. I'm sure there are people who would grumble that they should spend more of their money taking care of our own poor and uneducated, but again, I feel like it's their money, they can donate it to whatever charitable causes they choose.



You make it sound like taxes are needed for all of those things......did parks, roads, etc. not exist before the advent of taxes? You think roads in Montana are paid by citizens of California? You think the people of Montana wouldn't want to pay to keep their roads maintained? Did parks not exist prior to Teddy Roosevelt? Do parks have to be "National" to count? Don't certain individuals such as Rockefeller donate land to set up parks? How is your local park funded? For that matter, do you know how you fund your local police and fire departments? Because it strikes me you might not, considering you are citing "rural" departments, where if there is not enough funding, then there may be voluntary forces. As for education, see above.



So you see why I think you believe in governmental paternalism, and I don't know why you take umbrage at that. If I'm off the mark, I'm off, but surely you can see how I can draw that conclusion. Let me just replace "government" in your sentence with "parent", individual with "child(ren)" and society with "family", and let's see if you can see what I see:

My point? One of the vital things that a [parent] provides is the resources to devote toward the collective good of [the family]. While obviously there are exceptions, [a child's] needs and desires often contradict the [family's] needs and desires. [Parents] stand as a way in which we overcome that tendency for our [family's] greater good.

So if you still want to come out saying I'm off base when I say you want the government to take care of it's citizens like a parent wants to take care of a child, then maybe you can clarify your position.



I think I read recently somewhere on CNN.com that about 13% of our work force uses illegal drugs (the biggest group being marijuana, I think around 8%), and about 13% of our work force drinks on a regular basis. I may be off on the exact percentage, but I remember it being above 10% and under 20%.



And I thought Sijandi you would have already answered your own question. I thought you believed people should be held accountable, but free to do what they want unless they aren't harming anyone? Then by that reason you should be able to drink on a regular basis, but if you're drinking inteferes with your ability to work, then you should be fired; your decreased productivity would be economically harming your company and/or your employer.

You missed it Nek. I wasn't disagreeing with your opinion of me-- I was disagreeing with your idea that each person should be allowed to decide where their tax dollars can go. I can agree with it in a larger sense, but you were asking for it in very specific circumstances, such as your liver transplant story.

My answer isn't the one desired or relevant. I don't run the business and I don't make the decision.

This response didn't actually answer the question either.

Chronic alcoholics and hungover people are not typically "on their toes" or "alert and paying attention". The question remains, would you apply the same standard?

I don't believe I indicated in any manner that I thought there was anything wrong with him not wanting to work with "potheads". I simply wondered if he applied the same standard to people operating at less than 100% due to other substances which can impair performance, even after the fact. The comparison was airline pilots, which are restricted from alcohol consumption within specific time periods prior to reporting for duty.

Other peoples words don't fit in my mouth very well, I spit them out. I do not promote anyone working impaired, especially in hazardous occupations. I do not propose to force any employer to accept employees who do not meet the qualifications, possess the needed skills or could in any way endanger themselves or others on the job. I've spent a lot of time working in hazardous occupations, as a firefighter, as a coal-sampler working around barges, heavy equipment, heavy belting, tractor-trailers, etc., industrial maintenance - including electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic and various factory environments - and I have seen people drunk, stoned and just plain stupid put lives in jeopardy, theirs, mine and others. Of them all, stupid and negligent people have come the closest to costing me my life.

My point was that people using legal substances can be just as impaired as those using illegal substances. The job and the employer should determine the restrictions, not necessarily the substance.

Hara,

So you'll work with people who go home and get drunk every night and show up hungover and faking it well, but not people who smoke a bowl on the weekends to relax after a hard week at work?

nice double standard.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Then you and I have come full circle Fribur I only brought up the tax thing in response to the desire of some of the posters, including yourself, to expand on the freedoms of the individual, and I was only questioning why, if that was the case, we didn't expand those choices to include our taxes.

I don't think we need or should allow each person to decide where their tax dollars go.....but I also think we should abide by the laws set forth by our government. I'm comfortable with the current balance between individual freedoms and restrictions in the US. I may not agree with every law, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to break them because it goes against my own principles. If people are going to argue that no restrictions be placed on personal freedoms, such that no freedom should be restricted as long as it doesn't harm others.....I'm only pointing out that freedom should extend to taxes as well. It might as well extend to individuals deciding if they want to pay taxes or not. That's all I was arguing. I also feel that the more freedoms granted to an individual, the less control the government has over it's citizens, which IMO is a good thing.....again, I am for smaller government; and that is why I was semi-perplexed on your stance because I felt you were for a strong central government while also advocating all these individual freedoms. I personally feel those two philosophies are more antagonistic than synergistic.

If that's all you were asking, then I believe I've answered that adequately. I've shown you why it's not a good idea to extend that freedom to our tax dollars. That reason is irrelevant to the other freedoms I mentioned, and so at this point you should be satisfied.



If everyone had followed this in our history, our nation wouldn't exist, and even if it did women would not be able to vote, blacks would have their own drinking fountains, Vietnam would still be going on, etc. etc. etc. I have no problem with any of those people involved breaking the law.

There are many practical ways to create change in government that don't involve breaking the law. In any case, Vietnam would still going on is quite a stretch of reality.

You are correct; I should not have included that. Even without it, my point is still true.

First and foremost, you don't get paid for work you don't do, I don't either. If I'm not there working I don't get to turn in hours for it. If someone is too sick to be working, they can take their ass home until they're better.



Where did I say that?

The people who get drunk every night, those people are pretty obvious. There's no faking it well when you're busting your ass everyday and sweating like crazy. When you work day in and day out with people you know what's going on. Right now we have a guy who has started drinking again, and it's showing, and he's on thin ice. He doesn't even run equipment, he does all the odd jobs that have to be done. Chainsaw work, jack hammer, silt fence, whatever it's affecting his work and he either stops or finds another job.

You can do whatever the fuck you want, I honestly don't give a fuck, but if you're working for/with me then that's different.. The ATF also will not approve you for a license if you have any felonies, we have to be careful who we hire. There's a lot at stake, if our shit isn't kept straight we'll get fined and get stripped of our blasting license. It's called keeping a successful business and keeping yourself in business.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

If someone were to smoke a bowl every night, that would also show and is a more accurate analogy.

Sarissa Candyangel

Then those people should try Yoga instead of looking deeper than a white girl down a well in an attempt to justify such a stupid argument.

That has no bearing on the impact of using civil disobedience under certain circumstances where it is effective. Depending on the situation, going through legal means may be an effective solution, or having to resort to using civil disobedience to bring attention to the issue may also be an effective solution.

You probably already agree with that though, Drajeck. Nekrotic, on the other hand, is busy lecturing us irresponsible rebellious kiddies that it's bad not to follow the rules. Because, you know, we're all just breaking them because it's cool to do so and we have no respect for the law.

When people break laws, it is rarely about the attempt to make a change. It's about people doing what they want regardless of the potential consequences. This is evidenced by the fact that so many people do their best to hide the fact that they are breaking the law. Hopefully I don't need to point out that unless you are actually caught breaking the law, you stand absolutely no chance of enacting any real change.

That is *exactly* my point: It's about people doing what they want regardless of the consequences. For most of the people doing it, it's not an attempt to be cool by spiting the law, it's about doing what they want.

Thanks, I think.

No thanks are necessary.

Your post insinuated that people are breaking the law as a form of civil disobedience in order to change how things work, which is not the case except in very rare circumstances. Regardless of whether they are breaking the law to be one of the "cool kids" or whether they are simply doing what they please and saying "fuck the law", it amounts to the same thing, a complete disregard for the laws of our nation and/or state for no higher purpose other than "cause I want to". Lumping these sorry sacks of shit into the same category as the heroes who have brought about real change due to their sacrifice is a huge disservice.

My suggestion that under certain circumstances it is appropriate to break the law(such as civil disobedience in the civil rights era) is a far cry from lumping your average drug user in the same category. No clue where you derived that.

The only thing my post insinuated is what it says right up front, in full sarcasm: Such people do not disobey the law because they wish to be spiteful or rub it in the system's face, they do it because they want to. Anything you're reading into that line more is just reaching. It is just as ridiculous to suggest that they are doing it out of spite as it is to suggest that they are all doing it for altruistic purposes to change things.

But seriously, sorry sacks of shit? That's a pretty large brush, given how wide the spectrum of use is these days.

This is the kind of thinking that I just fail to comprehend:



Give me one good reason to follow a retarded law besides "it's the law". Anything, besides the obvious consequences people understand are there if they get caught. A law states "I cannot say hello to my neighbor on Tuesday". Give me one good reason to follow it.

I wouldn't need some higher purpose reason to disobery such a piece of shit law. I would simply do because it is my right to. Tell that to black people who chose to sit in front of the bus before any real movement started. They did it because they wanted to, and they had a right to, not always because they had some sort of higher goal in mind.

Because weed being illegal and making it illegal to say hello to your neighbor would somehow ever *remotely* be comparable. But whatever, if you wanna justify smoking weed that bad good luck not getting caught, cause if you do don't expect anyone to give a fuck, your choice. I hope it's worth it.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Seeing as they're not being compared, why would they need to be? Grats reading comprehension. The question is why someone should follow a retarded law that makes no practical sense, no comparisons need be drawn.

I'm not a fan of the absurdly stupid when you're trying to make an analogy. Unless you're trying to say that weed being illegal is retarded what's the point of bring it up at this point?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

oh come on, Dark. Read a little more carefully. His point was made obviously clear, and it had nothing to do with trying to convince anyone that smoking pot should be legal or illegal.

Yeah and I'm not entertaining his little tangent.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

There was no analogy you fool. I touched on a specific point brought up by Nekrotic which is by and large a seperate issue(but still loosely associated with the drug issue) on it's own: the question of motivations with regard to people breaking the law. I gave an example that had no association with using drugs. That's not an analogy, dumbass. And before you go talking about "little" tangents, you might want to try constructing a post consisting of more than 2 lines some time: somewhere, anywhere.

Speaking of retarded tangents, maybe you want to better explain yourself about your completely unbiased stance on allowing your employees to use marijuana. About 4 different people already poked holes into it already, I have nothing further to add except to laugh.

I've already explained exactly where I stand and why, as far as poking holes I already addressed the 2 people that brought up points about it, if you don't think that's fair then tough shit.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

You never answered Sijandi's valid criticism of this:



with this:



Allow me to explain with this:



See what I did there?

We're talking about making it legal or not, and you reject the comparison to alcohol by stating it's illegal!

Meh, that should be high not drunk.

I'm starting to think you are high, or just dumb.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I think he did respond relevantly to the point I was making and the question I was asking, even if it did take a second post to do so.

He made it very clear that he would hold employees who drink to the same type of standard as those who smoke pot.

He made it clear that the employee who was "drinking again" was risking his job by allowing his off-work alcohol use to affect his job performance. He has no choice about meeting federal regulations and requirements which deal with illegal drug use. However, I think that actually reinforces the point I'm making - it's the person rather than the substance. Plenty of people use alcohol in a reasonable, responsible manner and do not let it interfere with their work, personal relationships, etc. Plenty of people smoke pot and do not let it interfere yada, yada, yada.

Marijuana prohibition began because of special interests, manufacturers who faced serious competition from a historically entrenched, easily cultivated plant which provided a wide variety of products from hemp fiber to ink to one of the healthiest oils for human consumption. Hemp was cultivated long before cotton or corn.

Like many other things in modern life, it's all about the money.

He really didn't answer the sum total of your question, which was:



You didn't just ask if he applied the same standard, you also stated that there are problems affecting job performance associated with alcohol(keeping in mind that we have some similar problems with marijuana). He doesn't give a good answer to what the distinction is between the two to the point where he would not allow it even if it were to be legalized.

We were talking about whether to legalize it or not, and he pops in and makes it abundantly clear:



Which is his right, but some reasoning would be nice beyond "cuz I might get inspected and it's illegal" when the discussion is already about making it legal or not. Assuming we legalize all or the majority of drugs(as we should), the issue of the ATF wouldn't be much of a problem nor would the legalization issue in general.

[img]cuz I might get inspected and it's illegal[/img] Those reasons aren't good enough for you? He doesn't need any other reasons than that. What is your goal here? You expect him to throw up his hands and exclaim "OH MY GOD YOURE RIGHT FUCK THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, FUCK MY OWN PERSONAL SAFETY BY ALLOWING ILLEGAL DRUG USERS ACCESS TO 14-TON MACHINES I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND BECAUSE OF AN IMPUDENT ASSMONKEY ON A MESSAGEBOARD!"

Just shut up.

I fail at tags clearly.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that Venen. As the one asking the question, I hope I have a better idea of what constitutes a satisfactory answer - for me. The individual he used as an example isn't subject to federal regulation because his job doesn't require it, but Hara made it clear he didn't want someone impaired working for him. The level of tolerance he indicates seems greater than that for pot smokers, but that's entirely up to his discretion as an employer. I don't agree with that position. I think a chronic alcohol abuser is a much greater risk in the work place than someone who smoked pot the night before.

Regardless whether marijuana remains illegal, I can't see anyone claiming to have the right to be under the influence while working if their employer does not approve. I can't see anyone claiming the right to be free from the same type of restrictions applied to alcohol and certain jobs.

One fact that I think weighs heavily in favor of removing marijuana from the Schedule 1 listing is that (AFAIK) there are no instances of marijuana being the cause of death. There are instances of traffic fatatilities where marijuana was a factor, but I have never seen credible evidence of any examples where it was the only cause. Alcohol, or other drugs, are always involved (AFAIK). There are no examples of deaths due to overdose of marijuana, which cannot be said of alcohol or "legal" drugs. Even aspirin overdose can result in death.

It's analogous to making jaywalking a felony.

Way to miss the point, moron. Those reasons would only be good in a thread where we aren't already talking about legalizing it already. Stick to your usual one-line wonders rather than actually trying to argue a point for once. You fit right alongside Harabakc in that respect. What's your position on legalization? Nevermind, you're more than likely too stupid to have one. I'm glad you mostly stay out of political threads, you do everyone a great service.



What you intended to get out of it really doesn't matter if you brought forth a point that remained undisputed. If it remains unanswered, it remains unanswered period.

If I, for example posed a question to a believer that the Earth was not flat: "Do you really believe the Earth is not flat? There is very obvious evidence, such as the visible curvature of the Earth when you fly high in a plane." He answers: "Yes." Oh, he may not have addressed anything specific, but he did answer my question! He didn't really answer it all, though.



That's exactly the point about tolerance between the two: there's an inconsistency he hasn't explained in his position. And again with regard to federal regulation, drug inspections would not be an issue if we legalized it.

YOU'RE ASKING SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN IN GREAT DETAIL SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY A SUFFICIENT REASON.

You're the fucking moron. Stop interjecting your political views into something that is cut and fucking dry. Ok you think weed should be legal, we get it. Cut the internet bully tactic by repeatedly attacking someones simple and succinct opinion on the matter.

If the laws were different, sure, attitudes regarding marijuana use may be different as well. Don't play the martyr ticket when all the man is doing is obeying the fucking law.

Stick to shutting the fuck up.

Actually an explanation in great deal is not necessary, any little reason will do just fine to explain the differences in his level of tolerances for each one.

Read Darkomen's response on page 2, then you can cry about "attacking". Intarweb bullying, oh noze!

Get a grip though, seriously. It sounds like you're about to explode in a fit of rage over this little point. Nothing wrong with riding in on your buddy's cock to save the day, but at least do it in style.

Haha so in other words, you're butt hurt, hell I had completely forgotten about that, not suprising though.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

My gaydar just pegged.

Don't flatter yourself too much, I'm not that easily offended. I mean, suggesting I can't read, that cut me deeply. But I do try to respond in kind =p For the horrendous accusation of intarweb bullying, I felt an explanation was in order.

In all seriousness, answer the simple question: No inspections due to marijuana, etc. Such drugs are now legal. You would allow someone who drinks alcohol moderately/responsibly that doesn't interfere with their job, right? Would you also allow marijuana users who use it responsibly? Simple question, yes or no.

Your previous statements indicate no, you still wouldn't, but a second chance is probably in order to make sure you can be at least halfway consistent.

"Because it's illegal" seems like a good enough answer to me, Venen-- what's wrong with that answer? I happen to be for the legalization of marijuana, and yet I can't figure out what kind of point you are trying to make. Who cares? Maybe Dark just doesn't want people who break felony laws to be working for him? Maybe Dark doesn't want someone high to be operating heavy machinery? He's already said that, just as he said he doesn't want someone drunk operating that machinery. Beyond annoying a lot of people reading this thread, what are you trying to get at, Venen?

The only thing I was pointing out with his reasoning is the ridiculousness of even mentioning it, not that it wasn't a reason to do it in today's world. Again, it was just the fact that he was bringing it up as a counterpoint in a thread where we're discussing legalization.

More importantly it's not an answer as to why he has more tolerance for one thing over another, which was the essence of what people were asking on page 3. That is precisely what I'm trying to get at: a reason for the double standard. I'd just like to see a response to my last question in my above post for clarification, even though people already called him on the double standard.

But "because it's illegal" answers that question precisely. Alcohol is not illegal-- marijuana is. Therefore, he has different parameters between the two substances for what is ok in his workplace.

Then we posit a hypothetical...

Would he still observe a difference if both substances were legal?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

It doesn't answer the question of "what is different?" in context. Look at the three posts before Darkomen's declaration that he would not want week smokers working for him. Here's what starts it off:



Bolded.

But like I said, I'd like an answer to the question I posed - and if he says no to marijuana but yes to alcohol(in terms of using it responsibly but not affecting job performance) under the circumstance that they're legal, then there's an inconsistency until he explains the difference. Right now he either a) Thinks they're both ok when legal if used responsibly, which goes against what he was indicating or b) Doesn't want marijuana users working for him regardless of how responsible they are, but is apparently raising no objections to moderate levels of alcohol that don't affect job performance(or does he do an alcohol test for everyone every day or strictly state that no alcohol should ever be consumed during any week, on job or off, if someone is working for him?).

Already posited it! But yea, that's pretty much the answer I've been waiting for.

You can still get fired for coming to work drunk off your ass. Do you really need it to be spelled out for you the similarity weed would have to this? He said why he would not accept people under him coming to the job site with it due to it being an illegal substance and the relationship with the ATF. It is not legal, why hypothesize about it? Replace "what if" with "who cares".

If by some reason it got legalized, I'm sure his opinion would not change. You are a liability if you are under the influence, regardless of substance. The only change would be regulation by the ATF concerning reefer. It's not like you would be able to smoke a bowl at work, just like you can't crack open a cold brew.

Legality has shit all to do with why he does not difference the two. If you seriously need it explained to you that he could give two shits what happens off his job site, you have smoked yourself retarded as Thurgood Jenkins might say.

And if your response is "I could come to work baked and you'd never know." your weed fucking sucks.

The amount of DoctorX'isms you fucks have displayed since that thread is astounding.

The question wasn't "what if someone came to work drunk"

It was "would you fire a guy who smoked a bowl on the weekends" or "would you fire a guy who smoked a bowl when he got home"

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

And those are two very stupid questions.

Why? he said he wouldn't hire a pothead. What's his definition of pothead?

Someone who smokes a single bowl when he gets home to relax, or someone who smokes anytime they have a free moment? He's implying there's some difference between alcohol and weed, regardless of legality.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

He works with explosives. Whether or not marijuana should or should not be legal isn't the issue. The issue is that he works with dangerous shit...shit that is monitered by ATF inspection. Even if we can assume that he somehow knew he'd never ever get inspected (or it was so unlikely as to not pose a reasonable concern) I wouldn't hire a pothead in that capacity either.

There are plenty of reasons. For me it would boil down to not wishing to hire someone who is willing to risk "my" business (were it my business) to use a substance that is currently illegal (whether or not it should be isn't the issue). Someone who places that much value on it is either a fucking moron (someone I don't want working with explosives that place other people's lives at risk) or someone who believes they can cut corners when they want regardless of the impact it may have on others (again someone I don't want working with explosives that place other people's lives at risk).

I'm not making any statements about people who smoke marijuana. I know many people who do, and the fact that they choose to use marijuana isn't a positive or a benefit any more than someone who chooses to have a drink now and then. The big difference it how it's being used and the potential consequences. Just as I wouldn't say a mother is a 'bad mother' because she smokes pot...but if the bitch is smoking multiple bowls in a room with her kids who are getting contact high off the shit...then yes she's a bad fucking mother. If she's putting her pleasure before the needs of her kids (buying weed and partying while the kid has no diapers) then yes, she'd be a bad fucking mother. But it's not to say that anyone who smokes pot is a 'bad parent'. See the difference?

If you work with explosives...no illicit drugs. Not a difficult concept.

_________________

You're not understanding the hypothetical.

If both are legal, what's the effective difference between a "pothead" and someone who drinks.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

If both were legal then the only consideration would be whether or not someone was under the influence at work, or if their use affected their work. At least IMHO.

As another aside, could someone still refuse to hire someone, or fire them for use of a legal substance? Law says yes you can (in some places), as some smokers have discovered.

_________________

See, now you get it

And yes, I fully understand you can get fired for the use of a legal substance, having gone through a drama situation where a company I worked for threatened to fire all the smokers because we were "raising their insurance costs"

I have no problem with firing someone who's substance use causes job performance issues or endangers people around them. However, if they can use that substance and not affect their work or those around them, who gives a shit?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

The problem with that is that there IS a difference between smoking pot and drinking besides the legal aspect. You can tell when someone has smoked a lot in their life as they are a dumbed down version of their former selves. If it makes you feel better you can justify casual smoking by saying it is exactly the same as drinking, only illegal because of stuffy politicians, but that doesn't make it true. Sorry.

This is from my personal experience and observations, of which I have had more than most people due to my field of work. I'm a project manager at a construction site and I have to hire and fire more people than I’d like to count. Construction has the highest drug use of any industry out there, both hard core and casual drug users. Last time I checked the stats it was something like 40% vs the national average of 10-11% in the workplace.