Employers Can Fire You For Using Marijuana, But Brandon Coats' Case Could Change Everything

[aGameOfThrones]

Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic medical marijuana patient from Colorado, was fired by Dish Network in 2010 for taking his medicine while off duty, in the privacy of his own home.

Coats, who uses medical marijuana to treat debilitating muscle spasms from a spinal injury that left him in a wheelchair, had been a model employee. But Dish Network’s zero-tolerance drug policy prohibits marijuana use, even for medical reasons. When Coats, a customer service representative, tested positive for cannabis during a routine drug test, he was immediately terminated. Because marijuana remains illegal on the federal level, employers can fire a medical marijuana patient who fails a drug test, even in states where it's legal for medical use.

“It was devastating,” said Coats, 34. “I had that job for three years. I was dependent on that for my life.”

Coats sued the satellite television giant for wages and benefits in 2011, alleging that he had been illegally fired. His attorney, Michael Evans, argued that the THC found in Coats’ body during the drug test did not prove that he was intoxicated at work. He added that Coats never used marijuana on the job, never requested special accommodations for his medical marijuana use, didn’t exhibit poor job performance and never endangered the health or well-being of any person at Dish.

In 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the company's right to fire Coats, but earlier this year, the state Supreme Court announced it will hear Coats' case. He and Evans will file their opening brief on Monday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/24/brandon-coats-dish-network_n_4762502.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[specsaregood]

//

[DamianTV]

Its always been the trouble with pot. Smoking a bowl does not make a person stoned for an entire month.

[UtahApocalypse]

Wow, this is a complex issue when you really break it down.

First you have the Federal law (which may or may not be correct, that debate is for another place) Then the State Law, Then you have discrimination over disability, on top of all that almost everyone will forget the most important though.... The employer, who I personally believe should have the right to hire and fire whoever they choose for any reason the want.

[dannno]

Wow, this is a complex issue when you really break it down.

First you have the Federal law (which may or may not be correct, that debate is for another place) Then the State Law, Then you have discrimination over disability, on top of all that almost everyone will forget the most important though.... The employer, who I personally believe should have the right to hire and fire whoever they choose for any reason the want.

Ya technically you are correct however I feel like companies do it as a matter of decades old, cob webbed filled policy and the policies won't change until lawsuits are filed. Then the insurance companies will change their tune. Although any protections people receive from other prescription drugs should probably be applied equally to cannabis until those laws can be repealed.

If this was a mom n pop shop or if if the guy who fired him was actually the owner of the company rather than a bunch of corporate non-sense then I might say strategy wise it would be better to attack it from the corporate angle than a mom n pop shop guy.

[Deborah K]

I usually consider medical marijuana bullshit and a cop-out from full on decriminalization. However:

I've seen that in action on a number of quads and it really really works. I've seen guys go from uncontrollable legs spasming like a dying squirrel in the roadway to perfectly still in only a matter of a puff or 2. Near instant relief.

My son-in-law is a tetraplegic from a devastating motorcycle accident. His neurologist gave him marinol during his 3 month hospital stay. Marinol is cannabis for those who don't know. Leg spasms are also called "toning", and they are extremely painful. Cannabis does give instant relief. I hope this case is won. Cannabis has many other uses too.

[Deborah K]

Wow, this is a complex issue when you really break it down.

First you have the Federal law (which may or may not be correct, that debate is for another place) Then the State Law, Then you have discrimination over disability, on top of all that almost everyone will forget the most important though.... The employer, who I personally believe should have the right to hire and fire whoever they choose for any reason the want.

An employer doesn't have the right to dictate to their employees what they can consume on their own time.

[mrsat_98]

I usually consider medical marijuana bullshit and a cop-out from full on decriminalization.

So it's ok with you for government to reduce us to the equivalent of an animal ?

[PaulConventionWV]

Ya technically you are correct however I feel like companies do it as a matter of decades old, cob webbed filled policy and the policies won't change until lawsuits are filed. Then the insurance companies will change their tune. Although any protections people receive from other prescription drugs should probably be applied equally to cannabis until those laws can be repealed.

If this was a mom n pop shop or if if the guy who fired him was actually the owner of the company rather than a bunch of corporate non-sense then I might say strategy wise it would be better to attack it from the corporate angle than a mom n pop shop guy.

This is a tough one. I say if it doesn't create any new laws, then Coats should win his lawsuit and the company should change its policies. Sure, they have the right to fire people for any reason, but this is just ridiculous. Marijuana never hurt anyone and that guy really needs it. The company isn't going to go broke over one lawsuit, so I really do hope he wins and it brings about a change in company policy. Companies need to stop treating marijuana prohibition as valid and start treating it as an unreasonable infringement by government on evidence that is scientifically bogus.

[PaulConventionWV]

An employer doesn't have the right to dictate to their employees what they can consume on their own time.

Technically, it's not a mater of rights. The employer does have the right to dictate how employees spend their time if they want to keep their job. They're not actually prohibiting the employee from doing anything under threat of violence... however, I'm going to come down on the side of the employee on this one simply because of the implications.

[specsaregood]

So it's ok with you for government to reduce us to the equivalent of an animal ?

You are gonna have explain your thought process in a bit of detail to explain to me how you came to that conclusion.

[JK/SEA]

You are gonna have explain your thought process in a bit of detail to explain to me how you came to that conclusion.


simple, and here's what i do...i answer bullshit with more bullshit...

[acptulsa]

What we need is enough regulation relief to turn the economy around. Then these corporate psychos who make these bizarre decisions from board rooms far, far away from the production floor, and allow themselves to be unduly influenced by their underwriters, can simply go out of business after firing all their best, most productive people, and finding themselves without a mass of ready replacements on the unemployment rolls.

Trade unionism has nothing on a free market for labor--if the economy is good enough for there to be a demand. Most of the problems this nation faces today are a result of a corporatist government trashing the economy. Fix that and we fix a great many things.

[Deborah K]

Technically, it's not a mater of rights. The employer does have the right to dictate how employees spend their time if they want to keep their job. They're not actually prohibiting the employee from doing anything under threat of violence... however, I'm going to come down on the side of the employee on this one simply because of the implications.

Wait...wut? So, if you like to hang out in titty bars in your off time - you think your religious boss has a right to fire you over it???

[DamianTV]

Limitations of Rights creates a Balance of Rights.

When the Rights of one side or the other are given preferencial treatment, the equal Rights of the others are imposed on. I believe a normal and reasonable limitation of Rights of Employers ends when it comes to the lives of the Employees. Should an Employer have a Right to terminate an employee? Depends on when or where the violation occured. At work? Reasonably, damn right. At home? Reasonably, probably not. What if an employee commits a Felony while not at work? I think that falls into the category of "reasonable".

What I think we are seeing is prefencial Rights being granted to Employers that extends well beyond Reasonable, so lets just head into the category of ridiculus for the thought experiment. Say an Employer wants to terminate an employee for wiping their asses, at home, with too many sheets of non employer approved toilet paper. Is it within their Right to do so? Some will argue yes, however what is not considered is if the Rights of the employee were first violated in order to gain that information. They violated a reasonable Human Right to Privacy in order to obtain information to terminate them. That is beyond the scope of the Rights of the Employer because the reasonable Right of the Employee were first violated, thus making the termination an extension of that violation.

The goal is Reasonable Rights and Reasonable Limits. The problem is there are less and less Employers that will not respect Reasonable Rights. It might be within the scope of an agreement between the Employer and Employee, but damn near EVERY Employer is now demanding access to information that has absolutely no relevance to the job. We may agree that it would be Reasonable for an Emergency Responder to be required by their Employer to abstain from alcohol, period, as a condition of their employment. However, we would not consider the same application of that requirement in a different situation. Much of it depends on the situation. But what we are running into is Employers grouping together to demand that knowing how many sheets of paper an Employee wipes his ass with while NOT at work is a prerequisite for Employment. If there were truly a Balance, then Employees would refuse to work for abusive Employers. But due to the lack of work available, people are forced into a situation where they either begrudgingly accept abusive terms in order to get a job, or not work at all.

Im sure there are those who would claim Private Property, Contract Law, and other defenses against the argument in favor of an Employer. So let me also defend your side of the story. What happens when that Balance is shifted to favor the Employee over an Employer? Abuse is also enabled on practically every level. Employees who overstep Reasonable Limits of their own Rights can also infringe on the Reasonable Rights of Employers. They may demand too much pay or other things that may be considered relatively Reasonable, so lets again head into the category of absurd. Should an Employee also be able to demand an Employer provide them toilet paper? Should an Employee demand to be allowed to not only drink, but get absolutely rip roarning drunk on the job from ALL Employers? Should an Employeee be able to demand payment for services not provided without reason? Point is, abuse of BOTH parties can exist.

I believe there are a couple of reasonable things that can lead to a solution. First, keep Govt out of the situation as much as possible. Govt causes more problems than they solve. Many Laws are designed to be pre-emptive problem solvers, yet create their own sets of different problems. Next, Free Market. A reasonable Employer will not fire any Employee for wiping their asses with the wrong brand of toilet paper. If the Employees feel that there is an abuse by an Employer that as a group they are unwilling to tolerate, that company would find themselves unable to hire new workers as well as unable to retain current workers. But being Reasonable needs to apply to BOTH sides. A Reasonable Employee would also not demand that an Employer provide them with toilet paper while not at work. Last, the Legal System. I believe Govt involvement in a situation should only apply as a Last Resort, and NOT the first line of defense. There are also different types of Laws that become involved. Legislative solutions are when Laws are applied as a blanket solution, and I dont think is the best course of action. Civil Court however handles situations on a case by case basis, and I think is a better solution, but not to be used as the first go to action. Courts are expected to provide unbiased arbitration. Courts can also decide more than just favoring Plaintiffs or Defendants, they can also throw cases out if they feel that cases are unwarranted.

The potential for abuse comes from many sources and extends itself to others as well. Courts can also be abused. When these disagreements between Employers and Employees become so commonly referred to the Court to resolve their issues, both parties may just as well allow the Courts to run the companies. And that is basically what happens when Legislative gets involved. We, the governing party, will tell you how to run your business. That type of Govt takeover is the result of both sides compaining to Govt to solve all their problems. A better solution (not always practical) would be to encourage those in disagreement to work out a reasonable solution for themselves. "Okay, you cant afford to give me a buck an hour raise, even though you agreed to it, I'll settle for 50 cents." Negotiate. Comprimise. Reasonable. But if either side is shown bias, the willingness to Negotiate and Comprimise goes out the window, at the consequence of Reasonable Limits, which is where the abuse by one side or the other begins.

I have no way of being able to provide a Reasonable Balance between both sides in ALL situations. But I think the better course of action is to not get involved. Encourage a Resonable Balance that is achieved by Negotiation and Comprimise by both sides. Every situation is not only different, but potentially unique. Lets take drinking on the job. Encourage to agree to not get "too drunk" if you are an Emergency Responder, and also encourage a Bar Owner to allow a Bartender to taste their own drinks. I think these Corporations have been shown bias and it has only resulted in the abuse of Employees, however, there are Unions that are way too powerful as well.

There really is no easy solution. In the case of using Pot for ANY reason, maybe the best thing to do is encourage both Negotiation and Comprimise from both sides. An employer could agree to not fire a person for using pot for whatever reason as long as they do not do it at work, and the employee would agree to not go to work while stoned for recreational purposes. First step is both parties have to be willing to communicate with each other, and I really believe that just isnt happening as much as it needs to.

[Wooden Indian]

I don't think it's that complicated at all.

1. The Federal Law is horse crap and needs to be abolished.
2. If a private sector corporation wants to fire anyone for any reason, and I don't care it's for having red hair (or whatever ridiculous reason) they have that right.
3. I would cancel my Dish Net service if I had it based on this story, and hope others will/would do the same.

Then again.. I do tend to over-simplify things for my wee-little brain.

[Deborah K]

I don't think it's that complicated at all.

1. The Federal Law is horse crap and needs to be abolished.
2. If a private sector corporation wants to fire anyone for any reason, and I don't care it's for having red hair (or whatever ridiculous reason) they have that right.
3. I would cancel my Dish Net service if I had it based on this story, and hope others will/would do the same.

Then again.. I do tend to over-simplify things for my wee-little brain.

I draw the line on #2 at employers dictating what their employees do on their own time, as long as it has no effect on the employer's business. The problem with random drug testing is that THC hangs out for a while in the blood, and firing someone who isn't using it on the job, and isn't high, is just bullshit.

So, do you think a religious employer has the right to fire an employee who goes to titty bars on his own time?

[DamianTV]

I draw the line on #2 at employers dictating what their employees do on their own time, as long as it has no effect on the employer's business. The problem with random drug testing is that THC hangs out for a while in the blood, and firing someone who isn't using it on the job, and isn't high, is just bullshit.

So, do you think a religious employer has the right to fire an employee who goes to titty bars on his own time?

Devil's Advocate: But but but what if that person "needs" their "medication" to be able to function well enough to do their job?

[Wooden Indian]

I draw the line on #2 at employers dictating what their employees do on their own time, as long as it has no effect on the employer's business. The problem with random drug testing is that THC hangs out for a while in the blood, and firing someone who isn't using it on the job, and isn't high, is just bullshit.

So, do you think a religious employer has the right to fire an employee who goes to titty bars on his own time?

I agree that it is bullshit. I just don't agree that it should be enforced in anyway by the government. Allow the consumers to rectify the misbehavior with their $$$.
That's all I'm saying.

[mtr1979]

Misleading title "employers can fire you for using Marijuana..." Should be titled employers can fire you for using medical Marijuana. Never saw the problem with a person who has a doctor's prescription and a legit medical issue using marijuana.
With that said I will not associate with habitual pot smokers and when I eventually own my own business I will not hire them.
To all the other threads: yes, I believe an employer can fire an employee for what ever reason they want. If an employer doesn't like the way you walk, swing a hammer, type on your keyboard, your favorite football team, your sense of humor, and the list goes on.

[Nic]

I'm reasonably sure this comes down to the fact that the business is the property of the owner and nobody has the moral right to tell him/her what they can or cannot do with the business. The owner of the business has the right to place whatever stipulations they want on employment at their company.

edit: In no way, shape, or form does that mean I agree with or condone the owner's decision.

[Jamesiv1]

Wait...wut? So, if you like to hang out in titty bars in your off time - you think your religious boss has a right to fire you over it???
why doesn't a business owner have the right to fire any one he damn well pleases? does an employee have a "right" to his job?

if I am the owner, and I don't like your behavior or your moral values, it's not unreasonable to think you might bring those to my workplace.

you're fired.

[asurfaholic]

Its always been the trouble with pot. Smoking a bowl does not make a person stoned for an entire month.

Lies

[Deborah K]

why doesn't a business owner have the right to fire any one he damn well pleases? does an employee have a "right" to his job?

if I am the owner, and I don't like your behavior or your moral values, it's not unreasonable to think you might bring those to my workplace.

you're fired.

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

[mtr1979]

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

[Jamesiv1]

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.
no. I'm not dictating at all - you can do whatever you want. you can do it working for someone else, that's all.

I suggest you're position is much more like the government - trying to dictate who a business owner can hire or fire.

[DamianTV]

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

Then I wouldnt work for you if you insist on the authority to tell me what I can and can not do while not at work. Very simple free market solution.

[Jamesiv1]

Then I wouldn't work for you if you insist on the authority to tell me what I can and can not do while not at work. Very simple free market solution.
Exactly. You can choose not to work for me, I can choose not to let you work for me.

[jonhowe]

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

That's your right. As the co owner of a small business, I totally understand. However, why not make the rule that no one can come to work hungover, tweaking, or stoned out of their mind? I drink and use marijuana sometimes; I've never been to work stoned, drunk, or hungover. Why not simply hire responsible people?

[Jamesiv1]

Why not simply hire responsible people?
any business owner would agree with that. if I am having a hard time finding responsible people, I might overlook your moral values or your behavior outside the workplace.

The point is simply that a business owner should be able to hire or fire any one he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

It's his dang business, for crying out loud. Government shouldn't be dictating who he can hire or fire.

[willwash]

My son-in-law is a tetraplegic from a devastating motorcycle accident. His neurologist gave him marinol during his 3 month hospital stay. Marinol is cannabis for those who don't know. Leg spasms are also called "toning", and they are extremely painful. Cannabis does give instant relief. I hope this case is won. Cannabis has many other uses too.

The fact that Marinol even exists proves the bullshit nature of this argument. What if he had gone through the "proper" channels (i.e., had been prescribed Marinol and paid big pharma $500 per dose instead of a few bucks in the medical marijuana market)? He would still have tested positive for THC but the cable company wouldn't be saying a word.

This might be a good workaround for people in this situation. Don't you need a doctor's recommendation in medical marijuana states? Couldn't that doc write you a scrip for Marinol as well (whether you filled it or not would be up to you) that is a get out of jail free card for testing positive for THC? Even if you worked for the federal government?

[qh4dotcom]

Wow, this is a complex issue when you really break it down.


It's not that really complex.

Employers have the right to fire any employee for any reason.

Now that does not mean the employer shouldn't suffer any consequences as a result of that....the free market should punish the employer.

[Jamesiv1]

a lady from Colorado told me some of the medical marijuana dispensaries have doctors sitting there writing scrips.

lol

[kcchiefs6465]

The fact that Marinol even exists proves the bullshit nature of this argument. What if he had gone through the "proper" channels (i.e., had been prescribed Marinol and paid big pharma $500 per dose instead of a few bucks in the medical marijuana market)? He would still have tested positive for THC but the cable company wouldn't be saying a word.

This might be a good workaround for people in this situation. Don't you need a doctor's recommendation in medical marijuana states? Couldn't that doc write you a scrip for Marinol as well (whether you filled it or not would be up to you) that is a get out of jail free card for testing positive for THC?
This assumes that there is some semblance of a patient/doctor relationship. The DEA, and its mandatory tracking of pharmaceuticals (some more than others), as well as mandatory prison sentences with many doctors made the example of, is simply too much to overcome. You have an abscess? Six Vicodin (5/500, no less).

These doctors are something else, lately... or rather, in my lifetime. (I've read that it wasn't always this way.)

Marinol isn't just given to anyone. Even if the symptoms could be helped, the doctors will not prescribe it. It's like Xanax or Desoxyn. If you did need it, good luck on getting a permission slip.

[willwash]

This assumes that there is some semblance of a patient/doctor relationship. The DEA, and its mandatory tracking of pharmaceuticals (some more than others), as well as mandatory prison sentences with many doctors made the example of, is simply too much to overcome. You have an abscess? Six Vicodin (5/500, no less).

These doctors are something else, lately... or rather, in my lifetime. (I've read that it wasn't always this way.)

Marinol isn't just given to anyone. Even if the symptoms could be helped, the doctors will not prescribe it. It's like Xanax or Desoxyn. If you did need it, good luck on getting a permission slip.

I just find it hard to believe that the same doctor who will write a prescription to a sick person (or "recommendation," or whatevertf they call it) to smoke a tarry plant would not write a Marinol scrip to get the patient the same medicine for the same symptoms with no harmful effects from the smoke.

But then, at that point all you need is the piece of paper - it'd be FDA and DEA approved permission to piss hot for THC.

[specsaregood]

./

[willwash]

He did have a good suggestion about that; but you are right I think. At my wife's work she can give out oxycontin and dilaudid without much ado. But when a patient requires marinol, she has to have a witness to remove it from a special safe where its kept apart from all other drugs and another witness to be there watching her administer it. Sounds crazy to me.

Yeah but you wouldn't even need to fill the prescription. When you piss hot for THC, just show them the prescription. HIPPA would prevent them from digging much further, I'd think.

[specsaregood]

Yeah but you wouldn't even need to fill the prescription. When you piss hot for THC, just show them the prescription. HIPPA would prevent them from digging much further, I'd think.

Yeah, I think it was a good idea; but I think KC is right that you might have a hard time getting the prescription itself as it is tightly controlled.

[Danke]

So he is in a wheelchair. I'm guessing he has a desk job. It is important to drug test desk jockeys as they could fall out of their chairs and hurt themselves.

[eduardo89]

An employer doesn't have the right to dictate to their employees what they can consume on their own time.

No, but an employee doesn't have the right to remain employed if their employer does not want to employ them.

[kcchiefs6465]

I just find it hard to believe that the same doctor who will write a prescription to a sick person (or "recommendation," or whatevertf they call it) to smoke a tarry plant would not write a Marinol scrip to get the patient the same medicine for the same symptoms with no harmful effects from the smoke.

But then, at that point all you need is the piece of paper - it'd be FDA and DEA approved permission to piss hot for THC.
You'd be surprised. It's like trying to fill a prescription of Oxycontin IR 30's vs. Oxycontin 80's.

I was talking to a pharmacy technician and she mentioned that Oxycontin IR 30's is the one drug that their pharmacy will not fill. There is too much of a hassle involved in it. Apparently the guy whose prescription she denied to fill mentioned after that he'd been to about 10 different pharmacies and not one of them would fill it. I'm not sure of the specific process involved, but apparently there are more hoops to jump through and the pills more heavily monitored.

With regards to the doctor, if they wrote Marinol prescriptions like they did medicinal cannabis recommendations, they'd be indicted with their names slandered in every newspaper across the country. I doubt, really, that it's even an unwritten rule. It's probably codified in regulations somewhere, about the amount of certain drugs they can prescribe in a given period. And as well, they don't want to draw attention to themselves from the DEA. If most doctors prescribed X amount of Marinol (virtually none) and then a flood of prescriptions started coming in from an area from one doctor no less, they'd set up a sting. They'd have an agent go in and subtly imply that they do not really need the drug or that they are an addict. The doctor would soon be indicted thereafter. And for the ones that do not go for their antics, they are harassed and ran out of practice/eventually indicted for something. It's a shame, but it's the truth. These cocksuckers are fascists. They have destroyed the doctor/patient relationship to such a degree that doctors are suspicious of their patients and patients can't get the medicine they need.

Of all the things that annoy me on a given basis, this one probably takes the cake.

[MRK]

Getting sued for firing a THC positive employee.

And we wonder why costs are going up?

[LadyBastiat]

Ya technically you are correct however I feel like companies do it as a matter of decades old, cob webbed filled policy and the policies won't change until lawsuits are filed. Then the insurance companies will change their tune. Although any protections people receive from other prescription drugs should probably be applied equally to cannabis until those laws can be repealed.

If this was a mom n pop shop or if if the guy who fired him was actually the owner of the company rather than a bunch of corporate non-sense then I might say strategy wise it would be better to attack it from the corporate angle than a mom n pop shop guy.

Knowing what little I know about Worker's Comp. Insurance and CPP/CGL policies in general, the employer is probably required by their insurance company to do drug testing and to take action when there are positive results. There is a wholly complex system that is going to have to be completely dismantled before "pot" ever becomes truly "legal". The fact that it is the least harmless of the "recreational" drugs and that it remains in your system the longest (not to mention also the least intoxicating, alcohol included - yes I know from "experience") is nothing short of dysfunctional irony. Since he worked for a cable company they have a fleet that works in the field, driving company autos and performing dangerous tasks. Someone needs to come up with technology for inexpensively determining whether marijuana is "in" your system or residual from private use. (Is that even possible?)

[PaulConventionWV]

Wait...wut? So, if you like to hang out in titty bars in your off time - you think your religious boss has a right to fire you over it???

Yes. Bosses can fire whoever they want over whatever they want. Is this news to you...?

[PaulConventionWV]

I draw the line on #2 at employers dictating what their employees do on their own time, as long as it has no effect on the employer's business. The problem with random drug testing is that THC hangs out for a while in the blood, and firing someone who isn't using it on the job, and isn't high, is just bullshit.

So, do you think a religious employer has the right to fire an employee who goes to titty bars on his own time?

So, effectively what you're saying is that you have a right to work for your employer?

[PaulConventionWV]

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

No, you are different because

1) You actually own something, as opposed to the government, which just steals it
2) You are not threatening violence like the government, just suspension of employment

I find it hard to believe you've been here all this time and yet you don't understand the simple difference between a private employer and the government.

[jonhowe]

I recently was a participant in a drug study at a major University which had me taking Marinol (in high doses) and being scanned in an MRI. The marinol, it turns out, what tested mainly to compare it to my scans while under the effects of MDMA, but it did allow me the opportunity to experience its effects.

As a cannabis user (usually in the form of baked goods; I have bad enough lungs as it is), I found the effects of the marinol quite different. I was certainly high, but it was not in a way that I'd do for fun. I was relaxed, a little giddy, and had an intense body high. But again, it wasn't very "fun" or introspective. And I was given several times the normal prescribed dose. It's just stupid that the medical profession is forced to make a drug like this, which has few and minor side effects, so much harder for doctors to deal with than something horrible like vicodin.

[Anti Federalist]

Good.

Hope this fellow wins.

Indentured servitude is an idea best left buried in the past.

[jonhowe]

Good.

Hope this fellow wins.

Indentured servitude is an idea best left buried in the past.

You look different.

[matt0611]

Wait...wut? So, if you like to hang out in titty bars in your off time - you think your religious boss has a right to fire you over it???

Unless it violates a contract between the employee and the employer. An employer should be able to end someone's employment for ANY reason.

It's an at will relationship that can be ended at any time by either party.

[pcosmar]

Unless it violates a contract between the employee and the employer. An employer should be able to end someone's employment for ANY reason.

It's an at will relationship that can be ended at any time by either party.

While I would agree with this in principle,, Piss testing is inherently a violation of a persons privacy.
And it is and never was the "employers" decision. it was mandated by Insurance companies in collusion with government.

It was a bad policy started a few decades ago,, and is now commonplace.

What you do in your private life is no business of any employer.
If it were an actual Job performance issue,, then it is the employers prerogative.

HOWEVER, in this case,, as in others, the employee was an exemplary employee.. fired for no reason other than use of a substance (for medical reasons) in his private life.

Drug testing is the question,, and it needs to end.
If that takes suing employers to make them stop,, fine.

[belian78]

why doesn't a business owner have the right to fire any one he damn well pleases? does an employee have a "right" to his job?

if I am the owner, and I don't like your behavior or your moral values, it's not unreasonable to think you might bring those to my workplace.

you're fired.
The only caveat I would add to this is *behavior at work and *moral values if brought to work. If I like red sports drinks and my boss doesn't, as long as I don't bring them to work or talk about them at work, it's should be of no concern to him or his company.

[Jamesiv1]

The only caveat I would add to this is *behavior at work and *moral values if brought to work. If I like red sports drinks and my boss doesn't, as long as I don't bring them to work or talk about them at work, it's should be of no concern to him or his company.
that's all fine, and I totally get your point. But I still say a business owner should be able to fire anyone he pleases - anybody, at any time.

if he's being a prick about it, word will get around and people won't want to work for him.

[willwash]

You'd be surprised. It's like trying to fill a prescription of Oxycontin IR 30's vs. Oxycontin 80's.

I was talking to a pharmacy technician and she mentioned that Oxycontin IR 30's is the one drug that their pharmacy will not fill. There is too much of a hassle involved in it. Apparently the guy whose prescription she denied to fill mentioned after that he'd been to about 10 different pharmacies and not one of them would fill it. I'm not sure of the specific process involved, but apparently there are more hoops to jump through and the pills more heavily monitored.

With regards to the doctor, if they wrote Marinol prescriptions like they did medicinal cannabis recommendations, they'd be indicted with their names slandered in every newspaper across the country. I doubt, really, that it's even an unwritten rule. It's probably codified in regulations somewhere, about the amount of certain drugs they can prescribe in a given period. And as well, they don't want to draw attention to themselves from the DEA. If most doctors prescribed X amount of Marinol (virtually none) and then a flood of prescriptions started coming in from an area from one doctor no less, they'd set up a sting. They'd have an agent go in and subtly imply that they do not really need the drug or that they are an addict. The doctor would soon be indicted thereafter. And for the ones that do not go for their antics, they are harassed and ran out of practice/eventually indicted for something. It's a shame, but it's the truth. These cocksuckers are fascists. They have destroyed the doctor/patient relationship to such a degree that doctors are suspicious of their patients and patients can't get the medicine they need.

Of all the things that annoy me on a given basis, this one probably takes the cake.

I'm trying to imagine this situation in my head (I grant I'm not in a medical MJ state but still let's pretend I live in California)...

Me: Doctor, I'm in pain, I have condition X
Doc: Well, marijuana might prove to be a good treatment for your condition. The therapeutic effects of THC blah blah blah...
Me: Really? Well, OK, you're the doctor. But I'm pretty wary of the harmful side effects of smoking. I like my healthy lungs.
Doc: That's OK, medical marijuana dispensaries sell hash brownies too! As long as you have my recommendation you can get whatever.
Me: Yeah, but I still want to know exactly what I'm putting into my body and exactly how much of it. Isn't there a THC prescription pill?
Doc: Well, er, you see, it's OK if I write something up so you can smoke it and fill your lungs with tar, it's OK if I recommend that you eat it and not know precisely how much THC you're administering to yourself, but if I write you a prescription for Marinol I'll lose my license to practice medicine. So your options are smoke it, eat it, or suffer.

If I were a MM patient I would sue my doctor for malpractice if he didn't write me a prescription for Marinol if I asked for it (assuming he was willing to write me one for MJ proper).

[PaulConventionWV]

Good.

Hope this fellow wins.

Indentured servitude is an idea best left buried in the past.

I would ask you if you know what indentured servitude is, and that this is not it, but I think I must be missing the point.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm trying to imagine this situation in my head (I grant I'm not in a medical MJ state but still let's pretend I live in California)...

Me: Doctor, I'm in pain, I have condition X
Doc: Well, marijuana might prove to be a good treatment for your condition. The therapeutic effects of THC blah blah blah...
Me: Really? Well, OK, you're the doctor. But I'm pretty wary of the harmful side effects of smoking. I like my healthy lungs.
Doc: That's OK, medical marijuana dispensaries sell hash brownies too! As long as you have my recommendation you can get whatever.
Me: Yeah, but I still want to know exactly what I'm putting into my body and exactly how much of it. Isn't there a THC prescription pill?
Doc: Well, er, you see, it's OK if I write something up so you can smoke it and fill your lungs with tar, it's OK if I recommend that you eat it and not know precisely how much THC you're administering to yourself, but if I write you a prescription for Marinol I'll lose my license to practice medicine. So your options are smoke it, eat it, or suffer.

If I were a MM patient I would sue my doctor for malpractice if he didn't write me a prescription for Marinol if I asked for it (assuming he was willing to write me one for MJ proper).

*sigh*

Every medicine has to be a pill... There's no such thing as knowing how to take your own medicine. Even drug dealers know what they're doing when they take drugs that are not in pill form.

[Anti Federalist]

You look different.

LOL - Went for the Quint look.

Fits me better.

[Anti Federalist]

I would ask you if you know what indentured servitude is, and that this is not it, but I think I must be missing the point.

When the only legitimate sources of earning a living snoop and pry and dictate your private affairs like this, yes, it is precisely a polite form of indentured servitide.

And don't lecture me about property rights.

Corporations are not people, and only people have rights.

Under the current system we live under "moral hazard" is not an effective check against such abuses, any more than lawsuits are an effective check against out of control cops, because the writers and enforcers of such policies are shielded from the bad decisions they make.

[Deborah K]

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

And if you set those rules out during the interview and make sure they know that's the policy, then I'd say you have that right. After the fact - you don't.

[Deborah K]

Then I wouldnt work for you if you insist on the authority to tell me what I can and can not do while not at work. Very simple free market solution.

The problem is, when the gov't controls the economy, people lose their options for work and become compliant just to get a paycheck. And this is the rub - if people aren't going to stand up to their government when it becomes tyrannical, what makes anyone think they'll do it with tyrannical companies?

[Deborah K]

You'd be surprised. It's like trying to fill a prescription of Oxycontin IR 30's vs. Oxycontin 80's.

I was talking to a pharmacy technician and she mentioned that Oxycontin IR 30's is the one drug that their pharmacy will not fill. There is too much of a hassle involved in it. Apparently the guy whose prescription she denied to fill mentioned after that he'd been to about 10 different pharmacies and not one of them would fill it. I'm not sure of the specific process involved, but apparently there are more hoops to jump through and the pills more heavily monitored.

With regards to the doctor, if they wrote Marinol prescriptions like they did medicinal cannabis recommendations, they'd be indicted with their names slandered in every newspaper across the country. I doubt, really, that it's even an unwritten rule. It's probably codified in regulations somewhere, about the amount of certain drugs they can prescribe in a given period. And as well, they don't want to draw attention to themselves from the DEA. If most doctors prescribed X amount of Marinol (virtually none) and then a flood of prescriptions started coming in from an area from one doctor no less, they'd set up a sting. They'd have an agent go in and subtly imply that they do not really need the drug or that they are an addict. The doctor would soon be indicted thereafter. And for the ones that do not go for their antics, they are harassed and ran out of practice/eventually indicted for something. It's a shame, but it's the truth. These cocksuckers are fascists. They have destroyed the doctor/patient relationship to such a degree that doctors are suspicious of their patients and patients can't get the medicine they need.

Of all the things that annoy me on a given basis, this one probably takes the cake.

^^^^ This! ^^^^

[Deborah K]

No, you are different because

1) You actually own something, as opposed to the government, which just steals it
2) You are not threatening violence like the government, just suspension of employment

I find it hard to believe you've been here all this time and yet you don't understand the simple difference between a private employer and the government.

I understand it. And, I think you know that. Do you understand how trading one tyranny for another isn't the answer? So what if an employer doesn't hold a gun to your head - you assume people are going to stand up to the businesses that are unfair and dictatorial, but what you fail to grasp, apparently, is that the unwashed masses acquiesce every time when it comes to their pocketbook. They can just as easily be manipulated by companies as they can by the government.

What if religious businesses for example became the majority and decided to unite against workers by firing them for going to titty bars on their own time (lewd example, I know)? People desperate for work are going to comply. This is my point.

[Deborah K]

While I would agree with this in principle,, Piss testing is inherently a violation of a persons privacy.
And it is and never was the "employers" decision. it was mandated by Insurance companies in collusion with government.

It was a bad policy started a few decades ago,, and is now commonplace.

What you do in your private life is no business of any employer.
If it were an actual Job performance issue,, then it is the employers prerogative.

HOWEVER, in this case,, as in others, the employee was an exemplary employee.. fired for no reason other than use of a substance (for medical reasons) in his private life.

Drug testing is the question,, and it needs to end.
If that takes suing employers to make them stop,, fine.

Agreed.

[DamianTV]

The Law used to be subject to the concept of Innocent until proven Guilty. Employers and Corporations are not held to the same standards, and dependancy on Employment as a condition of survival has made Employers just as much a form of Authority as any other part of our Govt. This enables the Modern Day Witch Hunt where the most minor of accusations from another is considered valid grounds for Termination.

"Mr. Spacely, George Jetson got his chocolate in my peanut butter!"
"Jetson! Youre FIRED!"

AF has a good point about Corporations not being People. People being spelled with a capital P, recognized as a proper person. Just as there is a difference between Citizen and citizen. Extending the idea of Corporations are NOT PEOPLE, I would have to say that an individual business owner should have more power over his business than any Mega Corporation.

Extend the idea a bit further. Do employers have an inherit Right to terminate any employee for ANY reason? Employment falls more under Contract Law. It requires both parties to agree to the Terms and Conditions of employment. In a world where more and more small businesses fail, less businesses are created, and more people are employed by Mega Corporations, those Terms and Conditions of employment become both non-negotiable and completely incomprehensible to the common man, as it is more of a Book written in Legalese and can only be understood by those who speak the language. The outcome of this can only be Indentured Servitude. There used to exist another name by which these types of Employers were labeled: Robber Barons.

Our old Terms and Conditions of employment used to be so simple that a trained monkey could understand it. "You do this for me and I'll give you something in exchange." It falls under Contract Law as both spoken and written contracts could be considered Binding. But as the powers of the Employers has grown, there are Rights that are assumed. These arent actually Natural Rights, but might be better described as "Cooperative Rights". If self ownership is recognized as a Right of all People, part of what is implied is a Limit to those Rights. People have the ability to define what those Limits are when it pertains to the Rights of others, and Unlimited Rights when applied to what a Person can do unto themselves.

We will have different relationships with each other. As a result, each different relationship will have a different set of Limits. You will allow your spouce to see you naked, on a regular basis, while being seen naked by the TSA we consider to be offensive and intrusive because our relationship with the TSA is considered to be different than that of our spouce. Just as those relationships are different, each relationship with an Employer will also be different. These relationships are formed by cooperation where both parties agree to what is expected of them and what will be provided in exchange. Todays Mega Corporations has all but done away with mutual cooperation and replaced it with demanded obedience. This still is a separation of the idea "Does an Employer have a Right to terminate an Employee for ANY reason?" Only if termination is agreed to as part of the Contract of Employment. That agreement, contract, and definition of the Limitations of the Contract is what allows both an Employer to terminate an Employee as well as empowers an Employee with the ability to Quit their job for ANY reason.

Jobs are Relationships. As explained, EVERY relationship is different. Guess what, there are some jobs that you CAN NOT QUIT. The simplest example is the Military. It is part of the agreement. Other countries are also different and require people who are able to enlist for mandatory minimum periods of time. That is NOT a mutual agreement, that IS abuse of Law. The abuse that can occur typically favors Employers over Employees, but can occur from both sides. I believe also the abuse results from Ignorance as to what a "Right" actually is. Govts do not have any RIGHTS what so ever because they are derived from men and only granted Permissions by those that they govern. Believing any Govt has any Right what so ever stems from a lack of understanding of what a Right is, and its negative form, what a Right is not. It may even be said that evil results not of suspicion, but of ignorance.

Ignorance is what enables one to abuse another. How can you try to enforce any Natural Right if you do not know that you have it? Another Right that people do not understand is a Right to Cooperation. If we have Unlimited Rights unto ourselves and No Rights over another, we need to also be able to define the negative form of those rights, which is where Cooperation comes into play. Our agreements and contracts define what both will be able to do as well as what both will not be able to do. With an Employer, a person would typically agree to have a Supervisor, however, when not at work, that Employee would expect to be free to go about their business as they see fit.

Another issue is the role of Technology in the workplace. Not so much as in surveillance or us monitoring or managing equipment, but that equipment managing us. The machines tell us that it is time to "add more materials", or to make an adjustment to the method of manufacture. Clocks are also machines that tell us when we are expected to be working, and when we are not, depending on the situation. Machines are cost efficient because they replace supervisory roles with better regulated automation. This also has a consequence of enabling people to have Supervision while not working. It would not be cost efficient for a company to hire someone to Supervise what you do while not at home, but with Technology assuming the role of Supervision, it may just as well be. Employers are now demanding that they have a Right to Supervise what you do while not working. First, that Right as a Natural Right does not exist, yet, it does not stop Employers from attempting to claim this as a Natural Right. It is not. It is part of the agreement. But because the agreement is typically written by the Employer, bias will favor the Employer over the Employee as to what those Limits are. Obedience is replacing Cooperation. And eventually, the Employer will claim, through the ignorance of the difference between a Natural Right and a Cooperative Negotiated Right, the Employers will extend the contractual Rights to become damn near Unlimited.

The end result may very well be that we will be Chipped for Supervision, not by Govt, but by Employers, as a mandatory condition for employment.

So for the Employers reading this, what Rights would you claim to have? Would you claim to have the Right to install a Biometric Chip for Supervision of all employees? Would you extend this claim to have a Right to Supervise them while not working? Would you continue to extend this claim to Total Ownership of the employees? Or would you acknowledge that there are LIMITS to what those Rights are? Would you also agree that the source of your Rights comes not as a Natural Right, but the result of cooperation defining what the Limits are to both parties? Edit: as part of those Limits, would it be reasonable to treat employees as Innocents until proven Guilty for violations of valid Limits?

[Deborah K]

Damien, that is not 'food for thought', that is 'a delicious meal for thought'. +rep!