OR: Marijuana Act Clouds Antidrug Work Rules

[1a2b3c]

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1942.a02.html

Cases in Oregon courts examine whether workers can be fired for
state-sanctioned use of marijuana as medicine

Portland truck-maker Freightliner fired forklift driver John Thomas in
January after the Teamster broke an overhead water line and subsequently
tested positive for marijuana. Nearly a year later, the question of whether
Thomas should be reinstated has ramifications for employers and employees
statewide.

That's because in addition to his Teamster card, Thomas carries something
else in his wallet he claims makes his firing illegal: a state-issued
medical marijuana registration card, which gives him the right to treat
chronic pain by smoking the drug.

[littlejoe]

1. This is a very interesting case.

It has some far-reaching ramifications. Ones that have not been addressed, to my knowledge. Something else that is of interest. Suppose this man was involved in a car accident. His blood would surely be tested, and if it showed up positive for marijuana, could he then be charged with driving under the influence, even if he hadn't smoked in days?

[Nikia]

2. Firing any worker for off duty drug use should be illegal

It is none of an employers business what an employee does off duty. I believe that people who use alcohol are protected if they do not show up to work impaired. Some people might disagree with me on this, which I understand.
Firing an employee for taking their medicine should be illegal unless other similiarly impairing perscription drugs are also a disqualification for that job, though, is criminal.

[Sterling]

3. If he was high on the job that is one thing

Otherwise it's no ones bussiness but his and his MD.

[1a2b3c]

4. yep

No company should be allowed to fire someone because they got high 2 weeks ago, unless of course we are going to start firing people who got drunk 2 weeks before they got tested.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Many jobs require employees not break the law

Security clearances and other jobs where people handle money and such. As long as drug use is illegal, they are breaking the law.

[DrWeird]

6. In some places it is still illegal to be homosexual.

Nevertheless, it is wrong for employers to fire people for being homosexual as it is wrong for employers to fire people for off the job marijuana use.

[Nikia]

7. Well I suppose it is fair if that is the rule and they are consistent

My workplace fires drug users though and lets multiple drunk driver convict come to work everyday from jail during his sentence. In some states, marijuana possession is considered the same as a traffic ticket. In those states, they would have to treat speeding and posession the same. I don't think it is illegal to have marijuana metabolites in your system anyway.

[Sterling]

10. Pay attention plz

let your agenda rest for 5 secs and you might realize it is legal for this man to use MJ.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. No agenda

In THIS case, it might be legal. In the rest...

[mitchum]

11. I've heard that argument before...

and my reply was, "It's also illegal to cheat on your taxes or beat your wife, but employers never seem to care about policing those behaviors"

[1a2b3c]

12. No shit

I see muddle has another post i disagree with.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Both would bother me as an employer

The former because it would show either a willingness to cheat with money or a desperate need for cash. The latter because it would indicate you might harm your coworkers.

I agree, it should be enforced equally.

[jayfish]

8. A Test Needs To Be Developed...

that detects whether a person is actually under the influence of THC instead of it just being in your system.

Jay

[mdmc]

9. currently, a cops point of view

is what is used to determine if someone is under the influence. Blood, urine, and hair ca prove use, but not "intoxication" or "being under the influence".
What I found interesting was that someone could be fired for being an addict, or acting like an addict by using drugs. I have always thought of addiction as a disease that could be treated. In this case, why didn't the Teamsters require that their member receive counseling after this accident. Even if the worker had a pot px, counseling should be required to make sure that the pot px using worker is using his medication in the safest way possible.
The worker should have also notified his employee of his medication. I assume in the case referred to, this did not happen.
Interesting read.

[littlejoe]

14. Please, not another system to have to bob and weave through.