Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot

Yes, IMO employer can fire people who test positive for drugs. That is the whole point of the test. I would not accept an excuse "oh, sure I have drugs in my system, but I am not high at the moment".

Keep your liberal gestapo out of the work place.

 

Lets try it one more time, since you are having a hard time with it.

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion). When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning. The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.

 

Exactly.

 

The support for legalization has picked up in recent years, so now it would make more sense politically. Dems lost the House already in 2010, and by end of 2010 majority still did not support it. Today some 62% support it.

 

How did such a drastic change occur so rapidly? What course of events was set into motion that give rise to supposed widespread public support for the legalization of marijuana?

 

Not really knowable. My guess is that once medical started becoming available for some, people started seeing first hand that it's not the danger they were warned of.

Suddenly, grandma was able to eat after chemo. This story circulated in granny's circle - daughter told her friends, who talked to friends.
Sally stopped having seizures, Fred got relief from the pain caused by cataracts.


This is exactly why support for gay people started gaining support so quickly. Once gay people said no to the closet en masse, millions upon millions of people found out that someone close to them was gay. They saw their gay son, nephew, daughter, friend, cousin, etc. were gay AND not evil. Acceptance grew.

 

Its fun and easy to get high, and with no hangover. That simple.

 

Depending upon who is asked, it is also considered "fun" to end the lives of others. But such is not a valid reason for murder to be legalized.

 

Hollywood plays a big part. Today practically every movie has a gay character and a pot head in it and both are portrayed as "cool".

 

Right, just the occasional panic attack with heart rates of 200 etc.

 

Why are you calling me a liberal. I am not the one who hates the founding principles and has no respect for essential liberty - You are

You want to allow employers to violate the civil liberty (the right to privacy and do what one likes on one's own time) of its employees.

You do not respect the founding principles - the principles of Republicanism. You probably do not even know what these principles are.

You call yourself what you want but you are no follower of Republicanism. You definitely have a control freak totalitarian streak .. that's for sure.

 

Meh - very similar to what exercise causes.

My primary use of pot is to stop panic attacks. Paranoia can be a side-effect. This mostly impacts newer users, who don't know what "high" feels like and get nervous about the new sensations. I haven't felt paranoid in a couple of decades.

 

The constitution limits the federal government. It doesn't apply to employers.

Why do you believe that employers shouldn't be able to determine the criteria they use to hire people? That's just silly.

 

I call you a liberal, because you promote liberal totalitarian gestapo policies. You think the founding fathers would have opposed employers fire the employees they didn't want? Hell no, they would never have imposed such government control on employers. You could hire and fire whoever you want. They owned slaves for crying out loud. You think they had rights to privacy. Homosexuality carried the death penalty. You want to deny employers the liberty to run their business as they see fit, and instead create inane laws to protect peoples drug use.

When you sign the contract, you agree to comply with the company policies. Violating those policies can get you fired. Very simple. Now you are trying to argue some professions are exceptions and it is ok to 'violate their privacy'. More liberal nonsense.

 

He is too proud to admit the error in his thinking.

 

You get panic attacks from exercise?

I am ok with medical pot, since it helps some people with certain conditions. It is not for everyone though. Those panic attacks are very real, and people have called 911 because they thought they were going to die.

 

Of course not. I am bi-polar, which comes with an entire buffet of symptoms, anxiety being one.

 

What is silly is you claiming that an employer can dictate any criteria they choose. The constitution applies to the rights of the individual .. as to the founding principles as does law.

So desperate you are to mess with essential liberty ... so desperate.

 

LOL Don't blame me for the fact that you hate the founding principles. I am not the one who wants to trample on the constitution and essential liberty. That would be you.

Then you go on about some insane idea that somehow slaves not having the right to privacy means that employees should not. I know you would like to go back to slavery but... what can say to such an insane idea.

 

You are under the erroneous impression that your employer has to follow the constitution.

At work, you do not have freedom of speech or the right to bring a gun. Your employer is free to search through your work emails, your desk drawer, you work phone log... all without needing a warrant.

The Consitution protects you from government, not your employer.

Instead, employers follow the law, just like every other citizen, who aren't bound to grant anyone a speech platform, either. There are rules around employment and when you can be fired, etc., but last I checked, pot smokers are not a protected class. Your employer can absolutely require their employees not use drugs.

 

You are applying ownership that does not exist. Your right to speak is in public. A place of business is not a public forum. If you want to orate go out on the street corner. Those emails, desk drawers, work phone all belong to the company, not the individual. They have every right to determine that their property is not being misused. As with any business they have the right to deny access to firearms on their premises too. None of your constitutional rights are compromised by any of that.

No one denies that the company sets the rules for what goes on company property. No one has the right to expect to be able to use drugs or alcohol on the job. What I see as the real question is should the company be able to dictate what you do on your off time? If you smoke a little weed on the weekend, and get tested on Wednesday, you can be fired. The honest question is did smoking 4 days earlier in any way impair your ability to work safely?

 

This is mindless twaddle and you are completely ignoring and just talking over everything in my post.

Why on earth are you going on and on about what what happens at work when the conversation is about the right to privacy outside of work ?

What is your dilemma dude ?

 

What, specifically, in my post led you to lecture me? Did you read my post or just make some wild ass assumption about what I think and respond to that? I'm arguing the very thing you are lecturing me on.

 

If you've agreed to drug testing as a condition of employment, including pot, then you have no privacy regarding your pot use. This is pretty easy math.

 

That is where his disconnect is.