When the Law Says Using Marijuana Is O.K., but the Boss Disagrees

Why would ANY employer want to hire someone who blows dope if they had a comparably qualified alternative applicant ? Its legal to do all sorts of things that I wouldn’t want any of my employees doing. MJ unquestionably effects cognition, performance, coordination , concentration, multi tasking, and awareness-thats the whole reason its done recreationally, ie to get high , isnt it ? I need employees who can handle stressful situations, not ones who need to medicate the challenges fo the task away....And unlike the first posters assertions, drug use is a not unreasonable proxy for a whole range of mental illnesses, dependencies, personalities and even “character” issues that no employer wants, or should, have to be saddled with.Final thought-do these posters REALLY want their surgeon, pilot, cop, fireman, teachers, or even mayor, to be blowing dope and high ? Of course not, so why should employers be compelled to hire drug users ? Employment is an entirely different issue than legally re marijuana use- you are free to blow as much dope and get as high as you want, bmany of these posters are purposefully conflating the two to not only legalize marijuana purchase and use, but legitimize and even popularize its use. As for the Colorado poster, recent studies show that marijuana related traffic incidents and ER visits /admissions have climbed appreciably with legalization- I hope you are enjoying your Rocky Mountain high-that 19 year old following you at 70 mph on US sure is

The day is not too far away when employers finally realize that their cannabis consuming employees are their most reliable workers.

When certain states try to refuse to issue same sex marriage licenses, even after the Federal government said they have to, this newspaper and most of the readers were loudly proclaiming the supremacy of Federal law over State laws. Oddly enough, the same claims are not being made in the case of marijuana. People smoking pot are in violation of Federal laws. It seems to me that an employer should have the right to decline to hire those who willfully and continuously violate Federal law.

This woman shouldn't tell people on interviews that she would fail a pot test, in my opinion. I suggest doing what many people do to get around these archaic rules. Say nothing and invest $100-$150 dollars in one of the 100% effective ways to pass your pre-employment screen using synthetic urine.

Several decades ago when I applied for jobs working with patients in hospitals I was drug tested. While was hard for me to pee behind a screen with someone present, I did agree with being tested. I would not have liked someone taking care of me in the hospital who did not have a negative test since my job involved patient care, prescriptions and procedures. I talk to some people now who smoke pot multiple times a day from morning to evening who have jobs that involve construction and working on top of buildings or driving. Because it is legal or “medical” they say this is ok, but it is not safe. One man complained to me that he got a ticket for reckless driving while high from smoking marijuana and he thought he should not have a ticket because it was “medical.” Many people do not seem to understand that just because smoking pot is “medical” it still alters perception and it is not safe to drive or to do many other tasks that should be performed without impairment.

THC (cannabanoid screening) should be excluded from the list of drugs that companies test for both at the start of a job and any and all random drug testing once hired. I realize that a company has the right to say they don't want people on the job under the influence, but THC stays in your system for 30 days or more. It should be pulled from the test strips and drug panels across the nation.

Years ago I was offered a job at a fortune500 company while working at a liberal university. My interviewer called me up with the offer and said they’d fly me out for a house hunting trip in 2 to 3 months at which time I would have to take a drug test. (Since the salary was double what I had been making) I found it no problem to be sure I was drug free by the time the test was administered. This became SOP for interviews I conducted for the company for our division afterwards (I discovered they had lost some good candidates -applying at the end of their experimental college years- before this unwritten policy came about). Large companies have policies but people enforce them. I guess if I didn’t get the message or couldn’t stay away from substances for a month or two they might not want me (... I guess I wouldn’t have wanted me on my team if so). It’s so weird- I live in southern Oregon now surrounded by pot farms (often next to the vineyards for wineries) & I haven’t smoked in over 30 years - but the wine can be very good :-)

Apparently change happens slowly. Too slowly sometimes. It is way past time to legalize cannabis at the federal level. Why oh why is this so difficult. Cannabis has been proven to help so many people. Is the opioid industry behind this?

Denied employment for a prescribed "drug?" For a copywriter position used recreationaly? Oh, those drug addled copywriters ruining lives! Insanity. So glad I'm retired. So glad Colorado has been a part of my life, residency and visits, for almost 30 years. I don't smoke much or often, but it's nice to have the option. Twenty five years ago I had to pass the "whiz quiz" to gain employment as an underwriter. It was because the company, Weyerhauser, had so many employees in dangerous jobs, the mortgage division just got swept along. On a side note, pot possession here is Texas is being made almost legal by the legalization of farmers to grow hemp! The law states that hemp must not have more that some very small amount of THC. So, in order to prove possession of pot, the law has to prove it's over the limit. Hundreds of cases have already been thrown out and many district attorneys and police departments have said that they won't bother people having under 4 ounces. There is only one lab in the entire state that can certify content. Thank god for Texas legislators! Never thought I'd say that!

Republicans have never believed in the rule of law. It’s our law or go back to where you came from.

“She smoked prescription marijuana.” No such thing. Dr’s have to write “recommendations,” not scrips....

Wow! Have any of these applicants even considered stopping the use of THC for a couple of weeks, then applying for a job? Yikes. The first question in the CAGE assessment for alcohol use is, "have you ever thought you should cut down on your drinking?" Have you ever thought you should cut down on your use of THC? Give it a try.

This is why I am self employed.

Oh wow, private employers don't want to hire drug addicts who can't even get themselves clean enough to pass a drug test like everybody else. Somebody call the ACLU! This definitely needs to be a key plank for the Democratic Presidential candidates. They need to be fighting to end discrimination against drug users. Can the left please start boycotting all businesses that have any standards of behavior or productivity? Don't we all believe teachers, bus drivers, and construction workers have the right to be as baked as they wanna be?

Employment in this country is generally "at will," meaning an employer can fire an employee at any time for any reason (or no reason), with or without notice, and the employee can also quit at any time. The exceptions are basically only for discrimination that has been outlawed, such as race, sex and age. Should marijuana users really be a "protected class" like racial minorities or women? If an employer doesn't want to hire, or decides to fire, someone because that person smokes pot that's the employer's business. If it's a good employee then it's the employer's loss. But don't tell me it's the same thing as refusing to hire black people.

Chronic marijuana users are drug addicts. Just like alcoholics and heroin users, employers shouldn’t be forced to hire them. Their drug intoxication is a serious risk to other workers. If you work in a factory, construction site, hospital, and many other workplaces, that can kill someone. Do you want your children’s teachers or daycare workers to regularly use weed? The article cites a chemical engineer working on medical devices. How is that not a safety related position? The comparisons to tobacco and alcohol are just absurd. We know nicotine doesn’t make people high like weed, impairing judgment and motor function. Alcohol does intoxicate but is eliminated from the body at predictable rates. We have BAC tests for a reason. But the THC in weed remains in the body much longer and users buy high THC weed specifically for long intense highs. We even have emerging scientific evidence chronic marijuana use causes negative changes to the brain.

What one does in their free time is not their employer’s business. The boss already dictates the most productive part of your day. If people can drink after work to unwind, then others should be free to enjoy whatever helps them unwind as well.

Apple, too, has changed course. “In general, we have stopped testing most candidates and have never done testing of current employees,” the company said. “We continue to do pre-employment drug testing for a limited number of positions that have a safety risk.” As is often the case.. Apple has it figured out. But they are better at policy and progression of policy in a field of changing cultural norms then some other companies.

First terminology clarification: medical marijuana is commonly referred to by the short hand of "MMJ" I get the frustration being expressed in the article. However... Ms Cue did not have to disclose her MMJ use.. because it is none of anyone's business but her own in the context of any medical diagnosis and treatment ... as long as she had an actual current medically authorized MMJ card (She is in California.. so this is all on the up and up in California. Of course all the advocacy groups hop on and pile on with demand statements.. which is to be expected. And they have a point in the context of drug testing for MMJ of potential employees or current employees. That said.. there is something important missing from the discussion...... marijuana, medical or not, is a psychoactive drug that can impair normal function and interactions in an individual. As such.. just like alcohol.. it represents an actual liability to a company if it allows employees to use these while in the workplace or to be under the influence while in the workplace. Some Silicon Valley companies are quite progressive about this and simply do not care. Others do care. I've worked at companies that allowed alcohol on premises during celebrations and others that adamantly did not. I personally have never used MMJ during work because of this consideration. I say the above as a long time user of MMJ. So spare me any commentary blow back for expressing the truth of the matter here.

I do not care if my colleagues smoke marijuana. Don't.care. But the person who lights up just before getting on the standing-room-only bus in the middle of summer and wedges in next to me for 45 minutes, surrounded by the Cloud of Fumage? Ok, that person I think many dark thoughts about.

Employers, schools, and professional sports need to quickly re-examine their policies. All they're doing is creating needless victims.

The primary reason that pot is becoming legal is that US employers, caught in the thrall of the completely wrong-headed War On Drugs, found that a huge percentage of their potential hires couldn't pass their Republican-endorsed weed test. The secondary reason is that politicians smelled a huge tax windfall that to their chagrin ain't gonna happen. We haven't been waiting 50 years for $300/oz weed. It'll take a few years for the market to figure that one out.

I remember when random drug testing of aircraft mechanics became law in 1989. It was easy to spot the weed heads, they all gained a lot of weight as alcohol became their marijuana substitute. I for one am sick and tired of a government agency, namely the DEA, effectively making law to justify their enormous, bloated budget. By the way, I never witnessed a marijuana user being high at work but back then when the mini bottles of alcohol were plentiful on the airplanes, I saw many a drunk mechanic and flight crew member.

Drug testing should be outlawed for everyone except Congressman and Senators.

If you want to be a doper and still have a job, be a rock star. Employers have enough of a problem dealing with the results of normal human error. They do not need to be hiring chemically impaired workers who increase the chances for error. Do you want an impaired person operating on you or flying your plane? Do you want an impaired person entering your data when you are making a purchase or registering at a hotel or... well you get the picture. Decriminalization of drug use is one thing. Pretending that using does not affect your judgment is another. You may have the "right" to be stoned. But that does not mean an employer has to risk the consequences of hiring people who are chemically impaired.

Slowly but (hopefully) surely, the wheels of progress grind ever forwards. C'mon Congress, work for We the People. Not the Corp., Insur., $$$ connected. Legalize cannabis already.

Folks, as the story finally mentions midway, marijuana is not "legal" just like alcohol when the Feds say it is still a Schedule 1 drug, subject to criminal prosecution. Especially with this administration, employers who ignore that fact are taking a sizeable risk. And even if legal, it's no more okay to be high than drunk while working and the politicians who passed these state laws did no one any favor by failing to set minimum"intoxication" standards. Our HR policy at work remains unchanged so long as it remains illegal to the Feds.

Meanwhile, it’s completely legal to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes in one’s own home until one’s heart is content in every state. And what are the therapeutic benefits of alcohol and cigarettes? Lobbying trumps smart public policy every time.

As a small (75 employees) business owner, I don't have a problem with anything an employee does in their own time. We don't care if they shoot heroin, drink, volunteer at the church or help at schools. Anything, good or bad, on their own time, is their business. At work, we expect them to perform and make customers happy and the company money or they're out. Doesn't matter whether they are a good person or a bad person. They get judged solely on their work performance. I'm sure many of our employees smoke marijuana. Don't care, as long as they perform at work. Many others don't smoke anything and are teetotalers. Again, don't care.

Cannabis testing started so some politician's friends could make lots and lots of money. It's wrong, it was always wrong, and thank goddess it's starting to end.

"marijuana is legal in some form in 33 states and the District of Columbia". No it's not. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act. It's illegal everywhere in the United States with the same status under Federal Law as heroin. This is a big problem I see with all the public statements that weed is "legal" just because they're no State law against it. That does nothing about the Feds. And people are getting hurt because of it. Employers can still deny you for admitting to the ongoing commission of a Federal crime. Foreign visitors are banned from entering the U.S. for life for admitting to marijuana use, even when travelling from a Canadian Provence where it is legal, to a U.S. State where there is no State law against it.

How dumb is it to reject a marijuana user for a copywriter job. As every copywriter knows, there are fifty great headlines in every joint.

"Employers with federal contracts or those whose employees are licensed through federal agencies are legally required to screen job candidates for drugs, including marijuana, which remains a Schedule 1 drug in the federal government’s view. And Transportation Department rules frequently require companies in the industry to screen for drugs when hiring for safety-sensitive positions." The Federal Government does NOT require new civil servants (with few exceptions) to take pre-employment drug screening.

The current laws legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in this country have been, to date, poorly thought out and dangerously implemented. We have blood test standards for recognizing legal limits for intoxication and under the influence based on considerable medical research. No such research based standard currently exists for marijuana. As a consequence, the limit is, effectively, zero. This means being in a room with pot smoking individuals (friends or otherwise) and inhaling the surrounding air could cost you your job. While many prescription and over the counter drugs can, potentially, be equally as dangerous from a physiological standpoint, therein also lies the slippery slope. In a perfect world, it would be nice if everyone at work and on the roads were straight and sober, however, for many reasons, that is not the case. Finding a perfect solution will be equally as elusive.

There have actually been three more current cases where courts ruled in favor of employees rights (in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut). Fourteen states now have laws on the books protecting medical marijuana users' off-the-job use, and Maine, Nevada and New York City have laws protecting recreational users' rights. The tide is turning (but it will still take work to make it happen, e.g. in California). More at: https://www.canorml.org/employment-rights-for-marijuana-users-a-priority-for-cal-norml/

alcohol use is legal, but cannot be used while on the job. I think that we are just going through the growing pains right now of figuring out the rules we want to place on marijuana usage. unfortunately, some people will be hurt by it, but hopefully we can figure something out. I do think that there are certain kinds of jobs where marijuana use should be avoided, but there are others that may not be affected by it. companies and the government need to figure this out now that marijuana is legal so we can all figure out what is the safe and commercially beneficial path to move forward.