Mean, Cruel, Sadistic

[donsu]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402163.html


Calif. Firms Can Fire Medical Marijuana Users
State's High Court Finds Compassionate Use Act Does Not Affect Employers' Rights


The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that employers can fire workers who test positive for marijuana even if they have a note from a doctor recommending its use for medical reasons.

The 5 to 2 ruling came in a state that was the first to legalize cannabis for medical use but has followed up with ambiguity and ambivalence about making it a reality.

In the latest ruling, the high court said a Sacramento company had the right to fire Gary Ross in 2001 after a routine drug test came back positive for marijuana. Ross showed RagingWire Inc. a copy of his physician's recommendation to smoke the drug to relieve chronic back pain from three lumbar vertebrae fractured when he fell off the wing of an F-16 as an Air Force mechanic in 1983.
-snip-
-----------------------------


the California Supreme Court must have been taken over by neo cons, you know; mean, cruel, sadistic

[Rosemary2205]

1. Seems like common sense to me from a safety standpoint.

I mean if they are firing you from your job sitting at a computer all day, that's assinine. But I would not want someone who is just a little bit buzzed in the lock down area of dangerous industrial machinery - or even the fry machine at McD's - I can't imagine what the liability cost would be if an employer put someone they KNEW was on weed into a situation where they, or someone else could in any way get hurt. Transfer them if you can, of course.

[donsu]

2. well, they are not chain smoking the weed! and of course, would not

be stoned at work. you can get buzzed or you can get stoned.

buzzed can keep the pain at bay. if the pain is that bad, the worker would be home stoned trying for relief, not at work.

[High Plains]

3. So...what about prescription drugs?

People use all kinds of prescription drugs without being fired from their jobs.

This case was not about a guy who was stoned at work, but about a documented, legal (under California law) medical marijuana user who was fired for having a positive result for marijuana in his pre-employment drug test.

No one wants impaired workers on the job, but there is no suggestion this worker was impaired on the job. Should employers be able to fire people who use prescription drugs but who are not impaired on the job?

This is a horrible ruling, as the dissent noted. It discriminates against people who use marijuana medically. Better to have that heavy equipment operator on alcohol and Oxycontin, I guess.

[donsu]

4. people get addicted to pharma or have bad reactions plus

pharma doesn't do what grass does.

[High Plains]

5. Huh? I have no idea what point you're trying to make.