Comments on: California Supreme Court: It's Okay to Fire Employees Prescribed Medical Marijuana

By: shmee

shmee — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:40:26 +0000

i go to work high all the time, just makes the kids seem less annoying. no big woop

By: ted

ted — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:31:00 +0000

I'm sure he was getting paid pretty well for being available 24/7.

By: VonSkippy

VonSkippy — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:55:06 +0000

Funny how most companies only want to PAY their workers for 8hrs/5days, but they want to CONTROL their workers 24/7.

By: greg

greg — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:00:52 +0000

I know I'd fire an employee if I found out he was on dimatap or nyquil. Imagine if I called him up at night and he was too drowzy from the cold medicine to function? Pandemonium!

By: esteban

esteban — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:47:55 +0000

I guess the precedent is set. Now we can legally fire everyone taking prescribed medicines that affect judgment or cause drowsiness.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:51:28 +0000

BTW, Pot is harmless. Tax the crap out of it and let them smoke it if they want.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:50:26 +0000

The Anti-Pot movement was a racial biased thing anyway. The term "Drug Crazed Negro" was always used to get what they wanted. More powerful guns and etc.. (History Channel report to Drug Use in America)

The Harrison Tax Act was the first to call some drugs illegal to use without a tax stamp, to quiet down the blacks.

Prior to that you had a right to consume anything you wanted. Even soft drinks had cocaine in them.

By: aerio

aerio — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:02:36 +0000

Double entry and I am sorry for that, I just felt it necessary to add that by and large most people when taking doses of THC responsibly for pain will not get 'high' on it even if they've previously taken it recreationally. If you're in a high amount of pain the THC you ingest to get rid of the pain will not be enough to alter your state of mind. You would have to keep on smoking and then smoke some more.

By: aerio

aerio — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:54:39 +0000

My sister sells snow to the snowbirds,
My father makes bootlegger gin,
My mother sells wine from the grapes on our wine,
My god! How the money rolls in.

Where was pots Pauline Sabine?

By: luvpumpkns

luvpumpkns — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:21:41 +0000

I'm not sure I quite understand. It seems to me that whatever his illness is should be of more concern to the company than the drug prescribed to treat or lessen the illness' effects. In other words, knowing what kinds of illnesses that can be treated with medicinal marijuana, I find it hard to believe that his treatment of his illness caused more problems than the illness itself.

By: greg

greg — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:01:29 +0000

JDJK, in this case, the mary jane was just as legal as alcohol. I really don't get this, the guy had a prescription and pot affects you less than pills like ambien, oxycotin and many other so called "legal" drugs. I hope this country wakes up soon and legalizes marijuana. The only reason its illegal is because it was popular with black people and racism was the thing to do at the time.

By: sparge

sparge — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:59:01 +0000

JDJK: Pot being illegal works for the court's decision, but what about the decision to fire him in the first place? Seems like the company is hinging their defense on the "he could be called in at any time" reasoning, not the "we don't associate with people involved in illegal activities" reasoning. So my question is: if you work for this company, are you expected to refrain from any voluntary activity that would render you unable to perform your job, no matter whether it would affect you during your normal shift or not?

By: sam

sam — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:24:04 +0000

not really apples to oranges. if he was an alcoholic that would be a lot worse. you can't be drunk if you're on call 24/7. this is such bullshit, it should be legal anyway. If the govornment didn't make so much more money by having it illegal im sure they would

By: JDJK

JDJK — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:56:36 +0000

Apples to oranges sparge. Alcohol is a legal substance Mary Jane is not. My question is if they can fire you for using prescription MJ could they fire you if your doctor prescribes a mild pain killer, or other prescription drugs? For arguments sake lets say he wasn't using MJ while at work just when he got home on his own time. How is that different than other prescription drugs? There are literally hundreds of prescription drugs that are illegal on the federal and state level but can still be prescribed to you....

My gut tells me there were personal reasons and the prescription MJ was just the best reason to get rid of him...

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:40:52 +0000

The Court's decision makes sense both legally (it follows the law) and practically (no employer should have to suffer a worker under the influence of any drug).

By: sparge

sparge — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:57:13 +0000

Would they have fired him if they found out he was an alcoholic?

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:19:27 +0000

It's no different than if you showed up on a prescribed narcotic and tried to operate heavy machinery. Your judgement is impared as well as your coordination. I'd fire your asdas in a second if you showed up to my job on drugs...

By: Amuseal

Amuseal — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:50:44 +0000

On the one side, it looks like unfair to fire such people, they fall victims under different circumstances. Funny thing is federal law comes into conflict with legal drugs. Let's take papaverous buns as an example, which also can show opiates in urine.

By: MoonCake

MoonCake — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:22:07 +0000

as much as i am for pot consumption, the guy knew he could have been called in to work at any time. although smoking it doesn't really screw up your perception even as much as presciption drugs can, customers and fellow employees don't want to see you all high and stuff.