Libertarian Conundrum

[Magox]

On one hand, I believe that Pot should be legal, on the other, I believe a company should be able to hire and fire who they want.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/?ml=bl_jg

 

 

Colorado employers can still fire workers who use pot outside of work under state law, a state appeals court ruled Thursday, as using marijuana is still not protected as “lawful activity” under federal law.

The case, Coats v. Dish Network LLC, centers on a man who was fired for using medical marijuana outside of work. Colorado law prevents employees from being fired for “lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.”

Brandon Coats was fired by Dish Networks LLC after testing positive for marijuana use. A quadriplegic, Coats is licensed to use pot for medical purposes under laws first added to the Colorado constitution in 2000; so he sued, claiming the use of the drug occurred only outside of work and under proper state authority.

Last November, voters went further, legalizing marijuana use for individuals 21 and over.

In a 2-1 decision Thursday, however, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that “lawful activity” does not refer only to an activity's legality under state law.

“Thus, because plaintiff’s state-licensed medical marijuana use was, at the time of his termination, subject to and prohibited by federal law, we conclude that it was not ‘lawful activity,’” Chief Judge Janice Davidson wrote in the opinion

 

Of course, the case is based on a different criteria that I just mentioned, but which one should supercede the other, the state law or corporate policy?

 

Reluctantly, I suppose I'd side with the company.

[DC Tom]

On one hand, I believe that Pot should be legal, on the other, I believe a company should be able to hire and fire who they want.

 

http://www.politico....radar/?ml=bl_jg

 

 

 

 

Of course, the case is based on a different criteria that I just mentioned, but which one should supercede the other, the state law or corporate policy?

 

Reluctantly, I suppose I'd side with the company.

 

I don't know who to side with...but I feel the court's opinion is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to avoid the issue.

[Magox]

I don't know who to side with...but I feel the court's opinion is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to avoid the issue.

 

Yeah, the ruling is poppycock.

[TakeYouToTasker]

On one hand, I believe that Pot should be legal, on the other, I believe a company should be able to hire and fire who they want.

 

http://www.politico....radar/?ml=bl_jg

 

 

 

 

Of course, the case is based on a different criteria that I just mentioned, but which one should supercede the other, the state law or corporate policy?

 

Reluctantly, I suppose I'd side with the company.

You have the absolute right to smoke pot, and I have the absolute right to not associate with you if you choose to. The company is absolutely within it's rights to end it's association with anyone demonstrating behaviors they do not wish to be involved with. Furthermore, no one has told the former employee that he can't smoke pot. He can choose to smoke all the pot he wants, if he chooses to suffer the social consequences.

 

The system is working as intended.

[Magox]

You have the absolute right to smoke pot, and I have the absolute right to not associate with you if you choose to. The company is absolutely within it's rights to end it's association with anyone demonstrating behaviors they do not wish to be involved with. Furthermore, no one has told the former employee that he can't smoke pot. He can choose to smoke all the pot he wants, if he chooses to suffer the social consequences.

 

The system is working as intended.

 

While I agree with what you initially said, the "system" you mention doesn't speak to what you said. It refers to a different criteria.

[DC Tom]

You have the absolute right to smoke pot, and I have the absolute right to not associate with you if you choose to. The company is absolutely within it's rights to end it's association with anyone demonstrating behaviors they do not wish to be involved with. Furthermore, no one has told the former employee that he can't smoke pot. He can choose to smoke all the pot he wants, if he chooses to suffer the social consequences.

 

The system is working as intended.

 

Actually, it's not. Read it again: CO state law says he can't be fired for legal behavior outside of work. CO law legalized pot use. Company fires worker for behavior legal under state law. Then the court punted by mendaciously opining "Oh, but it's still against FEDERAL law!"

 

That is NOT a working system. That's not even a working definition of "legal behavior."

[NoSaint]

 

 

Actually, it's not. Read it again: CO state law says he can't be fired for legal behavior outside of work. CO law legalized pot use. Company fires worker for behavior legal under state law. Then the court punted by mendaciously opining "Oh, but it's still against FEDERAL law!"

 

That is NOT a working system. That's not even a working definition of "legal behavior."

 

the system is broken here, but i dont think its a terrible libertarian conundrum either. guy can smoke pot if he wants. company can fire who they want. whats messing things up isnt libertarian views, its the broken system that exists currently.

[/dev/null]

You should have the right to smoke pot

You should have the right to hire or fire anybody you choose for whatever reason you choose. If you don't like potheads, you should be free to fire them. If you don't like WASP's, you have every right to not hire me.

 

Look at H :w00t: ters. They discrimate all the time. They don't hire chunky chicks and they hide the ones that get knocked up. Yeah it's a double standard, but who really cares about fat chicks?

[3rdnlng]

When I first saw the title of this thread I thought it had something to do with free rubbers. We don't need another Sandra Fluke thread!