Buckner's Glove Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129495,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Wow is that a misleading article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Wow is that a misleading article. 1167[/snapback] I'd say. you ought to complain. Even I can figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Wow is that a misleading article. 1167[/snapback] Misleading or not, the question I ask is: "What if a state actually does something like that?" If that were to happen, would they pull pot off the "banned" list when you go for drug testing? My argument is it is in your system legally, can another governing body or your employer say you violated the drug policy. I am not talking about sobriety, just residual in your system. Does this make any sense? If not? Do I need to elaborate any more? Kinda like speeding? If I went 75 in MO, why couldn't the state of Illinois pull me over a week later and give me a ticket... Assuming they had proof (which a drug test does in substance cases)? Am I off the leagl mark here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Misleading or not, the question I ask is: "What if a state actually does something like that?" If that were to happen, would they pull pot off the "banned" list when you go for drug testing? My argument is it is in your system legally, can another governing body or your employer say you violated the drug policy. I am not talking about sobriety, just residual in your system. Does this make any sense? If not? Do I need to elaborate any more? Kinda like speeding? If I went 75 in MO, why couldn't the state of Illinois pull me over a week later and give me a ticket... Assuming they had proof (which a drug test does in substance cases)? Am I off the leagl mark here? 1468[/snapback] The answer to that question probably lies in the answer to this one: do failed drug tests represent legal or extra-legal policies? In other words, if you test positive for marijuana in an employer-administered drug test, can the police then arrest you? I would think that if so, you could simply say "But I toked up in Alaska", and the police can't reasonably touch you (provided you can prove you were IN Alaska). If not...then it's a matter of a corporate policy of "no drug use", and they can boot your ass. I believe the latter would apply, as companies can and do regulate employee behavior above and beyond what's dictated in criminal or civil law. I would think, too, that if the situation did occurr where someone legally consumed marijuana and was fired for it, it would result in a lawsuit that would make its way up the the Supreme Court level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 The answer to that question probably lies in the answer to this one: do failed drug tests represent legal or extra-legal policies? In other words, if you test positive for marijuana in an employer-administered drug test, can the police then arrest you? I would think that if so, you could simply say "But I toked up in Alaska", and the police can't reasonably touch you (provided you can prove you were IN Alaska). If not...then it's a matter of a corporate policy of "no drug use", and they can boot your ass. I believe the latter would apply, as companies can and do regulate employee behavior above and beyond what's dictated in criminal or civil law. I would think, too, that if the situation did occurr where someone legally consumed marijuana and was fired for it, it would result in a lawsuit that would make its way up the the Supreme Court level. 1479[/snapback] Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Misleading or not, the question I ask is: "What if a state actually does something like that?" If that were to happen, would they pull pot off the "banned" list when you go for drug testing? My argument is it is in your system legally, can another governing body or your employer say you violated the drug policy. I am not talking about sobriety, just residual in your system. Does this make any sense? If not? Do I need to elaborate any more? Kinda like speeding? If I went 75 in MO, why couldn't the state of Illinois pull me over a week later and give me a ticket... Assuming they had proof (which a drug test does in substance cases)? Am I off the leagl mark here? 1468[/snapback] Without getting too deeply into it, here it'll be alot like alcohol. You won't be able to show up for work stoned, nor will you be allowed to consume during work hours. Marijuana was legal here until the early '90s. The problems with alcohol are far worse in this state than pot ever was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Without getting too deeply into it, here it'll be alot like alcohol. You won't be able to show up for work stoned, nor will you be allowed to consume during work hours. Marijuana was legal here until the early '90s. The problems with alcohol are far worse in this state than pot ever was. 1532[/snapback] I totally agree. It becomes a sobriety issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.