Use of medical marijuana at work poses challenges for employers: experts

VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
gb127 said:
your claims are false
Click to expand...
Is that right? Now you get to explain how and why you have accused me of making false claims or do you enjoy being an embarrassment to the human race? You don't know what went down, you don't even know the location of the camp, but you somehow reached the conclusion that it is a 'false claim'? The fact that it is Scout's Canada seems to be a sticking point to you - yet you refuse to say why. Could it be YOU are also a Scout leader and you don't want any negative press that would expose your relationships with the little boys? You sick fucking perv.
 
SoOLED

SoOLED

Well-Known Member
why, its just like every other Rx in the work place.

you cant come to work high on Xanax, or hydrocodone.

why would cannabis be any different; every work place common guidelines say this. I know most people ignore it, and take their meds anyways. but if something happen, they would fault you for coming to work under Rx meds.

..so yeah do it, but its at your own risk if there is a accident or problem it will be your breach or fault.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
SoOLED said:
why, its just like every other Rx in the work place.

you cant come to work high on Xanax, or hydrocodone.

why would cannabis be any different; every work place common guidelines say this. I know most people ignore it, and take their meds anyways. but if something happen, they would fault you for coming to work under Rx meds.

..so yeah do it, but its at your own risk if there is a accident or problem it will be your breach or fault.
Click to expand...
But you can come to work on many other prescription meds and do just fine. At issue would be impairment and how it relates to the job you do. You haven't got a clue what I did or how cannabis use affected my job or even if I had ANY interactions with kids.
 
SoOLED

SoOLED

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
But you can come to work on many other prescription meds and do just fine. At issue would be impairment and how it relates to the job you do. You haven't got a clue what I did or how cannabis use affected my job or even if I had ANY interactions with kids.
Click to expand...
it wouldn't matter, if there was an incident. you would be on the wrong side of what ever health and safety code. there are no half infractions, all it takes is one incident and regardless of your previous performance you'd be just as guilty. I would even go as far to say, stating you been under the influence everyday until the day of incident would be detrimental.

sounds like the guy who can drive drunk fine, but gets pulled over for a tail light, and even though he wasn't suspect of DUI is now facing DUI charges rather then a fix it ticket.

I'm speaking from a black book stand point. I could give less fucks what you do, but law is law. no amount of color is going to change what is black and white.
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
SoOLED said:
it wouldn't matter, if there was an incident. you would be on the wrong side of what ever health and safety code. there are no half infractions, all it takes is one incident and regardless of your previous performance you'd just as guilty. I would even go as far to say, stating you been under the influence everyday until the day of incident would be detrimental.

sounds like the guy who can drive drunk fine, but gets pulled over for a tail light, and even though he wasn't suspect of DUI is now facing DUI charges rather then a fix it ticket.

I'm speaking from a black book stand point. I could give less fucks what you do, but law is law. no amount of color is going to change what is black and white.
Click to expand...
Part of the issue here is that you can test positive for cannabis use well past 30 days after your last dose, and up to 90 days if they use hair to test.

The presence of metabolites does not equal impairment. All it detects is that you used cannabis, or a cannabis product, at some point in the past. It doesn't say you are impaired at work.

A breathalyzer would tell that. Even a positive test for cocaine will only go back 3 days. They are penalizing people for use, not impairment.
 
Farmer.J

Farmer.J

Well-Known Member
SoOLED said:
it wouldn't matter, if there was an incident. you would be on the wrong side of what ever health and safety code. there are no half infractions, all it takes is one incident and regardless of your previous performance you'd be just as guilty. I would even go as far to say, stating you been under the influence everyday until the day of incident would be detrimental.

sounds like the guy who can drive drunk fine, but gets pulled over for a tail light, and even though he wasn't suspect of DUI is now facing DUI charges rather then a fix it ticket.

I'm speaking from a black book stand point. I could give less fucks what you do, but law is law. no amount of color is going to change what is black and white.
Click to expand...
It's Happy HoresShit Discrimination is all it is.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
SoOLED said:
it wouldn't matter, if there was an incident. you would be on the wrong side of what ever health and safety code. there are no half infractions, all it takes is one incident and regardless of your previous performance you'd be just as guilty. I would even go as far to say, stating you been under the influence everyday until the day of incident would be detrimental.

sounds like the guy who can drive drunk fine, but gets pulled over for a tail light, and even though he wasn't suspect of DUI is now facing DUI charges rather then a fix it ticket.

I'm speaking from a black book stand point. I could give less fucks what you do, but law is law. no amount of color is going to change what is black and white.
Click to expand...
Again, you are making assumptions without knowing the facts. They had their lawyers on it and they sided with me. Don't give any relevance to the troll's postings, he is even less informed. I don't need to go into details with anyone on here - suffice to say I left on my own under good terms more than a year later.
 
SoOLED

SoOLED

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
Again, you are making assumptions without knowing the facts. They had their lawyers on it and they sided with me. Don't give any relevance to the troll's postings, he is even less informed. I don't need to go into details with anyone on here - suffice to say I left on my own under good terms more than a year later.
Click to expand...
but, in not so many words admittingly say it could have turned out different?

is that how you spell that ad-mit-ting-ly...fuck it you know what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top