- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Louisiana lifts limit on patients who can access medical marijuana
Posted on 9/18/18 at 12:15 pm to mindbreaker
Posted on 9/18/18 at 12:15 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
The only reason they still can is because it's illegal federally and that overrides state laws. If it is every taken off the schedule 1 lists then that will change somewhat. Also they will have to come up with a test that is able to tell is someone is high or if it is just in their system from past use.
This is a bold faced lie.
Employers still have rights.
Example:
Its not against the law take a lot of things that will get you fired from professional sporting teams. How is that different?
1
Posted on 9/18/18 at 12:21 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
This is a bold faced lie.
Employers still have rights.
Example:
Its not against the law take a lot of things that will get you fired from professional sporting teams. How is that different?
I'm not arguing either way... but I'd be curious to know how the federal employee protection acts come into play here.
It's like saying a company can forbid all employees from taking Xanax even if it is prescribed to them (not talking about safety related policies such as truck drivers or construction workers).
I'd think that if someone is prescribed MJ, as long as they aren't observably impaired on the job, then they couldn't be fired for having metabolites in their system.
Has this come up yet in court for any of the legal MJ states?
Posted on 9/18/18 at 12:35 pm to BurningHeart
quote:
I'd think that if someone is prescribed MJ, as long as they aren't observably impaired on the job, then they couldn't be fired for having metabolites in their system.
Has this come up yet in court for any of the legal MJ states?
Without real time accurate testing employers won't go with do they appear to be high imo. They only have urine tests, mouth swabs, blood tests, and hair tests. Only the swab gets a closer reading as little as 4 days. That's still not enough for someone whom smokes just a little a few times a week.
I posted on the previous page Oregon set a precedent and was the first state to deal with this I believe.
Only testing used was a urine sample. A millwright was hurt and then fired after a positive test.
State Supreme court ruled in favor of the employer.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 12:40 pm to LSUintheNW
So, tell me this. Are people here in the state are getting THC or whatever drugs now from doctors?
Posted on 9/18/18 at 12:42 pm to fishfighter
I don't know what's happening in Louisiana.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 12:48 pm to LSUintheNW
quote:
Only testing used was a urine sample. A millwright was hurt and then fired after a positive test.
State Supreme court ruled in favor of the employer.
I can definitely see the employer having power for safety related jobs such as this millwright.
But for other positions I'd be curious how an employer can substantiate barring employees from a prescribed medicine.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 12:50 pm to BurningHeart
quote:
But for other positions I'd be curious how an employer can substantiate barring employees from a prescribed medicine.
Either have rules or don't.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:55 pm to BitBuster
quote:
You know Louisiana politicians just HAVE to set it up so their buddies get to grow it all, then their other buddies get to sell it all, then their other buddies get to prescribe .it.
You know those riverboat captains will get to bring it up the river.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 2:48 pm to BurningHeart
quote:
It's like saying a company can forbid all employees from taking Xanax even if it is prescribed to them (not talking about safety related policies such as truck drivers or construction workers).
I'm talking about safety related. That is why I mentioned healthcare and construction.
And if its prescribed, that is a bit different. Not sure what protocol will be there, but I'm sure employers will just fire people based on merit because if they're high all the time, they're most likely shitty at their job. If someone is prescribed xanax and they're falling asleep at work or forgetful of assignments, they can be fired for merit, not for drug use.
I know my friends in other industries just aren't tested for it at work in Colorado and Oregon, but it is understood not to be high at work like it is understood not to be drunk.
It is treated as alcohol, which is the correct way to do it.
This post was edited on 9/18/18 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 9/18/18 at 2:54 pm to ForeverEllisHugh
quote:
The fact that governments at every level have denied access to a plant that may have medicinal benefits, as well as hindered research into said benefits, is nothing short of criminal and grounds for dissolution for breach of social contract.
Amen. And yet opioids are completely legal and embraced, despite being a scourge on society and ruining lives.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 8:30 pm to TheCaterpillar
I found these two articles on the subject:
The most widely cited case is a 2015 Colorado Supreme Court that upheld Dish Network’s firing of a disabled man who used medical marijuana and failed a drug test. The court ruled that a state law barring employers from firing workers for off-duty behavior that is legal did not apply because pot remains illegal under federal law.
On February 1, 2018, portions of IB 2015, c.5, “Question 1 – An Act to Legalize Marijuana” took effect in Maine requiring employers to stop drug testing job applicants for marijuana use and also preventing employers from firing workers 21 years or older for the use of marijuana outside of the workplace.
A school, employer or landlord may not refuse to enroll or employ or lease to or otherwise penalize a person 21 years of age or older solely for that person’s consuming marijuana outside of the school’s, employer’s or landlord’s property
The most widely cited case is a 2015 Colorado Supreme Court that upheld Dish Network’s firing of a disabled man who used medical marijuana and failed a drug test. The court ruled that a state law barring employers from firing workers for off-duty behavior that is legal did not apply because pot remains illegal under federal law.
On February 1, 2018, portions of IB 2015, c.5, “Question 1 – An Act to Legalize Marijuana” took effect in Maine requiring employers to stop drug testing job applicants for marijuana use and also preventing employers from firing workers 21 years or older for the use of marijuana outside of the workplace.
A school, employer or landlord may not refuse to enroll or employ or lease to or otherwise penalize a person 21 years of age or older solely for that person’s consuming marijuana outside of the school’s, employer’s or landlord’s property
This post was edited on 9/18/18 at 8:32 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News