However, recently there arose a controversy in many legalized states, including Colorado: while the state itself allowed the usage of marijuana, businesses kept their "zero tolerance" policies that advocated for drug free employees. In a recent case, Brandon Coats of Colorado was fired for having positive drug test results; however, not only is he in a state where recreational marijuana is legal, but he also holds a pass for medicinal marijuana usage, due to his paralysis. He is attempting to sue his company, and if he wins, it could potentially mean the end of drug free policies for businesses across the state.
Personally, I think it's quite unfair for businesses to fire this man, especially due to the fact that he holds a medical marijuana pass. This isn't the only case either; earlier in August, Donna Smith of New Mexico was terminated from working at Presbyterian healthcare services for the same reason, and she also held a medical marijuana pass. What do you think is the reasoning of these businesses, and are they justified in firing this people for having positive drug test results? Additionally, should business policies "trump" state law, making it hard for those who legally smoke marijuana to find jobs anywhere? Who do you think will win in this court case... and why?
6 comments:
23 states have legalized medical marijuana-- 2 have legalized recreational marijuana (although de facto legalization no doubt complicates the issue).
One pillar of the libertarian argument for the legalization of marijuana (and coke, and heroin, etc) is that one can be personally against the use of _________, while still recognizing that imprisoning someone for _________ is wrong. If we equate legalization with personal endorsement, nothing will ever get done on this front (as most Americans do not condone the use of drugs, even if they are pro-legalization).
Businesses have the right to associate with whoever they want, just as you have the choice to associate (or not) with stoners. Disney employees can't date other Disney employees. Jobs have rules, and if you signed the contract, you are bound by them. According to the contract clause of the constitution, contracts can govern us in a similar manor to laws.
Oopsie – thank you Jeremiah for pointing out that mix-up, I have now fixed/clarified it.
Also, I understand your point where businesses construct their own terms and it is the employees who choose, ultimately, whether they can meet those terms. However, if you would excuse the hypothetical, what if there was someone who needed the medical marijuana? Would you consider this job discrimination for businesses to not allow that man to work, or is it still perfectly reasonable?
Going into a job, signing the contract, an employee knows what he/she is signing to. A computer programmer understands that he/she will have to log on at odd times in order to synchronize with partner programmers often located abroad. A prospective financial trader knows that he/she might have to work "up to 3 am and get back up at 5 am, catching up on sleep during the weekends," as stated by Anton Kreil. A marketing representative should understand that they might be flying all over the globe for developing specific marketing plans. These employees knew what they were getting into, and if they felt that they could not carry out all the expectations, they simply should not have accepted the job in the first place. The ones who give you money get to make the rules, however unfair or difficult it can or does seem. If anything, these people should try to change/negotiate these rules BEFORE they went against them. I do sympathize with these people, because they are in quite a pickle. They were fired from a job, and thus a source of income was ripped away from them. But such is the system this nation abides by. A worker just has to accept the company's rules. It is the same, all too familiar "my house, my rules," principle.
I believe that companies have the right to create their own policies. Whether these policies are consistent with state laws is irrelevant. It is legal to have piercings, however, if company policy does not allow piercings, then the company has the right to enforce its policy. Company policies are usually based on safety and presentation. It is not safe to go to work under the influence of marijuana in many industrial type jobs. It is the company’s responsibility for the safety of their employees and to protect the company as a whole from workman compensation claims and more.
Elias, Catherine -
I would definitely agree with you if we were discussing recreational marijuana usage. However, my opinion is a little different when it comes to medical marijuana, because the fact that these people have medical marijuana passes indicates that they potentially need this marijuana. To me, it's like any other prescription medicine - after all, you need to be approved that you need this medicine (or in this case, marijuana) in order to get a pass. Do you guys think this makes the situation any different, or is your stance still the same?
P.S. I'm probably more biased for marijuana usage than not, since I'm a big proponent of their legalization throughout the nation. Sorry, no harsh feelings!
Post a Comment