First was the ban, then came the legalization, and now along comes the right to sue your employer for being disapproving or at least uncooperative about it. Former Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill. [Nancy Berner, Cal Labor] I wrote about related issues last year.
10 Comments
What are they going to do with all of the defense contractors in CA who have mandatory drug-testing programs, and contracts with the govt that forbid them from using people who flunk the tests?
[…] a rest here: Calif.: “Proposed Legislation Requires Accommodation Of Medical … Tags: accommodation, comes-the-right, employer, legalization, legislation, medical-marijuana, […]
rxc: To answer that question would require thinking. Too much thinking. Hard thinking. Thus, CA is exempted from having to do it.
“In other words, SB 129 prohibits employers from taking corrective action against employees using medical marijuana, unless the drug use “impairs” job performance. ”
You have to wonder which jobs are out there for which being stoned won’t “impair[]” job performance. However, since the CA courts will decide that, I suspect that there are more such jobs in CA than most people would believe exist.
@wfjag: I wonder if being a CA judge falls in that category?
Consider this. If you have a joint at night, not on the job. Then your urine will be positive for 48 hours. The same applies to the percocet that you took for you chronic back pain, or the muscle relaxant that you took for the same condition. Yet, simply because you have a positive urine does not mean that you can’t preform 100%. If you fired all the people that would at any time have a positive urine, then you would not have a work force. Now consider that up to 30% of urine drug test are false positives. The fact is that if someone is doing their job and not bothering anyone, leave them alone. This would be good for all aspects of our society.
“I wonder if being a CA judge falls in that category?”
Yes, John, that thought occurred to me, too.
Then again, with some I’ve seen on the bench, being a mellowed out, stoned slacker, might be an improvement, with no apparent loss of intellectual acuity.
@david “If you fired all the people that would at any time have a positive urine, then you would not have a work force.”
If I’m reading this correctly, you are saying that everyone gets stoned sometimes. I am defining “positive urine” as a urinalysis that gives a positive result if indicators of certain illicit drugs are detected. Taking, say, cyclobenzaprine (a common muscle relaxant) would not give a positive reading on a urinalysis.
Is that what you were saying?
D,
It has been my experience that at some point in everyone’s life, they have to take a narcotic. By that I am referring to percocet or lortab. Those drugs will give you a positive urine. But as to muscle relaxants, it depends on the test your employer uses. Now, what is the difference between pot and a relaxant? The only exposure I have had to pot was attending a Stone’s concert and breathing the air. But I have seen people with a positive urine and have not seen a significant mental difference between that and a relaxant. We need to concentrate more on job preformance than a test that could be wrong and definitely does not judge competence.
@David: I’m not aware of any employer drug tests–including CIA–that fire an employee on the results of one test. Further, if one is prescribed a drug that would show up on a test, it ought to be a simple matter of showing the prescription to the tester and/or evaluator.
Now, if the dog ate the prescription, there might be an issue, but a legitimate prescription leaves a trail.
I agree that some people can handle their drugs better than others, whether it’s pot, alcohol, or acid. But it is not a trivial issue to establish a performance test for every situation. That’s why there are BAC limits (whatever you think of them). A poppy seed roll will set off a positive correctly as to the presence of opiates, but negative in terms of performance. That’s why it’s never ‘One flunked test and out.’