If my City tries that, I will be the first Lawsuit filed...against the li'l old Lady next door...with those "Public Nuisance" smelly-ass Roses!!
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Vote YES or NO on Prop 19
- Thread starter Feb2006er
- Start date
- Status
If my City tries that, I will be the first Lawsuit filed...against the li'l old Lady next door...with those "Public Nuisance" smelly-ass Roses!!
Got a link? Everything that I have read indicates that it becomes like alcohol - it is legal for an adult and none of the employers business unless the employee is stoned at work. It specifically states that the employer must show actual impairment.
(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
CaptainTrips
Active member
This is from the official prop 19 website :
Q: How will Proposition 19 affect an employer’s ability to maintain a drug-free workplace?
A: Proposition 19 preserves the rights of employers to maintain a drug-free workplace. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) says that Proposition 19 “does specify that employers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee’s job performance.” http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2010/19_11_2010.pdf
Doesn't really sound like its "none of the employers business", but I could be wrong...
M
mSeTxOiNcEaRn
This poll has minor flaw in that the "CA resident- Yes, but would rather be voting on a better bill(75 so far)" are not added to the "CA resident- Yes(143 so far) " for a total of 218 CA resident- Yes VS CA resident- NO @ 159.
yes we are awhere u made a error its 65 not 75
Thanks for the link. Again, it still looks like it must impair on-the-job performance so a test for month old metabolites in your system is not going to be relevant. I think that the bolded portion in the following is critical.
(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
Last edited:
CaptainTrips
Active member
Well if an employer has the right to a "drug free workplace"... seems they would have the right to prescreen you and test you. The text of prop 19 and what the prop 19 website says don't seem to add up really, so I don't know lol.
the problem I see there is no way to know when u smoked the test does not tell them if it was the day of the test or weeks before. Tey need a test that will tell when u smoked
I think that it is going to drive a new form of testing. A drug free workplace isn't impacted by a Saturday night pipeful any more than it is by a Saturday night beer. Existing tests have no validity for showing intoxication, and that is well established.
CaptainTrips
Active member
I think the problem is most companys drug screen for insurance reasons (cheaper?) Unless it becomes illegal for insurance companys to discriminate against weed users, it will probably continue. I think insurance companys probably operate under some federal law too...
Perhaps, but it was my understanding that it was driven by evidence of illegal drug use. For instance, you could be fired for opiate consumption if you didn't have a valid script for it. If the behavior is no longer illegal and state law specifies that you cannot be discriminated against for it......
that would work for the med users but what about the rec users. They need a new test imo it just wont work with the current tests we have
CaptainTrips
Active member
It is still illegal under federal law though. That was my understanding why no or few insurance companys have anything to do with MMJ...
I don't understand what you are referring to here, HH. I agree with the test part, I bet the companies are in frantic development as we speak.
Isn't that a scary thought? It won't really matter much in CA for employment, but if these pigs now have a test of when you smoke and can use it for Drugged Driving then we are going to be fucked in every state.
I agree with the need to substantiate thc intoxication. As it is now, thc in the bloodstream is a presumption of guilt. That's not due process.
Isn't that a scary thought? It won't really matter much in CA for employment, but if these pigs now have a test of when you smoke and can use it for Drugged Driving then we are going to be fucked in every state.
I think it would be a worthwhile trade if it would do away with the bullshit of 6-week old evidence being used against you.
Isn't that a scary thought? It won't really matter much in CA for employment, but if these pigs now have a test of when you smoke and can use it for Drugged Driving then we are going to be fucked in every state.
they cant tell when you are high on marijuana. Never have never will. They can detect it in your fat cells and the content of how much is in your system. but that just shows how much you use. If they could discover how to pop you when you are high on marijuana and driving, they would of done it a while ago, because DUI's are CASH CROPS. 2 to 4 thousand a pop. thats more than a pound of marijuana!!!
- Status
