vgtblfwd t1_jd4io4a wrote
Reply to comment by Deprecitus in WA House Committee Votes to Protect Marijuana Users From Discrimination When Job Hunting by GivenAllTheFucksSry
It’s legal now. These sort of mores ought to evolve with the times.
snowmaninheat t1_jd8agc7 wrote
>It’s legal now.
No, it's not. It's still illegal per federal law. You are violating federal law each time you use cannabis. A better way of putting it is that you don't risk criminal penalties for using it, but that doesn't make it legal.
Granted, the vast majority of people in WA couldn't (and really don't need to) give two shits, because the discrepancy between federal and state laws doesn't affect their daily lives.
I know it sounds like I'm splitting hairs now. But for those of us who work in compliance for federally funded institutions, we get a lot of people who misunderstand these nuances because of blanket statements like that.
I'm not saying things should be this way (in fact, I'm a strong proponent of federal legalization, and once I quit my job I'll probably partake), but they currently are, and it's misinformation to say otherwise.
Deprecitus t1_jd4jpty wrote
I'm all for decriminalization of most drugs. I just think that an employer should be able to take any negative effects into account when hiring I guess.
Synasaur t1_jd4le89 wrote
Assuming someone has “negative effects” because they use drugs is kinda shitty.
TazerLazer t1_jd4wnom wrote
People are impaired when they take mind altering substances. An employer can fire you for coming into work drunk, and I don't see why coming in to work high should be any different. That being said, I do think it's a bit silly for an employer to weight being a weed user any differently than being a drinker. But... it's not like employers don't take drinking habits into account when making hiring decisions. If you tell your employer about how you like to party on the weekend and get smashed all the time, they are well within their right to not offer you the job. I'm not sure why they should be required to treat alternate drug use differently.
Synasaur t1_jd5463f wrote
Drug tests show positive even when the person isn’t impaired is the problem. What you do outside of work, on private property, is not any of your employees business.
shponglespore t1_jd6mh18 wrote
For one thing it's different because there is absolutely no test that can determine whether an individual is high.
Deprecitus t1_jd4s7rb wrote
Any form of impairment can negatively affect a job. Depending on the job, it could be more or less severe.
juiceboxzero t1_jd4xu61 wrote
The operative word here is "can", as opposed to "does". If their job performance actually does suffer, then fire them for substandard performance. The reason their performance is substandard isn't relevant. Measure performance and manage people accordingly.
Synasaur t1_jd53zgm wrote
Not only that, but drug tests show positive even when the person isn’t actively impaired.
juiceboxzero t1_jd56gjy wrote
Yup. Measure outputs not inputs.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments