To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3,006
#3,006
hog88 said:
That's the type of program that would have to be allowed before I would support legalization. Not just high at work, drug free as a condition of employment. As we currently have.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, employers currently do have the ability to do what you're proposing? Is that right?
 
#3,007
#3,007
DinkinFlicka said:
A man after my own heart.

Although, Basil Hayden's and Woodford Reserve have monopolized my taste buds in the past 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

Never tried Basil Hayden but Woodford is my #2.

My wife couldn't stand bourbon until she tried Knob, now she's a fan.
 
#3,008
#3,008
SpaceCoastVol said:
The guy paying their salary for starters. The libtards think that slinging Big Macs should pay $15/hour. Call centers need production. How much production will you get from a stoner? Oh, but I am sure it will be protected under some liberal act or other that would say since they have a "problem" you can't fire them... It never ends....
Click to expand...

You are assuming a lot. First of all, your problem is not with drug legalization, it's with "libtard" labor laws (that potentially may exist).

Stoners do work hard, actually. In the Caribbean they would smoke slaves out so that they worked harder. I've worked with a lot of stoners, and I would hire stoners for a lot of different job types, specifically creative, non-customer facing jobs. I know a lot of very successful stoners. One is my old boss who owns like 3 businesses, a bunch of rental properties, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,010
#3,010
Danl said:
Just to be clear, employers currently do have the ability to do what you're proposing? Is that right?
Click to expand...

Correct, but in some states users and alcoholics have some protections. If they admit they have a problem before caught you can't fire them and have to offer them time to rehab.

I don't want to see that federalized and mandatory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,012
#3,012
hog88 said:
Correct, but in some states users and alcoholics have some protections. If they admit they have a problem before caught you can't fire them and have to offer them time to rehab.

I don't want to see that federalized and mandatory.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Thanks.
 
#3,018
#3,018
I guess I should point out that I live in a place where marijuana is legal. I think people forget that about Arizona. It's actually had one of the strongest popular votes in favor of it. It was like 60/40
 
#3,021
#3,021
n_huffhines said:
I guess I should point out that I live in a place where marijuana is legal. I think people forget that about Arizona. It's actually had one of the strongest popular votes in favor of it. It was like 60/40
Click to expand...

Recreational or just medical?
 
#3,025
#3,025
An employer should always retain the ability to have a drug free policy. The hope is, as weed is legalized more and more over time, that:

1) a cheap, effective test is developed to determine if someone is high on the job rather than testing positive for smoking on the weekend.

2) many employers move past the stigma of marijuana users as generally lazy and unreliable, and give them a chance to prove themselves as quality employees, no differently than if the person drank alcohol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top