Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 8:04:06 GMT -5
Oregon TV anchor fired after testing positive for marijuana Cyd Maurer, a former morning weekend anchor at Eugene's ABC affiliate KEZI-TV, said she was fired in May after getting into a minor accident while on assignment. In a video posted online, Maurer said that after the accident she was forced to take a drug test per company policy and failed it. Maurer, 25, said she was completely sober at work and had used marijuana several days before Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173888/Oregon-TV-anchor-fired-testing-positive-marijuana.html#ixzz3h0CdEEKy Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 5:09:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 9:06:15 GMT -5
Sucks for her, but companies should be able to set what drug rules they want. If she was a good reporter, then they lost a good reporter for a stupid reason.
Pot is a safer drug then alcohol.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jul 26, 2015 10:09:02 GMT -5
Their company, their rules, it's still against federal law
Prob is you can test positive for it days later so how were they to know when she used? And she was tested after an OTJ accident
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,456
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 26, 2015 10:26:16 GMT -5
While the TV reporter is in Oregon, Colorado's supreme court recently ruled Colorado employers can terminate their employees for off-duty pot use. In the Colorado case, it was about medical use of marijuana. I expect that same opinion and ruling would and will apply to other states when and if marijuana use becomes legal. Colorado Supreme Court: Employers can fire for off-duty pot use
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jul 26, 2015 11:22:26 GMT -5
8th paragraph down states that lawful activity means lawful under both state & federal laws. Still illegal under federal law
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 11:28:57 GMT -5
Well, what will happen is that those on the Govt Dole who don't have jobs will be curiously allowed to use a legal substance but working people paying for their laziness will not. Go figure. Pretty screwed up don't ya think?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,456
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 26, 2015 12:40:43 GMT -5
Well, what will happen is that those on the Govt Dole who don't have jobs will be curiously allowed to use a legal substance but working people paying for their laziness will not. Go figure. Pretty screwed up don't ya think? Everyone in Colorado can legally smoke it. Not everyone in Colorado can smoke it if they want to keep their jobs. There are also plenty of small businesses in Colorado and elsewhere which have no drug policy. Those working people can use marijuana as they please. Not all those on the 'Govt Dole' smoke pot just like not all working people smoke it. Know your employer's Drug-Free Workplace policy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 13:16:01 GMT -5
Well, what will happen is that those on the Govt Dole who don't have jobs will be curiously allowed to use a legal substance but working people paying for their laziness will not. Go figure. Pretty screwed up don't ya think? not as screwed up as the alternative.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 15:51:47 GMT -5
What alternative? You mean testing welfare recipients?
|
|
joemilitary
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 8, 2014 14:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 682
|
Post by joemilitary on Jul 26, 2015 16:09:09 GMT -5
Did she know the company policy on drugs? If so then she deserves to be fired...sorry
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 16:18:04 GMT -5
Did she know the company policy on drugs? If so then she deserves to be fired...sorry joe- don't think this is my position, because it isn't. just playing devil's advocate. if her drug use is no business but her own, why should she be fired for it? in other words, if her drug use was not affecting her work, then what business is it of her employers? if you want to know my position, it is that private institutions like this can do whatever they damned well please. there is a counterweight to that argument, of course, but it is getting a bit astray of the discussion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 16:20:00 GMT -5
What alternative? You mean testing welfare recipients? for LEGAL substances? yeah. absolutely. you're kidding, right? you really don't see anything wrong with that?
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jul 26, 2015 16:31:22 GMT -5
Not sure why you're bringing that into the discussion.
If it was against the Oregon TV station's company policy to smoke marijuana or take illegal drugs (which it was), then they had every right to fire her since she tested positive.
Just because she hadn't smoked any "for a few days", traces would have still been in her system.
If you smoke occasionally, it will remain in your system for approx 10 days - if you're a regular user, up to 45 days (or longer) depending how much (or how often) you smoke.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 26, 2015 17:03:25 GMT -5
It's like firing someone on Wednesday because they had a beer at a BBQ last Saturday.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 17:15:53 GMT -5
What alternative? You mean testing welfare recipients? for LEGAL substances? yeah. absolutely. you're kidding, right? you really don't see anything wrong with that? We can put any conditions on it we want. If you want this money, then you have to comply right? Isn't that always YOUR argument? So, if you smoke or drink, we can barr you from that money. Seems fair right? That is no different.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 5:09:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 17:25:24 GMT -5
It's like firing someone on Wednesday because they had a beer at a BBQ last Saturday. In states where it's legal, I agree. I don't even smoke marijuana but I'll be glad when we get this straightened out. Either it's legal or illegal. It shouldn't be legal according to state law, but illegal according to federal law. And if it's legal, it should be treated like alcohol. Don't come to work under the influence of any intoxicating substance, whether the substance is legal or illegal to use. But whatever legal activities you engage in on your own time, that's your business as long as you're completely sober whenever and wherever you're on the clock. I know that one of the problems with marijuana is that it stays in your system longer than alcohol, so there's no way to determine if you indulged a few days ago or a few hours ago, I'm just talking about what I'd like to see happen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 17:29:52 GMT -5
for LEGAL substances? yeah. absolutely. you're kidding, right? you really don't see anything wrong with that? We can put any conditions on it we want. i am not sure that is true. can we? what if we said we didn't want any Muslims getting food stamps. would that be legal?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 17:30:20 GMT -5
We won't have a problem with Muslims because they dont' smoke and drink and use substances do they?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 17:30:59 GMT -5
for LEGAL substances? yeah. absolutely. you're kidding, right? you really don't see anything wrong with that? We can put any conditions on it we want. If you want this money, then you have to comply right? Isn't that always YOUR argument? So, if you smoke or drink, we can barr you from that money. Seems fair right? That is no different. my argument about putting these kinds of restrictions on the actions of others has to do with private interests, not public ones. and no, i have never made the argument that what someone does in their private lives should have any bearing on their employment.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 17:31:10 GMT -5
So, we don't have to put any conditions on anyone to hand out entitlements and tax money? Is that what you are saying? Hmm....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 17:31:47 GMT -5
We won't have a problem with Muslims because they dont' smoke and drink and use substances do they? oh, i am sure that some do. not every Muslim is devout.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 17:31:50 GMT -5
You want to tell private interests what they may do to receive tax money so that is different HOW?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 17:33:59 GMT -5
So, we don't have to put any conditions on anyone to hand out entitlements and tax money? Is that what you are saying? Hmm.... if they are doing nothing illegal? no, i don't think there should be any restrictions whatsoever. do you think we should deny social security benefits to old ladies on valium?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 17:34:48 GMT -5
Are you saying Social Security is an entitlement?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 17:36:01 GMT -5
You want to tell private interests what they may do to receive tax money so that is different HOW? that they don't have to play by the same rules as public entities, mostly. if you want to know whether i think that is right, the answer is no, i really don't. but then again, i don't believe in workplace drug testing unless the endangerment of non-consenting others is a real possibility.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 17:36:43 GMT -5
Are you saying Social Security is an entitlement? it is for widows, orphans, etc. are you saying you won't answer the question?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 17:37:37 GMT -5
Are people on welfare prescribed alcohol and tobacco?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2015 17:38:53 GMT -5
Are people on welfare prescribed alcohol and tobacco? i was talking about abuse, in case you were wondering, not use. sorry, i have to go. i have an appointment with a Baby Raccoon. no joke. i am excited!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 26, 2015 17:39:01 GMT -5
We won't have a problem with Muslims because they dont' smoke and drink and use substances do they? I know plenty of Muslims who smoke and drink.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 26, 2015 18:16:33 GMT -5
Oh well then no Welfare for them!
|
|