Colorado has had legal medical marijuana usage for a while, and just passed a law legalizing (as far as the state is concerned) the use of recreational marijuana. We also have a law that prohibits someone from being fired from a job for doing something that's legal while not on the job, as long as their on-hours performance is not impacted.
So for companies that forbid marijuana usage under their corporate policies, has pot suddenly become okay? That's what a court is going to have to decide.
The argument, by the way, that it's still illegal under federal law does not (to my mind) hold much water. This is protection under state law we're talking about, not under federal law. The only exceptions there might be for companies that operate across state lines, but even there they are required to abide by state law for employment policies (e.g., when a final check has to be cut at time of termination), so abiding by state law legality would seem to be natural.
This is another case where one would expect the more libertarian / states-rights Republicans to be leading the charge to defend such usage from federal interference …
Embedded Link
Colorado appeals court case debates question of off-duty marijuana use
A case pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals could have a big impact on whether employers will be able to fire workers who smoke marijuana off duty.
Google+: View post on Google+
Taking a pee test was almost always about the illegality of various drugs. Pretty sure the feds offer tax incentives for having such policies. Does it matter though? What if a charity against drug use wanted to donate to businesses that had these same no tolerance policies? Why shouldn't a business be able to choose?
I don't think the government should have a say at all in this at all. If a company doesn't like smokers, drinkers, or pot-heads, they should be able to tell them to buzz off. Freedom of association is a right to everyone, including business owners.
The goal of the law, though, is that activities not part of one's job ought to play no role in one's employment. While there were some protected classifications already (can't fire someone for what church they attend — which also interferes with a business owner's right of association), the law basically says, "If it doesn't affect your business, it's none of your business." I think that's appropriate and civil.
I understand the goal of the law, but I don't care if a business owner wants to only higher Christians, gays, pedophiles, or whatever. It isn't my business. Consumers can voice distaste by not buying there and employees can voice distaste by not working there. The other side of the coin is that they can voice favor in the opposite ways. If people like that a company has a zero tolerance policy they will actively seek those kinds of companies out to work for. It all balances out in end.
This kinds of interference just dig us a deeper and deeper hole that needs more supports to keep it from collapsing in on itself. In reality, we just shouldn't have dug the hole.
I really don't see what sort of hole it digs us into. I do see how it allows the majority to discriminate and exclude minorities of various sorts. (It also seems to imply that employment is infinitely flexible, and if someone doesn't like a particular employer, they can always just quit and work somewhere else, which seems a bit simplistic.)
I already said I understood what the civil rights movement added to try and protect minorities in both employment and consumerism.
I'm also not saying it is easy to jump a job, but that's why employees at larger firms in longer term jobs have employment contracts. People usually just pass through them without a thought and allow the company to do whatever they want in there. They should, instead, be ensuring that contract will protect them from things like this. Those contracts should be just like all the benefits they seek out from employers.
Jobs should be easier to get, people should be nice, everyone should get along, and money should flow freely. Nothing is easy or simplistic, life never is. Either way is complex, but only one way ensures freedom equally.
I disagree, +Kevin Peno, as the employment relationship is, in many cases an *un*equal one (and most folks I know, who are professionals not blue collar, do not have employment contracts — and if Company X is opposed to Minority Y, it's not clear how Minority Y gets a chance to even get to that position). I do understand your point, but I think I think your idea here is the equality of the wolf and the fawn, both "free" to act in their best interests.