Skip to comments.
Calif Supreme Court: Workers can be fired for using med marijuana
AP via SFGate ^
| 1/24/8
| PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer
Posted on 01/24/2008 10:32:38 AM PST by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-171 next last
1
posted on
01/24/2008 10:32:39 AM PST
by
SmithL
To: SmithL
The SCOCA got this one right.
2
posted on
01/24/2008 10:34:13 AM PST
by
TChris
("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy." -RR)
To: SmithL
"Duuuude, that's like... Harsh man."
3
posted on
01/24/2008 10:35:05 AM PST
by
Abathar
(Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
To: SmithL
Who wants an employee spaced out on pot? Seems like firing is just common sense.
4
posted on
01/24/2008 10:35:15 AM PST
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: SmithL
“the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority”
DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY...
5
posted on
01/24/2008 10:36:41 AM PST
by
weegee
(Those who surrender personal liberty to lower global temperatures will receive neither.)
To: Abathar
“Warning: Use of this medication make make bands seem groovier than they are.”
6
posted on
01/24/2008 10:37:51 AM PST
by
weegee
(Those who surrender personal liberty to lower global temperatures will receive neither.)
To: SmithL
Thank God. Now get him some pills stat! Everyone knows they don’t have side effects. The pushers in the commercials told me they’re safe.
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Who said he was high at work? Source?
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Where I work (electronics retail) mandatory pot usage would probably improve performance, as in there would be fewer customer homicidies and higher retention rate.
9
posted on
01/24/2008 10:42:16 AM PST
by
utherdoul
To: Sir Gawain
It does say he flunked a company ordered drug test. In my experience, those are given randomly during the work day.
To: Sir Gawain
The article implies he was bringing the pot to work. Why else would the company claim it was the potential target of a federal raid?
11
posted on
01/24/2008 10:42:37 AM PST
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: SmithL
12
posted on
01/24/2008 10:43:48 AM PST
by
NinoFan
To: weegee
In my youth I learned that Uriah Heep sounded completely different sitting in a beanbag with headphones on than they did without a little “help”. After listening for five minutes one day I couldn’t believe I thought that their stuff was great the night before...
13
posted on
01/24/2008 10:44:01 AM PST
by
Abathar
(Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
To: Slapshot68
You can test positive for MJ months after using it with a hair sample test or weeks after using it with a urine test.
To: Sir Gawain
One can only assume this would be applied to all legally prescribed drugs. And won’t the people be surprised when that happens?
15
posted on
01/24/2008 10:45:56 AM PST
by
Wolfie
To: TChris
So then... Legislating from the bench is OK when it goes the way you want?
16
posted on
01/24/2008 10:47:13 AM PST
by
Redcloak
(Dingos ate my tagline.)
To: Moonman62
The article implies he was bringing the pot to work. Why else would the company claim it was the potential target of a federal raid?Nice try. If he had pot at work, they would have used that as an argument and mentioned it in the article.
To: TChris
"
The SCOCA got this one right."Damned right they did! At least the alcholics on the job are still protected cuz "it's a disease".
Damned potheads! Now, what'd I do with my brewski?
To: SmithL
I would imagine that the 9th Circuit in S. F. can fix this pretty quickly.
19
posted on
01/24/2008 10:53:22 AM PST
by
CarryingOn
(Spread the message every day, like your life depended on it.)
To: TChris
The SCOCA got this one right.
I think it is the correct outcome, but for the wrong reason. An employer should be able to fire an employee for whatever reason they want. However, this court seems to be of the opinion that there are restrictions on an empoyer's right to fire employees at will (which has been the prevailing opinion in CA for some time), but that the federal ban on marijuana is a sufficient justification for firing the employee.
In effect, the California Supreme Court appears to have just ceded the entire authority of the State of California over to the federal government, in direct violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution ofthe United States. I can't imagine a more irresponsible position for a state court to take than to undermine its own sovereign government.
20
posted on
01/24/2008 10:53:40 AM PST
by
fr_freak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-171 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson