[SpeakerToAnimals]

Imagine the liability for companies which do not ban employees who pot smoke.

I worked in a car dealership in the 1990's. The owner decided to start drug testing. Over 70% of the employees tested positive. After firing all the productive employees the dealership also lost half it's business.

That dealership went broke, got bought out by another owner, moved into a new building, and went out of business.

When the owner gathered the employees to announce the drug testing program, I went and got my truck. My tools were rolling out the door before the dipstick finished his speech. I went to work for an independent shop. I had a job the next day. This was 15 years before pot was legal in Colorado.

[-YYZ-]

I can really only understand drug testing in jobs where safety is dependent on employees being clear-headed - vehicle operators, heavy equipment, that sort of thing. Of course drug testing doesn’t catch everything, so there may be better ways to achieve that goal. For other types of employees, shouldn’t they just be judged on their performance? If they get the job done, who cares what they do on their own time?

[longtermmemmory]

Given the contracts and detail to language involved, I would suspect the dealer is 100% correct in firing all the drug users.


The destruction of the brains ability to function is well documented.



PET scans show long-term changes in glucose-metabolism in the brain of a marijuana abuser compared to that of a normal brain.



Over time pot users will be generally relegated to menial work where the brain damage will cause the least risk to the employer. In addition if a pot user is hurt at work, their use of the drug will be used to absolve the employer from any responsibility for damages or harm. (much like an alcoholic today)