I don't know about that. As a damned trial attorney I once had a case where a company gave a truck to an employee (actually a supervisor) who they had sent to alcohol rehab. There was evidence, after he completed rehab, that he was still drinking (sometimes at work) and they didn't take the truck from him. Night before Thanksgiving he goes out to get ice and beer while frying turkeys and gets into a wreck. Company ended up paying quite a bit for that wreck. Point is, if weed is legal (and that's a big if; I don't see it ever become more than de facto legal, in other words having to get a prescription for it) then why would a company treat an employee who tests dirty for weed any different than one who was sent to alcohol rehab?
Shot fired, and received. I don't know the details of the case, but I'm a big champion of personal responsibility. The legal weed thing is what I am talking about though and we seem to agree. I can't see how an employer can treat it any differently than alcohol.
That ain't what I said. The hair test not only reads positive, but investigators can tell how many days have passed since you last smoked. IF you have a months growth of hair on your head and stopped smoking 2 weeks ago, they would know that. Hair grows, you see, and it records the THC level on every day's growth.
Yeah, I think we agree too. If pot is legal, then employers probably won't be able to fire an employee simply for testing dirty for it without any evidence that they're actually under the influence at work. Funny story about that particular case. Alcohol consumption and subsequently driving, as you might expect, was a big bone of contention between the parties. I go to opposing counsel's office to take the deposition of the company's representative. When I get there, just inside the front door, is a certificate commemorating opposing counsel's 50th year of membership in the Louisiana Bar Association (which means he's older than dirt; it also means he has forgotten more law than I'll ever learn). We have the deposition and it's fairly contentious. When it's over and the witness leaves, opposing counsel and I are sitting in the conference room discussing the case. Out of the blue he says, "Hey, you want something to drink? I've got beer in the fridge and some whiskey in my desk." To which I replied, "What? We've got a six figure case here that involves drinking and driving and you're offering me beer and whiskey right before I've got to get in my car and drive back to the city?" "Oh, yeah," he says. "I guess I never thought about it like that." I could never figure out if he was just being polite and a little senile or if (because he was very politically connected) he was setting me up for a traffic stop on the way home.
That's the choice I made, I've been getting tested for over 20 years and it's no problem. That doesn't mean I can't see the other side of the coin. You're starting to sound like Red.
It's hilarious that you keep pretending to know what you're talking about here. Really, just give up.
I know this to be true. Unfortunately, I know a lot more on the subject than you (hopefully) ever will.