What does ca.com think?

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Weed should be legal with out a doubt. It is not as damaging as alcohol mentally and physically therefore it being illegal is bull. nuttin wrong wit da herb

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/word.gif.64b12e39f936af3b4fff38a1c0bd0244.gif

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you look at it. If I o home and smoke a joint after work to help relax or to ease my aches and pains what business does my emoyer have to tell me what I can and can not do off the clock. Showing up to work high is one thing your employer should be able to terminate an employee who comes to work under the influence but thats is all they should be able to say about te matter. Weather I go home to pray to ala or smoke a joint it's no one business but my own. The effects of marijuana ware off within a few hours your employer can fire you for showing up drunk but not for havin a beer after work. Real drugs are a different story coke meth heroin all have long lasting effects unlike marijuana.

Ummmm no. You've never seen job postings where they say "we are a drug free work place". I'm not talking about what your opinion is, I'm talking about facts. And a job does not have to hire someone if they do drugs, plain and simple. They can see it as an issue. Sure maybe they won't come into work high but why take the chance when you can hire someone who doesn't do drugs at all and not even take the risk. You're free to hire all the weed heads you want, but if a company chooses not to, they have that right.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

Ah, so a company has the right to not hire black people? Or women? Or people who drive foreign cars? Lets drop your skewed views of legality, and discuss what is fair, justifiable, and makes sense.

Read my previous statement, and do some reading,

US EEOC Home Page

Yes, lets give the govt the right to arrest us for harming nobody. That's fine, we will all just be sure to stay under the radar. Great plan, bro.

I don't see what this even has to do with my statement?

Yes, because smoking a joint with your friends at a party last Friday night clearly means you are a "drug addict" and not the best person to do your job come Monday morning. Tell me again how pissing dirty proves you are incapable of doing your job well?
Most major companies drug test these days, for insurance reasons if nothing else (the current politically correct reason to butt their noses into our personal business, it saves them $ on insurance premiums).

If you've never had a job that drug tested, you haven't been around the block yet. Ive worked as a burger flipper, at Wal Mart (Sam's Club), and an engineer for multiple fortune 500 companies. They've all drug tested. You are the exception to the rule, not the norm.

A drug addict is someone who is addicted to a drug, simple. And if I owned a company, I wouldn't hire anyone who did drugs, it's an unnecessary risk. Sure there are some people that do drugs and can still function but there are also a lot who cannot. Why would a company take the risk and put money into training someone who does drugs when they can just avoid that issue all together by hiring people who don't do drugs? And I've had my fair share of jobs and none of them have drug tested and I currently work for the government. I've worked at dominos, in retail, at a hotel, for DHL and my current job and never once had a drug test. And I know plenty of people who haven't as well. So just because something is common for you doesn't mean it's the norm //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Ummmm no. You've never seen job postings where they say "we are a drug free work place". I'm not talking about what your opinion is, I'm talking about facts. And a job does not have to hire someone if they do drugs, plain and simple. They can see it as an issue. Sure maybe they won't come into work high but why take the chance when you can hire someone who doesn't do drugs at all and not even take the risk. You're free to hire all the weed heads you want, but if a company chooses not to, they have that right.

Actually, as I said before, most companies simply do it for financial insurance reasons. Insurance companies have a vested interest in making sure people dont do things that will make them pay out. If insurance companies could get away with it, they would require employers to pay higher premiums if they hire cigarette smokers, drinkers, people with hereditary diseases, etc.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

Actually, as I said before, most companies simply do it for financial insurance reasons. Insurance companies have a vested interest in making sure people dont do things that will make them pay out. If insurance companies could get away with it, they would require employers to pay higher premiums if they hire cigarette smokers, drinkers, people with hereditary diseases, etc.

My point is that a job doesn't have to hire someone who does drugs if they don't want to, whatever the reasoning is behind it is up to them. It's not illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Read my previous statement, and do some reading,US EEOC Home Page

I don't see what this even has to do with my statement?

A drug addict is someone who is addicted to a drug, simple. And if I owned a company, I wouldn't hire anyone who did drugs, it's an unnecessary risk. Sure there are some people that do drugs and can still function but there are also a lot who cannot. Why would a company take the risk and put money into training someone who does drugs when they can just avoid that issue all together by hiring people who don't do drugs? And I've had my fair share of jobs and none of them have drug tested and I currently work for the government. I've worked at dominos, in retail, at a hotel, for DHL and my current job and never once had a drug test. And I know plenty of people who haven't as well. So just because something is common for you doesn't mean it's the norm //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

What does a link to the equal employment opportunity commission prove, besides the fact that you cant comprehend the difference between what current laws allow employers to discriminate against, and what they dont?

Next, you said this: "If you just sit and your house and do your thing and don't draw attention to yourself you're fine. I know plenty of people who smoke weed and have never been caught."

To which I replied: "Yes, lets give the govt the right to arrest us for harming nobody. That's fine, we will all just be sure to stay under the radar."

And you are unable to correlate my statement and yours?? Lets try making the exchange simpler for you. You said "dont draw attention to yourself and you'll be fine anyway", and my reply was "why should we need to hide our actions that cause nobody harm?" I hope that explains my reply sufficiently, I honestly doubt I could break it down much simpler than that.

"A drug addict is someone who is addicted to a drug, simple. And if I owned a company, I wouldn't hire anyone who did drugs, it's an unnecessary risk."

Okay, lets simplify this for you, too. If the law allowed you, as an employer, to discriminate against hiring cigarette smokers, you could make the argument that hiring a cig smoker is an unnecessary risk. The guy might die of lung cancer just after you get him trained. If the law allowed you to, you could make the argument that, as an employer, you wouldn't hire anyone who drinks. Why take the risk they will be drunk on the job, or die of liver failure after you've paid to train him. If the law allowed you to, you could make the argument you wouldnt hire a black man, because he is a higher risk of dying of sickle cell anemia (look it up). If the law allowed you to, you could make the argument you wouldnt hire a woman. Why take the risk she will go on maternity leave. But, the law does not allow these things, they are 'discrimination'. Why? Because your personal morals have dictated United States law? Or, is it because some of those things are simply more politically correct to allow you to distinguish them as valid restrictions on employment?

By the way, alcohol, cigarettes, pain killers for a recurring health issue.... are all 'drugs', and the argument could easily be made that people who use these drugs are 'addicts'. You are letting your own personal morals interfere with your view of distinguishing between what is a politically correct 'drug addict', and what isn't.

"Sure there are some people that do drugs and can still function but there are also a lot who cannot."

And what you are missing is, because weed is illegal, you seem to think its morally correct/fair to assume any weed smoker is an 'addict' who applies a higher risk of poor job performance than other, politically correct drugs like alcohol and tobacco. This isn't a difficult concept to understand, even for someone like me who has probably smoked more pot than any Jamaican or rock star alive today. So if my drug addicted mind can wrap itself around such an easy concept, whats your non drug addicted mind's excuse?

"Why would a company take the risk and put money into training someone who does drugs when they can just avoid that issue all together by hiring people who don't do drugs?"

Again, why would a company take the risk of putting money into hiring a drinker, a potentially pregnant person (woman), or a cigarette smoker? Because the law protects us from those discriminations. But because it doesnt protect us from being discriminated against for smoking pot, on our own time, in the privacy of our own homes, you feel morality is at play. It isn't.

"And I've had my fair share of jobs and none of them have drug tested and I currently work for the government."

Im confused, which side of this argument are you agreeing with? That its ethically and sensibly legitimate to avoid hiring 'drug addicts' (ie: someone who may or may not be addicted, a single test to determine if the drug has been used does not tell us if the drug is being 'abused'), or that its okay to work somewhere where they dont bother testing for these so called addicts? You are implying that your work place is potentially filled with people 'addicted' to pot, do you think your coworkers are inferior to a place that DOES test for weed? Or maybe you have some internal weedar that tells you none of the people you work with partake in the drug.

"So just because something is common for you doesn't mean it's the norm "

"Drug tests are commonly used in pre-employment screenings in the United States." - Drug Testing - eHow.com

"Pre employment drug testing has become a common hiring requirement." - Pre employment drug testing has become a common hiring requirement. - ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community

So it looks like it is "common", and YOU are the exception, not the norm.

Here's a few more tidbits to mull over.

"Under Texas and federal laws, there is almost no limitation at all on the right of private employers to adopt drug and alcohol testing policies for their workers.

 

Government employers are not so free, due mainly to court decisions holding that testing employees without showing some kind of compelling justification violates government employees' rights to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures." - Drug Testing in the Workplace

"The American Civil Liberties Union opposes indiscriminate urine testing because the process is both unfair and unnecessary. It is unfair to force workers who are not even suspected of using drugs, and whose job performance is satisfactory, to "prove" their innocence through a degrading and uncertain procedure that violates personal privacy. Such tests are unnecessary because they cannot detect impairment and, thus, in no way enhance an employer's ability to evaluate or predict job performance. Here are the ACLU's answers to some questions frequently asked by the public about drug testing in the workplace.

 

Don't employers have the right to expect their employees not to be high on drugs on the job?

 

Of course they do. Employers have the right to expect their employees not to be high, stoned, drunk, or asleep. Job performance is the bottom line: If you cannot do the work, employers have a legitimate reason for firing you. But urine tests do not measure job performance. Even a confirmed "positive" provides no evidence of present intoxication or impairment; it merely indicates that a person may have taken a drug at some time in the past." - Drug Testing in the Workplace

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

My point is that a job doesn't have to hire someone who does drugs if they don't want to, whatever the reasoning is behind it is up to them. It's not illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs.

Correction, a company doesn't have to hire someone who does politically incorrect drugs. It is most definitely illegal to discriminate against hiring someone who uses drugs. Again, cigarettes are drugs, alcohol is a drug, prescribed pain medications are drugs, caffeine is a drug. How many times must I explain this, in different ways, before you understand the distinction here?

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

Correction, a company doesn't have to hire someone who does politically incorrect drugs. It is most definitely illegal to discriminate against hiring someone who uses drugs. Again, cigarettes are drugs, alcohol is a drug, prescribed pain medications are drugs, caffeine is a drug. How many times must I explain this, in different ways, before you understand the distinction here?

Show me the law that says it's illegal not to hire someone because they use drugs...

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

What does a link to the equal employment opportunity commission prove, besides the fact that you cant comprehend the difference between what current laws allow employers to discriminate against, and what they dont?

It shows what is legal and not. I stated that it's not illegal to not hire someone because they do drugs. And the link proved it if you read anything on the site.

Next, you said this: "If you just sit and your house and do your thing and don't draw attention to yourself you're fine. I know plenty of people who smoke weed and have never been caught."
To which I replied: "Yes, lets give the govt the right to arrest us for harming nobody. That's fine, we will all just be sure to stay under the radar."

And you are unable to correlate my statement and yours?? Lets try making the exchange simpler for you. You said "dont draw attention to yourself and you'll be fine anyway", and my reply was "why should we need to hide our actions that cause nobody harm?" I hope that explains my reply sufficiently, I honestly doubt I could break it down much simpler than that.

You can't have *** in public, and that two people having *** doesn't harm anyone either. You're trying to argue with your opinions, not facts.

"A drug addict is someone who is addicted to a drug, simple. And if I owned a company, I wouldn't hire anyone who did drugs, it's an unnecessary risk."

Okay, lets simplify this for you, too. If the law allowed you, as an employer, to discriminate against hiring cigarette smokers, you could make the argument that hiring a cig smoker is an unnecessary risk. The guy might die of lung cancer just after you get him trained. If the law allowed you to, you could make the argument that, as an employer, you wouldn't hire anyone who drinks. Why take the risk they will be drunk on the job, or die of liver failure after you've paid to train him. If the law allowed you to, you could make the argument you wouldnt hire a black man, because he is a higher risk of dying of sickle cell anemia (look it up). If the law allowed you to, you could make the argument you wouldnt hire a woman. Why take the risk she will go on maternity leave. But, the law does not allow these things, they are 'discrimination'. Why? Because your personal morals have dictated United States law? Or, is it because some of those things are simply more politically correct to allow you to distinguish them as valid restrictions on employment?
By the way, alcohol, cigarettes, pain killers for a recurring health issue.... are all 'drugs', and the argument could easily be made that people who use these drugs are 'addicts'. You are letting your own personal morals interfere with your view of distinguishing between what is a politically correct 'drug addict', and what isn't.

You really need to read up and learn what is legal and illegal when hiring someone. Because you clearly don't know the laws. I'm telling you the facts, it is not illegal to refuse to hire someone that does drugs. For some reason you don't seem to understand that.

"Sure there are some people that do drugs and can still function but there are also a lot who cannot."

And what you are missing is, because weed is illegal, you seem to think its morally correct/fair to assume any weed smoker is an 'addict' who applies a higher risk of poor job performance than other, politically correct drugs like alcohol and tobacco. This isn't a difficult concept to understand, even for someone like me who has probably smoked more pot than any Jamaican or rock star alive today. So if my drug addicted mind can wrap itself around such an easy concept, whats your non drug addicted mind's excuse?

I didn't say everyone who smokes weed is an addict. I said a drug addict is someone who is addicted to a drug. I don't know what you read //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

"Why would a company take the risk and put money into training someone who does drugs when they can just avoid that issue all together by hiring people who don't do drugs?"

Again, why would a company take the risk of putting money into hiring a drinker, a potentially pregnant person (woman), or a cigarette smoker? Because the law protects us from those discriminations. But because it doesnt protect us from being discriminated against for smoking pot, on our own time, in the privacy of our own homes, you feel morality is at play. It isn't.

I'm not talking about my morals, I'm talking about the law. It is not illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs. Plain and simple, that's all I've been stating and you can't understand that for some reason.

"And I've had my fair share of jobs and none of them have drug tested and I currently work for the government."

Im confused, which side of this argument are you agreeing with? That its ethically and sensibly legitimate to avoid hiring 'drug addicts' (ie: someone who may or may not be addicted, a single test to determine if the drug has been used does not tell us if the drug is being 'abused'), or that its okay to work somewhere where they dont bother testing for these so called addicts? You are implying that your work place is potentially filled with people 'addicted' to pot, do you think your coworkers are inferior to a place that DOES test for weed? Or maybe you have some internal weedar that tells you none of the people you work with partake in the drug

.
I don't even know where you're drawing your assumptions from now lol. You were claiming that most jobs do drug tests, and I told you I've never been drug tested anywhere I worked. All that other stuff you're rambling on about has nothing to do with what my point was.

"So just because something is common for you doesn't mean it's the norm "

"Drug tests are commonly used in pre-employment screenings in the United States." - Drug Testing - eHow.com

"Pre employment drug testing has become a common hiring requirement." - Pre employment drug testing has become a common hiring requirement. - ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community

So it looks like it is "common", and YOU are the exception, not the norm.

Common and "the norm" are two different things. Homosexual relationships are common, but would you consider it "the norm"? You were implying that most jobs do drug testing, and you cannot prove that as a fact. Unless you go to every single company and see if they actually do drug testing. I just stated that there are places that don't do drug testing, which is true.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

Again let me state this for you since you can't seem to understand what I'm saying. I could care less if companies want to hire people who do drugs or not, I'm just saying that it's not illegal for them to refuse to hire someone because they do drugs. Whether it's cigarettes, alcohol, or whatever. It's not illegal, that's all I'm saying.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Again let me state this for you since you can't seem to understand what I'm saying. I could care less if companies want to hire people who do drugs or not, I'm just saying that it's not illegal for them to refuse to hire someone because they do drugs. Whether it's cigarettes, alcohol, or whatever. It's not illegal, that's all I'm saying.

Yes, it is.

"Employers generally have a lot of freedom to prohibit certain conduct at work. But regulating off-duty conduct can be tricky business.

 

Here’s a real-life example of how trying to control off-the-clock behavior can leave employers on shaky legal grounds:

 

The Scotts Company in Massachusetts started a wellness initiative that included a policy against employee smoking — both on and off the job. Employees would be required to submit to nicotine testing. The company said the policy would:

 

* Lower medical costs significantly, and

* Promote healthier lifestyles.

 

The company hired Scott Rodrigues and required him — like all potential employees — to take a nicotine test. He worked for two weeks while the results were pending. However, the test revealed Rodrigues was a smoker, and he was fired.

 

Rodrigues sued, claiming mandatory nicotine testing violated Massachusetts’ Privacy Act. He argued that he had a reasonable right to privacy outside of work. He also pointed out that smoking was legal and had no bearing on his job performance.

 

A court first sided with Rodrigues and let the case move forward. The state’s Privacy Act protects citizens’ rights to “unreasonable, substantial or serious interference,” so the court had to examine whether Scotts had a legitimate business reason to enforce the policy and require the testing.

 

But the case was later thrown out. This time, the court ruled Rodrigues had no privacy protection because he never tried to keep his smoking habit private. However, if he had, he might have won.

 

The lesson: If your company’s considering a wellness program with rules about what employees can do on their own time, make sure you check your state’s laws. Many have rules against firing someone because of legal activities they do outside of work." - HRRecruitingAlert.com » Blog Archive » Can employer refuse to hire smokers?

"There are 16 states that do have laws prohibiting employment decisions, such as hiring, based on the tobacco habits of a candidate. (But those laws usually don’t prevent employers from making life miserable for their workers who smoke — banning smoking in the workplace or charging more for health coverage are pretty much legal.)" - Can you legally refuse to hire someone who smokes? | HR Morning | Your daily dose of HR

So, in summary, 16 states have made it illegal to 'discriminate' against smokers specifically, and legal acts performed in their private life.

Now, the next drug, alcohol...

"For example, the Americans With Disabilities Act makes it clear that an individual with alcoholism has a disability which is protected under the ADA. It also states that an employer may not refuse to hire a qualified individual because of his or her alcoholism, and may not punish an alcoholic employee more severely than non-alcoholic employees for the same conduct." - Drug Testing - Drug Testing in the Workplace

Shall I go on? Must I find evidence that a company has no right to refuse hiring soda pop drinkers (caffeine), coffee drinkers (caffeine again), or legally prescribed drugs?

IN the end, your attempt to twist this debate into something its not is irrelevant. The topic was whether or not a company SHOULD be able to refuse hiring, or firing an existing employee, simply based on personal choices in their private life that do not affect their job performance. No, they SHOULDN'T be able to. Its the moral equivalent to saying a company should be able to refuse to hire gay people because they are more likely to get AIDS, turn their employees into 'gay addicts', or have a tendency to stay out late dancing which COULD affect their job performance (not DOES, simply COULD).

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

It shows what is legal and not. I stated that it's not illegal to not hire someone because they do drugs. And the link proved it if you read anything on the site.


You can't have *** in public, and that two people having *** doesn't harm anyone either. You're trying to argue with your opinions, not facts.

"A drug addict is someone who is addicted to a drug, simple. And if I owned a company, I wouldn't hire anyone who did drugs, it's an unnecessary risk."

You really need to read up and learn what is legal and illegal when hiring someone. Because you clearly don't know the laws. I'm telling you the facts, it is not illegal to refuse to hire someone that does drugs. For some reason you don't seem to understand that.

"Sure there are some people that do drugs and can still function but there are also a lot who cannot."

I didn't say everyone who smokes weed is an addict. I said a drug addict is someone who is addicted to a drug. I don't know what you read //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

"Why would a company take the risk and put money into training someone who does drugs when they can just avoid that issue all together by hiring people who don't do drugs?"

I'm not talking about my morals, I'm talking about the law. It is not illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs. Plain and simple, that's all I've been stating and you can't understand that for some reason.

"And I've had my fair share of jobs and none of them have drug tested and I currently work for the government."

.

I don't even know where you're drawing your assumptions from now lol. You were claiming that most jobs do drug tests, and I told you I've never been drug tested anywhere I worked. All that other stuff you're rambling on about has nothing to do with what my point was.

"So just because something is common for you doesn't mean it's the norm "

"Drug tests are commonly used in pre-employment screenings in the United States." - Drug Testing - eHow.com

"Pre employment drug testing has become a common hiring requirement." - Pre employment drug testing has become a common hiring requirement. - ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community

Common and "the norm" are two different things. Homosexual relationships are common, but would you consider it "the norm"? You were implying that most jobs do drug testing, and you cannot prove that as a fact. Unless you go to every single company and see if they actually do drug testing. I just stated that there are places that don't do drug testing, which is true.

"You can't have *** in public, and that two people having *** doesn't harm anyone either. You're trying to argue with your opinions, not facts."

Interesting. If public *** acts dont harm anyone, why is it illegal? Maybe because it harms the innocence of children who would have to be witness to these acts? Your parallel has a major flaw. If I were arguing people should be able to smoke pot in the company of minors, in public, your argument might make sense. But I wasn't, so yours doesn't.

"I didn't say everyone who smokes weed is an addict. I said a drug addict is someone who is addicted to a drug. I don't know what you read"

Ah yes, the old bait 'n switch routine. Nice try. The topic of discussion here has been about whether or not a company should have the right to fire someone (or refuse to hire) because they would fail a piss test. Your subsequent replies have referred to these test failers as "drug addicts". Clearly you are correlating failing a piss test with being addicted, exactly the opposite of the point I made (that failing a piss test does not confirm drug ABUSE).

"I'm not talking about my morals, I'm talking about the law. It is not illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs. Plain and simple, that's all I've been stating and you can't understand that for some reason."

Already addressed, and refuted. See my previous reply. And I will go one step further. Since you demanded I show proof of laws saying you cannot discriminate against hiring people based on LEGAL drug use, and I did, I feel turn about is fair play. Post proof its legal to refuse to hire someone who consumes caffeine.

"Common and "the norm" are two different things."

These are terms you yourself also used...

So just because something is common for you doesn't mean it's the norm //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

You only cry foul at my use of the terms once I post proof your statement is erroneous.

"You really need to read up and learn what is legal and illegal when hiring someone."

Back atcha.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

Yes, it is.Shall I go on? Must I find evidence that a company has no right to refuse hiring soda pop drinkers (caffeine), coffee drinkers (caffeine again), or legally prescribed drugs?

IN the end, your attempt to twist this debate into something its not is irrelevant. The topic was whether or not a company SHOULD be able to refuse hiring, or firing an existing employee, simply based on personal choices in their private life that do not affect their job performance. No, they SHOULDN'T be able to. Its the moral equivalent to saying a company should be able to refuse to hire gay people because they are more likely to get AIDS, turn their employees into 'gay addicts', or have a tendency to stay out late dancing which COULD affect their job performance (not DOES, simply COULD).

First off, I've stated soooooo many freaking times, that my point is that it's not illegal for a company not to hire someone because they do drugs. I could care less whether you think they should be able to or not. I'm telling you that it's not illegal and posted proof. I posted a link to the employment discrimination laws and you just don't seem to understand it.

Dude, taken from your own source:

The quick answer is: It seems to be legal — so far — but that depends on what state you do business in. Consider:
* Federal anti-discrimination laws don’t protect smokers. So the Feds’ approach is it’s up to the employer.

* There are 16 states that do have laws prohibiting employment decisions, such as hiring, based on the tobacco habits of a candidate. (But those laws usually don’t prevent employers from making life miserable for their workers who smoke — banning smoking in the workplace or charging more for health coverage are pretty much legal.)

* In most states, your official application can contain a question asking if the applicant smokes. You might ask that to make determinations about the cost of health coverage. What if the applicant lies by checking the “no” box on the application? You might be justified in using the lie to refuse to hire or to later fire the person if hired. Laws vary from state to state on that one.

* At least one employer has tested the waters and refuses to hire smokers. Memorial Hospital in Chattanooga, TN, doesn’t hire new employees who use any kind of tobacco products, on or off duty. How does the hospital do it? Nicotine screenings are part of Memorial’s standard drug test for new hires.

Nowhere in anything that you posted does it say that it's illegal for an employer not to hire someone because they use drugs. You have yet to post any law that states that it's illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs. I gave you a link to the federal laws against employment discrimination and nowhere on it does it say that it's illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

"You can't have *** in public, and that two people having *** doesn't harm anyone either. You're trying to argue with your opinions, not facts."

Interesting. If public *** acts dont harm anyone, why is it illegal? Maybe because it harms the innocence of children who would have to be witness to these acts? Your parallel has a major flaw. If I were arguing people should be able to smoke pot in the company of minors, in public, your argument might make sense. But I wasn't, so yours doesn't.

If it was only illegal to have *** in front of kids you would have a point, but it's illegal to have *** in public in general. It's illegal to have *** in a 21 and older club. There's nothing but adults in there. So there goes your argument.

"I didn't say everyone who smokes weed is an addict. I said a drug addict is someone who is addicted to a drug. I don't know what you read"

Ah yes, the old bait 'n switch routine. Nice try. The topic of discussion here has been about whether or not a company should have the right to fire someone (or refuse to hire) because they would fail a piss test. Your subsequent replies have referred to these test failers as "drug addicts". Clearly you are correlating failing a piss test with being addicted, exactly the opposite of the point I made (that failing a piss test does not confirm drug ABUSE).

Show me anywhere where I even mentioned failing a piss test.Or even made this connection at all.

"I'm not talking about my morals, I'm talking about the law. It is not illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs. Plain and simple, that's all I've been stating and you can't understand that for some reason."

Already addressed, and refuted. See my previous reply. And I will go one step further. Since you demanded I show proof of laws saying you cannot discriminate against hiring people based on LEGAL drug use, and I did, I feel turn about is fair play. Post proof its legal to refuse to hire someone who consumes caffeine.

I posted a link to the employment discrimination laws already. If you're too lazy to read that's on you.

"Common and "the norm" are two different things."

These are terms you yourself also used...


You only cry foul at my use of the terms once I post proof your statement is erroneous.

You're the one that brought up all this talk about what is "the norm" not me.

"You really need to read up and learn what is legal and illegal when hiring someone."

Back atcha.

I did and posted a link to the laws from government websites //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or ***.
National Origin Discrimination

* It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.

* A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to assure that employees hired are legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, an employer who requests employment verification only for individuals of a particular national origin, or individuals who appear to be or sound foreign, may violate both Title VII and IRCA; verification must be obtained from all applicants and employees. Employers who impose citizenship requirements or give preferences to U.S. citizens in hiring or employment opportunities also may violate IRCA.

Additional information about IRCA may be obtained from the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at 1-800-255-7688 (voice), 1-800-237-2515 (TTY for employees/applicants) or 1-800-362-2735 (TTY for employers) or at Civil Rights Divison Office of Special Counsel Home Page.

Religious Accommodation

* An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

*** Discrimination

Title VII's broad prohibitions against *** discrimination specifically cover:

* ****** Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for ****** favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same *** harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.)

* Pregnancy Based Discrimination - Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions.

Additional rights are available to parents and others under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor. For information on the FMLA, or to file an FMLA complaint, individuals should contact the nearest office of the Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The Wage and Hour Division is listed in most telephone directories under U.S. Government, Department of Labor or at http://www.dol.gov/esa/public/whd_org.htm.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act

The ADEA's broad ban against age discrimination also specifically prohibits:

* statements or specifications in job notices or advertisements of age preference and limitations. An age limit may only be specified in the rare circumstance where age has been proven to be a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ);

* discrimination on the basis of age by apprenticeship programs, including joint labor-management apprenticeship programs; and

* denial of benefits to older employees. An employer may reduce benefits based on age only if the cost of providing the reduced benefits to older workers is the same as the cost of providing benefits to younger workers.

Equal Pay Act

The EPA prohibits discrimination on the basis of *** in the payment of wages or benefits, where men and women perform work of similar skill, effort, and responsibility for the same employer under similar working conditions.

Note that:

* Employers may not reduce wages of either *** to equalize pay between men and women.

* A violation of the EPA may occur where a different wage was/is paid to a person who worked in the same job before or after an employee of the opposite ***.

* A violation may also occur where a labor union causes the employer to violate the law.

Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all employment practices. It is necessary to understand several important ADA definitions to know who is protected by the law and what constitutes illegal discrimination:

Individual with a Disability

An individual with a disability under the ADA is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded as having a disability. An entity subject to the ADA regards someone as having a disability when it takes an action prohibited by the ADA based on an actual or perceived impairment, except if the impairment is both transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor. Major life activities are basic activities that most people in the general population can perform with little or no difficulty such as walking, breathing, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, thinking, and eating. Major life activities also include the operation of a major bodily function, such as functions of the immune system normal cell growth, brain, neurological, and endocrine functions.

"Qualified"

An individual with a disability is "qualified" if he or she satisfies skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the position held or desired, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of that position.

Reasonable Accommodation

Reasonable accommodation may include, but is not limited to, making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities; job restructuring; modification of work schedules; providing additional unpaid leave; reassignment to a vacant position; acquiring or modifying equipment or devices; adjusting or modifying examinations, training materials, or policies; and providing qualified readers or interpreters. Reasonable accommodation may be necessary to apply for a job, to perform job functions, or to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment that are enjoyed by people without disabilities. An employer is not required to lower production standards to make an accommodation. An employer generally is not obligated to provide personal use items such as eyeglasses or hearing aids. A person who only meets the "regarded as" definition of disability is not entitled to receive a reasonable accommodation.

Undue Hardship

An employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation to a qualified individual with a disability unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business. Undue hardship means an action that requires significant difficulty or expense when considered in relation to factors such as a business' size, financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation.

Prohibited Inquiries and Examinations

Before making an offer of employment, an employer may not ask job applicants about the existence, nature, or severity of a disability. Applicants may be asked about their ability to perform job functions. A job offer may be conditioned on the results of a medical examination, but only if the examination is required for all entering employees in the same job category. Medical examinations of employees must be job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Drug and Alcohol Use

Employees and applicants currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs are not protected by the ADA when an employer acts on the basis of such use. Tests for illegal use of drugs are not considered medical examinations and, therefore, are not subject to the ADA's restrictions on medical examinations. Employers may hold individuals who are illegally using drugs and individuals with alcoholism to the same standards of performance as other employees.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 made major changes in the federal laws against employment discrimination enforced by EEOC. Enacted in part to reverse several Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of persons protected by these laws, the Act also provides additional protections. The Act authorizes compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination, and provides for obtaining attorneys' fees and the possibility of jury trials. It also directs the EEOC to expand its technical assistance and outreach activities.

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers