Jump to content
retrofade

Nevada becomes first state to ban pre-employment marijuana tests

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It would have to be a big one that could potentially face huge legal liabilities if their employees cause an accident that kills someone.

And what relationship would an employee smoking weed two weeks ago bear on an accident today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Orange said:

And what relationship would an employee smoking weed two weeks ago bear on an accident today?

That would depend on the litigation and what it would cost the defendant to settle or defend itself. I don’t think it should have any bearing, but courts have and will do dumb things that cost companies money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

That would depend on the litigation and what it would cost the defendant to settle or defend itself. I don’t think it should have any bearing, but courts have and will do dumb things that cost companies money. 

Well I suppose anyone can sue anyone for any reason, and risk being ordered to cover opponent's attorney's fees, face Rule 11 sanctions, etc. But I don't see how an employee smoking or not smoking marijuana has any measurable impact on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Orange said:

Well I suppose anyone can sue anyone for any reason, and risk being ordered to cover opponent's attorney's fees, face Rule 11 sanctions, etc. But I don't see how an employee smoking or not smoking marijuana has any measurable impact on that.

Accidents happen, people get hurt. With that harm and suffering comes bills and lost opportunity to make money. There will always be lawyers willing to advocate for those people and one of the best arguments they can make is why is this company having this person with drugs in their system in a position where something catostrophic can and did happen? Can such and such company prove those drugs are from two weeks prior and had no bearing on what happened? Doubtful, and they know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it weren't for marijuana, pee tests wouldn't exist, really.

Most drugs can be out of your system by the end of the weekend if you did them on Friday.

I think past job performance is a better reason to deny employment than a prospective job candidate's drug use. What they do with their body on their own time is nobody's but their business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

We need a better test for marijuana. 

What do you mean?  The 5 ng/mL THC blood test in most states is pretty good for DUIs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I had a friend that worked in a canning factory. Boring job. Most of the workers smoked weed in their car during breaks. I doubt this new law will have much impact other than it will be easier to hire people. 

Also, those in the know tell me there is a way to beat marijuana testing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

 I had a friend that worked in a canning factory. Boring job. Most of the workers smoked weed in their car during breaks. I doubt this new law will have much impact other than it will be easier to hire people. 

Also, those in the know tell me there is a way to beat marijuana testing. 

Yes, but I would be opposed to people toking up during break. People do stupid or negligent shit on weed. Because they're high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

This is a disaster for Nevada business.

Employer costs will go through the roof.  Not to mention I think it is illegal.

Regardless whether a hire smokes weed or not, they still need a decent resume and experience to get hired. It may hurt employers who hire for low paying jobs which is a crap shoot, weed or not. 

Just think how many coke heads there are in high paying upper management jobs. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Just think how many coke heads there are in high paying upper management jobs. 

 

Or practically the entire legal field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

We need a better test for marijuana. 

What's wrong with the tests we have?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

Regardless whether a hire smokes weed or not, they still need a decent resume and experience to get hired. It may hurt employers who hire for low paying jobs which is a crap shoot, weed or not. 

Just think how many coke heads there are in high paying upper management jobs. 

 

I fire people who smoke cigarettes on the job.

I can see no reason to allow marijuana smokers.

Neither one is concerned with me paying for their time, they are trying to figure out how they can have 20 cigarette breaks a shift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

I fire people who smoke cigarettes on the job.

I can see no reason to allow marijuana smokers.

Neither one is concerned with me paying for their time, they are trying to figure out how they can have 20 cigarette breaks a shift.

Since you occasionally work around people on oxygen and oxygen tanks, I can see your concern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

What's wrong with the tests we have?

If I understand correctly, the tests that are usually used in the workplace are unable to differentiate between being under the influence at that moment and having smoked a pipe last Friday night. One's a fireable offense, the other is no one's +++++ing business. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Since you occasionally work around people on oxygen and oxygen tanks, I can see your concern. 

I fire people who work at my mini-storages doing menial labor if they smoke.

It is part of the rules of the workplace they sign.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, I am Ram said:

If I understand correctly, the tests that are usually used in the workplace are unable to differentiate whether someone is currently under the influence or whether that person smoked a pipe last Friday night. One's a fireable offense, the other is no one's +++++ing business. 

Both are violations of federal law no matter what state they are in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bluerules009 said:

Both are violations of federal law no matter what state they are in.

Yes, but a private employer isn't an enforcement agency for Uncle Sam. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, retrofade said:

That is scary. Especially if your job involves machinery, driving big equipment. That just puts the public in danger and will make business have to pay huge $ on insurance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

I fire people who work at my mini-storages doing menial labor if they smoke.

It is part of the rules of the workplace they sign.

 

I can’t even imagine working for a dude like you. What’s even more pathetic is imagining your employees kissing your ass to stay on your good side that doesn’t exist. 🤠👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×