Jump to content
retrofade

Nevada becomes first state to ban pre-employment marijuana tests

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

They sell gummie bears that have the amount of THC in a joint, supposedly 10 mg. I tried some of those recently out of curiosity, and pot isn’t my friend like it was when I was in 7th grade in jr. high. Very high jr. high. 😂 Now I know I ain’t missing anything. 

Share this post


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

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.

Huh?

Are you really asking if it can be scientifically proven that the mind-altering effects of marijuana don't last two weeks???

I also don't think you understand how burden of proof works in civil trials.  The burden is on the plaintiff.

This is stupid.  Marijuana would have zero effect on accidents if someone smoked it on their own time. Alcohol is a MUCH bigger concern.

Share this post


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

Huh?

Are you really asking if it can be scientifically proven that the mind-altering effects of marijuana don't last two weeks???

I also don't think you understand how burden of proof works in civil trials.  The burden is on the plaintiff.

This is stupid.  Marijuana would have zero effect on accidents if someone smoked it on their own time. Alcohol is a MUCH bigger concern.

No, I’m saying a defendant can’t prove the time frame the metabolized thc entered their employee’s system and therefore their liability extends much further, hence why we need a better test. Try to keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

No, I’m saying a defendant can’t prove the time frame the metabolized thc entered their employee’s system and therefore their liability extends much further, hence why we need a better test. Try to keep up.

And a defendant doesn't need to prove shit.  Keep up.

Share this post


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

What's wrong with the tests we have?

 

 

9 hours ago, I am Ram said:

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. 

What Ram said. The drug tests are mechanisms to defend a company for insurance purposes. But the current drug tests that are cheap enough to be accurate and wildly available measure the drugs in the system in a way that gives a much less accurate reading than other drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nevada Convert 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.

I think it’s a bit of an irrational fear.  Just because they don’t have to take a drug screen doesn’t mean they will be smoking pot on the clock and operating machinery, etc. under the influence.  I don’t think this will have any material impact in that regard.

Share this post


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

And a defendant doesn't need to prove shit.  Keep up.

They do need to prove the preponderance of evidence is on their side. And a plaintiff standing there with a lost limb or loved one, holding a failed drug test from the employee involved, is pretty damn damning. That’s why there were drug tests in the first place, to protect against that moment. Now keep up, or level up against simpler members until you can, because I’m bored holding your hand here.

  • Haha 1
  • Cheers 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

They do need to prove the preponderance of evidence is on their side. And a plaintiff standing there with a lost limb or loved one, holding a failed drug test from the employee involved, is pretty damn damning. That’s why there were drug tests in the first place, to protect against that moment. Now keep up, or level up against simpler members until you can, because I’m bored holding your hand here.

You're really, really +++++ing stupid.

There is a concept in litigation called "burden of proof."  Are you aware of this?  Or do you think it's made up?

Not only does the plaintiff have to prove negligence, but they also have to prove causation.  In other words, they can't just say "Hey, this guy had MJ in his urine!" and collect 10 million bucks.  They have to prove that an employment policy of not testing (or ignoring a positive test) was negligent, and that negligence caused damage.  

You don't understand anything about lawsuits, clearly.

Share this post


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

You're really, really +++++ing stupid.

There is a concept in litigation called "burden of proof."  Are you aware of this?  Or do you think it's made up?

Not only does the plaintiff have to prove negligence, but they also have to prove causation.  In other words, they can't just say "Hey, this guy had MJ in his urine!" and collect 10 million bucks.  They have to prove that an employment policy of not testing (or ignoring a positive test) was negligent, and that negligence caused damage.  

You don't understand anything about lawsuits, clearly.

Again, I’m not going to hold your hand through basic shit all day. Go find one of the simpler members to argue with, you’re clearly not up for this.

giphy.gif

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, I am Ram said:

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

Since their property can be forfeited for having drugs on the property they have a valid interest.

Not to mention the legal exposure they would have by allowing illegal activity at work.  Or the massive lawsuits that would take place if someone was hurt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't appear many of you read the linked article.  The exceptions in the law appear to pull back many employers.  Federal jobs, use of heavy equipment, operation of a motor vehicle...  100% of my employees operate a motor vehicle while on the job.

Share this post


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

Again, I’m not going to hold your hand through basic shit all day. Go find one of the simpler members to argue with, you’re clearly not up for this.

giphy.gif

It’s not always about the law. He plainly doesn’t understand the empathy of a jury for a maimed plaintiff, not to mention the disdain of juries for companies with big pockets that would allow an impaired employee to disfigure someone. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It’s not always about the law. He plainly doesn’t understand the empathy of a jury for a maimed plaintiff, not to mention the disdain of juries for companies with big pockets that would allow an impaired employee to disfigure someone. 

It's got nothing to do with juries.  This shit would get bounced on summary judgment and never reach a jury, you +++++ing clown.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

It's got nothing to do with juries.  This shit would get bounced on summary judgment and never reach a jury, you +++++ing clown.

Why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff likely would not justify the case moving forward in the eyes of a judge.  (The layman's version of summary judgment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Orange said:

Because the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff likely would not justify the case moving forward in the eyes of a judge.  (The layman's version of summary judgment)

Oh damn. I thought you had me on ignore. 

So why wouldn't this, especially a case of first impression, overcome the SJ barrier? 

Share this post


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

It’s not always about the law. He plainly doesn’t understand the empathy of a jury for a maimed plaintiff, not to mention the disdain of juries for companies with big pockets that would allow an impaired employee to disfigure someone. 

Juries hell, he thinks judges and everyone else involved is a sober textualist at all times in the process, with a profound respect for the reasoning behind legal concepts. It’s almost like these companies don’t keep lawyers on retainer for any reason at all, or that they don’t game out probabilities for legal liabilities ahead of time because it would never come up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, I am Ram said:

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. 

That's the urine tests.  They only test for the metabolite.  A heavy user can test positive for over 90 days after he stops using. The saliva tests will determine if there has been recent (within hours) consumption.  If you haven't smoked that day, you'd test negative.  I am not sure how that works with edibles.  

Also, a device similar to the one the cops use to detect alcohol is in the works.   One day soon, you will be able to blow into a straw and it  will be easy to determine whether or not you are stoned.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's the urine tests.  They only test for the metabolite.  A heavy user can test positive for over 90 days after he stops using. The saliva tests will determine if there has been recent (within hours) consumption.  If you haven't smoked that day, you'd test negative.  I am not sure how that works with edibles.  

Also, a device similar to the one the cops use to detect alcohol is in the works.   One day soon, you will be able to blow into a straw and it  will be easy to determine whether or not you are stoned.

 

Which is dumb, because it's becoming more and more questionable whether marijuana impairs your driving at all...

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45719

Share this post


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

Because the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff likely would not justify the case moving forward in the eyes of a judge.  (The layman's version of summary judgment)

You have never been sued or involved in a lawsuit have you.

Even a case that never makes it to court costs you thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars.

Not to mention you never know what a judge will do no matter how cut and dried the case is legally. 

The legal profession is one of the three least educated professions in existence, they are almost all buffoons. 

  • 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.

×