[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I think its sad. They'll not care if someone does Stratos' job who has a gambling addiction, or likes to hit hookers. But if they want to smoke a joint and relax at night . . .they are a security risk.

Two of these things the employer is not liable for, one of these things is...and you don't get that?

Employers don't give a single shit what you do with your own time, they certainly give a shit about the liabilities you can impart upon them.

I do get that. What I don't agree with is that Stratos' job is somehow compromised if he has a little toke after work.

IIRC, he's the security guard. I can't see how anyone is at risk by this activity. On the job, yes. After work, no. And I'm pretty sure that for his employer, it's a zero tolerance policy. Most tend to be.

Even my Uncle, who used to hold a very high clearance in Canada's military, was forever barred from holding that clearance if he ever used cannabis. Now he's retired and uses cannabis for his symptoms from Chemotherapy to reduce a prostate tumour. It's not like he's blabbing state secrets just because he smokes a little less tobacco and a lot more weed.

[DrCaleb]

rickc rickc:

peck420 peck420:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I think its sad. They'll not care if someone does Stratos' job who has a gambling addiction, or likes to hit hookers. But if they want to smoke a joint and relax at night . . .they are a security risk.

Two of these things the employer is not liable for, one of these things is...and you don't get that?

Employers don't give a single shit what you do with your own time, they certainly give a shit about the liabilities you can impart upon them.

And what liabilities would smoking weed impart on Stratos employer? He is not an airline pilot. He is not a commercial driver. He works in a prison. Are they checking to see if the guards are drinking alcohol on their off duty time? No they are not. Why should weed be any different?

^^

It's the nature of my job to assess security threats. Our own people are generally the biggest threat, not by what they do after work, but by what they do on the job not knowing they are at risk.

Go home and smoke all the weed you want, but don't click on that random link some random stranger sends you!

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's the nature of my job to assess security threats. Our own people are generally the biggest threat, not by what they do after work, but by what they do on the job not knowing they are at risk.

Reminds me of who Wal Mart's one-time chief of security said were his top three threats for shoplifiting:

Part time employees, full time employees, and managers.

[peck420]

rickc rickc:

And what liabilities would smoking weed impart on Stratos employer? He is not an airline pilot. He is not a commercial driver. He works in a prison. Are they checking to see if the guards are drinking alcohol on their off duty time? No they are not. Why should weed be any different?

You seem to have me confused with someone that:

A) Cares

B) Writes the laws.

Here is EMPLOYER thought process:

Does this specific item's laws push liability to the business?

A) Yes -> Than zero tolerance policy, don't like it, take it up with politicians.

B) No -> I don't give a rats, if it is against my personal beliefs, don't discuss it around me.

Everyone seems to think that employers make rules. They don't, but the must follow them, as they will be held to a completely different punitive scale than an individual, if the those rules are broken.

[rickc]

peck420 peck420:

rickc rickc:

And what liabilities would smoking weed impart on Stratos employer? He is not an airline pilot. He is not a commercial driver. He works in a prison. Are they checking to see if the guards are drinking alcohol on their off duty time? No they are not. Why should weed be any different?

You seem to have me confused with someone that:

A) Cares

B) Writes the laws.

Here is EMPLOYER thought process:

Does this specific item's laws push liability to the business?

A) Yes -> Than zero tolerance policy, don't like it, take it up with politicians.

B) No -> I don't give a rats, if it is against my personal beliefs, don't discuss it around me.

Everyone seems to think that employers make rules. They don't, but the must follow them, as they will be held to a completely different punitive scale than an individual, if the those rules are broken.

If you do not care than why are you even commenting on the subject at hand? That seems pretty ridiculous, and a complete waste of bandwidth to me. You state: "Everyone seems to think that employers make rules. They don't............" That makes zero sense. Rules are exactly what employers make. Rules and policies. Legislative bodies make laws. Big difference between the two. You do not go to prison for breaking rules and policies. You can be fired for breaking rules. You can be trespassed for breaking rules. You don't go to jail for breaking rules. Cops are in the business of law enforcement, not rule enforcement. You are trying to give businesses a free pass and put all of the blame on the government. You are acting like an employers hands are tied when it comes to drug testing its employees for marijuana. I call bullshit.

https://news3lv.com/news/local/caesars- ... -marijuana

An article from May of last year stating that Caesars Entertainment will no longer test for marijuana. Caesars is one of the largest gaming corporations in the world. They have stated that their new POLICY no longer tests for marijuana as there is no LAW requiring them to do so. The only people that the law requires testing for are in transportation. Limo drivers and valet attendants get tested.The guy scrambling your eggs? No!

You state: "Does this specific item's laws push liability to the business?" What laws? The item in question is legal. What liability? If the cook burns your eggs are you going to sue? Are you going to demand a drug test? If the housekeeper misses a spot while vacuuming, will there be a class action lawsuit? Caesars cannot get any qualified help to work there with drug testing for weed (they have admitted as much), so they ended the practice. I know of another hotel/casino that still tests for weed. The other day one out of eight elevators were running. Security guards were escorting guests to back of the house service elevators. Some people were stating that were waiting over 45 minutes for an elevator. Now I am not blaming that on drug testing for weed, or the lack of said testing, I am pointing out where the real liability issues lie. What if someone was having a medical emergency? What if that person died as a result of the slow response time? There is your liability. There is your budget breaking lawsuit. But hey the employer can claim his moral victory with their "drug free workplace" statement on their website. A little more time keeping the place from falling into the ground, and and a little less time worrying what employees do on their off time is in order.

[stratos]

Addressing this to DrCaleb, Peck420, rickc.

1) I don't work at a jail anymore but will give my answer on to why I can't smoke pot because of my job

2) Peck420 is right

Okay I used to work in a jail but now do security work. In both areas you are not allowed to be inebriated or in any way work while in an altered state. Basically this means I can not show up to work drunk or drink while on the job. Drugs stay in the system long after the supposed effects of said drug have worn off. Now if I am in an accident or an incident where I have to take a urine test and I had been drinking but stopped 12 hrs prior to shift. No alcohol is in my system. I smoke a joint 12 hrs before shift the THC still registers in my system. That makes me and my company liable for any type of law suite brought on because of said incident that cause the urine test to be conducted.

Legal drugs, i'm not sure on the law, but to cover my rear I always tell my bosses when I'm on something. Vicodin is the big one over the years. I've taken it over the years for various injuries. I've always informed my employers and kept a copy of the prescription in my wallet just in case something did happen. Now if pot becomes legal i'm not sure how the laws would change to accommodate the THC count in the system but something would have to change to be in compliance with the law allowing it's use.

I did get piss tested for an incident at work, but can't recall the exact circumstance behind it. I was on Vicodin at the time and produced the prescription, the tester chuckled and said I was the first one in a long time to be ready when I walked in. My boss had even called and informed them that they knew i was on it and had permission to be working while it was in my system.

Now look at it from the employers point of view. You don't want an employee so drunk that they can't do their job or even to have alcohol in their system because of liability for accidents or incidents involving that employee. The same goes for one being on drugs they are less efficient and a risk to the product (theft) and company (liability, law suite). Just because someone thinks they are sober enough to drive does not mean they are. Just because someone thinks they are not to high does not mean they aren't.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

Now if I am in an accident or an incident where I have to take a urine test and I had been drinking but stopped 12 hrs prior to shift. No alcohol is in my system. I smoke a joint 12 hrs before shift the THC still registers in my system. That makes me and my company liable for any type of law suite brought on because of said incident that cause the urine test to be conducted.

Except, there is no correlation between THC and impairment. That's my objection.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.5083114

There is a correlation between alcohol and impairment, just as there is for many cold medicines and impairment. But THC stays in the body for weeks after consumption, but does not cause impairment beyond a few hours.

There are also many other chemicals in cannabis, not all of which are tested nor do we know what they do. That's the problem with the US making it a schedule 1 drug for so long. There hasn't been enough testing done on it's effects.

Something that Canada will be kicking the US's tushie on in the next few years.