Mary Jane and Sam Walton...

i think its dumb that states have mmj programs that they dont really support (and perhaps contradict federal law)

like make it legal or illegal, pick one and be consistent

it's kinda gray now and needs to be fixed, though i dont really care which way they go with it
 
Koggit, people in cali were PISSED when it was legal to use it medically in CA but during the Bush years they were still arrested for it, there is definitely a contradiction in federal vs. state.

Holder has basically said he's going to ignore the contradiction and defer to the states.
 
It's still stupid to have the law and intentionally ignore it. Though I imagine they won't take it on for political reasons.

I'll be bmugs though and say they can fire their employees for whatever reason they want, up to and including not giving the manager head on "give the manager head day" (Tuesday).
 
Like Wanda Sykes said, it's not gonna look good when the first black president comes out and one of the first things he does is legalize weed. lol...

Anyways, I'm predicting he will tackle it in some way in his second term. I can't picture a Republican out there right now that can compete with him on a national level, maybe Huckabee but definitely not Romney or Palin.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I can't picture a Republican out there right now that can compete with him on a national level, maybe Huckabee but definitely not Romney or Palin.[/QUOTE]

Ron Paul is the best bet at this point if Obama continues down his current path.
 
Weed won't ever be legal in the eyes of the federal government as long we continue to have a for profit criminal justice and prison system along with numerous local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies who depend on it's criminalization to justify their budgets and their jobs. Too many people profit from weed being illegal for it to change anytime soon.
 
I agree with you spmahn but don't you think if they decriminalized it they could focus on more important things like murders and such? I keep going back to the Wire where they legalize drugs (not what I'm in favor of) in order to do 'real police work'. I don't see how going after some college pothead is conducive to society.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I agree with you spmahn but don't you think if they decriminalized it they could focus on more important things like murders and such? I keep going back to the Wire where they legalize drugs (not what I'm in favor of) in order to do 'real police work'. I don't see how going after some college pothead is conducive to society.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, in a perfect world they could focus on more important things like murders and such, but those investigations are messy, complicated, politically risky, and don't always (or usually) produce the desired results. It's much easier for police departments to bust pot heads to make the public think that they're actually doing something, it's good PR, and it ensures that everyone involved will continue to have jobs.

A whole lot of people benefit from the criminalization of marijuana, police departments, lawyers, prisons, prosecutors, politicians, federal agencies, and all of the hundreds of thousands of individuals and businesses that work alongside these entities and require them to stay in existence, from the food service companies that cater prisons, to the construction companies that build prisons, the manufacturers of police gear and equipment, etc. etc. etc.

There's too many powerful people and lobbyists who work hard every day ensuring that marijuana remains illegal for it to ever change.
 
Focusing on the OP's issue, if there is a prescription for it and it doesn't inhibit the employee's ability to perform their job, then it shouldn't be an offense you should be fired over.

But this wouldn't be an issue (nor would low wages, poor/no medical insurance, benefits/shareholding packages, etc.) if Wal-Mart were unionized. They'd have their benefits and necessary protections.
 
Now, my understanding of marijuana is somewhat limited, but I was under the impression that regardless of what the state law is in regards to it, federal laws make it an illegal substance to sell, grow, buy or possess. While I'm all for individual state rights, I'm pretty sure federal law would trump here.

It's not uncommon for a workplace to have policies regarding employees who partake in illegal activities. The illegal drug use policy is pretty clear when you're hired in at Walmart.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Focusing on the OP's issue, if there is a prescription for it and it doesn't inhibit the employee's ability to perform their job, then it shouldn't be an offense you should be fired over.[/QUOTE]

You've forgotten your roots. Some states such as KY are employment at will states. http://research.lawyers.com/Michigan/Employment-Law-in-Michigan.html So is MI. Ergo, employment can be terminated at will without any reason.

On to unemployment...

Wal-Mart has to demonstrate the employee they fired actually quit or having a valid prescription is a violation in order to deny him unemployment.
 
Since libertarians are all for states rights, I'd assume they would argue he shouldn't be fired. Screw it being federally illegal, if the state says it's legal for medical use then it is, right?
 
I think a libertarian would say that he shouldn't be arrested for it, but that the employer could fire him if they didn't like the color of his shoes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Now, my understanding of marijuana is somewhat limited, but I was under the impression that regardless of what the state law is in regards to it, federal laws make it an illegal substance to sell, grow, buy or possess. While I'm all for individual state rights, I'm pretty sure federal law would trump here.[/QUOTE]
We're in a gray area now. Friggin Ashcroft went after "legal" users like they were terrorist suspects but like IRHari said, Holder says he isn't interested in chasing users and is deferring to states. Federal law does trump state law in this area, but it would be much easier to change than people think. You just go to the federal agency that schedules drugs (the FDA I think?) and have them reschedule. It's literally a wave of the wand and poof! not illegal anymore, or at least not on the federal level.

Either way, the turning point is coming much faster than we all think (I hope at least). Oregon didn't seem willing to really war over it last time the feds came around, but California looks to be itching for the fight and would be a formidable opponent in court. It might end up being one of those moves made as the Obama administration leaves.
 
[quote name='speedracer']We're in a gray area now. Friggin Ashcroft went after "legal" users like they were terrorist suspects but like IRHari said, Holder says he isn't interested in chasing users and is deferring to states. Federal law does trump state law in this area, but it would be much easier to change than people think. You just go to the federal agency that schedules drugs (the FDA I think?) and have them reschedule. It's literally a wave of the wand and poof! not illegal anymore, or at least not on the federal level.

Either way, the turning point is coming much faster than we all think (I hope at least). Oregon didn't seem willing to really war over it last time the feds came around, but California looks to be itching for the fight and would be a formidable opponent in court. It might end up being one of those moves made as the Obama administration leaves.[/QUOTE]

I'm all for it becoming legal - it appears to be a magic alien plant that will solve most of our world's problems - but, until it does, the question remains - can you have a valid prescription for an illegal substance?
 
Marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance - which means that under no circumstances can a prescription be written for it.

As you move up the list, Schedule 2 can be prescribed (morphine) but must be administered by the practician), and Schedule 3 (anabolic steroids) can be prescribed but are still regulated heavily.

That all said, there's no real easy answer to your question. The scheduling is done by the FDA/DEA, meaning the schedule is a federal mandate. We all seem to know that, which is why we understand that states and municipalities that decriminalize some forms of marijuana still run the risk of being pressured by the federal government to enforce it.

A state allowing for medical prescription of a federal-level schedule I does contradict federal law, but there's already (1) loads of contention about marijuana's status as schedule I and (2) overt willingness at the federal level to not prosecute marijuana as schedule I.

But what's strange is that, in this case, you have a private employer basing its decision on a federal classification that the federal government itself consciously and publicly ignores, along with the added expectation that it will be overturned at some point in the future.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Focusing on the OP's issue, if there is a prescription for it and it doesn't inhibit the employee's ability to perform their job, then it shouldn't be an offense you should be fired over.

[/QUOTE]

exactly. just like with alcohol or over the counter drugs. of course there legal, thats not the issue, but if youre getting tipsy at lunch, coming in hung over, taking an extra valium on break and cant work... well theres the problem.
 
Thats what i don't understand, for things like this its used as a pain medication basically. So long as someone doesn't come into work under the influence, whats the problem?
 
Here's how I see it - the policy is VERY clear. If you're tested for drugs and you test positive for illegal drugs, then you're terminated.

Since Marijuana is an illegal drug, and this guy tested positive for it, he was terminated.

It's pretty cut and dry.

Now, granted, Walmart could try and make an exception for this one case - but then, you've got Walmart personnel picking and choosing when it's okay for employees to use illegal drugs.
 
Well, yeah, but not illegal for medical use in the state right? The only complicating part here is that it's both legal and illegal. Obviously it's something he should have cleared up ahead of time anyway.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Here's how I see it - the policy is VERY clear. If you're tested for drugs and you test positive for illegal drugs, then you're terminated.

Since Marijuana is an illegal drug, and this guy tested positive for it, he was terminated.

It's pretty cut and dry.[/QUOTE]

So corporation arbitrary rule set > state law. Gotcha.
 
Federal Law > State Law.

I like how many people are suddenly coming out for state's rights all of a sudden. Makes me smile inside.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Federal Law > State Law.[/QUOTE]

So if another situation happens at another company and the same result isn't reached, are we at anarchy?

I'm not giving a shit about state vs federal rights. What I AM giving a shit about is some nonsense that a corporation can bend the rules when they find out their local laws don't match up with some employee charter that's decorated with bullshit mission statements and even bullshittier policies, especially when it comes in the middle of a recession.

Just man the fuck up, Walmart, and say "fuck weed head shit stains." You're not going to lose a single shred of business from it, because idiots still thing lead paint covered plastic from China at 3 cents an ounce is a fuckin' STEAL.
 
[quote name='Strell']I'm not giving a shit about state vs federal rights. What I AM giving a shit about is some nonsense that a corporation can bend the rules when they find out their local laws don't match up with some employee charter that's decorated with bullshit mission statements and even bullshittier policies, especially when it comes in the middle of a recession.[/QUOTE]

What "rules" are being bent?
They're following the rules. No illegal drug usage.
 
That really sucks for the guy having to go through this ordeal. Lost his job because he had pain from cancer and a brain tumor. It is clearly his fault though since wal marts policy is no illegal drugs. He should have taken Valium, Oxycotin, Codeine, Percocets, etc. instead..Or get a whizzinator for the tests.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What "rules" are being bent?[/quote]

Fine. They didn't break any laws.

But I think each and every one of their damn managers - regional, district, state, national, whatever, right on up to their highest board - should be tested for drugs IMMEDIATELY and WITHOUT any reason. I'm willing to bet a number of them will show up positive. We'll see how quickly they change their tune then.

Here's a guy who had cancerous tumors rack his brain, and is trying to desperately survive the pain with state-legally-prescribed drugs. And the best his employer can do is kick his ass out because of outdated, idiotic rules that were penned by uptight assholes? I'm beginning to wonder if they can always defer it away from state law, as if the government is going to break down their doors (which I highly doubt).

They can't prove he's ever been under the influence at his job, so they are attacking him in a wholly indirect way by claiming he's going to ______, where the blank might be raise insurance costs, or be a liability while on duty, or spread it around his fellow workers, etc. But just cut out the bullshit and say "fuck you, don't give a damn if you are using it for medical reasons, it's icky and weird and will only affect his performance and therefore our bottom line."

I can't imagine how many kicks to the balls it is to have to deal with cancer, let alone my soulless employer fire me over attempting to just see through the blur. There needs to be another step to this policy where they find him slacking off or toking up on the company's dime, instead of fear mongering it up.

They're following the rules. No illegal drug usage.
Click to expand...

I'll remember that the next time they ban gay couples for no reason.

I'd love to see someone sue them over this kind of nonsense. But oh well, let's just hide behind our big doors and army of lawyers.

On another-but-related note, take that idea of drug testing managers and so forth I put up there. Let's do it to every senator, mayor, cabinet member, representative, judge, etc. I want to see just how many of them turn up positive. I maintain a ton of them will show up positive, and we'll see just how fucking retarded this whole situation is. State vs Federal law? Don't care - I'm on the side that makes sense. Demonization of a weed that's scientifically proven to be less harmful than many prescription drugs, alcohol, etc...what a crock of shit.

You can leave Rush Limbaugh out. We know that fat fuck is slurping them down like vats of pork fat.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I think a libertarian would say that he shouldn't be arrested for it, but that the employer could fire him if they didn't like the color of his shoes.[/QUOTE]

Correct. In that state, employment is at will.

The real issue is whether they can block his unemployment benefits. MJ stays in the body for weeks if not months after any effect is gone. So, testing positive doesn't mean he was high at work. It would be similar to saying I'm standing on gravel because there is a piece of gravel lodged in the sole of my shoe.

http://www.mahalo.com/how-to-get-a-medical-marijuana-prescription-in-michigan

Before that argument goes in the wrong direction, does the man have a medical marijuana prescription or card? If the answer is no on both counts, there is no need to pay unemployment. If the answer is yes, then pay the man his money.
 
[quote name='Strell']But I think each and every one of their damn managers - regional, district, state, national, whatever, right on up to their highest board - should be tested for drugs IMMEDIATELY and WITHOUT any reason. I'm willing to bet a number of them will show up positive. We'll see how quickly they change their tune then.[/quote]

For what it's worth, I know store-level management is drug tested when they're promoted. Dunno about higher-level managers.

Regardless, the policy is there. You and I may disagree with it - but it's made very clear from the outset. You don't knowingly break the policy, then get upset with it after you get caught. Challange the policy *before* you get in trouble with it.

On another-but-related note, take that idea of drug testing managers and so forth I put up there. Let's do it to every senator, mayor, cabinet member, representative, judge, etc. I want to see just how many of them turn up positive. I maintain a ton of them will show up positive, and we'll see just how fucking retarded this whole situation is.
Click to expand...

Agreed. How do we make that happen?

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The real issue is whether they can block his unemployment benefits. MJ stays in the body for weeks if not months after any effect is gone. So, testing positive doesn't mean he was high at work. It would be similar to saying I'm standing on gravel because there is a piece of gravel lodged in the sole of my shoe.[/quote]

Several people bring up the fact that Marijuana stays in the system for "weeks or months" - but I'm guessing that's pretty irrelevant here. This guy had a "prescription" and was likely in a helluva lotta pain. Now, obviously, I can't say if his smoking ever effected his work performance, but I'm guessing he probably made a regular habit of taking his medication.

Before that argument goes in the wrong direction, does the man have a medical marijuana prescription or card? If the answer is no on both counts, there is no need to pay unemployment. If the answer is yes, then pay the man his money.
Click to expand...

If the answer was yes, the man was still violating both company policy and federal law.

Now - we all agree that it's stupid (Federal/State law and the policy) - but it is the law and it is the policy - and both are pretty clear.

Should someone be allowed to willingly and blatantly violate company policy and still draw unemployment when they get terminated?
 
Oh, I must also say, my soul is warmed by all the "Screw State/Federal law - Individual rights rule!" statements. Perhaps, some of you aren't as far gone as you often come off as being. :D
 
But they are saying "screw the law" when they say the law, as it stands now, should not be upheld in the now.

If you want to say "Tough poop, cancer guy - but let's change the law to prevent this from happening again!", that's one thing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So - does it matter if the Federal Government isn't enforcing the law in select cases?[/QUOTE]
An Oregon police officer cannot arrest a medical marijuana user for using, possession, or growing. If the FBI called *any* Oregon state law enforcement agency and asked to have someone arrested for marijuana, Oregon would refuse. You've literally got one governmental agency of significant consequence saying there is no problem and another saying you are violating the law.

That makes the actual legality of it questionable because the FDA is an executive branch entity and "laws" aren't created there per se (though that's a seriously gigantic ball of wax discussion).

I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that the supposed states rights small federal government supreme court jurists suddenly turn federal rights strong federal enforcement when this topic is brought up. The same jurists that said a state should be able to tell me exactly what of-age consenting adults I can have sex with in my home will say that a state has no business setting this kind of policy.
 
I don't think anone's really *for* Federal law here. In my own case, I'm simply saying that, by Federal law, it is illegal and, thus, I see no problem with a company (even more so, a company that operates across the nation) terminating the employee - regardless of the "prescription" status.

If pot was legal (either via prescription or otherwise), then we could look at this discussion differently. (I.e.: if he had a legal prescription or doctor's reccomedation, then I would be against his termination. If it was legal and he didn't have medical authorization, then I'd say the business should be able to terminate him, but he should be eligible for unemployment - unless the employer can provide proof that his work performance was somehow effected by his usage.)
 
The problem here is that you're forgiving your employer for making a very, very, very grey issue a black and white one. And in the process denying its greyness.

Circles. We're goin' in 'em.
 
I don't see it as gray.

The general public knows and understands that the Federal government - not individual states - has the power to regulate drugs.

I am all for taking that power away from the Federal government.

But, until that happens (or, until policy is changed), it is an illegal substance.

Likewise, I'd love to see the Federal government stripped of several other powers it has. Should I be allowed to pick and choose which powers of the Federal government I choose to recognize and which I want to ignore - then violate all the ones I don't like?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You've forgotten your roots. Some states such as KY are employment at will states. http://research.lawyers.com/Michigan/Employment-Law-in-Michigan.html So is MI. Ergo, employment can be terminated at will without any reason.

On to unemployment...

Wal-Mart has to demonstrate the employee they fired actually quit or having a valid prescription is a violation in order to deny him unemployment.[/QUOTE]


Walmart challenges ALL claims for unemployment, regardless of how the employee was terminated. I know this first hand, as I used to work for them, and was let go for bullshit reasons which actually violated their own overly-strict, by-the-book discipline policy. (Long story)

It should have been a simple open-and-shut claim for UC benefits, but sure enough, within a month of my filing, Walmart, or I should say a company representing them, filed an appeal. It was futile and a waste of their resources, but they still do it.
 
How is this not a gray issue? There's a state law legalizing medical use for a substance that is otherwise illegal. That's as gray as Obama's hair will be in two years.
 
[quote name='camoor']Gee I wonder why Walmart fired him.

I'm sure if he was a young and healthy manager of the most efficient Walmart in the state they would have made the same call.[/QUOTE]

Doubtful. Walmart has strict adherence to their policies. Plus, being an eployee of 15 years, I doubt it was a preexisting condition when they most likely took out a life insurance policy on him. Think of all the money they're throwing away when he kicks off by cutting him loose.
 
[quote name='sp00ge']Walmart challenges ALL claims for unemployment, regardless of how the employee was terminated. I know this first hand, as I used to work for them, and was let go for bullshit reasons which actually violated their own overly-strict, by-the-book discipline policy. (Long story)

It should have been a simple open-and-shut claim for UC benefits, but sure enough, within a month of my filing, Walmart, or I should say a company representing them, filed an appeal. It was futile and a waste of their resources, but they still do it.[/QUOTE]

You know, I've heard this before.

But I've also had former co-workers that have gotten unemployment. Two terminated for attendance and one for sexual harassment (which was a pretty open and shut case).

[quote name='Friend of Sonic']How is this not a gray issue? There's a state law legalizing medical use for a substance that is otherwise illegal. That's as gray as Obama's hair will be in two years.[/QUOTE]

In this case, no matter how much you or I decry it, state law is meaningless. It'd be about as useful as Arnold creating a state law stating citizens of California no longer have to pay income taxes to the Federal Government.

If y'all are ready to rise up against the oppressive federal government, let me know - I'll get you signed up for some Tea Party mailing lists. ;)
 
I'd be amazed to find out Tea Party mailing lists existed. They'd be using the elitist marxist internets what Al Gore dun made.
 
To tell the truth, before today, I would have just assumed they existed. If it wasn't for NPR running a story in regards to Thomas' wife just this morning, I wouldn't have known for certain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top