If weed is legalized, can it still be used to determine employment status?

[Valisk]

After reading Demosthenes11's thread, http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96512 , I started to question the possible practices of businesses in the future. As we all know, there is a push for the legalization of marijuana.

My question is, will employers still be allowed to deny the hiring of those on this legal substance and if so, how widespread do you think the mentality of "No weed allowed" amongst businesses?

My initial thought process is yes. That even if legal, people can be denied employment for failing a drug test due to marijuana. Might be a deep end comparison but just like certain substances are legal but banned in sports, they can still punish those who don't comply with their policies. Sure in that industry, certain substances can give unfair advantages and whatnot, but I'm just thinking of the principle and precedence it sets for future litigation. Also as another example, in many workplaces men cannot wear earrings. It isn't against the law to wear earrings but it is against company policy.

The second part of my question, I can see most corporations using it as a tool to weed out candidates (no pun intended). Or taking a philanthropic, role model type approach to make themselves appear better, to the general public, than their competitors who don't enforce a "no weed tolerance." I think it will be the norm or the standard to still test for drugs and terminate those who fail on the grounds of weed.

Your thoughts?

[BerenTebogo]

I'm pretty sure most employers can set any non-discriminatory (towards racial or sexual bias) standards for job exclusion they like in the private sector.

And for government I'd say, probably, yeah, but I have no idea really.

[OWS_Tonx]

Maybe some jobs, like machinery or transportation etc. would still test. but like an office job i doubt

[Effluo]

I look at like Alcohol; it's legal, and not tested for, but don't show up drunk, or get hurt on the job while intoxicated. Don't show up to work high, and if you are in a job that requires high amounts of safety or security, they will restrict it in those types of positions. It would probably start to be looked at in the same manner over time.

[Valisk]

I'm pretty sure most employers can set any non-discriminatory (towards racial or sexual bias) standards for job exclusion they like in the private sector.

Yea, you're right. As long as it isn't a protected class under federal law (race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, and disability?) I think they can set any standard. Although, aren't earrings in the workplace based on sex?

[BerenTebogo]

Yea, you're right. As long as it isn't a protected class under federal law (race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, and disability?) I think they can set any standard. Although, aren't earrings in the workplace based on sex?

No idea. I'm so behind on what I'd need to not have HR up my ass daily in an office-type setting that I may as well be trying to re-invent fire.

[Klutz]

Just don't show up baked to work and everything should be cool.

[FNH]

Although, aren't earrings in the workplace based on sex?

It's impossible for men to have earrings in also?

[Cephius]

I think it'd get the same treatment as alcohol, really. If you smoke on your own time, fine. If you want to smoke a bit at a company party, go ahead. But if you show up to work baked out of your mind, you're going to get fired just like if you showed up drunk or got caught drinking on the job. Alcohol isn't illegal either, but it's just not appropriate in the workplace.

[zoobernut]

I think it is an interesting conundrum. In my mind if weed became legal with respect to employment it should be treated exactly the same as alcohol.

The obvious issue here is that currently people are tested to see if they have ever smoked weed even if it was so long ago that they are fully sobered up. With alcohol no one is tested to see if they have ever drank in the past because as long as you are sober at work companies don't give a fuck.

I hope that if weed is legalized they would take the same stance. As long as you aren't high at work who gives a crap if you smoke at home after work.

[OWS_Tonx]

It's impossible for men to have earrings in also?

one of our male auditors has earrings so idk

[Effluo]

one of our male auditors has earrings so idk

Employers are getting less bitchy about earrings on men. Now they need to lighten up on the occassional eyebrow piercing or labret

[aznmajiktaru]

They can still refuse to hire anyone who smokes, at least for most states in the U.S. I'm not sure about California specifically because California is a whole fucking country in itself, but there are many companies in the U.S. that will refuse to hire you if you smoke. Most of this is still very much a gray area and I believe is still being challenged in courts but for the most part it is legal to do so.

Actually talked about this last semester in a few of my HR classes about how this will extend to overweight people soon. A lot of companies (a lot cause I cba to pull figure out my ass) also charge a higher premium for people who smoke and some even do it for people who do not obtain a certain fitness level via their physician.

[SaviorSelf]

Employers are getting less bitchy about earrings on men. Now they need to lighten up on the occassional eyebrow piercing or labret

I got hired at radioshack a while back with 1/2" plugs in my ears, never heard a thing lol

[Valisk]

I think a few of you are missing the point. I'm not asking "at what 'baked' level can a person show up to work and still maintain employment if weed is legalize?" No, I'm asking if you guys think that employers will still police marijuana under their own terms/policies and terminate based on random drug tests even though it's a legal substance.

Edit: And this is a general, hypothetical question. Not me trying to figure out the system or anything. I don't even smoke.

[Cephius]

They can still refuse to hire anyone who smokes, at least for most states in the U.S. I'm not sure about California specifically because California is a whole fucking country in itself, but there are many companies in the U.S. that will refuse to hire you if you smoke. Most of this is still very much a gray area and I believe is still being challenged in courts but for the most part it is legal to do so.

Actually talked about this last semester in a few of my HR classes about how this will extend to overweight people soon. A lot of companies (a lot cause I cba to pull figure out my ass) also charge a higher premium for people who smoke and some even do it for people who do not obtain a certain fitness level via their physician.

Well let's not be naive here. A company can refuse to hire you for any reason, they can just make up an excuse as to why. You can complain all you want but how would you prove it? The question really isn't "can they?" but more "will they?"

[Yabby]

I think until the federal laws are passed, not just states, they can still use it against people for employment. Mainly because if California passes the law to make it legal it doesn't mean you can go over state lines, smoke, then get a job in another state saying "I smoked over there so it was legal."

I remember talking to a few people about how that was going to work (States making it legal, but it isn't under federal law) and everyone was at a loss. Someone said if it was passed state cops wouldn't bother you, but the Fed's could crash down your door if they felt like it.

[Caiyuo]

Derp, I hadn't seen this yet and was just talking to someone about the same topic in the original thread.

As far as my personal opinion goes, even if it's legalized I don't think it would be something HR departments will immediately strike from their requirements on passing a drug test. Despite the literal differences between marijuana and alcohol, I think the cultural perception for weed is a gap that hasn't been bridged yet and won't be for awhile. Then again I don't live in California.

[Aksannyi]

If you're talking about pre-employment drug screenings, those might change slightly, depending on company policy regarding weed. If your company has a "do not smoke marijuana" clause for people who are presently employed then I see no reason why they could not deny you for failing a pre-employment drug test. If they're not opposed to recreational drug use outside of work (similar to the way people drink alcohol now) then I don't think they can deny you employment based on drugs present in your system alone, though it might still become a factor anyway. Personally, I wouldn't hire anyone who does drugs. That's just me, and I have strict standards anyway when it comes to employees, but I don't think I'd be alone in that mentality.

Marijuana isn't going to lose its stigma overnight, legal or not. And while I know that it's one of the least harmful substances out there, there are a lot of people who think it's a terrible drug that will cause all sorts of illnesses, injuries, and accidents. While on some people, it might, that's not true of everyone who uses the drug. However, I don't think employers are going to be all that excited about accepting tokers into the fold for quite a while.

[Gadritan]

I think until the federal laws are passed, not just states, they can still use it against people for employment.

In the private sector they can use it against you regardless of the legality of pot.