# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Can a nation-wide corporation ignore a State's laws?

## Deborah K

I know someone who works for a company that employs around 30k people nationwide.   They have a policy of random drug-checks.  All positive tests result in termination.  In Cali, cannabis is legal to use with a Doctor prescribed medical-marijuana card.  But this company states outright that it will not acknowledge the state legalization of cannabis because it is not _federally_ legal.

In my mind, this company is violating the rights of California citizens.  And the tenth amendment applies here somewhere as well, doesn't it? Am I wrong?

----------


## Natural Citizen

Hm. Well. I do know (from what _ha_s been released) that if the TPP gets passed then states and local governments will lose sovereignty to corporations with regard to these things. Of course, that is in the forward view.  At the moment, I don't think they can do that. And I was reading something about federal position on pot changing in some recent legislation. I forget what bill, though. I think occams banana had posted something on that but I didn't read it. Just kind of glanced through it.

We are beginning to see the phenomenon develop of industry maneuvering with federal government and political networks/pacs to create industry backed legislation to specifically void state and local law. And they're being rather bold about it. An example of that is what is going on with Koch network, congressman Pompeo and some various companies. Of course, there are more examples but that is just on the fly off the top of my head here.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I know someone who works for a company that employs around 30k people nationwide.   They have a policy of random drug-checks.  All positive tests result in termination.  In Cali, cannabis is legal to use with a Doctor prescribed medical-marijuana card.  But this company states outright that it will not acknowledge the state legalization of cannabis because it is not _federally_ legal.
> 
> In my mind, this company is violating the rights of California citizens.  And the tenth amendment applies here somewhere as well, doesn't it? Am I wrong?


The Tenth Amendment doesn't have anything to do with private individuals  or organizations. It only concerns powers that the US federal  government is not allowed to exercise - namely, those powers that are "not  delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by [the Constitution]  to the States." It says that all such powers "are reserved to the  States respectively, or to the people."

So the Tenth Amendment does not apply unless a state is trying to do something and the US federal government is  trying to stop them from doing it - or unless the US federal government  is trying to do something and a state is trying to stop  them from doing it.

In the scenario you describe, since the US federal government isn't trying to do anything (and isn't trying to stop California from doing anything), the Tenth Amendment does not apply and is not relevant.

IOW: The Tenth Amendment is strictly about what the US federal  government is or isn't allowed to do. It doesn't apply to anything else  (such as private companies' employment policies within any given state).

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> In my mind, this company is violating the rights of California citizens.


Occam is completely right, but let's sum up more briefly and directly what you want to know:

*No.*  This company is not violating the rights of anyone.  They may hire and fire whomever they want.  No one has a "right" to be employed by that company.

----------


## Deborah K

> The Tenth Amendment doesn't have anything to do with private individuals  or organizations. It only concerns powers that the US federal  government is not allowed to exercise - namely, those that are "not  delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it  to the States." It says that all such powers "are reserved to the  States respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So the Tenth Amendment isn't relevant unless the state of  California is trying to do something and the US federal government is  trying to stop them from doing it - or unless the US federal government  is trying to do something and the state of California is trying to stop  them from doing it.
> 
> IOW: The Tenth Amendment is strictly about what the US federal  government is or isn't allowed to do. It doesn't apply to anything else  (such as private companies' employment policies within a state such as California).


I'm thinking in terms of a corporation using federal law to trump state law resulting in violating the rights of California citizens.

----------


## Deborah K

> Occam is completely right, but let's sum up more briefly and directly what you want to know:
> 
> *No.*  This company is not violating the rights of anyone.  They may hire and fire whomever they want.  No one has a "right" to be employed by that company.


They don't have the "right" to work there, but neither does the company have the "right" to violate their employees' civil rights.  

This is the same argument the state uses on people who want to fly without their privacy being violated.  They claim the airlines are privately owned, so if you don't like it, then take a boat, car, train, or bus.  When corporations start acquiescing to the fed gov (and vice versa, I might add), this is how our rights get taken.

----------


## jmdrake

> I know someone who works for a company that employs around 30k people nationwide.   They have a policy of random drug-checks.  All positive tests result in termination.  In Cali, cannabis is legal to use with a Doctor prescribed medical-marijuana card.  But this company states outright that it will not acknowledge the state legalization of cannabis because it is not _federally_ legal.
> 
> In my mind, this company is violating the rights of California citizens.  And the tenth amendment applies here somewhere as well, doesn't it? Am I wrong?


Well there are companies that bar employees from smoking and that's legal in all 50 states.

----------


## William Tell

> They don't have the "right" to work there, but neither does the company have the "right" to violate their employees' civil rights.  
> 
> This is the same argument the state uses on people who want to fly without their privacy being violated.  They claim the airlines are privately owned, so if you don't like it, then take a boat, car, train, or bus.  When corporations start acquiescing to the fed gov (and vice versa, I might add), this is how our rights get taken.


What rights are being violated by the corporation?

----------


## Deborah K

> What rights are being violated by the corporation?


Their right to do with what they want with own bodies on their own time.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well there are companies that bar employees from smoking and that's legal in all 50 states.


Smoking at all?  Or smoking at work?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> They don't have the "right" to work there, but neither does the company have the "right" to violate their employees' civil rights.


 What is a civil right?  If the civil right being violated = the right to not be fired for whatever reason (or lack therof) the company deems fit, then that "right" does not exist, exactly as you agreed with me.  They don't have the "right" to work there.  Period.  The company can fire them for any reason, at any time, in accordance with their contract.  Period.




> This is the same argument the state uses on people who want to fly without their privacy being violated.  They claim the airlines are privately owned, so if you don't like it, then take a boat, car, train, or bus.


 And were it legal for me to start Fly 'N' Die Airlines where every passenger must openly carry a firearm and nobody's searched, this argument would be perfectly valid and true.  Since it's not,... it's not.

----------


## jmdrake

> Smoking at all?  Or smoking at work?


From 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/bu...08smoking.html
_By JEREMY W. PETERS 

Published: February 8, 2005

OKEMOS, Mich. - Warning: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your job.

That is what employees at Weyco, an insurance benefits administrator in this small central Michigan town, found out.

Under a new policy that legal specialists say is the first of its kind, Weyco began testing its 200 employees for smoking in January. And the company put workers on alert: In the future, they will be subject to random testing. If they fail, they will be fired.

Rather than take the mandatory breathalyzer test, four employees left the company.

And while Weyco's strict no-smoking policy is drawing the ire of civil liberties groups, it is within the bounds of employment law in Michigan. The state is one of 20 that has no laws preventing employers from firing workers who smoke even when they are not at work.

"What's next?" Kary L. Moss, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, said, speculating on other behavior that could cost workers their jobs. "Sitting in the sun? Getting pregnant?"

In fact, employers in 46 states have significant legal leeway to tell workers what they can and cannot do once they leave the office. As a result, companies have done more than tell workers not to smoke.

Until the mid-1990's, the airlines enforced policies that limited how much a flight attendant could weigh. In the 1980's, Electronic Data Systems, the computer software company founded by Ross Perot, had a policy barring facial hair, and fired an employee who said that he wore a beard for religious reasons. In 1989, a company in Indiana fired an employee for drinking after work, a violation of the company's no-alcohol policy. And just last September, a company in Alabama fired a woman who drove to work with a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker.

But firings for behavior away from work have been isolated, and legal specialists say that no company has ever gone as far as Weyco.

"They're actually testing," said John F. Banzhaf, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the executive director of Action on Smoking and Health, an antismoking group. "Most of the companies as far as I know simply passed the policy and rely on the fact that employees made the pledge." Employers have targeted smokers for years. Since the mid-1980's, Alaska Airlines has refused to hire smokers and tells job applicants that they will be tested for nicotine use. In 2004, Union Pacific decided to stop hiring smokers and now asks applicants to disclose whether or not they smoke. But these companies and others that prohibit their workers from smoking rely on their employees to honor the policy. As long employees have said they do not smoke, that has been proof enough.

Activists for workers rights argue that unless employees are engaging in off-duty behavior that interferes with their work, employers have no business stepping in. In 30 states and the District of Columbia, it is illegal for companies to impose smoking bans on their employees when they are off duty. And while 13 states prevent companies from banning alcohol use off the job, only California, Colorado, New York and North Dakota have broader worker privacy laws that prohibit employers from regulating most legal activities when their workers are off the job.

"Once you cross the line and allow employers to control any type of behavior that's not related to job performance, there's no limit to the harm that can and will be done," said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, an employees' rights organization based in Princeton, N.J.

Howard Weyers, the soft-spoken, silver-haired president of Weyco, said he initially approached a smoking ban with a similar attitude. "I'm with a client one day and he told me, 'We're going to stop hiring smokers.' And I said, 'You're kidding me,' " Mr. Weyers said in an interview from his office at Weyco's headquarters. "I reacted just like everybody else did: 'You can't do that.' Oh, yes you can."

Mr. Weyers, 70, is a former college football coach who exercises five times a week. He says the smoking policy is not so much an issue of workers rights as a health issue. "I spent all my life working with young men, honing them mentally and physically to a high performance. And I think that's what we need to do in the workplace."

As a medical benefits administrator, Mr. Weyers has also seen how health care costs have risen, in part because of the high cost of treating smoking-related illnesses. A 2002 study by the Centers for Disease Control found that annual productivity losses and health care costs were $3,391 a smoker. Mr. Weyers said he could not afford anything beyond the $750,000 to $800,000 he already spends on health care costs each year.

So a year ago, he told his employees they were all going to be charged a $50 smoking fee. The company would waive the fee for employees who passed a nicotine test or, if they failed, agreed to take a smoking cessation class. The company brought in a smoking counselor, and Mr. Weyers said that as a result, about 20 employees kicked the habit.

For those who did not quit smoking, Mr. Weyers told them they had until Jan. 1, 2005. After that, mandatory testing would begin, and anyone who failed would be fired.

"You work for me, this is what I expect. You don't like it? Go someplace else," Mr. Weyers explained in an interview.

After 14 years at Weyco, Anita Epolito decided she would go someplace else rather than be forced to give up smoking.

"You feel like you have no rights. You're all alone. It's the most helpless feeling you can imagine," Ms. Epolito, 48, said. She is now searching for a new job. "I never, ever from day one conceded to go with his policy because I knew that it had nothing to do with smoking. It had to do with my privacy in my own home."

For Christine Boyd, 37, a Weyco employee and smoker of 10 years, the threat of losing her job was enough to get her serious about quitting. "I had to choose between whether I wanted to keep my job and whether I wanted to keep smoking. To me it was a no-brainer." On Jan. 27, Ms. Boyd celebrated a year of being cigarette-free._

----------


## William Tell

> Their right to do with what they want with own bodies on their own time.


I don't get it, Deb. I don't like them doing what they are doing, but nobody is forcing anyone to work for the company.

----------


## jkr

> Smoking at all?  Or smoking at work?


at all

----------


## presence

> the Americans with Disabilities Act, amended in  September 2008,
> 
> *prohibits asking employees about* *prescription** drugs*
> 
> *unless managers have seen* workers acting in a way 
> 
> that compromises  safety or suggests medication use impacts job performance.


http://www.adn.com/article/20101121/workers-can-be-fired-using-legal-drugs



There are some other exemptions.  I don't have the source text; here is a .gov "guidance-inquiries" report:


http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-inquiries.html





> In most instances, an 
> 
> employer's need
> 
>  to make disability-related inquiries or require medical examinations 
> 
> will be triggered by evidence 
> 
> of current performance problems or observable evidence suggesting that a particular employee will pose a direct threat. The following questions, however, address situations in which disability-related inquiries and medical examinations of employees may be permissible absent such evidence.
> ...






> *"Direct threat"* means a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(r)(1998). Direct threat determinations must be based on an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job, considering a reasonable medical judgment relying on the most current medical knowledge and/or best available objective evidence. Id. To determine whether an employee poses a direct threat, the following factors should be considered: (1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that potential harm will occur; and, (4) the imminence of the potential harm. Id.

----------


## jmdrake

> Their right to do with what they want with own bodies on their own time.


Vanessa Williams lost her Ms. America job for erotic pictures taken of her *before* she ran.  And female teachers have been fired after being found out to be former pornstars.  People get fired for criticizing the Obama girls on Facebook.  I'm not saying any of this is "right" but it happens all the time.  What kind of company is this?  One response could be a boycott of the company by all who support medical marijuana.

----------


## jmdrake

> _the Americans with Disabilities Act, amended in September 2008,
> 
> prohibits asking employees about prescription drugs
> 
> unless managers have seen workers acting in a way 
> 
> that compromises safety or suggests medication use impacts job performance._
> http://www.adn.com/article/20101121/workers-can-be-fired-using-legal-drugs
> 
> ...


Hmmmmm.......with some creative lawyer work and argument based on ^that might actually fly.  Then again it might give the SCOTUS a prime opportunity to strike down state marijuana laws.

----------


## Deborah K

> What is a civil right?  If the civil right being violated = the right to not be fired for whatever reason (or lack therof) the company deems fit, then that "right" does not exist, exactly as you agreed with me.  They don't have the "right" to work there.  Period.  The company can fire them for any reason, at any time, in accordance with their contract.  Period.
> 
>  And were it legal for me to start Fly 'N' Die Airlines where every passenger must openly carry a firearm and nobody's searched, this argument would be perfectly valid and true.  Since it's not,... it's not.


I'd like to take this out of the realm of theory and ancap application, if you don't mind, and consider the issue  at hand.  What are the possible avenues that could be taken in order to preserve individual freedom?   Let's argue the reality of this situation and the potential legal avenues.

No matter how you couch this, the legal right to use cannabis is being taken away from employees at this company over a bogus stance.  Let's look at that point and not dredge up ancap theory for once.

----------


## William Tell

> I'm thinking in terms of a corporation using federal law to trump state law resulting in violating the rights of California citizens.


The thing is, in my opinion, this is not about federal law. If they want to make compliance with federal law one of their standards, its still not about federal law. Anymore than permitting smoking would be about compliance with the Tobacco lobby.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't get it, Deb. I don't like them doing what they are doing, but nobody is forcing anyone to work for the company.


Do you not see the slippery slope there?  Can we get our heads out of theory for a minute please?

----------


## Deborah K

> From 2005:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/bu...08smoking.html
> _By JEREMY W. PETERS 
> 
> Published: February 8, 2005
> 
> OKEMOS, Mich. - Warning: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your job.
> 
> ...


With Obamacare kicking in, I can see why companies would do this, although it's wrong in my mind to dictate what people can and can't do off the clock.

----------


## Deborah K

> The thing is, in my opinion, this is not about federal law. If they want to make compliance with federal law one of their standards, its still not about federal law. Anymore than permitting smoking would be about compliance with the Tobacco lobby.


But this is the official excuse this company is using.

----------


## Deborah K

> http://www.adn.com/article/20101121/workers-can-be-fired-using-legal-drugs
> 
> 
> 
> There are some other exemptions.  I don't have the source text; here is a .gov "guidance-inquiries" report:
> 
> 
> http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-inquiries.html


Now we're talkin'.

----------


## William Tell

> Do you not see the slippery slope there?  Can we get our heads out of theory for a minute please?


I don't like what they are doing. If you want to make a 10th amendment case, you should find out if California has a law that says employers cannot fire based on use of substances used in a legal manner. I don't think such a law would be in keeping with the intent of the constitution, but at least you could make an argument against the corportation.

----------


## specsaregood

> Do you not see the slippery slope there?  Can we get our heads out of theory for a minute please?


There are 2 sides to that slippery slope, you simply seem to want to slide down the govt authority side.

----------


## William Tell

> But this is the official excuse this company is using.


And I think legally they can make any excuse they like.

----------


## Deborah K

> And I think legally they can make any excuse they like.


Even if it violates someone's rights?

----------


## jmdrake

> I'd like to take this out of the realm of theory and ancap application, if you don't mind, and consider the issue  at hand.  What are the possible avenues that could be taken in order to preserve individual freedom?   Let's argue the reality of this situation and the potential legal avenues.
> 
> No matter how you couch this, the legal right to use cannabis is being taken away from employees at this company over a bogus stance.  Let's look at that point and not dredge up ancap theory for once.


Well I mentioned the only legit and viable tool I can think of.  The boycott.  Well...public shaming plus a boycott.  That forced Paula Dean off the air and Donald Sterling to sell his team.  Otherwise you're putting one federal law (illegal drugs) up against another federal law (Americans with Disabilities Act) and hoping for a good outcome.  Besides, imagine if the company in question was a Christian church school that had a morals clause in it and people violating that clause for all sorts of reasons (being gay, running a pornographic web cam business, etc) were suing to force the company to let them continue working?

----------


## jmdrake

> With Obamacare kicking in, I can see why companies would do this, although it's wrong in my mind to dictate what people can and can't do off the clock.


Yeah...but it started back in 2005 when Bush was still in office.

----------


## William Tell

> Even if it violates someone's rights?


No, but we are talking about drug testing as a condition for future employment. If they were tazering people and doing drug tests that would violate rights. But since nobody has a right to be employed, the company can make whatever silly rules they like without violating rights.

----------


## presence

> Now we're talkin'.


http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12112d




> Following is the *current text of   the Americans with Disabilities Act  of 1990 (ADA), including changes made by the   ADA Amendments Act of  2008* (P.L. 110-325), which became effective on January 1,   2009.





> Sec. 12112. Discrimination  (a) General rule
>  No covered entity shall discriminate against a  qualified individual  on the basis of disability in regard to job  application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of  employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms,  conditions, and privileges of employment.
>   (b) Construction
>  As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term   "discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability"  includes
>  (1) limiting, segregating, or classifying a job  applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities  or status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of  such applicant or employee;
>  (2) participating in a contractual or other  arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a covered  entity's qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the  discrimination prohibited by this subchapter (such relationship includes  a relationship with an employment or referral agency, labor union, an  organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered  entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship  programs);
>  (3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration
>  (A) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability;
>  (B) that perpetuates the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control;
> ...

----------


## Deborah K

> There are 2 sides to that slippery slope, you simply seem to want to slide down the govt authority side.


I don't WANT to slide down it.  Sometimes the most effective way to make change is to refute these violations as they arise, and sometimes doing it by beating them at their own game.  I know it isn't always effective, and I know the whole ancap spiel and _ideal_ way to handle it: quit and find another job, yada yada, like that solves everything.  Unfortunately, it doesn't, and sometimes we have to fight fire with fire.

I'd like to know from the Constitutional  and State law types what they think about this situation.

----------


## Deborah K

> http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12112d


"A covered entity....."  Is that what they call people nowadays?

----------


## specsaregood

> I don't WANT to slide down it.  Sometimes the most effective way to make change is to refute these violations as they arise, and sometimes doing it by beating them at their own game.  I know it isn't always effective, and I know the whole ancap spiel and _ideal_ way to handle it: quit and find another job, yada yada, like that solves everything.  Unfortunately, it doesn't, and sometimes we have to fight fire with fire.
> 
> I'd like to know from the Constitutional  and State law types what they think about this situation.


Well as a business owner, I resent the idea that you think I shouldn't be able to fire any employee for whatever reason and shouldn't be able to require drug testing as condition of employment.   And I'm certainly no ancap.

----------


## William Tell

> I don't WANT to slide down it.  Sometimes the most effective way to make change is to refute these violations as they arise, and sometimes doing it by beating them at their own game.  I know it isn't always effective, and I know the whole ancap spiel and _ideal_ way to handle it: quit and find another job, yada yada, like that solves everything.  Unfortunately, it doesn't, and sometimes we have to fight fire with fire.
> 
> I'd like to know from the Constitutional  and State law types what they think about this situation.


From a Constitutional and State law perspective, you would need state law on your side. I don't know enough about California state law. But unless it specifically forbids discrimination against people for using certain drugs, I don't see the 10th Amendment case.

I'm not an Ancap just fyi.

----------


## presence

> "A covered entity....."  Is that what they call people nowadays?


no.

"a covered entity" is a business that employs a certain number of people and meets certain criteria.  The nationwide company you mentioned is more than likely a "covered entity". 





> No covered entity shall discriminate against a  qualified individual

----------


## presence

> Well as a business owner, I resent the idea


Being a business owner does not necessarily make you a "covered entity" of the ADA




> Only "covered entities" must comply with Title I of the ADA. The term  covered entities includes employers with 
> 
> 15 or more employees
> 
> ,  employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management  committees. For simplicity, this guide will refer to covered entities as  "employers." For more information about covered entities, see the _EEOC Compliance Manual_: Covered Entities.

----------


## Deborah K

> No, but we are talking about drug testing as a condition for future employment.


No, I'm talking about random drug testing on already hired employees.  I agree that there is nothing wrong with employers not wanting to hire addicts. They can manage that with drug testing I suppose, but a more stringent vetting during the hiring process would probably serve them better.




> If they were tazering people and doing drug tests that would violate rights. But since nobody has a right to be employed, the company can make whatever silly rules they like without violating rights


This isn't a "right to be employed" issue.  This is an issue where a nationwide company does not want to adhere to a state's law, and enacts a prohibition using federal law to validate it.

----------


## willwash

I agree that ancap ridiculousness gets touted as gospel way too often here (STFU about "private security firms" FFS!), but at the same time I don't think it's too much of a reach to say a company should be able to make refraining from smoking marijuana a condition of employment.  Anyone who wants to be able to work there and smoke marijuana anyway (no matter the reason) should not appeal to the force of government to compel this company against its will.  That's the only "slippery slope" I see in this debate.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well as a business owner, I resent the idea that you think I shouldn't be able to fire any employee for whatever reason and shouldn't be able to require drug testing as condition of employment.   And I'm certainly no ancap.


That is not what I am stating.  Please re-read what I have written.

----------


## presence

> I don't think it's too much of a reach to say a company should be able to make refraining from smoking marijuana a condition of employment.  Anyone who wants to be able to work there and smoke marijuana anyway (no matter the reason) should not appeal to the force of government to compel this company against its will.  That's the only "slippery slope" I see in this debate.


prescribed paxil, xanax, and oxycodone perfectly ok though right?

----------


## William Tell

> This isn't a "right to be employed" issue.  This is an issue where a nationwide company does not want to adhere to a state's law, and enacts a prohibition using federal law to validate it.


I don't see how they are not adhering to state law.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'd like to take this out of the realm of theory and ancap application, if you don't mind, and consider the issue  at hand.  What are the possible avenues that could be taken in order to preserve individual freedom?


 I do not think that this person's freedom is being taken away at all, whatsoever, period.  So the first, practical, real-world-application step is for this person to realize that.  He needs to take full responsibility and accountability for his life and his choices and not play any kind of blame game.  That is a trap.  An anti-freedom trap.  By being wrapped up in wanting this company to respect what he sees as his "rights," he is taking way his own freedom from himself, working himself into a box rather than being empowered and liberated.  These are "rights" that we both have agreed do not even exist -- just as you and I both said, "They don't have the 'right' to work there." -- but even if they did exist, pining for them, blaming the company for violating them, being upset at them for being wrong, is unproductive.  It's a trap.

So step one is to stop blaming and start self-empowering.  Have an attitude of empowerment, not of whining and petitioning.

Step two is for this person to ask himself what *he* can do to achieve his goals in life.  Not what This Company I Hate should do, what *he* can do.  He can only control the actions of one (1) person in all this great, wide Universe: Himself.  He should do so.  Control himself.  Chances are very good, for instance, that there is some way to conceal his drug use from the company if his goal is to continue working there and at the same time to use marijuana.  If he applies his mental energies to that problem, he will find a solution much quicker, much more effectively, and much easier than some misguided attempt to force the hated company to bend to his will.

How's that for practical?

----------


## Deborah K

> no.
> 
> "a covered entity" is a business that employs a certain number of people and meets certain criteria.  The nationwide company you mentioned is more than likely a "covered entity".


duh...I guess I need to spend some quality time actually reading what you posted instead of skimming it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't WANT to slide down it.  Sometimes the most effective way to make change is to refute these violations as they arise, and sometimes doing it by beating them at their own game.  I know it isn't always effective, and I know the whole ancap spiel and _ideal_ way to handle it: quit and find another job, yada yada, like that solves everything.  Unfortunately, it doesn't, and sometimes we have to fight fire with fire.
> 
> I'd like to know from the Constitutional  and State law types what they think about this situation.


Well I kind of already told you what I thought, but I'll expound a bit.  Remember the California law didn't grant any new "rights."  It barred state prosecutors from going after people for marijuana use under certain circumstances.  So, basically you're that a federal law (the ADA) will stop a company from using a federal law (drug laws) from punishing people who are now free from punishment under state law.  I don't see this as winning.

----------


## specsaregood

./

----------


## Deborah K

> I agree that ancap ridiculousness gets touted as gospel way too often here (STFU about "private security firms" FFS!), but at the same time I don't think it's too much of a reach to say a company should be able to make refraining from smoking marijuana a condition of employment.  Anyone who wants to be able to work there and smoke marijuana anyway (no matter the reason) should not appeal to the force of government to compel this company against its will.  That's the only "slippery slope" I see in this debate.


Smoking it on the job, I can see.  But if a company can dictate what a person does off the job, where does it end?

----------


## specsaregood

> prescribed paxil, xanax, and oxycodone perfectly ok though right?


In my ideal world, the business would be just as empowered to prohibit employees from using those as well.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> prescribed paxil, xanax, and oxycodone perfectly ok though right?


OK in what sense?

These are all substances.  People all have the perfect and absolute right (and uninfringible ability!) to have whatever attitudes regarding these substances they wish.  And people have the right to associate with other people taking into account whatever they wish, including whatever attitudes they have regarding these substances.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't see how they are not adhering to state law.


Read my OP again.  They view cannabis users under a federal law lens rather than the State law lens.

----------


## Deborah K

> prescribed paxil, xanax, and oxycodone perfectly ok though right?


I think you may be the only one who understands where I'm coming from here.

----------


## presence

> duh...I guess I need to spend some quality time actually reading what you posted instead of skimming it.


parsing legalese is a bitch, no shame

----------


## William Tell

> Read my OP again.  They view cannabis users under a federal law lens rather than the State law lens.


And? they can view them how they like. Unless, like I have been saying, California says they must employ cannabis users or forbids drug testing. If that is the case then your friend would have state law on his/her side.

----------


## willwash

> Smoking it on the job, I can see.  But if a company can dictate what a person does off the job, where does it end?


I guess we just see it two different ways.  I ask the fundamentally reverse question: if an employee can dictate what his employer must tolerate in terms of employee behavior (on or off the job), where does *that* end?

----------


## Deborah K

> Well I kind of already told you what I thought, but I'll expound a bit.  Remember the California law didn't grant any new "rights."  It barred state prosecutors from going after people for marijuana use under certain circumstances.  So, basically you're that a federal law (the ADA) will stop a company from using a federal law (drug laws) from punishing people who are now free from punishment under state law.  I don't see this as winning.


It's unclear if the ADA would be the avenue to take with this.  But, it sets a precedent, so that helps.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'm thinking in terms of a corporation using federal law to trump state law resulting in violating the rights of California citizens.


Insofar as the company is citing federal law in defense of its policy, the Tenth Amendment still does not apply - because the US federal government isn't doing anything here, one way or the other. The Tenth Amendment ONLY applies to what the federal government may or may not do - nothing else.

And even if the Tenth Amendment did apply, all the company would have to do to get around this is to change its defense of the policy so that it did not make reference to federal law at all. (For example, they might defend the policy on the grounds of avoiding exposure to legal or civil liabilities due to the actions of drug-impaired employees. Or if the compnay was privately owned, perhaps the owner might have religious or conscientous objections to drug use. Or etc.)

Also, the company is not "trumping" state law in any case. The company's policy does not conflict with or contradict the state's decision to stop prosecuting and imprisoning marijuana users. Just because the state of California is saying that it will no longer jail marijuana users, it does not follow that employers are therefore forbidden from adopting discriminatory policies with respect to the employment of marijuana users ...

----------


## Deborah K

> I guess we just see it two different ways.  I ask the fundamentally reverse question: if an employee can dictate what his employer must tolerate in terms of employee behavior (on or off the job), where does *that* end?


It ends at the punch-in clock.  The employer owns the employee 's labor while he's on the clock. He doesn't own his blood and urine.

----------


## presence

> I guess we just see it two different ways.  I ask the fundamentally reverse question: if an employee can dictate what his employer must tolerate in terms of employee behavior (on or off the job), where does *that* end?


I think the ADA is pretty clear on that.




> *unless such examination or inquiry is shown  to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.*



Recreational substance use?  Fire at will.

Medically prescribed substance use?  Prove its causing a job related problem, else defer to patient-doctor privledge.

----------


## Deborah K

> And? they can view them how they like. Unless, like I have been saying, California says they must employ cannabis users or forbids drug testing. If that is the case then your friend would have state law on his/her side.


So, in your opinion, we need another law that forces employers to hire people who use cannabis?  I think this issue could be solved in a better way. 

I think, a bigger issue here, based on the comments is, if we're ever going to be a society that believes people have the right to do what they want on their own time, like drinking raw milk (to use one of Ron's examples) or go to a whore house, etc., how is that ever going to happen if employers have the right to dictate to you what you do in your own time?  How are they any better than the government?

----------


## specsaregood

> I think, a bigger issue here, based on the comments is, if we're ever going to be a society that believes people have the right to do what they want on their own time, like drinking raw milk (to use one of Ron's examples) or go to a whore house, etc., how is that ever going to happen if employers have the right to dictate to you what you do in your own time?  How are they any better than the government?


And we go back to: find a different employer or start your own business.

----------


## Occam's Banana

The state of California had NO right to forbid people from using marijuana (or any other drug) in the first place, 

By the same token, it has NO right to forbid employers from refusing to hire or retain employess who use marijuana (or any other drug) ...

----------


## Deborah K

> Insofar as the company is citing federal law in defense of its policy, the Tenth Amendment still does not apply - because the US federal government isn't doing anything here, one way or the other. The Tenth Amendment ONLY applies to what the federal government may or may not do - nothing else.


Okay, makes sense.  Was wondering if a plaintiff could use it in an argument in a court of law.




> And even if the Tenth Amendment did apply, all the company would have to do to get around this is to change its defense of the policy so that it did not make reference to federal law at all. (For example, they might defend the policy on the grounds of avoiding exposure to legal or civil liabilities due to the actions of drug-impaired employees. Or if the compnay was privately owned, perhaps the owner might have religious or conscientous objections to drug use. Or etc.)


Drug impaired employees, for example someone who is drunk, are pretty obvious and can be immediately terminated.  This is strictly an off-the-clock issue.




> Also, the company is not "trumping" state law in any case. The company's policy does not conflict with or contradict the state's decision to stop prosecuting and imprisoning marijuana users. Just because the state of California is saying that it will no longer jail marijuana users, it does not follow that employers are therefore forbidden from adopting discriminatory policies with respect to the employment of marijuana users .


It's more than that.  Doctors can prescribe medical marijuana cards to patients, and this company dismisses it out of hand.  RSO oil, which is cannabis oil, is widely known to kill cancer, but American doctors are legally forbidden from administering alternative treatments to cancer.  Some of them get around it now, in Cali, by prescribing MM cards.

----------


## presence

> And we go back to: find a different employer or start your own business.


Scrap the entire ADA?  I can get behind this argument.  But this is really not relevant to this thread.  You're discussing legislation; what ought to be lawful.  The OP is concerned with enforcement; what is legal.



> The state of California had NO right to  forbid people from using marijuana (or any other drug) in the first  place, 
> 
> By the same token, it has NO right to forbid employers from refusing to  hire or retain employess who use marijuana (or any other drug)  ...



For all intents and purposes I agree.  But that doesn't change the fact that an employer who test or fires someone for presumably taking a prescribed medication is (assuming failure to prove need) in violation of the ADA as enacted.

----------


## Deborah K

> The state of California had NO right to forbid people from using marijuana (or any other drug) in the first place, 
> 
> By the same token, it has NO right to forbid employers from refusing to hire or retain employess who use marijuana (or any other drug) ...


Again I ask you, if a company can dictate to you what you do on your own time, where does it end?  If we're going to have laws, they should at the very least be laws that protect our individual freedom.  IMO, a company doesn't have the right, anymore than the government does, to take those rights away.  And the "just quit, start your own business, find another job" response isn't the only answer to this.  It just isn't that cut and dried .

----------


## specsaregood

./

----------


## Occam's Banana

> So, in your opinion, we need another law that forces employers to hire people who use cannabis?  I think this issue could be solved in a better way. 
> 
> I think, a bigger issue here, based on the comments is, if we're ever going to be a society that believes people have the right to do what they want on their own time, like drinking raw milk (to use one of Ron's examples) or go to a whore house, etc., how is that ever going to happen if employers have the right to dictate to you what you do in your own time?  How are they any better than the government?


They are better than the government because they are not forcibly preventing you from doing anything. They are not coercively punishing you (or threatening to coercively punish you) for doing something you should be (and are) rightfully free to do.

They are simply saying that if you do something (such as smoke pot), then they will not do something else (such as hire or retain you as an employee). This is not even remotely similar to anything the government does in this regard (such as locking people up in rape-cages - or seizing their property under so-called "civil asset forfetiure" - or killing people - or mangling babies asleep in their play-pens - or etc., etc.)

They aren't "dictating" to you what you do in your own time. They are saying, "if you want to be employed by us, then don't do X." They have every right to do this - just as you have every right to do X.

If I say, "I saw you smoking pot somewhere else the other day, and I don't want pot smokers in my home - so get out of my house!" then would you say that I should not be allowed to do that? If I should be allowed to do that, then why shouldn't employers be allowed to do it as well? And if you want to forbid employers from doing that, then don't you have to forbid me from doing that, as well?

EDIT:



> Again I ask you, if a company can dictate to  you what you do on your own time, where does it end?  If we're going to  have laws, they should at the very least be laws that protect our  individual freedom.  IMO, a company doesn't have the right, anymore than  the government does, to take those rights away.  And the "just quit,  start your own business, find another job" response isn't the only  answer to this.  It just isn't that cut and dried .


Sorry, I didn't see this post by you until after I had replied to the one above. I'll let my answer to that one stand as my answer to this one - to wit: such companies are not "dictating" what you can or can't do on your own time.

----------


## Deborah K

> And we go back to: find a different employer or start your own business.


That's not an answer.  Answer the question.  How does it make them any different than the government telling us what to do?  Because they're private and not public?  Why do private organizations have the right to treat us that way but not the government?  What's the difference?  And don't say: "The difference is you have a choice in the private market." Because that's too simplistic and a cop-out.

----------


## specsaregood

> That's not an answer.  Answer the question.  How does it make them any different than the government telling us what to do?  Because they're private and not public?  Why do private organizations have the right to treat us that way but not the government?  What's the difference?  And don't say: "The difference is you have a choice in the private market." Because that's too simplistic and a cop-out.


Can you seriously not answer that question yourself?

----------


## jmdrake

> That's not an answer.  Answer the question.  How does it make them any different than the government telling us what to do?  Because they're private and not public?  Why do private organizations have the right to treat us that way but not the government?  What's the difference?  And don't say: "The difference is you have a choice in the private market." Because that's too simplistic and a cop-out.


So....strippers can force Christian elementary schools to let them keep their day jobs?

Edit: But I would like to help.  What is the name of the company?  Why not organize a boycott?

----------


## Deborah K

> And that is all great information.   What I would suggest trying first is creating a presentation with all that information and try to get an opportunity to show it to mgmt. at the company.   Argue why changing their policy (at the very least in states where it is legal) is the moral thing.   At least trying that first is better than defaulting to the legal argument.     
> 
> Although, one problem that I know AF has pointed out repeatedly is that a lot of these rules aren't due to mgmt. decisions, but due to insurance policies.


Yes, I'm aware of what Obamacare is doing to companies that are taking it lying down.  This company is definitely lying down with regard to Obamacare.  Attempting to appeal to their humanity is always an option, but a bigger fight might be necessary, not only for the sake of the MMcard holder, but for the sake of all the MMcard holders in Cali.

----------


## specsaregood

> Yes, I'm aware of what Obamacare is doing to companies that taking it lying down.  This company is definitely lying down with regard to Obamacare.  Attempting to appeal to their humanity is always an option, but a bigger fight might be necessary, not only for the sake of the MMcard holder, but for the sake of all the MMcard holders in Cali.


I wasn't even talking about obamacare.

----------


## Deborah K

> So....strippers can force Christian elementary schools to let them keep their day jobs?


LOL, say wut?  That one went - WOOOOSH!




> Edit: But I would like to help.  What is the name of the company?  Why not organize a boycott?


Thanks, but this company is in bed with the city governments who use their services.  Their services are essential.  They are a waste management corporation.

----------


## tod evans

> I'd like to know from the Constitutional  and State law types what they think about this situation.


I think that pickin' and choosin' which edicts one follows in relation to their labor force is an extremely bad idea...

Just come right out and state that if someone consumes weed they're fired, don't try and argue law...

As for the stoner (who I sympathize with) he needs to look elsewhere for work and just let it go......

----------


## Deborah K

> I wasn't even talking about obamacare.


When you mentioned that insurance companies dictate to private companies, I thought you were referring to medical insurance, since this would kind of be a health issue from the perspective of the company.  What insurance were you referring?

----------


## Deborah K

> I think that pickin' and choosin' which edicts one follows in relation to their labor force is an extremely bad idea...
> 
> Just come right out and state that if someone consumes weed they're fired, don't try and argue law...
> 
> As for the stoner (who I sympathize with) he needs to look elsewhere for work and just let it go......


It's more complicated than that, but if you're standing on principle, then I guess that wouldn't matter anyway.  Read through the thread.  If nothing else, it's interesting.  At least to me.

----------


## Deborah K

> Can you seriously not answer that question yourself?


Specs, I already know what I think.  I'd like to know what you think.

----------


## tod evans

> Again I ask you,* if a company can dictate to you what you do on your own time*, where does it end?  If we're going to have laws, they should at the very least be laws that protect our individual freedom.  IMO, a company doesn't have the right, anymore than the government does, to take those rights away.  And the "just quit, start your own business, find another job" response isn't the only answer to this.  It just isn't that cut and dried .


Were I the companies attorney I'd couch the argument that the company didn't give a $#@! about what you did on your own time but whatever chemical detritus you came to work harboring was the companies concern...

----------


## specsaregood

> When you mentioned that insurance companies dictate to private companies, I thought you were referring to medical insurance, since this would kind of be a health issue from the perspective of the company.  What insurance were you referring?


Take your pick: 
Property
Workers Compensation
General Liability
Professional Liability
Does the company insure key employees?  life insurance
Does the business own/run vehicles?  auto insurance

Probably more in specialized fields.

edit: I recall back in the .com days.  at a startup I was working at, we had a free soda machine with a "beer" button.  Its was fun, we all used it responsibly; but sometimes at the end of the day people would gather in the break room and drink a beer together.
Then we were getting ready to go public, and some suits came in, include an insurance guy and he saw the button and freaked out.   We had to get rid of the button and beer in order to qualify for some business insurance they the bankers were requiring us to hold to IPO.  It was a sad day.

----------


## jmdrake

> LOL, say wut?  That one went - WOOOOSH!


Sorry.  Let me explain.  If a company can't fire someone for doing something on his/her own time because it doesn't violate state law (medical marijuana), then doesn't that mean a company can't fire someone for doing something on his/her own time that doesn't violate state or federal law (stripping)?

Of course is your argument is couched solely in the "medical necessity" argument then I suppose that's somewhat different.  I have to wonder though, will company plans eventually be required to cover medical marijuana?




> Thanks, but this company is in bed with the city governments who use their services.  Their services are essential.  They are a waste management corporation.


Well that's the answer.  Sufficient pressure needs to be put on city counsel members to dump the company.  If the medical marijuana lobby is strong enough, a statewide ballot measure to bar companies that discriminate against medical marijuana from getting state and local contracts.

----------


## Natural Citizen

When I read this thread it gets me to thinking that if libertarians and anarchists ever run the roost then the country may very well become more of a tyrannical state than it is now. And that is saying something because the two establishment parties have pretty much allowed for industry and corporations to repatriate our legal and political processes in their favor by  way of the federal government. Ultimately, it just comes down to growth versus survival. We The People, as our framers understood them to be, have gradually had their identity hijacked and stolen from them in the representation department. It's really an unfortunate truth that libertarianism does, in fact, serve as the stalking horse for fascism itself. Is a shame.

----------


## Deborah K

> They are better than the government because they are not forcibly preventing you from doing anything. They are not coercively punishing you (or threatening to coercively punish you) for doing something you should be (and are) rightfully free to do.
> 
> They are simply saying that if you do something (such as smoke pot), then they will not do something else (such as hire or retain you as an employee). This is not even remotely similar to anything the government does in this regard (such as locking people up in rape-cages - or seizing their property under so-called "civil asset forfetiure" - or killing people - or mangling babies asleep in their play-pens - or etc., etc.)
> 
> They aren't "dictating" to you what you do in your own time. They are saying, "if you want to be employed by us, then don't do X." They have every right to do this - just as you have every right to do X.
> 
> If I say, "I saw you smoking pot somewhere else the other day, and I don't want pot smokers in my home - so get out of my house!" then would you say that I should not be allowed to do that? If I should be allowed to do that, then why shouldn't employers be allowed to do it as well? And if you want to forbid employers from doing that, then don't you have to forbid me from doing that, as well?
> 
> EDIT:
> ...


Here's the problem I have with privatizing everything:   Tyranny can take more than one form.  And I'm not interested in exchanging one form of tyranny for another.  For all of you who think private business has the right to dictate what someone does off the clock, in my mind you're compromising the principle of individual freedom - that is - you'll accept dictating someone's behavior on their own time - as long as it's done in the market.  Allowing that thinking to be acceptable opens the door to more of the same.  And voila!  We eventually end up right where we are.  

Rather than accepting it in any form, I believe we should fight it where it is, regardless of whether it's a private business or the government.

----------


## acptulsa

> Well as a business owner, I resent the idea that you think I shouldn't be able to fire any employee for whatever reason and shouldn't be able to require drug testing as condition of employment.   And I'm certainly no ancap.


I don't blame you, and I'm right here working toward that with you.  But in the meantime, the lady is trying to use one stupid law as a lever to leverage us a little more breathing room with respect to another stupid law.  And I like it.




> Here's the problem I have with privatizing everything:   Tyranny can take more than one form.


Don't get too damned theoretical, the OP will get pissed at you 

I think the ADA provision above will work unless some other regulation that triggers an exception applies.  For example, I'd bet hard money that there are certain DOT, NHTSA and FRA regulations that the ADA itself says trump everything.

----------


## Deborah K

> OK in what sense?
> 
> These are all substances.  People all have the perfect and absolute right (and uninfringible ability!) to have whatever attitudes regarding these substances they wish.  And people have the right to associate with other people taking into account whatever they wish, including whatever attitudes they have regarding these substances.


Why?  Because said substances are sanctioned by the fedgov?  What makes the right to use these substances superior to the right to use cannabis, which is now legal (for all intents and purposes) in Cali?

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't blame you, and I'm right here working toward that with you.  But in the meantime, the lady is trying to use one stupid law as a lever to leverage us a little more breathing room with respect to another stupid law.  And I like it.


Thank you.  I think....

----------


## presence

> Were I the companies attorney I'd couch the argument that the company didn't give a $#@! about what you did on your own time but whatever chemical detritus you came to work harboring was the companies concern...


lol "chemical detritus" 
_
that's all carry on_

----------


## acptulsa

Sorry, I edited too slow.




> I think the ADA provision above will work unless some other regulation that triggers an exception applies.  For example, I'd bet hard money that there are certain DOT, NHTSA and FRA regulations that the ADA itself says trump everything.


So, it comes down to what this person does for a living.

----------


## jmdrake

> Here's the problem I have with privatizing everything:   Tyranny can take more than one form.  And I'm not interested in exchanging one form of tyranny for another.  For all of you who think private business has the right to dictate what someone does off the clock, in my mind you're compromising the principle of individual freedom - that is - you'll accept dictating someone's behavior on their own time - as long as it's done in the market.  Allowing that thinking to be acceptable opens the door to more of the same.  And voila!  We eventually end up right where we are.  
> 
> Rather than accepting it in any form, I believe we should fight it where it is, regardless of whether it's a private business or the government.


The issue isn't the goal.  It's the method.  That and the likelihood of success.

----------


## Deborah K

> Sorry.  Let me explain.  If a company can't fire someone for doing something on his/her own time because it doesn't violate state law (medical marijuana), then doesn't that mean a company can't fire someone for doing something on his/her own time that doesn't violate state or federal law (stripping)?
> 
> Of course is your argument is couched solely in the "medical necessity" argument then I suppose that's somewhat different.  I have to wonder though, will company plans eventually be required to cover medical marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's the answer.  Sufficient pressure needs to be put on city counsel members to dump the company.  If the medical marijuana lobby is strong enough, a statewide ballot measure to bar companies that discriminate against medical marijuana from getting state and local contracts.


So, your angle is to go after them with public pressure.  That's a possibility.

----------


## presence

As an aside... its really $#@!ed up how society is conditioned to believe that state deemed "recreational" substances nearly always pose adverse effects on one's ability to work and prescribed "medical" substances nearly always pose positive effects on one's ability to work... which is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes medicine is defined by someone outside of oneself; namely a "licensed" "doctor".  It seems so anecdotal and anti qualitative to rely upon what some doctor prescribes as the primary test in what improves or detriments work performance. 

Personally, I've always been more productive after an unsanctioned safety meeting.  Maybe I have medical issues?  LOL; no such thing for my doctor to prescribe in my state.   SMDH even if there was.

----------


## Deborah K

> The issue isn't the goal.  It's the method.  That and the likelihood of success.


The issue should be the method AND the goal.  The likelihood of success for prohibition has already been played out.  And so has "forming a more perfect union" under supposed self-governance.  What I'm stating is, anytime our personal liberties are trifled with, as in this case, it doesn't really matter who the source is.  It should be quelled if we really love freedom.

----------


## Deborah K

> Were I the companies attorney I'd couch the argument that the company didn't give a $#@! about what you did on your own time but whatever chemical detritus you came to work harboring was the companies concern...


So, you're of the opinion that the company has a right to the person's blood and urine?

----------


## Deborah K

> When I read this thread it gets me to thinking that if libertarians and anarchists ever run the roost then the country may very well become more of a tyrannical state than it is now. And that is saying something because the two establishment parties have pretty much allowed for industry and corporations to repatriate our legal and political processes in their favor by  way of the federal government. Ultimately, it just comes down to growth versus survival. We The People, as our framers understood them to be, have gradually had their identity hijacked and stolen from them in the representation department. It's really an unfortunate truth that libertarianism does, in fact, serve as the stalking horse for fascism itself. Is a shame.


That's quite an indictment.  I don't know if I completely agree with it, but you do make a good point about just where the pendulum seems to be swinging in the realm of libertarian philosophy.

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## Deborah K

> As an aside... its really $#@!ed up how society is conditioned to believe that state deemed "recreational" substances nearly always pose adverse effects on one's ability to work and prescribed "medical" substances nearly always pose positive effects on one's ability to work... which is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes medicine is defined by someone outside of oneself; namely a "licensed" "doctor".  It seems so anecdotal and anti qualitative to rely upon what some doctor prescribes as the primary test in what improves or detriments work performance. 
> 
> Personally, I've always been more productive after an unsanctioned safety meeting.  Maybe I have medical issues?  LOL; no such thing for my doctor to prescribe in my state.   SMDH even if there was.


Agreed.  And I'll add, Doctors are getting the shaft in this country right now.  I've mentioned before that our family doctor is a RP supporter.  I've told him in no uncertain terms that when we leave and go off the grid, we're kidnapping him.  lol

----------


## William Tell

> That's quite an indictment.  I don't know if I completely agree with it, but you do make a good point about just where the pendulum seems to be swinging in the realm of libertarian philosophy.


Yes, he does. But despite the fact that drug testing is nasty, and invasive. I don't think there is a Constitutional 10th amendment argument that can be made against a private corporation. Its relationship with the city might complicate things though.

----------


## presence

> So, you're of the opinion that the company has a right to the person's blood and urine?


Lets assume a 100% FREE market; ADA and CRA1964 overthrown.  

Sure... company has right to ask anything they want of you.  You have right to tell them to go $#@! themselves and find another employer.


I can understand the fight for entitlement to use prescribed MJ if you have the entitlement to use prescribed codeine.   


But what are we really fighting for?

statist doctor's licensing?
statist approved medical substances?
statist mandated employment of the disabled?

or are we fighting for right to free associate, for whatever reason:

free market in medical practice
free market in substances possession and use
free market in employment


...and if free market in employment is a fundamental element of free association... why should we use the existing "entitlement" to use oxycodone at the workplace to fight for an "entitlement" to use MJ?

----------


## specsaregood

> So, you're of the opinion that the company has a right to the person's blood and urine?


I'm of the opinion that a person has the right to rent out their own blood and urine to an employer.  They are also free to end that contract/employment at any time.

----------


## Deborah K

> Sorry, I edited too slow.
> 
> 
> 
> So, it comes down to what this person does for a living.


Perhaps.  But it shouldn't have to.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That's quite an indictment.  I don't know if I completely agree with it...


Well. There _is_ the reality that more libertarians are politically _inactive_ than those libertarians who _are_. Which leaves me to probably agree with you. I'm just thinking that it is the_ active_ folks who are more dangerous to the old we the people (_historic_ identity, I'm talking about here) gag than inactive folks. That is just the trend that I'm seeing from contemporary dialogue. It is a good thing, in my view, that they_ are_ outnumbered by the inactive folks because the _active_ folks seem very open to mercantilism and corporate repatriation of representation and government processes. Seems like libertarianism is slowly being redefined by the politically active faction of the demograph. Which goes back to my reference to that stalking horse that truly _does_ exist. As I said in my initial post in the thread there is a very "in your face" phenomenon happening whereas these entities are using the federal government to just destroy relevance of state law and states rights. It is a fact. There is no denying it. But, then, those same entities and their minions will _whine_ about government if it affects _their_ bottom line. It's fuggin scwewy alright. Hypocrites.

I don't know, Deborah. I suppose that I'm just thinking out loud here. I'll probaby just stay out of this one and let others debate your question there in the op.

----------


## presence

> I'm of the opinion that a person has the right to rent out their own blood and urine to an employer.


^^^

From a strictly libertarian / free market perspective, deep in my heart of hearts, I have trouble arguing with this.





> *Help Wanted:*
> _
> Provide Clean Blood Samples
> Operate This Equipment_



...actually seems quite legit.  Even deep down the slippery slope where "clean" = specific race, genetic conditions, age, substances are barred:   This is the underlying spirit of free association... if for ANY reason I don't like you... I don't have to associate with you.  No governing body can otherwise force our engagement.   You want to work with me?  Blood test says zombie?  GTFO!




> The general freedom to associate with groups according to the choice of  the individual, and for the groups to take action to promote their  interests, has been a necessary feature of every democratic society.  Because freedom of association necessarily recognises pluralistic  sources of power and organisation, aside from the government, it has  been a primary target for repression by all dictatorial societies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association


But then on the flip side...


_Provide clean blood samples, else The State's enforcers beat you, steal from you, and put you in a cage:_

Not so legit.


...further...

_You must provide employment to this (otherwise qualified) individual even though your conscience tells you their off duty activities, associations, or beliefs are abhorrent to your personal morals and potentially damaging to your personal or company image._

Again, not so legit.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Here's the problem I have with privatizing everything:   Tyranny can take more than one form.  And I'm not interested in exchanging one form of tyranny for another.  For all of you who think private business has the right to dictate what someone does off the clock, in my mind you're compromising the principle of individual freedom - that is - you'll accept dictating someone's behavior on their own time - as long as it's done in the market.  Allowing that thinking to be acceptable opens the door to more of the same.  And voila!  We eventually end up right where we are.  
> 
> Rather than accepting it in any form, I believe we should fight it where it is, regardless of whether it's a private business or the government.


 I'm not talking about "privatizing everything" - that hasn't got anything to do with anything I've said. I'm an an-cap, but there is nothing in anything I've said in this thread that is incompatible with minarchism or constitutional republicanism or whatever.

I categorically reject the characterization of company policies such as this as "tyrannical" - they are not any such thing. The only "tyranny" involved here is the desire to "tryannize" companies by forcing them to hire or retain employees they don't want to hire or retain. Your rights are NOT being violated because someone doesn't hire you - or fires you - because you use drugs "off the clock."

If it is "tyrannical" for a company to refuse to hire or retain employees who smoke pot "on their own time," then how is not just as "tyrannical" for me to refuse to allow people who smoke pot "on their own time" into my home?

Do I or do I not have the right to "dictate" who is allowed into my home?

If I do, then why does a compnay not have the right to "dictate" who is allowed into its employ?

If I don't, then how are you not being "tryannical" by preventing me from doing so?

----------


## Deborah K

Opponents, your opinion on this?




> Here's the problem I have with privatizing everything:   Tyranny can take more than one form.  And I'm not interested in exchanging one form of tyranny for another.  *For all of you who think private business has the right to dictate what someone does off the clock, in my mind you're compromising the principle of individual freedom* - that is - you'll accept dictating someone's behavior on their own time - as long as it's done in the market.  Allowing that thinking to be acceptable opens the door to more of the same.  And voila!  We eventually end up right where we are.  
> 
> Rather than accepting it in any form, I believe we should fight it where it is, regardless of whether it's a private business or the government.


and this?




> The issue should be the method AND the goal.  The likelihood of success for prohibition has already been played out.  And so has "forming a more perfect union" under supposed self-governance.  *What I'm stating is, anytime our personal liberties are trifled with, as in this case, it doesn't really matter who the source is.  It should be quelled if we really love freedom*.


I was kind of hoping this topic wouldn't end up relegated to the ancap theory of Utopia, but since it has, I might add that in theory, I completely accept the ancap theory.  But in reality, I choose at times, to fight back within the existing framework because unlike many anarchists, I do NOT believe aiding and abetting a societal crash is the right way to handle the problem of our individual freedoms being incrementally taken away from us. And this is the main theme with anarchists.  And as I've already stated, to just move on to another job is tantamount to people accepting corruption, and instead of confronting it, they cower to it, or just quit.  We really need to have the courage of our convictions, don't we? 

As I already stated, to defend this as a company's rights over an individual's rights, compromises the principle of individual freedom, and overlooks the other avenues an employer can take that would NOT impede on a person's personal behavior during their off time.

----------


## presence

Deborah, how do you get past the fact that:




> I'm a pilot for Delta Airlines




May impede Delta's ability to sell tickets.

???





> I don't want my name or my company's name associated with, *and potentially tarnished by*, that activity.


...seems to be the central tenant upon which "freedom of association" is founded.

----------


## specsaregood

> Opponents, your opinion on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				For all of you who think private business has the right to dictate what someone does off the clock, in my mind you're compromising the principle of individual freedom


Because the business is NOT dictating anything.  They are offering terms for employment and the employee is VOLUNTARILY agreeing to those terms.  They are still free to not work for the business.





> and this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				What I'm stating is, anytime our personal liberties are trifled with, as in this case, it doesn't really matter who the source is. It should be quelled if we really love freedom.


Sure, but no liberties are being trifled with here.  The employee is voluntarily agreeing to the terms of the employment.   Choose to not work for them if you don't like the terms.  Arrange a work-strike, arrange a boycott, attempt to get them to change the terms.   Its still your choice, the difference is nobody is forcing you to do anything.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> When I read this thread it gets me to thinking that if libertarians and anarchists ever run the roost then the country may very well become more of a tyrannical state than it is now. And that is saying something because the two establishment parties have pretty much allowed for industry and corporations to repatriate our legal and political processes in their favor by  way of the federal government. Ultimately, it just comes down to growth versus survival. We The People, as our framers understood them to be, have gradually had their identity hijacked and stolen from them in the representation department. It's really an unfortunate truth that libertarianism does, in fact, serve as the stalking horse for fascism itself. Is a shame.


*Freedom is dangerous.     

Liberty is tyranny.*

Can add those to the list of Orwellian doublespeak.

----------


## Deborah K

> Because the business is NOT dictating anything.  They are offering terms for employment and the employee is VOLUNTARILY agreeing to those terms.  They are still free to not work for the business.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but no liberties are being trifled with here.  The employee is voluntarily agreeing to the terms of the employment.   Choose to not work for them if you don't like the terms.  Arrange a work-strike, arrange a boycott, attempt to get them to change the terms.   Its still your choice, the difference is nobody is forcing you to do anything.


sigh...never the twain shall meet....

You will never convince me that an employer has the right to dictate what their employee does on his own time.  It is a slippery slope to accept that kind of prohibition, and as I've alluded to before; employees can be just as easily controlled and manipulated by an entirely private sector as they can by the government.  The principle is the same - as long as it's morally acceptable to control another person's behavior, it compromises individual freedom - whether the person allows it or not, and for whatever reason they allow it.

----------


## specsaregood

> sigh...never the twain shall meet....
> 
> You will never convince me that an employer has the right to dictate what their employee does on his own time.  It is a slippery slope to accept that kind of prohibition, and as I've alluded to before; employees can be just as easily controlled and manipulated by an entirely private sector as they can by the government.  The principle is the same - *as long as it's morally acceptable to control another person's behavior, it compromises individual freedom - whether the person allows it or not, and for whatever reason they allow it*.


We are just have to agree to disagree.  The company is not controlling another person's behavior, that person is voluntarily agreeing to control their OWN behavior.

----------


## Deborah K

> Deborah, how do you get past the fact that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May impede Delta's ability to sell tickets.
> 
> ???
> ...


Where is this from?  I can't address this until it's put into context.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Opponents, your opinion on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Deborah K
> 
> ...


You posted that in reply to one of my earlier posts - and I already replied to it in post #101.




> and this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Deborah K
> 
> ...


Your personal liberties are NOT being "trifled with."

NONE of your rights have been violated if an employer does not hire or retain you as an employee if you use drugs "off the clock."

Companies who have such policies are NOT forcing anyone to do (or not do) anything.




> I was kind of hoping this topic wouldn't end up relegated to the ancap theory of Utopia, but since it has, I might add that in theory, I completely accept the ancap theory.


No has relegated this issue to "ancap theory" - in fact, in my previous post (#101), I explicitly stated that there is nothing in any of this that has anything in particular to do with ancap theory - or "privatizing everything" - or any such thing. The objections raised to using force in order to coerce companies into hiring or retaining employees they don't want to hire or retain are fully compatible with "minarch theory" - or "constitutional repbublic theory" - or whatever ...




> But in reality, I choose at times, to fight back within the existing framework because unlike many anarchists, I do NOT believe aiding and abetting a societal crash is the right way to handle the problem of our individual freedoms being incrementally taken away from us. And this is the main theme with anarchists.


I am not aware that "many anarchists" believe in "aiding and abetting a societal crash." (I certainly do not.)

I am sure that some do advocate such a thing - but I have seen just as many non-anarchists do the same.

"Societal crash" is no more or less the "main theme with anarchists" than it is with non-anarchists ...




> And as I've already stated, to just move on to another job is tantamount to people accepting corruption, and instead of confronting it, they cower to it, or just quit.  We really need to have the courage of our convictions, don't we?


There is no "corruption" here. There is only a policy with which you disagree. No one's rights are being violated.

I disagree with socialists, but I don't demand that they be coercively punished for exercising their right to believe as they do.
I disagree with blanket "no drugs" policies by employers, but I don't demand that they be coercively punished for exercising their right to implement such policies.




> As I already stated, to defend this as a company's rights over an individual's rights, compromises the principle of individual freedom, and overlooks the other avenues an employer can take that would NOT impede on a person's personal behavior during their off time.


No one is putting "a company's rights over an individual's rights." Individuals have the right to do what they want so long as they do not coerce or aggress against others - and so do companies. Individuals have the right to smoke pot off the clock, and companies have the right to fire them for doing so. Neither trumps the rights of the other. There is no conflict of rights here.

----------


## Deborah K

> We are just have to agree to disagree.  The company is not controlling another person's behavior, that person is voluntarily agreeing to control their OWN behavior.


In the case of someone whose behavior would otherwise be different, this person is voluntarily agreeing to allow the company to control their behavior in order to stay employed. Kinda like the way we all "allow" the government to steal money out of our paychecks.

Note that in this particular case, the MM law came into affect, long after the person was hired, and the reason for excluding MM users is premised on federal law, and not on "free association", etc.

----------


## Deborah K

Occam, I have to run and can't respond to all of your post.  But this comment is a non-sequitur: 




> The objections raised to using *force* in order to coerce companies into hiring or retaining employees they don't want to hire or retain are fully compatible with "minarch theory" - or "constitutional repbublic theory" - or whatever ...


First, you are equating law with "force" - that is an anarchistic POV.  And secondly, I've already stated companies have the right to hire and retain whom they chose.  My argument is that they don't have the right to dictate what an employee does on his off time.  This argument is becoming circular.

----------


## specsaregood

> My argument is that they don't have the right to dictate what an employee does on his off time.


Of course they don't have that right.  But they do have the right to fire you for doing it.

----------


## presence

> Where is this from?  I can't address this until it's put into context.


There is no context; I just fabricated it.

The point is people do things on their own time... sometimes those things reflect poorly on the people they associate and/or engage with.  

If we are to have freedom of association then there should not be a government authority forcing employers to engage with undesirable individuals as employees.  


If I don't like the way you smell... I should be able to fire you.   If I don't like your politics, I should be able to fire you.  If I don't like brown people, I should be able to fire you. If I do like brown people and I think you don't... I should be able to fire you.  

 If I don't like you, I should be able to fire you for WHATEVER reason.

----------


## presence

> First, *you are equating law with "force"* - that is an anarchistic POV.


Its certainly not "anarchist" its "classical liberal" aka libertarian. 




> We must remember that *law is force*, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.



*The Law*
_Frédéric Bastiat_




> *Claude Frédéric Bastiat* (French: [klod fʁedeʁik bastja]; 30 June 1801[1] – 24 December 1850) was a French classical liberal theorist, political economist, and member of the French assembly. He was notable for developing the important economic concept of opportunity cost, and for penning the influential _Parable of the Broken Window_. His ideas have gone on to provide a foundational basis for libertarian and the Austrian schools of thought.[1][2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat




> *Classical liberalism* is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism  in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the  individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy  emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in _laissez-faire_ economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. Its greatest expression as a political (as well as economic) philosophy in the 19th century was in the works of John Stuart Mill. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism





> *Law Is Force*
> 
>  Since the law organizes justice, *the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor,* education, and religion. 
> 
>  Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. 
> 
> _We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force._ 
> 
>  When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.


http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G029




There is no "justice" in requiring an employer to employ people he'd rather not associate with.

----------


## Deborah K

Sorry for the drive-by, but grand kids are coming over soon.   I think this crystallizes my views as far as employee vs. employer rights.

Just on principle alone, it seems inconsistent to proclaim that individual liberty is paramount, except in the case of employment.  Most cases, like this one, are not 'cut and dried' cases.  Which is why, when it comes to philosophical thinking (which I was hoping would not enter the argument  idiot that I am), we should strive to keep our moral compass pointed in the direction of individual liberty, even as employers.  When we become willing to compromise that principle, under the guise of, it's a free market, let them work somewhere else, we really don't have any moral ground to stand on, because let's face it, we _are_ compromising  It's not okay for the government to do it, but it's acceptable for the private sector to do it.  To that I say: Let the tyrants rule  in whatever form they may.  Because, no matter how you slice it, an employer dictating what an employee does off the clock is tyrannical, and it's a slippery slope.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> *Opponents*, your opinion on this?


Deborah, it's just a matter of rhetoric/style.  We are not your opponents.  Case in point: your "ally," presence, the only one who you feel understands you on this, has the exact same position on this issue as I, Occam's Banana, specsaregood, William Tell, etc., etc. have.  (William Tell, by the way, is no anarchist, by his own account.)  It's just that presence went to the effort of saying the right words to let you know and feel that he understands where you're coming from, and the rest of us didn't.  At least I didn't.

But I think that many, and perhaps all, of us actually do.  Understand, that is.

People don't like to be shoved around.  Told what to do.  Treated like someone else's property.  And that's how drug testing feels, no doubt about it.  It's as if the employer is saying "I own you.  I _not only_ own your time every workday (bad enough!), I own your body, I own your fluids, I own your recreational time, I own what you choose to do and to intake 24 hours a day."

And yeah, that's obnoxious.  People don't like being treated like that.  Like so much cattle.  Like just a cog in somebody's machine.  Like a wage-slave.

You might want to check out, by the way, a good book from a good author on the subject, and maybe your friend would, too:



You asked for a practical solution.  That's what you really want.  I don't know what advice could be more practical than my previous post, which you may have missed:

~~~




> I'd like to take this out of the realm of theory and ancap application, if you don't mind, and consider the issue  at hand.  What are the possible avenues that could be taken in order to preserve individual freedom?


 I do not think that this person's freedom is being taken away at all, whatsoever, period.  So the first, practical, real-world-application step is for this person to realize that.  He needs to take full responsibility and accountability for his life and his choices and not play any kind of blame game.  That is a trap.  An anti-freedom trap.  By being wrapped up in wanting this company to respect what he sees as his "rights," he is taking way his own freedom from himself, working himself into a box rather than being empowered and liberated.  These are "rights" that we both have agreed do not even exist -- just as you and I both said, "They don't have the 'right' to work there." -- but even if they did exist, pining for them, blaming the company for violating them, being upset at them for being wrong, is unproductive.  It's a trap.

So step one is to stop blaming and start self-empowering.  Have an attitude of empowerment, not of whining and petitioning.

Step two is for this person to ask himself what *he* can do to achieve his goals in life.  Not what This Company I Hate should do, what *he* can do.  He can only control the actions of one (1) person in all this great, wide Universe: Himself.  He should do so.  Control himself.  Chances are very good, for instance, that there is some way to conceal his drug use from the company if his goal is to continue working there and at the same time to use marijuana.  If he applies his mental energies to that problem, he will find a solution much quicker, much more effectively, and much easier than some misguided attempt to force the hated company to bend to his will.

How's that for practical?

~~~

So, you and your friend can waste -- WASTE! -- years of your life and thousands of your dollars pursuing the legal avenues that presence has mentioned and jmdrake has alluded to, but I personally think that would be profoundly stupid.  Just conceal his drug use from the company.  That's it!  It's not that difficult.  If he is not smart enough nor motivated enough to figure out how to do that, then believe me he is nowhere near smart enough nor motivated enough to have a chance at winning a protracted legal battle against this company.

----------


## tod evans

> So, you're of the opinion that the company has a right to the person's blood and urine?


Absolutely not...

But.....................If you hire on under the clause that drug testing is a term of employment then that's the breaks.

I don't believe in drug or drink testing my employees, what kind of work they deliver is what matters to me, but other folks are different..

I won't ever accept work that requires any more than proficiency for the task at hand but I'm pretty good in my trade and am not forced to deal with idiots........

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Occam, I have to run and can't respond to all of your post.  But this comment is a non-sequitur: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The objections raised to using *force* in order to coerce companies  into hiring or retaining employees they don't want to hire or retain  are fully compatible with "minarch theory" - or "constitutional  repbublic theory" - or whatever ...


That comment is not a _non sequitur_ - _non sequitur_ means "it does not follow." What "does not follow" in what I said? I said that objecting to forcing companies to hire or retain employees they don't want to hire or retain is entirely compatible with various forms of non-anarchism. And it is. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that there are many  non-anarchists who do so object (specsaregood is a perfect  example from this very thread). IOW: What I said very much does "follow" ...




> First, you are equating law with "force" - that is an anarchistic POV.


Actually, it is not - "equating law with 'force'" is no more "an anarchistic POV" than the proposition "2 plus 2 equals 4" is. That is to say, it is indeed "an anarchistic POV" - but it is just as much "a minarchistic POV" too (if not moreso). IOW: There is nothing particularly "anarchistic" about it  ... [EDIT: With respect to this, see the excellent post #104 by presence above (for which I owe him some rep).]

As a "minarchist" who apparently does not wish to "equate law with force," how do you propose to prevent companies from refusing to hire or retain employees who use drugs "off the clock" without using force against them (or credibly threatening to do so)? IOW: If you think that companies should be prohibited from terminating  the employment of "off the clock" drug users, how can you enact this prohibition without the use (or threat of the use) of force?




> And secondly, I've already stated companies have the right to hire and retain whom they chose.  My argument is that they don't have the right to dictate what an employee does on his off time.  This argument is becoming circular.


If you wish to legally (i.e., forcibly) prohibit employers from making employment with them contingent upon not smoking pot "off the clock," then you ARE in fact denying that companies have the right to hire and retain whom they choose. You can't have it both ways.

Employers should not have any rightful authority or power to coercively prevent people from doing whatever they want to do on their off time. If you want to smoke pot "off the clock" then you may do so and your employer cannot and should not be permitted to forcibly prevent you from doing so. Likewise, you cannot and should not be permitted to forcibly prevent your employer from firing you. Again, there is NO conflict of rights here. Your right to smoke pot "off the clock" does not trump your employer's right to fire you, and your employer's right to fire you does not trump your right to smoke pot "off the clock" ...

----------


## presence

> no matter how you slice it, an employer dictating what an employee does off the clock is tyrannical, and it's a slippery slope.


...which brings me back here:




> *Help Wanted:*
> _
> Provide Clean Blood Samples
> Operate This Equipment_


Who have I harmed?  
Who have I plundered?
Where is the injustice? 
Why should there be a law? 


Why does there need to be a jackbooted government thug telling me I can't offer such a position?


Its only an offer.   Anyone and everyone is free to tell me no.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Absolutely not...
> 
> But.....................If you hire on under the clause that drug testing is a term of employment then that's the breaks.
> 
> I don't believe in drug or drink testing my employees, what kind of work they deliver is what matters to me, but other folks are different..
> 
> I won't ever accept work that requires any more than proficiency for the task at hand but I'm pretty good in my trade and am not forced to deal with idiots........


This is an important point.  Note that Tod owns a business, but in the last sentence, I believe, he isn't talking about hiring an employee. Rather he is talking about a costumer hiring his business services. It's no different than if I hire the service of a Cellular phone provider. If the cellular provider does something that i find appalling, like donate to another Romney campaign, should I be forced to continue hiring their services?  Customers have the advantage of not buying a good or service and instead shopping elsewhere. The fact is, employees are selling their services and employers are their costumers.

----------


## angelatc

> I'd like to take this out of the realm of theory and ancap application, if you don't mind, and consider the issue  at hand.  What are the possible avenues that could be taken in order to preserve individual freedom? .


The person who runs the company has the right to hire and fire anybody for any reason.

----------


## angelatc

> In the case of someone whose behavior would otherwise be different, this person is voluntarily agreeing to allow the company to control their behavior in order to stay employed.



 Employers do that pretty routinely, actually. I'd like to have a job that would let me start about 11:00 a.m.  But so far, no luck.

And while one person might decide that giving up the urine and blood is worth the compensation that he or she is seeking, another might not and will choose employment elsewhere.  That's sort of how free markets work.  We all have a price.  Just not the same price.

----------


## Tod

When is it the responsibility of people to stand up to an employer who wants no MJ users in the workplace and say, no, I won't let you hire me because I disagree with your policy.

The whole....."they should be forced to hire me"......position requires the belief that the corporation is the victimizer and the potential employee is the victim.  But what if the role was reversed and the potential employees stood together and refused to work for the corporation.....the corporation could take the position that the pool of potential employees was victimizing the company by not recognizing the company's wish for an MJ free workplace (depriving the company of employees).

Why not just accept that a mutual voluntary agreement is not achievable and move on to the next potential agreement?

"But what if all the employers take this position?"  Then start your own company, create your own job!  Companies are not our parents with an obligation to provide jobs for us.  Too many people seem to view them that way, and that means the people assume a subservient role, placing themselves under the "care and feeding" of their parental figure, the company.  Companies should find it really hard to find an employee because people should be very skeptical of an arrangement where your boss can tell you what you can or cannot do whether it affects the actual job performance.  To accept such a position is a very high cost and the company _should_ have to pay a LOT in compensation.  But, many people, rather than valuing their freedom, toss it away like a cheap whore and then whine to the pimp (government) afterwards about how the john was driving too hard a bargain.

Most of my working life was as an employee.  I've been self-employed now for a full 7 years.  It would take a lot for me to become an employee again.



edit:  as an aside, this made me think also of how so many people love to complain about companies like Walmart.  They complain about how Walmart places too many demands on its suppliers, how it drives businesses out to become the only game in town, which hurts small towns.  The solution always seems to be to use the force of government to try to outlaw that sort of store.  How come their solution is not to outlaw people from shopping there?  Simple, because a lot of people WANT to shop there and are willing to cut their own local business diversity's throat for the savings of a few pennies on some "unnecessary plastic objects" (to steal a phrase from Nanci Griffith) and then also want complain about the loss of business without taking responsibility for their own role in its demise.  Walmart wouldn't even exist if people refused to shop there....no need to use the force of government.

----------


## amy31416

With certain jobs, you have to have certain standards. In an aseptic suite where very expensive diagnostic materials were put into tubes, vials, etc--I had to do some invasive testing of each person hired to work in there. For one--weight. The facilities just would not fit an obese person, nor would they be adept enough to put on the "bunny" suit without contaminating the crap out of everything. Another was smoking. Smoking causes a person to shed more particulate in their breath, as do other things. Bathing--essentially, we only hired females for the suite because women exfoliate and tend to keep themselves cleaner. Black women--mostly black women because their hair isn't generally loose and doesn't fall out as easily (braids were perfect.) No long fingernails (punctures gloves--contamination risk.) No slobs (I had to size people up for cleanliness in general, surreptitiously checking out whether their ears/neck were clean, breath wasn't rank, didn't have strange odors, etc.)

Hell, they were even required to report if they had any sort of STD, yeast infection, etc. If we had another outside position, then they'd go there until everything cleared. And most of these things are the result of things people did on their own time. I had one guy pissed at me because I wouldn't allow him in--he had horses, his fingernails were dirty and I could tell that his boots were likely the same ones he wore into his barn. Another woman was seriously angry with me because I had to give her microbiology testing on her skin (swabs and stuff), and it matched up with the contamination that we were seeing in the product. It cost the company more than 100k before I started doing the testing. Holy $#@!, she was offended. I had to get her out of there, and she'd been working in there a long time.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess we just see it two different ways.  I ask the fundamentally reverse question: if an employee can dictate what his employer must tolerate in terms of employee behavior (on or off the job), where does *that* end?


Indeed.  Should churches who fire pastors who engage in sexual immorality be punished for doing that if he did it "on his own time"?  Its up to the employer, period.  The whining about "ancap theory" is ridiculous.  Basically its saying "discuss this issue without talking about principles."

oh, and I don't see what's ridiculous about "private security firms" either.

----------


## Deborah K

Well, I knew this topic would go off into different tangents and blanket statements about the employer's rights, so ONCE AGAIN I reiterate, I have no argument about employers having the right to hire and fire whom they choose.  And ONCE AGAIN I reiterate, not all situations that involve employees' rights to do what they want with their own bodies on their own time is so cut-and-dried as the theorists try to make it.  Using examples like priests molesting children on their own time is a ridiculous comparison to someone who might need an  MM card in order to get alternative cancer treatment.  So, if this debate is going to stay based in reality, I would appreciate it if, when you respond, you keep that in mind.

This also is not a "free association" issue.  Employers have the responsibility of due process when they hire someone.  If the applicant proves to be an unsavory character, the employer will not hire them in the first place.  And,  I do agree that if an employee is engaging in activity (on his own time) that is illegal and immoral, *and* _reflects badly on the company_, the company has a right to deal with the employee as they see fit.  This is NOT the issue though.

This is also not an issue of an employer using the temporary services of a subcontractor.  Naturally, if they don't know the subcontractor's employees, they have a right to vet in whatever fashion they choose, and the subcontractor has the right to accept or refuse the terms.

And this isn't an issue of someone having the right to be intoxicated while on the job.  Of course an employer has the right to terminate in that situation. 

It is NOT cut-and-dried.  You can't just make blanket statements about employers' rights over employees' rights and use the free market as a justification - not in this instance anyway.  In theory, perhaps, but not in the real world.  

*The issue at hand, is a nationwide company refusing to acknowledge a state law that allows patients with MM cards to use cannabis medicinally*. It has NOTHING to do with potential scammer potheads who would attempt to abuse the law, or anything else!  It's about exploring different avenues to challenge the company - ideally, legally.

Now, I know that tactic doesn't sit well with a lot of people, especially the ancaps.  But, I am of the opinion that _one_ way to fight back when dealing with mega-corporations and corporations in general, when they threaten an individual's liberty, is to beat them at their own game, using existing laws against them. Which is why I appreciated the efforts of Presence.  He understood where I was coming from immediately.  He didn't try to engage in a debate about theory.   You may not agree with my tactic, but don't pigeon-hole me by assuming I believe employers should be forced (lol) to allow employees to run all over them.  It's insulting.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> How's that for practical?


 I think this may have come off as in-your-face and rude, like "how do you like _that_, huh?" which was not my intention.  I just meant to be saying "look, this is super-practical!"

I seriously do think that the advice I gave is very practical, and probably the most practical of any suggestion.  *Just come up with a way to conceal the drug use from the company.*

To elaborate a little more, you said this company has 30,000 employees.  Surely in that crowd of 30,000 there are many marijuana users.  _Discreetly_ asking around, finding other fellow users, would let your friend get real-life advice of what to do and how to do it, from those who clearly have and are *succeeding* in *doing exactly what he wants to do*.

Yes, it's satisfying to be able to "beat them at their own game" as you put it.  But what that satisfaction is is the feeling of making someone else bend to your will.  It can feel good, yes, but:

a) I disagree with it.  You don't care about that, but just putting it out there as a note.  And:
b) It is a highly, highly ineffective and problematic and wasteful method of dealing with others.  It will lead to unintended consequences.  It can consume your life.  It's a wrong path.  It's an impractical path.  It's a stupid path.  I cannot discourage you from this path strongly enough.  And that would be true even if a) weren't the case, even if I agreed with you in principle.  For example, if the company was doing something really aggressing against the employees in a libertarian sense, like if they were not only firing the drug test flunkers but turning them in to the feds to have their doors kicked in and be taken to prison.  That would be horrible, and I would no longer disagree with you and say they were within their rights to do it.  But in that case I would still advice that concealment or disassociation (finding a new job) would be two good strategies.

You and your friend ought to take a step back and ask what you're trying to accomplish.  Are you trying to stop your friend's "rights" (or whatever you want to call it) from being violated?  If so: follow my advice.  Or are you trying to "stick it to 'em!" and "make 'em pay!"  If _that_ is your goal, I think that you need to seriously rethink your priorities.  Because it that's your goal, nothing can save you.  No advice, however good, can save you.  Your project is doomed.

----------


## jmdrake

> The issue at hand, is a nationwide company refusing to acknowledge a state law that allows patients with MM cards to use cannabis medicinally. It has NOTHING to do with potential scammer potheads who would attempt to abuse the law, or anything else! It's about exploring different avenues to challenge the company - ideally, legally.


Yeah.  I get it.  Which brings me back to "What about the risks of losing in federal court?"  If the Supreme Court takes the case then says the California statute is null and void due to the supremacy clause, then what?  And I ask this question because I don't know.  I think the city should be pressured to bar any company that discriminates against medical marijuana patients from doing business with the city.  If that fails, then maybe try a lawsuit.  But be mindful of the risks.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> *The issue at hand, is a nationwide company refusing to acknowledge a state law that allows patients with MM cards to use cannabis medicinally*.


Don't you just hate it when we put our fingers in our ears and sing _nanny nanny boo boo, we can't hear you_? We always want to avoid the more critical terms of contoversy, we do. Heh. Ah well.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Here's an additional practical tip:

I encountered today at the One Dollar Store a marijuana home test kit.  It can be picked up for the low, low price of (surprise!) one dollar!!  Have your friend buy ten of them and experiment for the same cost as .0000000001 hours of legal consultation.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Deborah, did you and your friend solve his problem?

As you said:



> Well, I knew this topic would go off into different tangents and blanket statements about the employer's rights, so ONCE AGAIN I reiterate, I have no argument about employers having the right to hire and fire whom they choose.  And ONCE AGAIN I reiterate, not all situations that involve employees' rights to do what they want with their own bodies on their own time is so cut-and-dried as the theorists try to make it.
> ...
> This also is not a "free association" issue.
> ...
> This is also not an issue of an employer using the temporary services of a subcontractor.
> ...
> And this isn't an issue of someone having the right to be intoxicated while on the job.  Of course an employer has the right to terminate in that situation.


That's all the things that are _not_ the issue.  As I understand it, the thing that _is_ the issue is: your friend should be able to work for this company and continue to use cannabis.

That's the goal, right?  Achieve that goal, and victory is declared, right?

Regardless of the tangents and theories, that's the bottom line, right?  Whether our theories (or yours!) are right or wrong, who cares, it doesn't matter to that.

Was my or anyone else's advice helpful?  Was the goal achieved?

----------

