Employers Can Fire You For Using Marijuana, But Brandon Coats' Case Could Change Everything

[kcchiefs6465]

I just find it hard to believe that the same doctor who will write a prescription to a sick person (or "recommendation," or whatevertf they call it) to smoke a tarry plant would not write a Marinol scrip to get the patient the same medicine for the same symptoms with no harmful effects from the smoke.

But then, at that point all you need is the piece of paper - it'd be FDA and DEA approved permission to piss hot for THC.

You'd be surprised. It's like trying to fill a prescription of Oxycontin IR 30's vs. Oxycontin 80's.

I was talking to a pharmacy technician and she mentioned that Oxycontin IR 30's is the one drug that their pharmacy will not fill. There is too much of a hassle involved in it. Apparently the guy whose prescription she denied to fill mentioned after that he'd been to about 10 different pharmacies and not one of them would fill it. I'm not sure of the specific process involved, but apparently there are more hoops to jump through and the pills more heavily monitored.

With regards to the doctor, if they wrote Marinol prescriptions like they did medicinal cannabis recommendations, they'd be indicted with their names slandered in every newspaper across the country. I doubt, really, that it's even an unwritten rule. It's probably codified in regulations somewhere, about the amount of certain drugs they can prescribe in a given period. And as well, they don't want to draw attention to themselves from the DEA. If most doctors prescribed X amount of Marinol (virtually none) and then a flood of prescriptions started coming in from an area from one doctor no less, they'd set up a sting. They'd have an agent go in and subtly imply that they do not really need the drug or that they are an addict. The doctor would soon be indicted thereafter. And for the ones that do not go for their antics, they are harassed and ran out of practice/eventually indicted for something. It's a shame, but it's the truth. These cocksuckers are fascists. They have destroyed the doctor/patient relationship to such a degree that doctors are suspicious of their patients and patients can't get the medicine they need.

Of all the things that annoy me on a given basis, this one probably takes the cake.

 

[MRK]

Getting sued for firing a THC positive employee.

And we wonder why costs are going up?

 

[LadyBastiat]

Ya technically you are correct however I feel like companies do it as a matter of decades old, cob webbed filled policy and the policies won't change until lawsuits are filed. Then the insurance companies will change their tune. Although any protections people receive from other prescription drugs should probably be applied equally to cannabis until those laws can be repealed.

If this was a mom n pop shop or if if the guy who fired him was actually the owner of the company rather than a bunch of corporate non-sense then I might say strategy wise it would be better to attack it from the corporate angle than a mom n pop shop guy.

Knowing what little I know about Worker's Comp. Insurance and CPP/CGL policies in general, the employer is probably required by their insurance company to do drug testing and to take action when there are positive results. There is a wholly complex system that is going to have to be completely dismantled before "pot" ever becomes truly "legal". The fact that it is the least harmless of the "recreational" drugs and that it remains in your system the longest (not to mention also the least intoxicating, alcohol included - yes I know from "experience") is nothing short of dysfunctional irony. Since he worked for a cable company they have a fleet that works in the field, driving company autos and performing dangerous tasks. Someone needs to come up with technology for inexpensively determining whether marijuana is "in" your system or residual from private use. (Is that even possible?)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Wait...wut? So, if you like to hang out in titty bars in your off time - you think your religious boss has a right to fire you over it???

Yes. Bosses can fire whoever they want over whatever they want. Is this news to you...?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I draw the line on #2 at employers dictating what their employees do on their own time, as long as it has no effect on the employer's business. The problem with random drug testing is that THC hangs out for a while in the blood, and firing someone who isn't using it on the job, and isn't high, is just bullshit.

So, do you think a religious employer has the right to fire an employee who goes to titty bars on his own time?

So, effectively what you're saying is that you have a right to work for your employer?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

No, you are different because

1) You actually own something, as opposed to the government, which just steals it
2) You are not threatening violence like the government, just suspension of employment

I find it hard to believe you've been here all this time and yet you don't understand the simple difference between a private employer and the government.

 

[jonhowe]

I recently was a participant in a drug study at a major University which had me taking Marinol (in high doses) and being scanned in an MRI. The marinol, it turns out, what tested mainly to compare it to my scans while under the effects of MDMA, but it did allow me the opportunity to experience its effects.

As a cannabis user (usually in the form of baked goods; I have bad enough lungs as it is), I found the effects of the marinol quite different. I was certainly high, but it was not in a way that I'd do for fun. I was relaxed, a little giddy, and had an intense body high. But again, it wasn't very "fun" or introspective. And I was given several times the normal prescribed dose. It's just stupid that the medical profession is forced to make a drug like this, which has few and minor side effects, so much harder for doctors to deal with than something horrible like vicodin.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Good.

Hope this fellow wins.

Indentured servitude is an idea best left buried in the past.

 

[jonhowe]

Good.

Hope this fellow wins.

Indentured servitude is an idea best left buried in the past.

You look different.

 

[matt0611]

Wait...wut? So, if you like to hang out in titty bars in your off time - you think your religious boss has a right to fire you over it???

Unless it violates a contract between the employee and the employer. An employer should be able to end someone's employment for ANY reason.

It's an at will relationship that can be ended at any time by either party.

 

[pcosmar]

Unless it violates a contract between the employee and the employer. An employer should be able to end someone's employment for ANY reason.

It's an at will relationship that can be ended at any time by either party.

While I would agree with this in principle,, Piss testing is inherently a violation of a persons privacy.
And it is and never was the "employers" decision. it was mandated by Insurance companies in collusion with government.

It was a bad policy started a few decades ago,, and is now commonplace.

What you do in your private life is no business of any employer.
If it were an actual Job performance issue,, then it is the employers prerogative.

HOWEVER, in this case,, as in others, the employee was an exemplary employee.. fired for no reason other than use of a substance (for medical reasons) in his private life.

Drug testing is the question,, and it needs to end.
If that takes suing employers to make them stop,, fine.

 

[belian78]

why doesn't a business owner have the right to fire any one he damn well pleases? does an employee have a "right" to his job?

if I am the owner, and I don't like your behavior or your moral values, it's not unreasonable to think you might bring those to my workplace.

you're fired.

The only caveat I would add to this is *behavior at work and *moral values if brought to work. If I like red sports drinks and my boss doesn't, as long as I don't bring them to work or talk about them at work, it's should be of no concern to him or his company.

 

[Jamesiv1]

The only caveat I would add to this is *behavior at work and *moral values if brought to work. If I like red sports drinks and my boss doesn't, as long as I don't bring them to work or talk about them at work, it's should be of no concern to him or his company.

that's all fine, and I totally get your point. But I still say a business owner should be able to fire anyone he pleases - anybody, at any time.

if he's being a prick about it, word will get around and people won't want to work for him.

 

[willwash]

You'd be surprised. It's like trying to fill a prescription of Oxycontin IR 30's vs. Oxycontin 80's.

I was talking to a pharmacy technician and she mentioned that Oxycontin IR 30's is the one drug that their pharmacy will not fill. There is too much of a hassle involved in it. Apparently the guy whose prescription she denied to fill mentioned after that he'd been to about 10 different pharmacies and not one of them would fill it. I'm not sure of the specific process involved, but apparently there are more hoops to jump through and the pills more heavily monitored.

With regards to the doctor, if they wrote Marinol prescriptions like they did medicinal cannabis recommendations, they'd be indicted with their names slandered in every newspaper across the country. I doubt, really, that it's even an unwritten rule. It's probably codified in regulations somewhere, about the amount of certain drugs they can prescribe in a given period. And as well, they don't want to draw attention to themselves from the DEA. If most doctors prescribed X amount of Marinol (virtually none) and then a flood of prescriptions started coming in from an area from one doctor no less, they'd set up a sting. They'd have an agent go in and subtly imply that they do not really need the drug or that they are an addict. The doctor would soon be indicted thereafter. And for the ones that do not go for their antics, they are harassed and ran out of practice/eventually indicted for something. It's a shame, but it's the truth. These cocksuckers are fascists. They have destroyed the doctor/patient relationship to such a degree that doctors are suspicious of their patients and patients can't get the medicine they need.

Of all the things that annoy me on a given basis, this one probably takes the cake.

I'm trying to imagine this situation in my head (I grant I'm not in a medical MJ state but still let's pretend I live in California)...

Me: Doctor, I'm in pain, I have condition X
Doc: Well, marijuana might prove to be a good treatment for your condition. The therapeutic effects of THC blah blah blah...
Me: Really? Well, OK, you're the doctor. But I'm pretty wary of the harmful side effects of smoking. I like my healthy lungs.
Doc: That's OK, medical marijuana dispensaries sell hash brownies too! As long as you have my recommendation you can get whatever.
Me: Yeah, but I still want to know exactly what I'm putting into my body and exactly how much of it. Isn't there a THC prescription pill?
Doc: Well, er, you see, it's OK if I write something up so you can smoke it and fill your lungs with tar, it's OK if I recommend that you eat it and not know precisely how much THC you're administering to yourself, but if I write you a prescription for Marinol I'll lose my license to practice medicine. So your options are smoke it, eat it, or suffer.

If I were a MM patient I would sue my doctor for malpractice if he didn't write me a prescription for Marinol if I asked for it (assuming he was willing to write me one for MJ proper).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Good.

Hope this fellow wins.

Indentured servitude is an idea best left buried in the past.

I would ask you if you know what indentured servitude is, and that this is not it, but I think I must be missing the point.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm trying to imagine this situation in my head (I grant I'm not in a medical MJ state but still let's pretend I live in California)...

Me: Doctor, I'm in pain, I have condition X
Doc: Well, marijuana might prove to be a good treatment for your condition. The therapeutic effects of THC blah blah blah...
Me: Really? Well, OK, you're the doctor. But I'm pretty wary of the harmful side effects of smoking. I like my healthy lungs.
Doc: That's OK, medical marijuana dispensaries sell hash brownies too! As long as you have my recommendation you can get whatever.
Me: Yeah, but I still want to know exactly what I'm putting into my body and exactly how much of it. Isn't there a THC prescription pill?
Doc: Well, er, you see, it's OK if I write something up so you can smoke it and fill your lungs with tar, it's OK if I recommend that you eat it and not know precisely how much THC you're administering to yourself, but if I write you a prescription for Marinol I'll lose my license to practice medicine. So your options are smoke it, eat it, or suffer.

If I were a MM patient I would sue my doctor for malpractice if he didn't write me a prescription for Marinol if I asked for it (assuming he was willing to write me one for MJ proper).

*sigh*

Every medicine has to be a pill... There's no such thing as knowing how to take your own medicine. Even drug dealers know what they're doing when they take drugs that are not in pill form.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You look different.

LOL - Went for the Quint look.

Fits me better.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I would ask you if you know what indentured servitude is, and that this is not it, but I think I must be missing the point.

When the only legitimate sources of earning a living snoop and pry and dictate your private affairs like this, yes, it is precisely a polite form of indentured servitide.

And don't lecture me about property rights.

Corporations are not people, and only people have rights.

Under the current system we live under "moral hazard" is not an effective check against such abuses, any more than lawsuits are an effective check against out of control cops, because the writers and enforcers of such policies are shielded from the bad decisions they make.

 

[Deborah K]

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

And if you set those rules out during the interview and make sure they know that's the policy, then I'd say you have that right. After the fact - you don't.

 

[Deborah K]

Then I wouldnt work for you if you insist on the authority to tell me what I can and can not do while not at work. Very simple free market solution.

The problem is, when the gov't controls the economy, people lose their options for work and become compliant just to get a paycheck. And this is the rub - if people aren't going to stand up to their government when it becomes tyrannical, what makes anyone think they'll do it with tyrannical companies?