Marijuana on the job

[Streetcar]

Sooner or later some of these intolerant companies will begin to be slapped into the 21st century under ADA complaints.


I don't, I haven't and I likely never will. I rarely take anything at all other than a Lortab or two just after a dental extraction. They prescribe enough for 3-5 days, I take less than two days usually and I end up with leftovers that probably go bad. I don't even like OTC pills unless I have a really bad headache or strain something while working in the yard.

But for people that have a legitimate medical need and are under a doctor's care, ADA should prevail over company rules.

Diggin
Safety rules do not need to comply with all ada requirements

 

[Diggin It]

But they're not always safety rules. In the Echostar case, the disabled employee was in some type of clerk position, not dealing with machinery at all. The case a few posts above was a white collar bank employee, no machinery or safety issues.

 

[RandyT]

The Flu Vaccine is at best an educated guess... some years effective and others not so much.

Other Vaccines are often spot on... no guessing about it.

I do find it odd that vaccine manufacturers have almost de-facto immunity from lawsuits and the government fund to cover injuries has paid out millions...

A cornerstone of medical treatment in the United States is informed consent... yet when it comes to vaccines it seems to be a non issue.

Case in point... I had been on the job for 25 years as Hospital Director of Engineering prior to my small community based/owned facility being bought by a large 100,000 employee Hospital Giant.

As part of the on-boarding... we all were sent to Occupational Medical Clinics for pre employment... it was a horrible experience and varied widely depending on where you were sent...

As directed I brought in a my full childhood and adult vaccination records... the provider said these are really old and told me to roll up my sleeve as they would administer the full series now... I said wait a minute... then I was told not to worry as my employer would be picking up the full cost... like this was even part of my decision process.

I flatly refused since I provided ALL information as requested... then it got interesting... I was told that this might mean my employment would end at take over... I said understood and reiterated my position and stressed I do not give my consent...

Well this went all the way to corp and I was called in to speak with HR... mind you I had 25 years of work history... NEVER a sick day, NEVER an absence and exemplary in every way...

The individual for the entire organization came back and asked if I would consent to a Titer and I said yes... this is where blood is drawn to check for antibodies...

The Titer came back and I was fine... my records matched the Titer results which I fully expected.

Others were actually upset they were not offered Titer testing... I said did you ask or simply go along with the program??? these are RN for the most part and Administrators.

Here is the dirty secret... it is cheaper to simply dose everyone than do individual Titers...

I am an individual... I take very good care of myself... my record proves this and they came very close to losing me... which would have simply meant early retirement...

I do have a real problem when the masses move in lockstep simply because a clinic Medical Assistant or PA says jump.

If you really dig into the information things get really scary. Actually the vaccine court has paid out $4B dollars and counting. There are 58,000 adverse reactions reported to VAERS every year, but they claim that only about 1% are being reported. Or administering one day old infants a vaccine for Hep B which can only be transmitted through an infected mother, or intravenous drug use or unprotected sex. Or normal drug goes through a about 5 year safety study with a placebo group, but a vaccine is 2-4 day study with no placebo group, or the placebo is another vaccine or they use the adjuvants that are in the vaccine as the placebo. Then say doing a vaccine safety study is unethical.

 

[daugen]

this is what happens when safety and medical issues get politicized. Facts go out the window and
agendas come rushing in.

Faith and politics should stay out of this issue. And calling anyone who uses pot a stoner just shows a lack of knowledge
about its effect on your body. Is anyone who drinks one beer a drunk? No....but now we start labeling people and folks sure
do love their labels. Makes them feel superior to others in many cases. It's why I refuse to go into Unfriendly Politics any more, making it wonderful to be able to discuss this intelligently here.

Most of us have zero problems with a person driving a car after having one beer, or one glass of wine. But many have a problem with someone
smoking any amount of pot before driving or doing much of anything else. The problem is we don't have a way to quantify how high someone is.
Dilated red eyes, yeah. I wonder what the HR policies of the big IT companies like Microsoft or Apple are. Some think getting a little high makes one more creative. Like having a cup of coffee. Let's not start outlawing coffee now... though we all have seen drivers in the morning who look like they've had six cups of coffee and are maniacs behind the wheel, tailgating, weaving, etc. The guys who have smoked anything are likely to be over in the right lane on cruise. Just not an aggressive bunch and I've read that time and time again.

We get paid to do our jobs well and be sober while we do them. What we do at home on Sat night is our business.
But part of our pay is agreeing to be sober on the job. Or not overly medicated in some way.
We owe that to our employer and we owe that to our other employees.

Folks who smoke or drink before going to work most likely need professional help.
So many folks are addicted to something. Around me it's opioids and meth. Talk about life wreckers.
Pot I honestly worry less about, but keep it out of the hands of kids.
This is your brain on marijuana is a video that has a bazillion hits, glad folks are reading that.

I did my best to hire local teenagers on my farm to help them out. What a joke. Two left after one day of hard work, same work I was doing alongside them. They had no experience with hard work and they sure didn't like it. But then I was raised on a farm.... Other two had drug problems, resulting in no shows and bad performance. One kid weedeated a solid inch of dirt over a hundred feet long alongside my paved driveway, ripped up every bit of grass. When I asked him why he did that, his reply
was oh. That was his last day. Another kid I found leaning on his weedeater, just staring into the woods. I watched him for more than five minutes and he never moved. I cannot have folks under the influence operating my machinery. They get hurt, I get sued.

If it has nothing to do with safety or job performance, I think some intelligent slack should be given. We have to live in a real world, not
an ideal world.

 

[atsah]

My vet gave me Tramadol for my German Shepherd, he had degenerative myelopathy and it did wonders for him. They were pretty surprised when I returned the half bottle back to them after he died..

 

[ultrarunner]

If you really dig into the information things get really scary. Actually the vaccine court has paid out $4B dollars and counting. There are 58,000 adverse reactions reported to VAERS every year, but they claim that only about 1% are being reported. Or administering one day old infants a vaccine for Hep B which can only be transmitted through an infected mother, or intravenous drug use or unprotected sex. Or normal drug goes through a about 5 year safety study with a placebo group, but a vaccine is 2-4 day study with no placebo group, or the placebo is another vaccine or they use the adjuvants that are in the vaccine as the placebo. Then say doing a vaccine safety study is unethical.

It is exactly as you say.

 

[Tractor Seabee]

Sooner or later some of these intolerant companies will begin to be slapped into the 21st century under ADA complaints.


I don't, I haven't and I likely never will. I rarely take anything at all other than a Lortab or two just after a dental extraction. They prescribe enough for 3-5 days, I take less than two days usually and I end up with leftovers that probably go bad. I don't even like OTC pills unless I have a really bad headache or strain something while working in the yard.

But for people that have a legitimate medical need and are under a doctor's care, ADA should prevail over company rules.

Whether you believe in all the safety rules or not it makes no difference as Safety is the law and enforced by the Justice Department same as ADA. Safety rules have to be broad and cover all people and all situations and eliminate any waivers. It was mentioned that the case in question was an office environment. So, we ignore the MJ rules, the office worker stumbles on the stairs, rolls down and knocks over 3 people, they all roll down, one gets a concussion and dies. The perpetrator tests positive. Who is at fault? Who gets sued? Naturally the business owner who allowed the person on the premises. Rest my case!

Ron

 

[atsah]

Diggin
Safety rules do not need to comply with all ada requirements

True.

 

[atsah]

Sooner or later some of these intolerant companies will begin to be slapped into the 21st century under ADA complaints.


I don't, I haven't and I likely never will. I rarely take anything at all other than a Lortab or two just after a dental extraction. They prescribe enough for 3-5 days, I take less than two days usually and I end up with leftovers that probably go bad. I don't even like OTC pills unless I have a really bad headache or strain something while working in the yard.

But for people that have a legitimate medical need and are under a doctor's care, ADA should prevail over company rules.

What does ADA have to do with an employee going to work impaired?

Please, ADA is for people that actually have a disability.. ADA was put in place to protect people that needed reasonable accommodations to perform a job, it was not put in place to protect people that can't go without a drug that impairs the persons ability to complete a job.

 

[Streetcar]

What does ADA have to do with an employee going to work impaired?

Please, ADA is for people that actually have a disability.. ADA was put in place to protect people that needed reasonable accommodations to perform a job, it was not put in place to protect people that can't go without a drug that impairs the persons ability to complete a job.

Diggin is claiming that person is using mj because of disability.