Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Synasaur t1_jd4le89 wrote

Reply to comment by Deprecitus in WA House Committee Votes to Protect Marijuana Users From Discrimination When Job Hunting by GivenAllTheFucksSry

Assuming someone has “negative effects” because they use drugs is kinda shitty.

11

TazerLazer t1_jd4wnom wrote

People are impaired when they take mind altering substances. An employer can fire you for coming into work drunk, and I don't see why coming in to work high should be any different. That being said, I do think it's a bit silly for an employer to weight being a weed user any differently than being a drinker. But... it's not like employers don't take drinking habits into account when making hiring decisions. If you tell your employer about how you like to party on the weekend and get smashed all the time, they are well within their right to not offer you the job. I'm not sure why they should be required to treat alternate drug use differently.

1

Synasaur t1_jd5463f wrote

Drug tests show positive even when the person isn’t impaired is the problem. What you do outside of work, on private property, is not any of your employees business.

7

shponglespore t1_jd6mh18 wrote

For one thing it's different because there is absolutely no test that can determine whether an individual is high.

0

Deprecitus t1_jd4s7rb wrote

Any form of impairment can negatively affect a job. Depending on the job, it could be more or less severe.

0

juiceboxzero t1_jd4xu61 wrote

The operative word here is "can", as opposed to "does". If their job performance actually does suffer, then fire them for substandard performance. The reason their performance is substandard isn't relevant. Measure performance and manage people accordingly.

12

Synasaur t1_jd53zgm wrote

Not only that, but drug tests show positive even when the person isn’t actively impaired.

5