I used to work for a place in NH that required drug testing to be hired and they simply didn't test for marijuana. It wasn't even legal in NH but it was in every bordering state and Canada so they realized it was pretty dumb to enforce.

Just because it's covered doesn't mean it's based on science. Health insurance companies cover plenty of alternative "medicines". Not because they work but because their customers want them.

30% of Americans drink every day

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think-you-drink-a-lot-this-chart-will-tell-you/

You don't know a representative sample

30% of Americans drink every day

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think-you-drink-a-lot-this-chart-will-tell-you/

>mittee Votes to Protect Marijuana Users From Discrimination When Job Hunting

​

That would be the quickest, easiest way to deal with the hiring part but it doesn't address the problem of when there is some kind of accident at work does the employee get fired when they pee hot for weed? That and I'm not sure how this will affect jobs that have federal rules in place but you can't address all the problems all at once so at the very least this should be good for a good chunk of workers.

​

And truth be told I'm not sure that employers wont be happy about this as didn't much of this drug testing business start from insurance companies for employers?

The NIH would disagree with you about acupuncture

It's called title washing, and it is shit behavior. Once a title is branded, that's it. It needs to be known and disclosed.

A couple had such a car, and it was repaired incorrectly. A traffic accident occurred, and the husband had to listen to his wife burn to death because of that incorrect repair. Passing something like that along to unsuspecting buyers should be considered criminal.

Yup. Measure outputs not inputs.

This is a devil that had to be allowed in the law to get it passed so that more Americans could have access to healthcare. They needed the insurance company's blessing. Because private corporations have so much control over the political system that we can't write laws to stop them from doing evil things.

Chiropracty is not science. Every single chiropractor is a quack. Your doc referred you to a quack. You need to get a new doctor. Same with acupuncture. Physical therapy, however, is supported by science.

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.

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

[deleted]

This is not entirely true. My last job had federal contracts. They were drug testing for incidents until they had a tech get fired. She tested positive after she was drug tested when another employee poked her with a dirty needle. They were already hemorrhaging employees because it was a shitty place so they decided to stop.

Per the 1988 DFWA they are required to have a drug free workplace policy for companies for a contract of 100k or more. However, it does not require testing. Employers would love for you to think that because they may get benefits as far as insurance is concerned but they are not required to drug test. My friend was working at Microsoft and had to quit smoking weed because he was going to work on a federal project. Some places have more lax requirements or may test for it less if the employee has nothing to do with the contract. Its possible specific contracts may have such a provision but it isn't a matter of law, or in every federal contract. The feds leave enforcement up to individual companies.

Preach! It's ridiculous.

I’m by no means an expert, but I imagine they still get a lot of money on taxes with home brewing, where as with plants, wouldn’t it be easier to get starters without buying?

Regardless, I think it’s easy to say there is no motivation to allow growing.

Home brewing hasn't hurt the alcohol industry. One plant is a lot of work.

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.

Part of the problem is it’s still schedule 1 at the federal levels. Any business that accepts money from the federal government has to test for it. So healthcare is a big one because almost all of them take Medicare reimbursement. It’s not that simple because of its schedule 1 classification.

Doesn't this kind of defeat your whole point? People with a drug problem will have a drug problem regardless of the drug.

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.

Thanks for addressing none of the questions posed to you in my previous comment, have a great day.

Things like this can easily bleed into work.

If I was an employer, I wouldn't want employees with a higher risk of any kind of bad behavior.

I am pro decriminalization for most drugs. Weed is fine. People should be free to do it. If it affects work, it can be a problem. That's it.

The conversation isn't about people using drugs while working and the bill doesn't protect that behavior so you bringing it up here is not relevant. If someone smokes weed or gets drunk on a Saturday does that mean their ability to work on Monday is impeded? Why do you operate under the assumption that using the aforementioned must also include abuse and usage while working?

What other things are you advocating that employers know about our personal lives? If you have a porn addiction should your employer know? After all it could impact your work ethic and you could create problems by indulging at work.

Your opinion is that using weed is an immoral act and you are creating a post hoc justification for it that does not stand up to scrutiny. This is why you do the very typical thing of moving the discussion to be about using drugs on the job and not off the clock.

I'm extremely aware that my life experience is different to literally every other person's experience.

I have yet to meet a single person who can just stop smoking and not have withdrawal symptoms.