Got a job ... or maybe not

If you have a prescription then you might be okay. Because it is legal there.

Most places (like CA and AR I think) explicitly say that you are not protected against discrimination in this case. We’re not there yet.

Well, it is “discrimination” by the definition of the word - it is the “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another” and making a decision based on that. In the sense of being “illegal discrimination” - how most people use that term - it certainly is not, as a point of law. To the extant for some is a medication, it may eventually be considered illegal discrimination - you can’t discriminate against someone because of the medications they take unless you can prove that it adversely affects their job.

Currently there are five states (Arizona, Delaware, Maine, Minnesota, and Maine) with some restrictions against discriminating against medical use. That number will surely increase in the future. But as of now, most states (including CA and AR) explicitly state in the law that a company does not have to respect medical cannabis.

My argument isn’t that I am the victim of illegal discrimination. My argument is that I am being punished for some I did that was legal, that I did months before I knew this company existed. That doesn’t seem fair. Legal, but not fair. And not practical considering the green wave that is slowly covering the country.

Let me put it this way: Would everyone feel the same way if they were disqualifying me because I drank some beer a few months before applying to the company? Again, they would be in their rights - beer drinkers are not a protected class against discrimination. But it would be a backwards and unfair policy. Again, I don’t mind them regulating my behavior when I work for them. I think it’s ridiculous for them to disqualify me because of something legal I did a month before I applied.

Actually hair tests can look back 90 days.

This is an old thread, but it just resurfaced in my feed, and it seems I started some controversy. I don’t use cannabis, but I have plenty of friends who do (one of them a senior software engineer).

This is a more pertinent definition of discrimination: “make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.” If this distinction is unjust or prejudicial, then it’s discrimination. The law is immaterial.

It’s just one more reason your average tech guy won’t even think about taking a job in Arkansas.

When we’re talking about the law, it is very material. If I only buy chocolate ice cream over vanilla, I am discriminating. But it is worthwhile to distinguish between that and what most people mean when they talk about “discrimination” in hiring. To conflate those two weakens the argument when real discrimination is faced. I wouldn’t want to trivialize the word “discrimination” by using it for all personal choices and conflating that with the hurtful discrimination the law is trying to prevent.

The law is all too often arbitrary and politically motivated, so it’s immaterial when we’re talking about right and wrong. There’s strong evidence that cannabis, like many controlled substances, was made illegal first and foremost as a way to legally discriminate against minorities. It’s no surprise that there’s a disproportionate number of African Americans in prison for non-violent drug offenses when you consider that the 13th Amendment makes an exception for prisoners.

For many cultures, the recreational, spiritual, and medicinal use of controlled substances goes back thousands of years. In those cases, the case for discriminaton is unambiguous, but the law is fickle.

That’s not your situation, obviously, but there are degrees of real discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of race or religion is clearly more severe than discrimination on the basis of what someone does in his free time, but it’s still unjust and prejudicial.

It’s like when your employer wants access to your personal social media accounts (although that’s a whole other issue). To me, it’s a great big red flag about what kind of company they are, and I wouldn’t want to work for them.

2 Likes

Hey, I’m not arguing it should be legal. I’m not denying that the company shouldn’t care. I’m just saying that it’s not on the level of denying someone access to a hospital because of their religion. Not even close. If they want to tell me I can’t wear purple socks, even on my time off - it’s nutty and unfair, but not a hate crime.

If you can afford to be that picky about where you work, congratulations. Many of us can’t. They are paying me an insane amount of money, especially for someone who came in with little real world experience. Excepting this, they’ve treated me well. I can put up with a little nuttiness to get my start. If you have lots of job offers paying you lots of money and let you call the shots. Most of us don’t.

Don’t give them ideas.

I’m sorry if I offended you. I’m just very opinionated–often too much so for my own good.

I’m certainly opinionated too. I wasn’t insulted, but I do get a little frustrated when people start claiming rights that don’t exist. You have a right to disagree with a businesses selectivity, but to call it “discrimination” is unfair. True, it meets the denotative meaning of that word, but the connotation of that word is far more complex and serious. There are people out there experiencing real discrimination, even in the tech world. To lump personal and trivial recreational choices in with that is irresponsible, imho. Let’s reserve that word, which has taken on such heavy weight in our culture, to things that really matter.

I worked on a cruise ship one that was a “smoke free” ship. It was aimed at the passengers (some were even thrown off if caught) but applied to the crew as well. Now, I like a nice cigar every now and then. The rule was that even if we were caught in port on our day off that we’d be sacked. Was it BS? Yes. But it was their money and they get to spend it how they like. I believe in freedom - their freedom to choose to spend their money they way they like and my freedom to decide if I want to abide by those rules.

My objection to my current employer was never that they want to prevent me from getting a little high on Saturday night. It’s BS, but it is their money and they can give it to me under the conditions they choose, as long as it doesn’t violate the law, which it doesn’t. My objection was that they wanted to look 3 months into the past, before I even knew the company existed. But I was never “discriminated” against, not in the sense that that word means to most people when they bring that up in an employment and legal context. I’ve seen real discrimination in my life. I’ve actually suffered it a bit. I don’t want to trivialize it.

1 Like

congrates u wish u gl meow :3

I’m not American and I’ve never lived in the USA, so I am just blabing here, but I think you should consider talking to a lawyer about this.