Yet that same person injured at work with a script for oxycontin instead of a recc for cannabis has a defense that he was not under the influence at the time of the accident and has a script.
And that person sits with workman's comp, eventually hits the "H" because hey, its cheaper than 3 80's a day, then starts stealing for a fix because his workman's comp no longer covers the cost of his habit, tar gets expensive I'm told.
The mmj patient fires up his torch, rips the quartz domeless and gets back to work because he forgot he was hurt in the first place.
I know which one I would prefer to have working for me.
Nothing new with insurance companies having an unjust say in what happens to people. Share price > life, any excuse to not pay out.
There are warnings on prescription medication to cover liability issues like your speaking of. Just because you've got a prescription for oxycotin doesn't mean that you'd just get out of being fired for being on oxycotin and causing an accident at work. It's all about if are you intoxicated at the time of the incident and most companies won't stand for you operating or endangering others even if you have a prescription.
I think there is a time an place for using herb for pain and there are for sure some jobs that people shouldn't be using marijuana to ease pain for while they are working. Select other methods of pain management while working that aren't going to affect you in psychoactive way.
I'm all for legalization but I don't want someone who's stoned flying something heavy over my head or running any type of machinery for that matter. Just because I drive better high than I do sober doesn't mean the next guy can. If you've worked construction I think you'll agree with me. It can be extremely dangerous.
That would be apart of the legislation and kind of already is covered by the pot DUI legislation. With the pot DUI legislation they have already made it clear they don't want regular people driving high let alone people operating heavy machinery, airplanes, bus drivers, etc.
What is in question for this case is the persons right to use cannabis outside of work much in the same right they would to consume alcohol or tobacco when off the clock. If so then companies need to modify their testing for substances like herb since it stays in your system for so long. If there is an accident at work you want to take a saliva or blood test to assess if they were high at the time of the incident. If you are just doing a screening then follicle or piss test will be the right thing. Where it becomes iffy is do you leave room for companies to decide which job titles can and can't smoke off the clock based upon risk and responsibility of said job title like doctors and pilots? If you do that then the legislation still doesn't protect the end user from company policy making. The stick is still in the hands of the company and they determine where to draw that line.
Really interested to see which direction this case goes either way. It's all apart of the social stigma change that needs to happen in the wake of legalization.
