Community Chat

[JaneMarple]

@Isobel Archer come to Cape Cod or any other well do community where the drug addicts ARE NOT welfare, food stamp recipients or have their kids in foster care! A drug addict is a drug addict, addiction crosses every racial and economic line in the country!

The difference with the well to do addicts vs the poor ones is that they can hire lawyers, afford expensive treatment centers and get probation much easier than what you described. 

[Isobel Archer]

---

@JaneMarple wrote:

@Isobel Archer come to Cape Cod or any other well do community where the drug addicts ARE NOT welfare, food stamp recipients or have their kids in foster care! A drug addict is a drug addict, addiction crosses every racial and economic line in the country!

The difference with the well to do addicts vs the poor ones is that they can hire lawyers, afford expensive treatment centers and get probation much easier than what you described. 

---

I don't doubt that for a minute.  And I think the kids in those homes are just as much in need of help as poor kids.  Examples set for kids can also be abusive - setting them up for a completely distorted view of how the world should work.

[proudlyfromNJ]

I thought the head honcho had a plan in place to change welfare, food stamps,etc.etc.

[Moonchilde]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Ms tyrion2 wrote:

---

@CalminHeart wrote:

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

I wonder how much smaller the pool of applicants would become if employers tested for alcohol.  Then we would all be sitting here complaining about people who drink alcohol, right?  Because nobody here does that.

---

Alcohol doesn't stay in your system as long as other drugs.  Many drugs stay in your system for 30, 60 or more days.  Besides, right now, like it or not, alcohol is legal, marijuana is not.

That argument used to work. It's now obsolete.

MJ is legal for recreational use in several states and for medical use in many more

---

Recreational MJ is still illegal under Federal law - states making it "legal" are just another example of flaunting Federal law - which despite their efforts still takes precedence.  So any state trying to tell an employer that they had to allow MJ would have a very hard time enforcing that.

---

Eyes will continue to be on Massachusetts for this. The first step has already been taken. 

But "telling an employer that they had to allow MJ" is nonspecific. The Massachusetts case involves medical cannabis use at home, not at work, and does not address impairment on the job.

In the Massachusetts case, the state supreme court ruled that an employer doesn't have the right to fire an employee who uses medical cannabis off-site, simply because they failed a drug test and for no other reason. There were no job performance issues, no danger on the job or to others.

I  doubt it will ever come to employers "allowing" cannabis, medical or otherwise, to be used while on company premises or while on the clock anywhere - which "had to allow MJ" might be construed to mean.

[goldensrbest]

I started this thread, and as usual it has gone way off.

[Cakers3]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Ms tyrion2 wrote:

---

@CalminHeart wrote:

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

I wonder how much smaller the pool of applicants would become if employers tested for alcohol.  Then we would all be sitting here complaining about people who drink alcohol, right?  Because nobody here does that.

---

Alcohol doesn't stay in your system as long as other drugs.  Many drugs stay in your system for 30, 60 or more days.  Besides, right now, like it or not, alcohol is legal, marijuana is not.

That argument used to work. It's now obsolete.

MJ is legal for recreational use in several states and for medical use in many more

---

Recreational MJ is still illegal under Federal law - states making it "legal" are just another example of flaunting Federal law - which despite their efforts still takes precedence.  So any state trying to tell an employer that they had to allow MJ would have a very hard time enforcing that.

---

Eyes will continue to be on Massachusetts for this. The first step has already been taken. 

But "telling an employer that they had to allow MJ" is nonspecific. The Massachusetts case involves medical cannabis use at home, not at work, and does not address impairment on the job.

In the Massachusetts case, the state supreme court ruled that an employer doesn't have the right to fire an employee who uses medical cannabis off-site, simply because they failed a drug test and for no other reason. There were no job performance issues, no danger on the job or to others.

I  doubt it will ever come to employers "allowing" cannabis, medical or otherwise, to be used while on company premises or while on the clock anywhere - which "had to allow MJ" might be construed to mean.

---

@Moonchilde  Yes it was the "zero tolerance" policy regardless of circumstances that the company tried to use as a defense.  

However, a "zero tolerance" policy does not have to make exceptions for job performance issues or danger to others on the job.  The company's policy was simply "zero tolerance" as it stood by itself.

Now if the employee did have job performance issues, then that would have been an entirely different scenario and linking her medical use at home to poor job performance would not have been an easy thing to do.

One of the first steps this company will need to do is to revamp their "zero tolerance" policy and issue a much stronger and much more defined employer policy via their employee handbook and other clearly written forms so that the policy is clearly understood for the future.

[Ms tyrion2]

---

@goldensrbest wrote:

I started this thread, and as usual it has gone way off.

---

...and your point is?

It's been a lively discussion that has stayed pretty civil.

Is there a problem with that? Surely you didn't think people would just simply agree with you and leave it at that.

[Cakers3]

---

@goldensrbest wrote:

I started this thread, and as usual it has gone way off.

---

@goldensrbest  It's ok.  I'm sure you didn't expect posters to just agree with you.

Just join back in.  Your POV is certainly just as important. as anything else that has been posted, even if off topic.

[Isobel Archer]

Very interesting article in the New Yorker (will not attempt to recreate here) on Child Protective Services removing children from the home.

It's very sad.  While we are meant to have sympathy for the mother primarily discussed (and I do - she is clearly having a hard time), I still feel more for her children  - including the two she had AFTER the others were removed.   I have no doubt that she loves them and the foster (potential adoptive) parents are clearly using them, and yet the system prefers the foster parents - helping them with housing while they won't help the mother etc. etc.

But the fact remains, those kids are all in trouble.  The system created to help them is worthless it seems.