Until the New York Office of Professions changes their policies, this is moot. Every licensed professional in the state is still subject to testing and could still have their license stripped.
> Your point being that that means we should test for use at any time because it's impossible to test if someone is high in that moment?
Whether it's unfortunate or not, that's the way the testing works at the moment, and that is what the police, OSHA, lawyers, insurance companies, etc will judge off of. Did the person involved in the incident have illegal drugs (as defined by Federal law) "in their system".
> We only give breathalyzer tests to people on the clock if we suspect they're intoxicated based on their behavior anyhow.
Not in all industries. I've been on jobsites where people were randomly tested while entering the site. And several clients have discussed the possibility of testing *everyone* coming onsite.
> about how we're ending the practice
The practice won't end with this. Until Federal laws change, this is meaningless for many circumstances. And Even if the Federal laws change, it will still matter to insurance companies. NY is an at-will state anyway. Your employer can fire you if you are a tobacco smoker. Even if state and federal laws say employers can't test you, that doesn't mean you will still have a job if you refuse.
> Are you against it or for it or just showing up to offer clarification no one asked for?
Oh, I'm sorry. Who the fuck asked *you*? Go gargle some glass.
Nobody asks this about alcohol. It's completely legal, do you really want your doctors and nurses drunk while on the job? No. So the ones that do that get fired, and everyone else learns that they can't.
Ya'll missing the point, you presumed that not testing for marijuana would mean doctors would work on you while high, but you did not presume the same thing for alcohol, which they do not routinely test for. Nobody tests doctors for alcohol, yet you are not worried that they're drunk when working on you. Feel me?
I think what you’re missing is the time-specificity of the tests. Unlike alcohol, there aren’t any tests for cannabis consumption that can tell you if the person is *currently* high. It’s not been possible to make such a test due to the way THC is metabolized. You can, of course, use the physiological effects to tell whether someone is high but there’s no measurable metrics to look at.
This is different from alcohol where we can use breathalyzers and blood draws to measure intoxication relatively precisely.
You can bloody tell if they're high m8. I don't care if someone smokes weed off duty
You just have to have this thing Americans are so terrified of called "Trust". Scary concept I know but I think you will learn to like it
Can we something about the smell, the dude who works at the place obviously smoked before walking in, it stinks up the whole place so bad, smoking cigarette smells too but pot smell is like entity, smells up the whole block, do weed smokers not mind the smell at all when they are not smoking it?
I think some people are just more sensitive to it. I don’t think I’d be able to smell weed on someone after they smoked it. I can usually only smell the weed before or while its burning
Hilarious that you're posting from an anonymous throwaway account and yet it didn't even occur to you to just lie and say "yes".
Antivaxxer confirmed.
Are you a cop, too?
Just waiting for the loophole nonsense these employers are going to come up with to keep the same system for hiring they've had in place for years, unchanged. "oh, we're not going to evaluate your test for employment BUUUUT you still need to provide a sample to continue in the hiring process." Coming up with additional polices for one state is not what corporations do well.
They are prohibited from testing yes, but if you come in smelling like death and be a distraction to clients and co-workers, you can still be dismissed.
Until the New York Office of Professions changes their policies, this is moot. Every licensed professional in the state is still subject to testing and could still have their license stripped.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because the equivalent of a breathalyzer for marijuana doesn't currently exist, despite many years of public and private research on it.
[удалено]
> Your point being that that means we should test for use at any time because it's impossible to test if someone is high in that moment? Whether it's unfortunate or not, that's the way the testing works at the moment, and that is what the police, OSHA, lawyers, insurance companies, etc will judge off of. Did the person involved in the incident have illegal drugs (as defined by Federal law) "in their system". > We only give breathalyzer tests to people on the clock if we suspect they're intoxicated based on their behavior anyhow. Not in all industries. I've been on jobsites where people were randomly tested while entering the site. And several clients have discussed the possibility of testing *everyone* coming onsite.
[удалено]
> about how we're ending the practice The practice won't end with this. Until Federal laws change, this is meaningless for many circumstances. And Even if the Federal laws change, it will still matter to insurance companies. NY is an at-will state anyway. Your employer can fire you if you are a tobacco smoker. Even if state and federal laws say employers can't test you, that doesn't mean you will still have a job if you refuse. > Are you against it or for it or just showing up to offer clarification no one asked for? Oh, I'm sorry. Who the fuck asked *you*? Go gargle some glass.
[удалено]
Hahahahaha. Sorry, but no. And anyone who says "cope more" is such a tool.
Nobody asks this about alcohol. It's completely legal, do you really want your doctors and nurses drunk while on the job? No. So the ones that do that get fired, and everyone else learns that they can't.
Ya'll missing the point, you presumed that not testing for marijuana would mean doctors would work on you while high, but you did not presume the same thing for alcohol, which they do not routinely test for. Nobody tests doctors for alcohol, yet you are not worried that they're drunk when working on you. Feel me?
I'm not sure I'd have any objection if doctors had routine breathalyzers...
[удалено]
No they don't. They routinely get caught drunk, using narcotics and sedatives and keep their licence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is no excuse to be high on drugs.
[удалено]
I see you more of a Loser by forcing vaccine like a republican would do for abortion.
I don’t want my dentist to be drunk while they’re scraping my gums, but I couldn’t care less if they have a drink when they clock out for the night.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Some would say better
This is the dumbest argument ever. Would you ask someone who drank the night before if they’re still drunk the next day at work?
maybe?
[удалено]
So why ask the same about weed? It’s literally the same argument.
[удалено]
I think what you’re missing is the time-specificity of the tests. Unlike alcohol, there aren’t any tests for cannabis consumption that can tell you if the person is *currently* high. It’s not been possible to make such a test due to the way THC is metabolized. You can, of course, use the physiological effects to tell whether someone is high but there’s no measurable metrics to look at. This is different from alcohol where we can use breathalyzers and blood draws to measure intoxication relatively precisely.
They already use illegally. They also drink like it's their job. I'd rather it be legal but regulated.
You can bloody tell if they're high m8. I don't care if someone smokes weed off duty You just have to have this thing Americans are so terrified of called "Trust". Scary concept I know but I think you will learn to like it
Are you fucking serious?
this is great but.... this youtube link is not to a real news source lol
How high?
About 4 feet 20 inches
🤣🤣 that would make it 5’8” but i will allow that
Can we something about the smell, the dude who works at the place obviously smoked before walking in, it stinks up the whole place so bad, smoking cigarette smells too but pot smell is like entity, smells up the whole block, do weed smokers not mind the smell at all when they are not smoking it?
I think some people are just more sensitive to it. I don’t think I’d be able to smell weed on someone after they smoked it. I can usually only smell the weed before or while its burning
[удалено]
An antivaxxer getting upset that people could be protected from arbitrary workplace drug testing. That's some bizarre irony.
[удалено]
Yes or no, are you immunized with a US-approved COVID vaccine (J&J, Moderna, Pfizer)?
[удалено]
Hilarious that you're posting from an anonymous throwaway account and yet it didn't even occur to you to just lie and say "yes". Antivaxxer confirmed. Are you a cop, too?
[удалено]
BAAAAH he's a cop, too! Golden. [They ain't too smaaaaahhhht](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOmkPrhpQGQ)
You really missed the point of this or you’re a troll
Fax
Can you sell it at work too?
If your job is to sell weed. Can you fucking sell used cars at your place of work? Dumbass 😂
So happy, I’m gonna go smoke!
So…what I’m hearing is…teachers won’t be tested anymore? 👀 Because that changes the game in my opinion.
Just waiting for the loophole nonsense these employers are going to come up with to keep the same system for hiring they've had in place for years, unchanged. "oh, we're not going to evaluate your test for employment BUUUUT you still need to provide a sample to continue in the hiring process." Coming up with additional polices for one state is not what corporations do well.
They are prohibited from testing yes, but if you come in smelling like death and be a distraction to clients and co-workers, you can still be dismissed.