Interesting law

Starting in 2020, Nevada employers cannot refuse to hire a job applicant for failing a marijuana screening test, making it the first state to pass such a law. "It is unlawful for any employer in this State to fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee because the prospective employee submitted to a screening test and the results of the screening test indicate the presence of marijuana," states the law, signed by Gov. Steve Sisolak on June 5. There are some exceptions. The law does not apply to firefighters, EMTs, employees who operate a motor vehicle, or those who, in the determination of the employer, could adversely affect others' safety.

Besides being an insane law, it should prove interesting.

Someone with THC in the their blood is a potential hazard on and off the job.

And employers do not have to give the reason for not hiring someone that I know of.

Nevada may be on their way to becoming a modern Sodom.

Can lawmakers who passed that bill be sued if an employee hurts or kills someone while having THC in their system?

Andy

Reply to
A K
Loading thread data ...

I suppose at a certain point they will have to quantify this so you can tell the difference between someone is stoned from someone who smoked a joint a week ago.

Reply to
gfretwell

When they pass a stupid law like that, there should not be any exceptions.

If I was running a business, I would not want to hire anyone that had a drug habit. Where I worked at one time they would do a random drug test. This was just a normal factory and nothing special.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

From what I've seen, it is a judgemental thing by trained police to determine impairment. They have some tests you do, similar to the field test for alcohol.

I do remember hearing there is some testing being developed like a breathalyzer.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

The actual law.

formatting link
  1. If an employer requires an employee to submit to a screening test within the first 30 days of employment, the employee shall have the right to submit to an additional screening test, at his or her own expense, to rebut the results of the initial screening test. The employer shall accept and give appropriate consideration to the results of such a screening test

Some foods can cause "false positives's" for THC.

THC metabolizes in body fat, detectable for ~30 days, depending on usage. Cocaine is ~3 days.

Reply to
Oren

Please explain a bit more. Do you categorize a person that smokes a couple of joints on the weekend a drug addict? You'd not hire them?

How about the guy that goes out to his car at break and lunch for a couple of shots of vodka? He'd pass the piss test so he must be ok. Put him on the fork lift.

Two of my best employees occasionally used marijuana on the weekend. Come Monday morning they were alert and did an excellent job. Hard drugs is a different story. Over the years a couple were let go.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

Its been done for a long time now.

Reply to
Jimbo

No I would not hire anyone that smoked a joint or two on the weekend. Most likely he would slip in a puff or two before he came into work.

If I caught a fellow slipping out for a shot of vodka or even a beer he would be gone also.

Just let either of them get hirt on the job and the company is out big bucks.

One thing I did not like was when a company totally eliminate smoking anywhere. If they had a policy before you were hired, that is one thing, but not after people are there 20 years. The company I worked for did that. At the time there were peobably 1000 people in the plant. They did not allow smoking in the actual work areas, but had lots of break areas and other places that you could smoke. Yes, I did smoke when I was hired, but had been quit for about 20 years before the no smoking policy went into effect. Some of the better workers quit because of that. Others would sneek around as this is a very large place and many areas where people do not normally go, or not very often.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

You are in a fantasy world. Just as people are sneaking a smoke, others are sneaking a drink. It happens in most any place with more than a couple of dozen employees. Much easier to hide alcohol use over weed. I bet you are working with more alcoholics than you'd guess.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

I may have been, but I knew a lot of them. The management seemed to turn a blind eye for many years. As the plant ran 24/7 and 365 days a year, about 30% of th eworkers were usually half drunk around Christmas and New years.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

I had one mechanic who was so addicted to his nicotine sticks he couldn't go from break to break without one. Caught him smoking in a customer's car - and he was GONE!!! That was the last straw.

I always said he was so lazy he akways had his thumb up his ass and so dumb he didn;t know his ass from a hoke in the ground - - - -

Reply to
Clare Snyder

I knew a guy who pawned a tool to buy a pack of cigarettes.

I suspect that big tobacco puts something "extra" in cigs to keep people addicted.

This may be false, but I heard that the insecticides in cigarettes contributes to a lot of deaths.

I remember in junior high seeing a film showing a guy in a iron lung. And maybe an autopsy of a smokers lung.

Made an impression on me.

Andy

Reply to
A K

Nicotine is plenty addictive enough to keep them coming back. I know lots of people who stopped smoking but they are still addicted to the gum.

Reply to
gfretwell

I have a customer that contracts occasionally with the fed. The fed REQUIRES a drug free workplace, including weed. He has to fire anyone using drugs. I wonder how this new law will affect him.

Reply to
T

It wont because all the new law allows is for the individual to have another drug test of his own and if he passes that be able to have that job if the employer chooses to do that.

Reply to
Levi Jones

We have people like that here in the US...they're called democrats.  Schumer and Pelosi are good examples.

Reply to
Biff Tannen

Seems like there is always some exception for the government jobs.

Even a while back business could not descriminate the LGBTs or whatever they are, but the military did. I still say that there should not be any law for the government that is not for all.

Even say the gun free zones. Even if at the White House will not let the public in carrying guns, the guards should be outside the White House and not inside unless sommeone gets in and does start shooting. Years ago Ted Kenedy had some personal guards that started in one of the government buildings with guns. I am not sure of the outcome,but the guards were not tried for that offence.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

Nevada law has no effect on what the federal government wants to do, although it should.

Right now the feds are ignoring this pot thing because if it ever gets into a court, they probably lose and all of the federal drug laws could go away with it. Depending on how the decision is written, a whole lot of the 60s and 70s federal laws could be looked at too. (guns, drugs, some environmental regulation, maybe even OSHA) We seemed to have ignored the 9th and 10th amendment in the last century but this pot thing could have the whole thing revisited. Remember in 1918 we needed a constitutional amendment for a federal ban on alcohol. Nixon decided he could ban drugs without one. Prior to that, the law on pot was a federal tax, similar to the law on machine guns. You needed a tax stamp. This is the same guy who said "If the president does it, it is not illegal". He was also the only one ever forced out of office. Unfortunately some of his unconstitutional actions still survive.

Reply to
gfretwell

I feel less secure in a gun free place than in the general public. If you want to shoot up a lot of people and not worry about them shooting back, just go to a gun free place to do it.

Law breakers and terrorists don't give a damn about a sign.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

That is right. I try my best to stay out of those places, but do have to go to banks and the court house from time to time which is gun free in the state I live in.

Just look what hapened a few days ago. An off duty cop shot 3 people in a Cosco store. One died. I think it was in California. Cosco is a gun free store. Seems that one of the 3 he shot had hit him first, but the whole story has not came out yet.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.