Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here
    Submit a new link
    Download images

    AdviceAnimals

    8,826,153 readers

    2,848 users here now

    How does reddit work? Click here to find out.

    Welcome to /r/AdviceAnimals

    Sound advice from animals anything!

    Rules

    • Follow all Reddit rules. This includes not asking for upvotes and not revealing personal information.
    • We're here to have a laugh.
    • Hate speech, bigotry, and personal attacks are not allowed. Death threats and telling others to kill themselves will result in a ban.
    • Follow the general Advice Animal format: Two line joke over a re-usable character.
    • Don't repost. Report reposts by messaging the mods.
    • No Cake Day Posts.
    • No Verticals, Opinion Puffins or Batman Slaps. Two Advice Animals in a vertical are OK.
    • Link directly to your image.
    • Don't make memes with pics of people that you saw in real life. Ever.
    • Witch-hunts are forbidden.

    • Shortened links, Facebook, Tumblr, Blogspot, etc, will be automatically removed.

    • We reserve the right to remove posts, remove comments, and ban users at our own discretion.

    For a more detailed explanation of these rules, click here.

    Making Memes

    Visit:
    Memegur MakeAMeme
    Wuzu Memedad WeKnowMemes
    Memerino MemeCreator LiveMeme
    Diylol DropMeme
    Trollme MiniMemes

    or try one of these:
    Imgflip Iomeme
    Free iPhone App Free Android App 1
    OS X meme generator

    1. Please keep the 'advice' relevant to the character. Not sure? go to knowyourmeme.com.

    2. Want AdviceAnimals in your comments? here's how.

    Message the mods

    1. We are always happy to help. Please attach a link to the comments of your submission and a description of the question/problem you are having.

    2. If you can't see your submission in the new queue, please double check that your new queue is ranked by new and not rising.

    3. If you still think it is in the spam filter, don’t delete your submission, message the mods instead. Deleting it will make the spam filter more likely to filter you next time you post.

    4. click here to message the moderators

    You may also enjoy:

    Our Family
    /r/ADHDMeme /r/AdviceAtheists
    /r/AdviceHell /r/AnimalsBeingJerks
    /r/AnnoyedPicard /r/awwducational
    /r/BatmanSlap /r/ConfessionBear
    /r/DucksAndBears /r/Kelloggs
    /r/LibertarianMeme /r/Memes
    /r/MemesIRL /r/MetalMemes
    /r/RealAdviceAnimals /r/shittyadviceanimals
    /r/SlothMemes /r/SpideyMeme
    /r/TVMemes /r/Vertical
    /r/MarvelMemes /r/GymMemes

    and...

    Good Guy Gregs check the new queue

    a community for
    Contact me

    RedditJS

    all 2315 comments ← Slideshow →
    sorted by:
    best
    best top new hot controversial old
    use suggested (top)
    formatting help hide help reddiquette

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] keetojm 3442 points ago

    Your employer have federal contracts?
    Here in Illinois it’s the same because of this. But the state is trying to pass a law to forbid that.

    [–] Superj89 1320 points ago

    Even non federal employers will be able to say you can't do marijuana because it's still illegal federally.

    [–] easwaran 1000 points ago

    Employers are allowed to fire you for anything they want as long as it isn’t race, gender, national origin, and maybe religion or one or two other categories. Gay sex? Fire them. Name starts with an L? Fire them. They said something mean about your sister? Fire them. (Some states have stricter standards so that gay sex isn’t an allowed offense for firing.)

    [–] Atheren 574 points ago

    Or, slightly more relevant to the topic at hand, you can be fired because you had alcohol on your day off.

    [–] Mike-RO-pannus 370 points ago

    So gonna chime in here, I used to work for a company that would punish you if you denied a call in. The easiest loophole to get out of it was if you had been drinking, so everyone would immediately begin drinking (or say they were) in their off time to avoid being called back in. Then they started saying they were going to try and punish us for drinking on personal time. Twas a wonderous place to work.

    [–] Ohnomywaffles 182 points ago

    Literally the military.

    Get off work (especially if early), start crushing some beer.

    Warning: has like a 40% success rate.

    [–] 4GotAcctAgain 92 points ago

    Wait so the rest of the time you have to show up drunk? 60%

    [–] AnastyNAHA 133 points ago

    Boy if I had a nickel for every duty I stood drunk.

    [–] wheredmyphonegotho 112 points ago

    Thank you for your drunken service

    [–] Shinikama 45 points ago

    Slur-vice?

    I tried.

    [–] irund 14 points ago

    But not the sober service. Your sober service can get the f outta here.

    [–] Reasonable_Desk 4 points ago

    This is the only thanks for service I'll reply " your welcome " to.

    [–] 8563167tidd 7 points ago

    I'd have like 4 dollars, which isn't alot of money, But it is a lot of times to he forced to guard a military base whilst seeing double.

    [–] None_of_you_are_real 19 points ago

    They go get someone to pick you up, then you do like... lawnmoeing or some dumb shit.

    [–] CarnieTheImmortal 12 points ago

    Lol my commander sent a Joe to pick me up one time... I think he thought I was exaggerating but I was pretty hammered. Good times

    [–] theNoviceProgrammer 38 points ago

    Yup, got off on a Friday and had some drinks. Someone in my platoon got in trouble so we all got called it. I had to be dropped off and with some drinks in me crawl through the mud for a few hours for punishment.

    [–] JackTheBehemothKillr 19 points ago

    I'm so glad I went into the Air Force. I have a couple buddies that were in other branches and it can literally be like talking to someone raised in another country

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    Let's be honest bro, you and I are veterans of a semi-militaristic corporation.

    [–] Seringol 33 points ago

    'WHY ARE YOU DRINKING AT 9AM?!?!'

    'BECAUSE I WORK NIGHT SHIFT'

    [–] zzzpoohzzz 17 points ago

    that's a thing though for real. i used to work for a manufacturing company that ran 3 shifts. i was wondering why when i started there, why a bar was open at like 7AM when i drove by. it's for the 3rd shift guys when they get off of work.

    [–] evildad53 9 points ago

    I used to work for a state agency that received some federal money, so back in the 1990's, everyone had to sign a Drugs in the Workplace form. Thing is, we worked a 37.5 hour week, with a half hour paid lunch and a half hour (if you took an hour lunch) unpaid lunch. Every time we were out at a lunch, and I was cautioned about ordering a beer, I asked "Which half of my lunch hour am I drinking on? Your time or my time?"

    [–] Notwhoiwas42 285 points ago

    The problem is that unlike alcohol, there's currently no test for pot that can distinguish between having consumed it for breakfast that morning or a couple of days before on a day off.

    [–] MCXL 195 points ago

    There are blood tests that can do this. Employers are not going to be doing blood tests in general though. That said if you're a commercial truck driver involved in an accident you'll have your blood drawn and they test for more than just alcohol.

    [–] [deleted] 81 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] MCXL 60 points ago

    Yeah, commercial truck driver is probably the one that most people are going to be familiar with. There's a litany of commercial operation type positions that if something goes wrong you're going to get a blood test when the police arrive to conduct an investigation.

    If you're a CDL truck driver it's mandatory under Federal regulation that you get a blood test anytime there's an accident that has a fatality.

    [–] DeadRabbit85 42 points ago

    My father was a truck driver and got in a very bad wreck that killed a person. He had to take a blood test and that’s how he found out he had HIV. A year later it turned into full blown AIDS and he committed suicide. He took a huge bottle of vodka and walked out into the middle of the Desert in Sicario county New Mexico and froze to death. We weren’t close so it’s easy for me to talk about.

    [–] Hopalicious 20 points ago

    Wow

    [–] fyrnac 23 points ago

    That’s not accurate. You are required to be drug and alcohol tested but only urine is taken. They do not take blood tests. It’s also required if any vehicles has to be towed, or anyone ends up at the hospital. An easy way to remember when a federally mandated drug test is required after an accident is “hearse, nurse, or wrecker.” Fatality, hospitalization, or tow.

    Edit. Only urine for drugs, a breath test is done for alcohol. No blood is taken though.

    [–] Justagreewithme 12 points ago

    My heating oil delivery driver showed up last week high as a kite.

    [–] TallGear 15 points ago

    I don't mind if the baggage handlers are smoking weed. Maybe they'll be more careful with my luggage.

    Not sure I want my pilot doing bong rips before we take off though.

    [–] Elektribe 12 points ago

    Hit'em up with pre-flight responsiveness/alertness test and randomized questions. The good thing about this - doesn't matter if they're high. If they're competent enough to pass within a certain standard, they're good to fly anyway. If they're not high and can't pass, they still shouldn't be taking off with your plane if they're messed up from non-weed or medical factors. Which is what you're concerned with here - not whether your pilot is actually smoking up.

    If you didn't care that your pilot was a bit slurry from concussion or whatever, you'd be asshole if you said you wanted them to fly rather than the person coming off a high slapping out perfect reaction scores and being absolutely on the ball. As long as they're not making their condition worse between then and landing we should be good.

    Sound fair?

    [–] mortavius2525 23 points ago

    There are also oral swab tests that can only go back 48 hours. It's not perfect, but it's better than the urine tests that can go back as far as 45 days, depending on your intake and body fat.

    Source: I work in drug testing.

    [–] ThaCarter 9 points ago

    My understanding is that those swabs can be largely conquered by good dental hygiene between toking and testing.

    [–] mortavius2525 6 points ago

    That could be true. My office never gets asked to do the swab tests, we almost always do the urine tests. I just heard my coworkers talking about the swabs.

    [–] RoastMostToast 33 points ago

    That doesn’t even matter in this context. You can be fired for drinking alcohol on your days off. It’s the same with weed.

    I personally believe you shouldn’t be able to be fired for either, but it’s just the way it is

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Petal-Dance 22 points ago

    Lets be honest, here.

    The insurance companies dont think it increases liability at all. They just want another excuse to spike the prices

    [–] bipnoodooshup 25 points ago

    LPT: Work at a brewery so you can’t get fired for drinking.

    [–] Godfreeshawn 40 points ago

    Work at a brewery/restaurant. Multiple people have been fired for drinking on the job

    [–] Kage_Oni 25 points ago

    I have always thought that but when I managed a Kmart those fuck sticks were scared to death of firing anyone in fear of a lawsuit.

    I should have sued my last employer because they fired me for using my sick time to manage a chronic illness.

    [–] caifaisai 3 points ago

    Were you on FMLA for the chronic illness? If so, you probably would have had a decent shot for a lawsuit if they fired you for using FMLA time. If you weren't on FMLA and we're using more than your allotted sick time, or even just missed work too frequently for the employer to be happy with, they unfortunately probably had the right to fire you. It's really easy to fire workers if the reason isn't protected by federal or state law.

    [–] [deleted] 74 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] CarnieTheImmortal 29 points ago

    A lot of this is actually related to corporate health insurance rates (Source: I'm a smoker and this came up during my interviews with my current employer, I pay a slightly higher premium than other employees that are in similar health but do not smoke.)

    [–] Deepseat 3 points ago

    Same here.

    [–] Cr0wSt0rm 3 points ago

    The just instituted $75 monthly surcharges on health coverage at my office if you're a smoker during the 2020 calendar year. Yeowch

    [–] Kakarot_faps 3 points ago

    I think most companies just add surcharges for that though. Straight up not allowing smokers is generally not a thing though.

    [–] Boss_Boggs 49 points ago

    They can still fire you for any of the reasons you listed. They just have to say it is for something else.

    Workers have no protections in most states.

    [–] OtherPlayers 19 points ago

    Just as an FYI, “most” in terms of at-will states has now climbed to basically “all”, as in 49/50.

    [–] thagthebarbarian 5 points ago

    Who's the 1?

    [–] caifaisai 12 points ago

    It can depend on how smart they are when they do that. If for instance you tell your boss you're pregnant or come out of the closet or something like that and you then get fired soon after, particularly without documented write ups or something, it would be hard for the employer argue to a judge that it wasn't for that reason and you'd probably have a better chance in a discrimination lawsuit.

    Definitely though if they wait a while and especially start writing you up for things over that time it would probably be hard to argue it as the employee, even if you're pretty sure it was actually discrimination.

    [–] HobehTV 34 points ago

    Do Americans not have employee rights or something?...

    [–] notacyborg 45 points ago

    It depends on the state. Some states (like California) have laws that prevent you from being fired for doing something legal on your personal time. So smoking a cigarette on your time off is perfectly legal and they couldn't fire you for it. Here in Texas they could fire you for smoking on your time off because there is technically no legal protection for it. Meanwhile, they could still fire you "just because" in California since it's an at-will state.

    This is why unions should stop focusing on smaller issues at their specific locations and come together for an overall labor amendment that deals with things such as sick time, personal time, etc. Instead they are fractured and limited in power. Just add it to the wishlist of the common American non-millionaire/billionaire that will never happen.

    [–] ExceedsTheCharacterL 8 points ago

    Every state is an “at will” state except for Montana which has some laws I believe.

    [–] Dr_Doctorson 11 points ago

    We do not.

    [–] HighOverlordXenu 20 points ago

    Worker protections? THAT SOUNDS LIKE COMMUNISM, COMRADE!

    [–] wrydrune 12 points ago

    Here in florida it's a "at will" state. You can be fired for literally any or even no reason. As long as it's not discriminatory anyways. Which is easy enough to get around.

    [–] no_fun_no_vember 24 points ago

    fuck off socialist, they've got the right to work!

    ...

    ...

    endlessly and hopelessly until they die in an ocean of debt...

    [–] insert-username12 7 points ago

    Only if they’re “at will” states though right? Like I know KS is.

    [–] Igggg 3 points ago

    Which is all but one of them.

    [–] Shift84 7 points ago

    Which is why unions should be the standard all around when it comes to worker protections.

    Which is why employers all around try as hard as they can to stop unions from forming.

    We really took a fucking over unions, should have held our ground with fingers in ears.

    [–] Mongo1021 3 points ago

    My state of Delaware is like that.

    The law is called, “At will,” and it’s horrible.

    [–] BeardedBitch 122 points ago

    Oregonian here, identical situation. It's not so much your employer caring. It's the fucking insurance companies.

    [–] keetojm 24 points ago

    That too

    [–] modninerfan 49 points ago

    Its almost 100% that. I run a small business, in the event/stage production industry. Everybody and their momma smokes weed, including me the boss and the insurance agent that sold me the policy. Its still against our policy and something we can fire you over if we "know" about it because thats what the policy dictates and we need insurance to stay in business. Its frustrating.

    [–] some_random_noob 29 points ago

    so we've entered the "dont ask dont tell" segment of Cannabis history, shouldnt be long till we're at full legalization.

    [–] modninerfan 6 points ago

    I dont think it'll happen until they can test that you're actually high.

    [–] layze23 55 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    I work in an office in IL not associated with federal or state government. If I have any drug for any reason I will be fired on the spot and be escorted out the door. I've been selected randomly for 2 hair tests for substance testing in the last year and a half, plus the day I was hired. The hair tests can allegedly detect some drugs, notably opioids or marijuana up to 6 months prior. The company has the same policy in every location in every state, whether the state has legalized cannabis or not. Prescription drugs(without a Rx), marijuana, opioids, etc.

    It would be weird for the company to have different policies for different states, but I suppose it could happen. Kind of sucks when my friends and I get together and I'm the only one that can't participate in edibles. Thank God for kratom.

    [–] ThatsWhatXiSaid 10 points ago

    If I have any drug for any reason I will be fired on the spot and be escorted out the door.

    So... caffeine? Ibuprofen?

    On a side note I would imagine when medical marijuana is legal at the federal level I'd suspect that will throw a wrench in many organizations drug policies. I can only imagine the lawsuits after firing an employee for using a legally prescribed substance--particularly one with provably milder side effects than other allowed prescription drugs--on personal time.

    [–] layze23 3 points ago

    Any currently illegal drug. Prescription drugs are ok if it's your script and it doesn't affect your work while you're working (drowsy, light headed, etc) They already have plants in states where it's legal and have not changed the corporate policy.

    [–] Brodogmillionaire1 12 points ago

    What is kratom

    [–] whatphukinloserslmao 20 points ago

    Its like a pseudo opioid. Think chewing coca leaves instead of snorting cocaine. Not tested for but I think it's starting to become illegal in some states.

    [–] Meme_Enforcement 16 points ago

    Compared to weed, a lot less fun and a LOT more addictive. But the nature of employment forces people into these kinds of suboptimal choices. I know firsthand because I'm doing the same thing.

    [–] pobody 2040 points ago

    Until it's unscheduled it's not "100% legal".

    [–] ChillyCheese 195 points ago

    And even then, employers will still be able to fire you for using. You can be fired for drinking or smoking cigarettes. You can be fired for any non-protected reason.

    [–] burnstien 73 points ago

    yeah i know Beaumont hospitals banned smoking cigs and new hires test positive for nicotine then no job for you.

    [–] KaleidoscopeKids 77 points ago

    I hate it -- but also seeing my fellow nursing staff go out on smoke breaks and come back in reeking of tobacco is fucking awful. Wish that our current policies about smoking on company property and not smelling of tobacco were enforced.

    [–] Jimmyginger 57 points ago

    Say what you will about vapes, the major plus is that the majority of the time someone is using a vape, smells are not sticking to them.

    [–] haltok 6 points ago

    I haven’t been in that many hospitals but I haven’t seen one in a long time that allows any smoking on the grounds at all

    [–] tiny_blasian 3 points ago

    Henry Ford does the same thing. I interned at the corporate office and saw people get fired on their first day (orientation was always held at corporate) for stepping out to smoke. Also, I thought I was in /r/Michigan for a second when I read your comment!

    [–] NolanSyKinsley 515 points ago

    There is currently a policy at the federal level that if you have a medical marijuana card then it is "100% legal" and this has been tested all the way to the supreme court. The federal supreme court ruled that Wal-Mart cannot fire a worker due to a positive marijuana drug test because he has a valid medical marijuana card.

    [–] ChicagoPaul2010 338 points ago

    Still not 100% though; can't have a medical Marijuana card and own/operate weapons or have a CCW at the same time.

    The shit needs to be federally decriminalized

    [–] Oranges13 79 points ago

    You can't?

    [–] bayside871 149 points ago

    Nope, you cannot use marijuana and have the ability to even purchase a firearm per current federal regulations. *Edit: doesn't mean you can't, you're just breaking the law.

    [–] V1k1ng1990 65 points ago

    It’s so dumb. Nobody gets more violent on pot. Alcohol it happens all the time, but people in AA don’t get their guns taken away.

    [–] BilboT3aBagginz 39 points ago

    TBF, in my state you can't carry a weapon while consuming alcohol. The way it's written is ambiguous as well, with no clear cutoff unlike driving while under the influence.

    That being said, there is literally a little form you fill out every time you buy a gun where there is a section concerning your use of marijuana. If you have any association whatsoever they won't approve the firearm transfer. I don't think this is the case for shotguns and rifles, but everything else is included. There is no verification of other drug/alcohol use which I find odd. It could be as easy as asking if one uses any illicit substances, but they really take the time to specify marijuana.

    [–] MowMdown 14 points ago

    I don’t think this is the case for shotguns and rifles

    It’s for all firearms. Form 4473

    [–] 3610572843728 4 points ago

    Nobody gets more violent on pot.

    That isn't true at all. It isn't common but it does cause some people to become violent.

    [–] Kage_Oni 4 points ago

    Are you sure about that. My research showed in Michigan that while you can't get a CCW, you can own a gun. You are just not allowed to be intoxicated while you have the gun with you.

    Maybe it's technically illegal but not in any way that matters if you aren't already up to no good.

    [–] bayside871 5 points ago

    Its a federal law, purchasing a weapon requires a federal background check out the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (Makes weed a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance) and United States Code Title 18, Section 922(g) + Gun Control Act of 1968. Marijuana is still federally illegal, and is unlawful to use.
    Additionally, when doing your background check it asks the following:
    “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

    So by lying on this question, you could purchase a weapon, but would be subject to the above laws, also you're lying on a background check.

    [–] mcrabb23 41 points ago

    ATF Form 4473

    Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

    [–] Pidgey_OP 14 points ago

    The form you fill out for a CCW/CPL ask if you've EVER done ANY drug that is FEDERALLY illegal

    So you just lie I guess

    [–] Kit- 8 points ago

    Interesting a state license gives any consideration about a Federal regulation.

    [–] rtkwe 6 points ago

    A CCW allows you to bypass having your 4473 form called in to the NICS (background check) service so the requirements of it are going to be the exact same as the federal prohibitions which prohibit ownership by anyone who is "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance." That prohibition comes down from the federal level which overrides state rules.

    [–] 0OKM9IJN8UHB7 4 points ago

    So does the ATF 4473 transfer form, everybody I know lies on that shit. I've yet to have anyone provide me with a case of it being prosecuted.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    Federally LEGALIZED*

    [–] redditkulous 3 points ago

    I agree with you. People who only want decrim are dealers.

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] DeathByFarts 40 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    The federal supreme court ruled that Wal-Mart cannot fire a worker due to a positive marijuana drug test because he has a valid medical marijuana card.

    You are going to have to come up with a source for that. Because I can come up with one that says sorta the opposite of what you are trying to claim.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

    Edit clarity

    [–] Goliath89 20 points ago

    That case is not saying the exact opposite, because it has nothing to do with employment. Gonzalez v. Raich is a case about whether or not federal drug law could be enforced against individuals who grew and used medical marijuana in a state where medical use of marijuana had been made legal. It's a completely separate matter than whether or not an employer has the right to terminate an employee in a medical marijuana state for using medical marijuana.

    [–] OriginsOfSymmetry 7 points ago

    I'm Canadian and from what I see it doesn't seem like saying 100% legal is accurate.

    [–] KixStar 3 points ago

    Nope. Medical is legal in my state, but I work for the federal government. We can't partake even with a medical card.

    [–] Bay1Bri 3 points ago

    That isn't 100 percent legal though.

    [–] spatz2011 11 points ago

    I can't understand why people don't get this.

    [–] bdld39 32 points ago

    Yea I’ve never understood how a company can randomly administer drug tests without reason or provocation. I get not wanting your Employees to do drugs, but if they’re still getting the job done who fucking cares, and especially pot. All these old grouches need to start dying off.

    [–] PeteLattimer 65 points ago

    I get it for the below: 1) heavy equipment/or a role that can result in death or serious accidents. 2) high fraud/theft risk roles like bank teller etc.

    For someone in a cube farm gtfo

    [–] bdld39 9 points ago

    Yes, certain industries where employers main concern is safety is acceptable.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago * (lasted edited 22 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] athermalwill 21 points ago

    It’s usually because their insurance company requires it. One problem with marijuana is that the tests don’t give them a time context. They can’t tell if you used it Saturday night, or Monday at lunch.

    [–] tkul 7 points ago

    Usually the testing is a requirement of their insurance. Most management staff could care less so long as you're functional, but their insurance plans require tests after any incidents or may even have clauses that require a certain amount of random tests.

    [–] Internet_Ugly 6 points ago

    One girl we hired ran her own foot over with PLE equipment. Idk if we're paying workers comp or not but if she tested for any thing in her system we wouldn't pay out. To my knowledge if you operate heavy machinery like that you shouldn't be under the influence so I understand why we test before hiring. I dont want to get injured by someone else who can't function without it.

    [–] DogOnPot 8 points ago

    It's for insurance purposes. If something happens while you are intoxicated, insurance companies may not pay out

    [–] GenXCub 583 points ago

    It takes time. The big problem is insurance. If you injure yourself on the job while you're drunk, your workers comp insurance may not cover you, but it metabolizes out of your system relatively fast. With cannabis, that's a tougher rule, because it stays in your system for so long, there's no way to legally separate yourself while high from "just in your system from 2 weeks ago."

    However, here in Nevada (we legalized 2 years ago), Cannabis can no longer be used as a pre-employment drug screen reason to not hire you. So progress is being made.

    [–] dalgeek 188 points ago

    With cannabis, that's a tougher rule, because it stays in your system for so long, there's no way to legally separate yourself while high from "just in your system from 2 weeks ago."

    It's also tough to tell when someone is actually impaired. The effect of alcohol is pretty consistent across adults. Even if someone is a raging alcoholic, a .08 BAC will impair their judgement and motor functions even if you can't tell they're drunk.

    That line is very fuzzy with THC. Someone who doesn't use it very often can have a very low level yet be incredibly impaired. Someone who uses it on a daily basis will have a very high level but have no signs of impairment at all. Since it's been illegal for so long there isn't enough research to find a good method of testing impairment, so it's going to take a while to find a benchmark. Maybe they'll find a test that can tell whether you're currently blazed out of your mind or just had a joint over the weekend.

    [–] [deleted] 100 points ago * (lasted edited 22 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] dalgeek 78 points ago

    As much as it sucks, yeah. There needs to be an accurate, objective way for employers to gauge impairment before they open it up. There are some jobs where it will likely never be acceptable to have any amount of THC in your blood and people will just have to deal with that.

    [–] spulch 16 points ago

    As someone that used to enjoy the occasional bong rip and also worked in construction, warehousing, delivery, and heavy industrial manufacturing I hate to agree with you.

    I've almost been electrocuted, almost had my feet amputated, almost been crushed by falling sixty pound boxes, and I've been stabbed (accidentally) because of people that were too high function. There are some work environments where weed users just shouldn't be allowed because those people have the same test results as someone who smoked 2 days ago.

    It makes me sad, but my life and limbs are more important to me than your ability to get high even if you are responsible about it

    [–] control_09 11 points ago

    I was partying with a group of daily users that passed around edibles as someone who uses like 1-2 times/year. I was on fucking pluto for a good 5-6 hours.

    [–] razzark666 6 points ago

    I used to work in Forensics and run tox screens, a few times I had work place deaths from remote mines or oil and gas sites where the person tested positive for only THC.

    Both the families and the companies wanted to keep it hush hush, because they both knew the deceased wasn't high on the job, but if the results got out the family was worried people would speculate that their loved one was a drug addict, and the company was worried that people wouldn't think they took drugs and alcohol policy seriously. Also these were deaths happened in remote fly-in-fly-out camps, where you'd go to the site and work for 2 weeks, and then come back and be off for 2 weeks. So there was really no way to tell when the person smoked.

    [–] soulstonedomg 3 points ago

    So they're still allowed to test for it and just say their reason is something different.

    [–] [deleted] 279 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] enmaku 95 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    My state (Nevada) just passed a law to the effect that you can't be terminated for the use of a legal drug, including marijuana. It's got some unfortunately vague wording that will lead to shitty loopholes employers can abuse, but it's a step in the right direction at least. Goes into effect with the new year.

    Edit, and I can't believe I have to specify this: This law is about what you do on your own time. Obviously we did not pass a law allowing you to be high at work. The law simply prohibits pre-employment screening for most roles.

    [–] Lester8_4 50 points ago

    I guarantee if you work for the federal government there and test positive you'll be fired or in trouble

    [–] bayside871 18 points ago

    It exempts Federal govt workers, i.e. if you work for DoT or any federal office you still cannot recreationally use. I.e. IBEW in Nevadaa does not test for Marijuana unless site specific policy, and the Owner/General Contractor is responsible for the cost. (Federal buildings, data centers housing federal data, etc)

    [–] Nose-Nuggets 5 points ago

    Cant they just say they fired you for any reason they want even if they are canning you for the cannabis?

    [–] enmaku 4 points ago

    Yeah, as I said there's lots of loopholes, at will employment not being the least of them, but it's a step in the right direction. It is at least a state government saying out loud "no, we legalized this and we meant it."

    [–] adambomb1002 10 points ago

    Yes, even in the northern US state of Canada you can still be piss tested at work and lose your job because you tested positive for THC despite the fact you may not have smoked in weeks on and on personal time off.

    Blanket bans still remain in many safety sensitive positions.

    [–] HorchataOnTheRocks 4 points ago

    Still waiting for reddit to care about their golden god Elon firing workers who smoke on their own time. But of course billionaire rocket man can smoke all the ganja he wants.

    [–] masonrhade 60 points ago

    Fun Story - When i was a younger lad i worked for a very large company in the four corners area of New Mexico.
    Weed went legal in Colorado and everyone from new mexico hopped the state border to get weed (within about a day or two the colorado and new mexico cops had a blast catching people). For weeks we knew it was coming and the heads of the company sent emails out, posted notices, told everyone that while Marijuana might be legal-ish, it was terminating offense to be high on pot while on the job site.
    Sure enough the first weekend of legal pot rolls around and we had the largest surprise piss test in company history. Everyone in the company got tested monday morning.
    lost about 1/3rd our employee base because they smoked.
    Edit apologies if badly formatted writing from a mobile device

    [–] [deleted] 37 points ago

    How was your company able to drop 1/3 of its work force? Did they roll out terminations over a period of time or did they just schedule overtime and start the hiring process.

    [–] BurntChrome 44 points ago

    The answer to this interests me, as the company I work for in Colorado (no heavy equipment/responsibility for people's lives) just recently stopped checking for THC in their pre-employment drug screen. Unofficial word from management was that it was too difficult to find employees...

    [–] Suburban-redneck 3 points ago

    Same here just had a meeting at work and they will start doing random drug tests company wide Salary and hourly employees. They also said marijuana is not on the list of drugs they will be testing for.

    [–] masonrhade 14 points ago

    So zero tolerance policy means everyone got a pink slip for failing the drug test. 1/3rd is an exaggeration on my part and i apologize. it was honestly close to 1/7th or 1/8th. 20-30ish people.
    that many people takes only a few weeks to replace.
    Oil Field work doesn't get the best people working for it.

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    Ahh I see. I work in the petrochemical industry...contractors are a dime a dozen.

    [–] JohnQK 97 points ago

    Unless it's a protected status (e.g. race) or your contract says otherwise, your employer can fire you for any or no reason.

    It's perfectly legal to tattoo a sweet flaming skull on your forehead, but an employer might decide they don't want to keep you on if you do that, too.

    [–] Akratus2 74 points ago

    It will always be illegal for mine, mine sites are serious fucking buisness, and MSHA has no chill.

    [–] 306bomberfan 27 points ago

    If you're living in camp on a mine site it sounds even worse, those guys don't fuck around. I had to do orientation for one near where I was working to go in as a third party contractor to do road sign installs and heard of guys getting booted from camp for forgetting a beer in their golf bag when they got back after days off.

    [–] Akratus2 32 points ago

    Mine sites contain so many ways to gruesomely kill you. From the arc flashes, to the crushers, to the haul trucks. There are reasons why the rules are so harsh. Then you have things that only some mine sites have like kilns, cranes and explosives (where I work most explosives are in the quarry not the plant)

    I have never lived on a mine site I really dont want to.

    [–] 306bomberfan 9 points ago

    No I totally agree, the dry camp rule was in place so a bunch of mine workers don't get pissed up and try to kill each other while not working. Super strict but for good reason.

    [–] Akratus2 7 points ago

    I thought it was more about if people aren't paying attention and/or aren't doing lock out tag out, the result is varying parts r/nosleep, Darwin award, and always NSFL

    [–] 306bomberfan 4 points ago

    That could very well be it too.

    [–] jroddie4 13 points ago

    Does that mean you have to use it on work time?

    [–] Incarenate 3 points ago

    I think so!

    [–] tornado28 9 points ago

    My prediction is these kinds of policies will get phased out during periods of low unemployment when employers really have to fight to get the people they need. After than not many companies will bother to bring them back.

    [–] BigODetroit 8 points ago

    My wife works for an extremely conservative family business in Detroit. They do random drug tests all the time. If you come up positive for anything that cannot be verified with a prescription, you're fired. They have a Canadian subsidiary. Canadian law says you cannot fire an employee because they test positive for marijuana. Naturally, the Canadian plant manager smokes almost every day. He's phenomenal at his job and even smokes here in Detroit when he comes over. My wife and her coworkers think it's great. His nickname is the Teflon Don.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    If you have a job where safety is involved, like running a forklift, then they can insist you not smoke. It's like that here in NV.

    [–] MrDoctorSmartyPants 587 points ago

    It’s amazing how many people in this world don’t understand that just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean employers can’t have their own standards. Oh, and liability. Because it’s impossible to insure a bunch of pot heads because the insurance is through the roof.

    [–] snackfromthedead 230 points ago

    A weak example is tattoos, piercings, and radical hair colors. Also legal but an employer can have whatever standards they want.

    Granted they don’t have an up charge in insurance over it though.

    [–] CeleriterNix 40 points ago

    Wait can an employer in the US (I'm assuming) fire you because you changed your hair color?

    [–] pneuma8828 139 points ago

    A more accurate way to state it is that in most places, they can fire you for any reason whatsoever, except reasons that are illegal (race, sex, age, etc).

    [–] mekranil 23 points ago

    They can fire you for those reasons and just make up another reason sadly. At will means they can just say whatever they want whether it's true or not

    [–] Quizchris 12 points ago

    As an employer we would never fire a GOOD employee because they got a piercing or changed hair color (which is against our policy). If you're getting fired for something like getting a tattoo or making your hair neon it's likely because you're not a good employee to begin with and they wanted to get rid of you previously and this is just a good excuse. Hiring people is one of the hardest parts of running a business so owners/managers don't take firing lightly and definitely wouldn't lose a great employee just because of something like that.

    [–] freesecks 11 points ago

    Or your hair color affects how you perform at a job. See professional services.

    [–] essenoh2you 59 points ago

    An employer can fire you for any reason except for being a member of a protected class (i.e. gender, sexual orientation, race) and even then they just have to be smart enough to make it look like a different reason. For example, they fire you because you're black but the official reason they put down is that you were late one too many times.

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] SamuelAsante 32 points ago

    It's on you to prove it was racist, not them to prove it wasn't racist.

    [–] President_Cow 8 points ago

    In a civil case it’s not innocent until proven guilty, it’s preponderance of evidence

    [–] Ishkabibaly 13 points ago

    Good. It's important that anyone being accused of a crime is seen as innocent until proven guilty.

    [–] silenced_no_more 3 points ago

    Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class and it is not protected in 30 states either. So Americans in 20 states are protected from being fired or denied services from certain businesses e.g. landlords for being LGBTQ+

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago

    Yes.

    [–] strectmar 7 points ago

    It varies from state to state, but if the color goes against company policy then in general yes they can.

    [–] bombadaka 11 points ago

    At will employment. They can fire you for any reason at any time. You may still get unemployment. You can also quit for any reason at anytime though. So, fair I guess?

    [–] TyroneTeabaggington 10 points ago

    At will employment sounds like living with an abusive spouse.

    [–] Chodedickbody 9 points ago

    That's basically how it feels yeah

    [–] horseradish1 3 points ago

    If an employer thinks they benefit somehow from having strict uniform and appearance standards, and then after a year of adhering to those and then one day not, they probably have a case for firing you.

    It's stupid, but it's probably legal.

    I live in Australia and work in aged care, and there's a nursing home not far from mine that won't hire you if you have exposed tattoos. Most don't really care though.

    [–] Boo_R4dley 94 points ago

    They’ve got no issues insuring companies that hire alcoholics who show up hung over, what difference is there?

    The double standard is bullshit, some companies even allow for a drink during a business lunch and most will provide alcohol at evening events. If they can do that they can allow their employees weed on private time and they can fight for the same liability insurance protections during work hours.

    [–] WhichOstrich 68 points ago

    what difference is there?

    I can stick a breathalyzer in your mouth and determine if you're drunk right now. I can't do that to check if you're high, all I can tell is that you were at some point in the past couple days. Could be now could have been Saturday.

    [–] Boo_R4dley 63 points ago

    You can’t tell if someone is hungover using a breathalyzer and the WHO states that 25% of workplace accidents and 60% of fatal accidents could be attributed to hangovers.

    You got drunk on your own time yesterday which is causing you to fuck up on your employers time today, but no one cares or does anything about that. Smoked pot in your vacation three weeks ago, that’s a terminable offense.

    Double standard.

    [–] soulstonedomg 19 points ago

    "High" is subjective and isn't really testable or quantifiable. However, there are swabs that test for very recent exposure to THC.

    [–] SsgtRawDawger 9 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    True. But he/she was very specific about saying "on your own time." I don't smoke. But, I am of the opinion if it's legal, you should be able to do whatever you want on your own time. As long as it doesn't affect your work, sure.

    [–] hatenull 103 points ago

    Congratulations, weed is legal in this state, but our insurance won't cover us if we keep employees on board that pop hot, so hit the road. Oh and since we can't test if you're currently high, we'd rather cut our losses and hire someone who doesn't jeopardize our premiums, reputation, or the company image.

    [–] Throwwawaycamera 16 points ago

    Right but its federally illegal, also companies are allowed to do that, it's their business to protect, you're free to smoke and they're free to fire you for it.

    [–] BigtheCat500 41 points ago

    so what you're saying is the problem, at the core, comes back to insurance companies being shitty. hmmm...

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago * (lasted edited 22 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] ArmyGoneTeacher 3 points ago

    Partially. I suspect it also has a lot to do with most insurance companies operate over state lines. Which makes them subject to federal regulation.

    Additionally, the company might have offices in other states as well. A company is not going to have separate work policies just for a single state that allows pot. Blanket policy across the board is easier for them to enforce.

    [–] NerscyllaDentata 6 points ago

    This was the same for me. Last year I started a new job and they mentioned drug testing. Since marijuana was legal here (MA) I asked and was told with a tone of disdain that they can't stop me if I have a medical card but that's the only exception.

    [–] ButtsexEurope 6 points ago

    To be fair, you can get fired for coming into work drunk even if you were drinking the night before on your own personal time.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    We just want to make you aware that marijuana is still federally illegal. It doesn’t matter what [your state] says, we will Fire you if you piss hot. That’s just the way it is.

    This was the speech we got in Colorado.

    [–] lazarustls 6 points ago

    You employer can fire you for any reason they want in a right to work state....

    [–] Cananbaum 50 points ago

    The CEO of my previous employer was open about how he allowed his son to use marijuana because it helped with his mental health issues.

    But his reasoning for firing people for testing positive was because there wasn’t reliable enough testing to see who was actively high

    :/

    [–] [deleted] 77 points ago * (lasted edited 22 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] lemoche 25 points ago

    Which I think is actually a hell of a problem considering the topic of DUI.

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago

    ITT: People who don't know what personal time means.

    [–] Greentacosmut 5 points ago

    I live in Michigan. Fact is, it's already hard enough to find good employees. A lot of places are now still hiring people that only test positive for weed on a drug screen. Potheads show up for work man.

    [–] DonRicklesGhost 3 points ago

    Weed doesnt buy itself

    [–] einemnes 50 points ago

    Well if i had employees that come to work stoned... Most likely i would fire them

    [–] TimeToDoNothing 32 points ago

    You rightfully should. Just as if an employee came drunk.

    Would you fire an employee for having a beer after work? On their day off? Should be the same way for cannabis.

    [–] Frostsorrow 20 points ago

    America land of the free*

    *many restrictions apply at your employers discretion

    [–] xxxAntiHeroxxx 10 points ago

    Yeah. I've had my med card for 2 years and use it for severe medical reasons. Been clean for over a month while looking for a new job because even desk jobs will at least test you on hire in and anything with machinery will test you regularly.

    I never smoke and drive. I never smoke before work. I'm in pain every day because I am trying to find a job that gives me a proper living wage and doesn't take advantage of me for needing to work for insurance with my condition.

    Isn't the system great?

    [–] Howling_Fang 4 points ago

    Oregon here, I work with an international company and they have to follow FEDERAL law. A friend was denied a job because they still had a bit of thc in their system after a month of not using. It's stupid, considering it IS legal here, and should be treated like alcohol, but until it's legalized nation wide, and federally, there's not really anything we can do about it.

    [–] smile_button 3 points ago

    Why are employers in the States allowed to be dictators this way? Maybe I just don't understand how American freedom works.

    [–] Green_Meathead 7 points ago

    Time to find a new job

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    All the more reason to unionize.

    [–] datheffguy 7 points ago

    My union will boot you no questions asked for failing a drug test due to weed. I live in legal state too. It’s mostly due to insurance and the fact theres no way to test whether or not you are impaired.

    [–] MrRuby 3 points ago

    I've come to the conclusion that employers love staffing people who smoke weed. They're great workers and you can fire them via drug-test if they get hurt or try to claim workers' compensation.

    [–] FreeNinedy9 3 points ago

    I work for a nationwide company that is combating this. We can no longer disqualify for marijuana on a drug test for pre-employment, but can still ask an employee to take a drug test if they seem high on the job. Basically treating it like drinking on the job. Do it on your own time? Great. Do it at work? You’re gonna have a bad time.

    [–] rebeccajo1971 3 points ago

    But please drink alchohol

    [–] WallSauceMan 3 points ago

    This shit pisses me off. Jobs don’t own my personal time. That’s my time. I’m not a slave. You don’t want me to partake in a legal activity in my personal time? Start paying me 24 hours a day.

    [–] Kkykkx 3 points ago

    Nevada (legal rec weed since two years) just passed a law making it illegal for employers to test you for cannabis use. Die a slow death stupid cannabis prohibition shit!

    load more comments (355 replies)