Walmart worker Joseph Casias, 29, can take heart from the fact that the company is highly “sympathetic” to his struggle with an inoperable brain tumor. The sympathy, however, did not prevent the company from firing him because he used legal medical marijuana to deal with the pain of the tumor.
Casias was fired in November from a Walmart store in Battle Creek, Mich., after marijuana was detected in a routine drug screening. He proceeded to show all of the records that he took the marijuana legally and there was never a complaint about his performance at work. He worked 12-14 hours a day.
Walmart spokesman Greg Rossiter told FoxNews.com “This is just an unfortunate situation all around.” Well a bit more unfortunate for Casias, wouldn’t you say? Rossiter add “We’re sympathetic to Mr. Casias’ condition, but like other companies, we have to consider the overall safety of our customers and associates, including Mr. Casias, when making a difficult decision like this.” So, this is a Walmart version of Reefer Madness.
Once again, I am not sure why Wal-Mart fights these fights (here) and reaffirms the global view of the company as one of the dark forces in the business world.
For the full story, click here.
And passive-aggression suits you well, Duh.
But don’t worry. I’m not offended by that.
I think it’s funny.
And here I thought we were playing nicely. 😀
Thanks Professor! I’m sure the civility won’t last. It never does, and the sources are usually the same. With the exception of “Gerty”, this place has been pretty civil lately. Sure, discussions get heated, but personal attacks are few and far between. It takes everyone saying “Enough”. I’ve heard that adults are capable of such.
Byron,
I had some roommates in college who were fine art and design majors. One of them dated a textiles major. That gal could party. I’ll just say your story, while it made me laugh (can we get some 8×10 glossies of you in that possum codpiece? lol), I cannot say I am shocked they are not the wallflowers you expected.
Mike Appleton:
it f . . . ks me up something fierce 🙂
Zero Tolerance Jobs that are appropriate:
Surgeons
Pilots
Train Engineers
Nuclear and Other Power Plant workers
Livery Drivers (Bus/Cab/Limo/etc.)
OTR Truckers (now you want to talk about a bunch of druggies . . . and I don’t mean pot either)
Child care providers
This is hardly a comprehensive list, but what do they all have in common?
Other people’s lives are in their hands. Being impaired by ANY chemical substance makes them inherently dangerous.
A Wal-Mart employee not working in the pharmacy or driving a big rig?
Not so much.
Mike Appleton,
If the use of marijuana does not present a legitimate safety concern, how can an employer violate one’s privacy by making urinalysis a condition of employment. If the link has not already been established, how can the employer get away with even making it a condition of employment? What’s next; and STD free work place. “We test ’em, if’n we see ’em itch” 🙂
I have deleted a couple of comments from this thread. Once again, please stop the personal attacks. Enough.
bUDDHA:
I went to the knitting shop last night with my wife and was looking at all of the different yarns they offer. They make yarn out of milk, Australian possum, beaver, fox, bamboo, soy milk, silk, wool and yes you guessed correctly “hemp” as in grass as in Mary Jane.
The ladies are bat sh. . . . t crazy, one asked me to strip. I told them I would be back next week with a possum codpiece.
And I thought knitters were reserved wall flowers, whod have thunk.
Duh, no one is suggesting that any company ignore safety concerns. There was nothing (apparently) in the personnel records of the individual in question to suggest that he had created safety concerns. Medical marijuana would be treated like any other prescribed medication by employers. Moreover, I believe that there is a great deal of misinformation and hyperbole, i.e., progaganda, constantly circulating regarding the use of marijuana. It is an issue that tends to be addressed emotionally rather than rationally.
Have I mentioned hemp makes better quality paper than wood pulp, requires considerably less processing (e.g. toxic chemicals) and produces a low-acid strong durable paper that is superior to wood paper in every way? And it comes from a natural resource that is renewable multiple times within a year. A year old tree on the other hand? It wouldn’t make enough paper to justify the fuel wasted cutting it down.
Legitimate safety risk according to whom? You? That’s not what his work record reflects and you are hardly credible appealing to your own authority. You saying he’s a safety risk carries no more weight than Wal-Mart saying that in light of the man’s job performance.
And if that Prof can’t handle his high? Well then his discretion in timing is the actual issue, not that he smokes marijuana. “A man’s got to know his limitations.” – Dirty Harry. Too much of anything can make one go loopy. Just like too much drug war propaganda has made you go loopy.
Let me let you in on a little secret. One of the best lawyers I know could smoke Bob Marley under the table. And I mean he’s a real go-getter. You need a zealous bastard to defend you? You got it. He pulls no punches. A real bulldog. He’s so good he’d even make our own beloved Vince break out into a cold sweat.
But . . .
Once he’s off the clock, it’s time to burn. But if he’s dealing with clients or work issues, he’d no sooner light one up than he’d down a pint of vodka before going to court. He exercises discretion and doesn’t smoke at work.
Just like Mr. Casias. Who isn’t, unlike my friend, a recreational user. He’s taking marijuana as medicine.
Apples and oranges.
I’ll say it again real slow so you’ll understand.
Medical.
Necessity.
Properly used.
You cannot make this case in any way, despite your weak protests of sympathy, without sounding like a Wal-Mart spokesperson. Which is to say a corporatist sadist.
Again, powder and perfume just make bullshit stink differently. But it still stinks.
I am in support of MM for people that need it. If he is smoking while on the employment site, just like drinking then he should be terminated. Period.
However, there are legitimate reasons that a person would feel free to do in his home that may be legal for some and illegal for other. Tobacco has not been banned and yet there is a third party insurer in Michigan that will terminate you for smoking on your own off duty time. Is this fair?
And it was legal: in Michigan, there’s no law that prevents a boss from firing people virtually at will. At Weyco, that meant no smoking at work, no smoking at home, no smoking period.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=856
It has occurred in other places the city of Plymouth fired an officer that was promoted after the implementation of this policy.
So where are we going to tell people what they can do on there own off duty time?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9iRb7Q9JAg&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
If he is stoned at work, he does present a legitimate safety concern. I don’t believe that a legitimate safety concern should be ignored in lieu of compassion. Neither privacy nor compassion should outweigh a legitimate safety concern.
Mike Appleton,
How do you suggest they overcome the safety concern that was used to invade the employee’s privacy to begin with? Even if they made marijuana legal at the federal level, are we to then expect employers to effectively come out and say they were just kidding about the safety concern?
Important Facts About the New Law
Here are some important facts to remember:
•Doctors will not be writing marijuana prescriptions. They will only be attesting to qualifying illnesses.
•The Michigan Department of Community Health will be issuing registration cards that will allow the holder to possess, grow and use a limited amount of marijuana to treat symptoms.
•Abuse of the card, such as possessing or growing amounts that exceed set limits, selling your card or your marijuana or operating a vehicle under the influence, will result in arrest and prosecution.
There are at least three reasons why we will continue to see stories like this one. First, as long as federal and state laws on medical marijuana are in conflict, prescription marijuana users will have no protection under federal law and large companies will always opt for policies protected under federal law. Second, the interminable and pointless “war on drugs” has gradually created a cultural mind-set that regards the concept of “medical marijuana” with great suspicion. That attitude, similarly to the still popular view of homosexuality as a moral disorder, will change only after the old guard has died out. Third, zero tolerance policies, whether directed toward drugs or weapons in schools, are designed and implemented in a manner precluding the exercise of discretion (and, consequently, compassion) because institutions, whether private or public, have become large and unwieldy, and bureaucrats do not trust that those charged with enforcing the policies (i.e., lower level bureaucrats) have enough sense to make intelligent distinctions, a not wholly arbitrary assumption when one reviews some of the absurdities that hit this site on a daily basis.
Byron,
What you’re not understanding is that the entire premise permitting drug screening is “safety”. If it was not, it would be viewed as an invasion of privacy. Safety was the reason behind the SCOTUS decisions of Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (1989), and National Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989). They determined that the safety concern outweighed the privacy right. If employers like Wal-Mart abandon the safety premise for one person, they have to abandon it for all who perform the same job. Does his illness make his use of marijuana safer than that same use by one who does not have the illness? No.
While I am sympathetic to Mr. Casias, I don’t see how any employer can ignore a previously recognized and stated safety concern to accomodate individual usage, even if it provides medically recognized relief.
Did I mention money from private prison companies who make money based on how many beds they fill warehousing non-violent drug offenders?
http://leap.cc/cms/index.php
At the state level, many states, led by California, have realized the lie of prohibition.
So why the resistance from the Federal level?
Money. Campaign contributions to be precise. Graft, if one raises the resolution of precision. Money from parties who justify their Federal grants and budgets based on arrest numbers. Money from people who won’t be able to sell their manufactured drugs for ridiculous profits if a cheap natural alternative were available. Money from people who don’t want hemp rope and canvas to replace their more expensive – and bad for the environment – plastics.
In Michigan, it is legal to prescribe medical marijuana. So Mr. Casias does indeed have a prescription that is valid. That he is unable to buy it from a pharmacist is an ancillary issue.