flyingron didn't assert that there was any such test. He said there is no proof required for an employer to fire an employee for being under the influence of marijuana. While there is no test that shows whether a person is currently high on marijuana, it can be easy to spot if the person is sufficiently high, just as one doesn't need an alcohol test to spot someone who is truly drunk on booze.
You know, I could listen to you guys beat each other up all day and never get enough, but to get down to brass tacks, drug testing laws and the firing/disciplining thereof is state specific. Not all states will allow an employer to fire an employee for drug use (short of being under the influence at work) but PA will.
You cannot be fired BECAUSE you have an MM card. You CAN (in PA - not in all states) be fired because you are a user, subject to certain limitations.
Here you go.
Further, to prove intoxication on pot or alcohol requires a chemical test, not an assumption based on observation. Or some flim-flam FST.
I simply asked for the test, so I am not the one that is derailing this thread. But don't worry, Mark will blame it all on me.
UA's are used to detect metabolites of marijuana being processed in the body and, while they may not show up after immediate use, can detect whether or not the person being tested has used pot within a given window. With hair sampling there is evidence for as long as the hair is though the length of time is limited to, I believe, 90 days. But it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, this user can be terminated. For anything other than being a member of a protected class. The OP says he is employed by a company with a zero tolerance policy and they can fire him for showing signs of having used pot, in addition to showing up wearing two different socks. While they cannot fire him for having the MM card they can fire him for using pot.
You are derailing the thread. The poster was not drug tested. He's worried about his statements that he's an illegal drug user can be used against him by his employer if they manage to peer into his disability claim.
As was stated early on. NO DRUG TEST IS REQUIRED. There's no Constitutional right to be a druggie. The only thing the PA law does is bar employers from taking action solely because the person possesses a MM authorization.
That's not correct as a matter of logic. It simply means that even if there was a way to prove it that proof is not required.
Also not correct. A number of people are convicted in DUI cases, for example, without any chemical test having been given. Naturally a chemical test makes it easier for the state, but it's not required.
To state that an impossible test (like a pot test) is not required would be like saying: "No need to go 200mph in your Corolla to make it to the grocery store on-time." Well, that is an illogical statement to me, but maybe not to you. So, illogical to me or you, the statement is inherently flawed. It does not mean "if your car can go 200mph.......
Are our courts the highest level of verification? No! The courts do not scientifically determine what is so. Lawyers merely persuade twelve people to guess at what happened. Besides, if twelve people can decide what is so, maybe we need more juries to replace our scientific community since you apparently think they do a better job.Also not correct. A number of people are convicted in DUI cases, for example, without any chemical test having been given. Naturally a chemical test makes it easier for the state, but it's not required.