City Employees Informed that Getting Stoned at Work Is Still Totally Uncool


States rights! Are you Ron Paul now?
@1) Yes.
This is just common-sense. Just as most employers don't tolerate drinking on the job (ah, for those good old "Mad Men" days, when it was considered normal to have a decanter of whisky on your credenza, or at least a bottle in your desk drawer!), it's sort of a no-brainer that they're not going to tolerate getting high on the job, either.
Well, I guess Comte beat me to what I was going to say, so um...

@2 - So how does this work? Is it a demonic possession-type thing, or is it more like the Dread Pirate Roberts, where the old one retired, and now it's up to you? Both options sound totally plausible with regards to Ron Paul, but I wouldn't have picked you for his successor.
Chillum workshops at the community center- sign up now and handle that pipe like a true Sadhu!
Public employees are, naturally, held to a high standard. When I am driving out to a job site, I am driving a car paid for by the taxpayers. Of course I take care of it and drive professionally.

Being drunk or stoned at my job means you aren't getting the service you deserve.

Contrast that to the private company The Future Mrs. Dr. Awesome works for: meeting monthly sales goals=reason to break out the champagne. They dont tolerate drunks, but they also enjoy a relaxed and tolerant corporate culture.
The idea that Ron Paul retired from Congress because he couldn't keep up with his double life of also being Seattle's Dominic Holden really tickled me right now -- much, much more so than it should be, especially since I'm not currently high at work.

I'm imagining Synergy and elaborate holograms were at work.

Dom - your comparing apples to oranges. While the federal DOMA prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, it never made it illiegal. On the contrary, it specifically designated it as a state matter, to be resolved by the various states as they themselves determined.
This is not the case with drug policy. Marijuana was/is illegal by federal law.
Here's a question for you, Dominic: with the passage of 502, will The Stranger permit its staff to be sober/not-high while working?
So how is that whole science -y thing working out for you? I can't show up, or get drunk on the job. I am in a position of higher safety standards. When I slip up, it isn't just a shitty editorial on workers rights. People will get maimed. People will die.
Funny thing about THC, it is fat based. Alcohol will leave the system entirely within 24 hours post consumption- barring health complications. THC doesn't because it is fat based. THC doesn't leave the brownies after they are baked. Baking the same set of brownies with vodka instead of milk will not make the consumer drunk, they will only taste like shit.
THC does not wash out of your system like alcohol. That is why they can detect it long after consumption in hair follicles. I can drink a 1/5 of vodka Friday through Sunday, and wake up Monday without any trace amounts in my system (sure my liver may go to shit, but that isn't the point.) One cannot do that with pot.
If I thought up a lame ass excuse to tell my supervisor, without vindication, it wouldn't really matter. If you start selling horseshit, everyone will be after your ass for violation of press principles. If you smoke a joint then write your article, no big deal. If I smoke a joint Friday night, then careen a 35 ton trolley off the Montlake Bridge on the following Monday morning, big fucking deal.
Is my job better or more valuable then yours? Absolutely not. Does it have a different set of standards that have absolutely nothing to do with the passage of I-502. Absolutely yes.
@10: While I'm fine with requiring drug testing for safety-related jobs, remember that there's a BIG difference between "detectable amount" and "amount that indicates that you're high" when it comes to THC. This is why drug testing is useless for any drug other than THC except to catch people so who are addicted to coke, meth, smack, etc. that they dose themselves every single day.
My company tests for all drugs (including non-addictive rx, like prozac) and has zero tolerance about drinking while working, including when a vendor takes us out for dinner, which is pretty much unheard of in the industry. An employer can set whatever standards they like as condition of employment, so it wasn't necessary for the City to blame the feds.

Don't tell Ron Paul you can't compare apples to oranges. Because FWEEDOM!
Where I work this is such a non-issue. We can't use our brains if we're stoned or drunk (yes, I know what my posts seem like, but that's not the same thing).

Ron Paul ftw!
Not sure what it says about me, but I've had several jobs that required drinking on the job.
There is going to be some big changes now that herb is re-legalized. All the discriminatory drug testing and firing people because they like a non toxic herb rather than poison like booze is going to have to end. I can smoke herb all night then go into work the next morning and have no hangover. Try doing that with booze. Its time for ignorant people to get an education about herb and realize it does NOT give you a hang over or impact motor skills and your little brats will survive if they walk past someone smoking a j or a garden full of beautiful cannabis plants in full bloom.
I realize that it's not central to your post, but your argument about federal law is total bullshit. DOMA did not prohibit same sex marriage; it prohibited the federal government from recognizing it. On the other hand, federal law does actually prohibit pot possession and sale.

To clarify the situation, imagine you are a federal judge. A federal agent busts a Seattle resident for the federal crime pot possession and hauls his ass before your federal court. The accused admits to possession but argues that the case should be thrown out because Washington's law has nullified the federal law. Do you rule in his favor?

Look, I voted for I-502 and would love to see nationwide legalization. But I'm honest enough to admit that Washington's legalization is a political stunt that has a practical legal effect only as long as a friendly administration in DC is willing to selectively enforce national laws.
@17 I would, but then I think this is something the Supremes need to take another look at.

I'm not a huge Federalist by any means, but I do think that to the extent a state wishes to create a legal market for something like this, it is within their right to do so.
Sorry, giffy, but the Supremes have already looked at something very similar. Their opinion: The Commerce Clause (which is, of course, federal) rules all. I don't agree with them, but there's no arguing with them about it.
@19 That's why I said 'another look'. ;)

@20: I appreciate your admission that such a ruling would require a complete revamp of currently accepted constitutional doctrine on federal/state relationships.

I am interested what replacement doctrine you would advocate. Would it allow states to set point pollution levels or minimum wage levels below federal standards? If not, how would you distinguish?

Probably the minimum change to get to where you want would be to go for a stricter reading of the commerce clause and then argue that the feds never had the authority to prohibit in the first place. But that's not really allowing nullification, it's just ruling that a federal law is unconstitutional regardless of the status of state law.
I think the Seattle department of urban planning could use a little weed.

Why do you think Vancouver has a much better design?
I think it's fine for a company to state that they have a drug/alcohol-free policy for their workplace, but they will need to change their testing for THC so that it's the blood test that looks at active THC, not the crappy urine and hair tests that they use now that have no relation to actual impairment. I wouldn't drink or use weed before or during work, but since it's legal to use it now I should be able to have a toke after work and not worry about losing my job if I get tested the next day, just like I can have a couple of beers with no worry after work.
We are using "The Beer of Thumb" rule -- if you wouldnt drink a beer doing X thing, then no pot. NO beer at work, no beer at school, no beer while chainsawing a log, no beer while driving. Yes beer/pot during Jeopardy, yes beer/pot sitting on lawn admiring previously chainsawed log pieces, yes beer/pot at weddings with designated driver.
@24 - I love "The Beer of Thumb" rule, but I thought it was if you only see one thumb while giving the "thumbs up" to someone that you were OK to drive?
no, the beer of tunb does not work. We are under DOJ orders to tone it down, so we will all be smoking a bit of the weed to calm down more, it's a new deescalation technique called "elevate to deescalate"!