November 29, 2012

Unenforced Laws are Not Really "Laws", Are They?


Posted by Robert at November 29, 2012 7:00 AM

Right. Try lighting up a joint in a bar, restaurant, or workplace.

Posted by: randall g at November 29, 2012 1:45 PM

on a somewhat related note...

"Alberta's top court has dismissed an appeal by Suncor Energy over its plan to randomly test thousands of its oilsands workers for drugs and alcohol."

Apparently it's a privacy issue. More of a privacy issue when there's not enough time to cease getting high for the required few weeks..

Posted by: marc in calgary at November 29, 2012 2:19 PM

My first thought when I read the SUNCOR decision was that, if I'm stopped by a policeperson in a roadside check for drinking drivers, are my civil liberties being attacked?

I'd say the coincidence is too close for comfort.

SUNCOR should just skip the lower courts and take this straight to the SCOC.

Posted by: Mike in White Rock at November 29, 2012 2:31 PM

if I'm stopped by a policeperson in a roadside check for drinking drivers, are my civil liberties being attacked?

Yes, regardless of the SUNCOR decision.

Posted by: LAS at November 29, 2012 2:39 PM

Civil liberty lost; the LIFE of a woman who was killed while sitting in a bus shelter at 17th ave & 4 ST SW, Calgary. Run over by 3 car thieves in a stolen pickup truck. They stumbled away, apparently too HIGH to even GIVE-A-DAMN.

Posted by: puddin n pie at November 29, 2012 2:59 PM

I drive truck cross-boarder and have to submit to random drug tests, It is immoral and a deep invasion of privacy, it needs to be stopped and this is a good first step.

Posted by: Reverend Ken at November 29, 2012 3:07 PM

The SUNCOR issue is not clear to me...Are they looking to test right on the worksite just before or during the employee's work schedule OR do they want to have periodic screening? In either case, the pot smoker is clearly the looser as THC in the bloodstream can be present for weeks after the last joint; long after any effects are still present so same thing applies to the guy who had a joint the night before vs the guy who had a beer or 2 the night before. Both would show up to work the next day but the pothead would be screwed if tested, even if his high been long gone.

So the drug of choice SUNCOR wants it's employees to use during their private time is the one that makes you aggresive, destroys your gut, gives you high blood pressure and the shaakes and eventually diabetes...Good for long term employee health insurance cost is it?

Posted by: Right honorable Terry Tory at November 29, 2012 3:13 PM

Right Honorable Terry Tory,
They want to continue testing prior to employment, as a condition of employment, and when there is a "lost time accident" ... It's probably on the Workers Compensation Board forms indicating who's fault was this accident, were you following procedures, were the safety guards in place. (This is my guess, I haven't been on comp. in the past decade)

and, they want to have unannounced random testing, to catch those that managed to stop getting high for a few weeks prior to employment. This is the point of contention. I'm not clear on where the random testing would take place, for example, if there is a testing facility on site, or if one needs to report to a testing facility in Fr. McMurray.. Or more importantly, if the time spent peeing in a bucket is considered to be paid time, or not.

Prior testing remains, and testing after an accident will remain.

Posted by: marc in calgary at November 29, 2012 3:25 PM

Except....that this already happened here in Ontario (yeah, insert insult here...):

Posted by: CaligulaJones at November 29, 2012 3:33 PM

The skipper of the Exxon Valdez had a history of alcohol abuse.

In a free market economy a private sector organisation gets to decide on hire-and-fire issues. If Suncor can't find enough workers in Canada that will pass drug/alcohol tests let them fill the gap with migrant works that will.

Posted by: @ puddin n pie at November 29, 2012 3:40 PM

the last comment mistakenly labelled from puddin n pie ... the error is regretted

Posted by: Rizwan at November 29, 2012 3:42 PM

Regarding random RIDE checks. Maybe if they didn't have 8 cops idling about in 1 spot they would be on the road covering more territory and find actual dangerous drivers, instead of .05'ers with no risk to hurt anyone.

Posted by: Greg at November 29, 2012 4:38 PM

Funny.My work site had some druggies.They are no longer employed."Accidents" on the site happen all the time.You endanger my life,or my employees,or customers, and/or work place, gonzo.And I will pay for a one way ticket to China easts place in Vanloser's east side.

Posted by: Justthinkin at November 29, 2012 4:43 PM

That's it! I'm sparking up a stogie any where I see some zombie blowing a joint or huffing on a pot pipe. I want to see who has the malignant hypocrisy to bitch me out and overlook pot side stream smoke.

Posted by: Occam at November 29, 2012 4:43 PM

Look at it this way, it's just another excellent reason to start your own business! Seriously though, if I had to can every guy that smoked dope in his spare time I wouldn't have any staff. Mechanics aren't known for their good behaviour. I simply restrict it to on the job.

Posted by: TrueNorthist at November 29, 2012 5:56 PM

would that be smoke a joint, or BLOW a joint?:-)

Posted by: NME666 at November 29, 2012 7:23 PM

Exactly what laws are unenforced, Robert?

Posted by: phil at November 29, 2012 8:04 PM

something is missing in this stream.
i don't care what people do on their own time.
i do care what people do as a consequence of their actions as it affects others, be it a family member, employer, co-worker, or any person.

a job is not a right.

being terminated for impairment is grounds.

Posted by: puddin n pie at November 29, 2012 8:46 PM

The pee testing is one that only goes back like a year. But there are tests, that can go way back basically check and see if you ever tried any.
Fortunately none of them are used yet.

Posted by: Peter at November 29, 2012 9:20 PM

Marijuana will be decriminalized (not necessarily legal but no longer criminal) almost everywhere in the U.S. in the not to distant future. How society deals with this is going to be problematic as is already clear from the discussion. I don't know the rate of clearance for THC from the body but I suspect that it is quite high. And I doubt that most employers will resort to drug testing as most jobs do not fall into a dangerous work category.(Captain of big ship and driver of huge trucks are dangerous, cashier not so much). Most employers will however require no marijuana use during work hours.... no different from prohibiting drinking alcohol on the job. And if the job performance suffers because of marijuana, first comes counseling and warning.

Posted by: David in Michigan at November 29, 2012 9:51 PM

i don't care what people do on their own time.

And therein lies the crux of the issue....employers sticking their noses in what an employee does on their own time.

Posted by: phil at November 29, 2012 9:52 PM

If being clean and sober is a requirement for employment then so be it. When I joined the military I knew I had to cut my hair and shine my boots. If working on a rig requires me to pee in a pot then I pee or get another job. Privacy is very subjective. The airline that lets it's pilots smoke the weed is the airline I'll say away from. I can live with the guy getting me my big mac & fries being buzzed but the surgeon removing my appendix or the air traffic controller had better be sober.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at November 29, 2012 10:44 PM

Replace Marijuana which is a mild drug with pee tests that show up for 90 days will only drive these folks to hard drugs that last only 24 hours in the human system. People here think that a test will stop any accidents or people not high. LSD is undetectable. Ecstasy lasts 24 hours. Your fooling yourselves.The guy next to you could be on Mushrooms . Much worse than even booze.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at November 30, 2012 3:16 AM

Rev: "The guy next to you could be on Mushrooms . Much worse than even booze."

I can tell someone who took a haul of weed in an instant. I don't think I'm unique like that.

Posted by: red gunlop at November 30, 2012 5:49 PM
Post a comment

Before submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. THESE RULES APPLY TO EVERYONE. Thank you.

Remember personal info?