Two weeks ago, the Oregon Appeals Court created rights for medical marijuana patients at employers' expense. The Oregon Appeals Court decided that it is invalid for an employer to fire employees for medical marijuana use outside work. Whether or not this is a valid or rational reason does not concern the government, for a business is the property of its owner not the government.
A business owner delegates authority to employers. Consequently, employers fire employees on behalf of the business owner. Thus, employers' firing motives are protected by the business owner's natural rights. Only employers' superiors or the business owner may override firings. Therefore, business owners and employers have the right to fire, and hire employees for any reason. For example, medical marijuana use outside work, heroine use outside work, Tylenol use outside work, Tylenol work inside work, gender, race, pregnancy, eye color, fashion sense, etc.
This is not to argue that any hiring-firing motive is virtuous. Basing employment and termination on arbitrary physical characteristics, such as gender, race, and eye color is indeed vicious. The problem is these motives do not concern the employee's abilities and merits. Instead, the motives are based on collectivistic irrationalities. For example, 'all blondes are stupid' collectively identifies all blondes for all of time as ignorant. One must judge each person as an individual, not as a collective's piece.
However, enforcing virtues and punishing vices is not the government's concern. The government's only concern is to protect individuals' natural rights from infringement. An employee's natural rights are not violated if he is fired for medical marijuana use outside work. Of course, others will argue that it violates his right to work. This is a fallacy. Individuals' right to work is already protected by their natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property. In turn, one has the right to seek employment and engage in labor. No one has the right to be provided employment and offered labor.
Unfortunately, it is often assumed that people do have the right to be provided employment; consequently, the government tries to protect it. However, since it is a fictional right, an employer does not initiate force when he fires an employee for irrational reasons. Therefore, the government cannot use defense force against the employer. The government must initiate force against the employer. The government must violate the employer's natural rights. The employer's right to property is violated; one may use one's property as he desires. His right to pursue happiness is violated; one may try to be satisfied even if one is misguided. His right to liberty is violated; one may choose even if the choice is vicious. Finally, his right to life is violated; one's life is one's own not a pie to be cut and divided for a collective.
©2008 Steven M. Paquin, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Sunday, June 29, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, June 29, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Steven M. Paquin only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Steven M. Paquin is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Steven M. Paquin of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Steven M. Paquin |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-06-30 07:37:16
Your argument is flawed. You said, "Basing employment and termination on arbitrary physical characteristics, such as gender, race, and eye color is indeed vicious. The problem is these motives do not concern the employee's abilities and merits." The implication is that this principle does not apply to medical marijuana usage outside of work. My question is: why not?
Just because someone uses medical marijuana outside of work does not mean they're stoned when they come to work and that the condition negatively impacts their ability to do their job. Without verification that the employees' ability to do his job is impaired by the medical treatment, the argument that denying employment based on medical mariuana usage is not the same as denying employment based on blue eyes or blonde hair becomes hair splitting.
It's important to note that most employers would not consider firing someone for coming to work sickened and weakened by chemotherapy treatment. Yet, chemo can significantly and negatively impact the person's ability to work.
The moment you grant the notion that government can prevent someone from being fired for having blonde hair or blue eyes is the same moment when medical marijuana usage cannot automatically be considered grounds for dismissal.
Posted By: Mike Mullins
Date: 2008-06-30 08:40:15
Having 14 years experience professionally consulting government and private businesses with the ADA I thought I should make a quick response.
ADA 101
First, the state cannot change the intent nor the written federal laws and regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That is, the State must at least meet the federal requirements, and may exceed these with their own, but cannot lessen the Act.
Most people think of ADA as Parking and Ramps. Although these items are an important factor there is much more to the Act besides physical barriers. It is also about policies, procedures, and attitudes.
The ADA is a Civil Rights issue, not one of medications, treatments or drugs. The ADA simply states that persons with disabilities shall have equal access to Programs, Services and Activities otherwise offered to any other member of the public. To single out any type of treatment or disability is directly against the ADA. This is what the court stated and is in fact in line with Federal regulations which the state must adhere to. Violations come with stiff penalties and loss of federal funding.
To single out a type of treatment then singles out many disabilities as allowed by the MMJ program. Who would this affect (what type of disability are you singling out)? This is the same as putting MMJ program participants on the back of the bus (segregation). This type of thinking is exactly what the ADA is trying to abolish. Your first concern should be for the view you have on persons with disabilities. From my experience in assisting with compliance and training, I have found that attitudinal barriers are by far the biggest hurdle.Violation of a Civil Right is not the answer and the Legislature cannot change this.
The real answer to this issue is to re-schedule medical marijuana so that a Doctor can properly prescribe it. This would then allow for the control and supply of MMJ rather than dealing in these grey areas.
As for the employer, the current Marijuana testing methods need to be reviewed. Current testing can show traces of the drug for up to 6 months after exposure. The effect of the drug only lasts for 1 to 4 hours depending on strength and dosage. In short there is no current test used generally by private employers that can detect if a person is "Under The Influence" of marijuana. This should be a primary concern that is addressed by private business sector and most certainly those big testing companies that make all the money from them (but have little interest in this area of development).
Perhaps the private sector can adopt what our military has learned about the value of "Impairment Testing" over a simple chemical analysis of the last 6 months of life to quantify if a person is Under the Influece of Marijuana or in fact "Impaired".
Mike Mullins (Co-Founder / CIO Disability Access Consultants, Inc.)
Posted By: jsknow
Date: 2008-06-30 09:04:46
Giving financial incentives to businesses that drug test is the governments way of pushing its failed drug policy.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH END PROHIBITION NOW!
It's time to remove all the politicians that promote prohibition.
How many more lives have to be needlessly devastated or lost?
Prohibited drugs are way easier for kids to get than regulated drugs
Prohibition never works it just causes crime and violence.
The USA spends $69 billion a year on the drug war, builds 900 new prison beds and hires 150 more correction officers every two weeks, arrests someone on a drug charge every 17 seconds, jails more people than any nation and has killed over 100,000 citizens in the drug war. In 1914 when there were no prohibited drugs 1.3% of our population was addicted to drugs, today 1.3% of our population is still addicted to drugs but there’s way more crime and violence because of the huge profits prohibition generates. Drugs today are more potent, more readily available and less expensive than they were in the early 70’s when Richard Nixon started the war on drugs. Every time you look at the news you see more and more drug busts involving bigger and bigger quantities of drugs, not less and less... doesn't that call for change?
“Jury Nullification”, learn more here: [link edited for length] If you are called for jury duty and you don’t agree with the law the person is charged with, you have the right to vote not guilty, no matter what evidence is produced. Jurors implementing this right in all non-violent drug cases will shut down the ridiculous laws of prohibition. One juror in each case is all it takes. The bottom line is a juror has the right to judge not only the accused person but the law the person is accused of breaking. Don’t be intimidated stick to your position.
There’s only been one drug success story in history, tobacco, by far the most deadly and one of the most addictive drugs. Almost half the users quit because of regulation, accurate information and medical treatment. No one went to jail and no one got killed.
The right; to freedom of religion, free speech, a free press, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure, to life, liberty and property, to be protected from having your property taken by the government without due process of law and without just compensation, to confront the witnesses against you, to be protected from excessive bail, excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, to vote and many others have been denied to millions of Americans in the name of the drug war.
Take action. Join the email list, Watch the videos:
Internet explorer: [link edited for length]
Other browsers: [link edited for length]
Posted By: Richard Steeb
Date: 2008-07-03 07:16:50
The "vice in government" is the abomination that is Cannabis prohibition.
Unless ALL employee prescriptions are subject to employer scrutiny, there is no rational justification to single out the herb. Metabolites of Cannabis are NOT an indication of real-time impairment.
A business owner may desire to staff his company with left-handed white women, but equal-opportunity laws are in effect... Poor oppressed employer may not discriminate on those bases, is THAT a Libertarian offense too?