This concerns me. Employers that irrationally refuse to hire marijuana users will be out-competed by those who do hire them. Why does the government need to interfere?
"Employers that irrationally refuse to hire marijuana users will be out-competed by those who do hire them."
Maybe eventually, in some ideal marketplace.
In the meantime, without such legislation real people will be suffering real consequences, such as getting fired or having difficulty in getting hired because of what's otherwise legal activity they perform outside of work.
Your argument of non-interference could also be applied to all sorts of other laws against discrimination, such as laws that prevent companies from discriminating against people because of their disabilities or because of the color of their skin. We've seen how well "non-interference" in those cases have worked out.
I have the same conclusion for opposite reasoning; I think marijuana use is a clear and obvious red flag, and employers should be free to compete by hiring better people. Ultimately, I want to be proved right or wrong by forces of market, not by the government saying yay or nay.
Is being gay something you are or that you do? If drinking alcohol off the job is protected other recreational chemicals should be just as protected. And a significant portion of Marijuana use is medical regardless of opinion to the contrary.
There are clinical uses of medical marijuana to treat cancer pain and epileptic seizures. We’ve now crossed into “discrimination against a legally protected class” territory depending on the definition of disabled.
Yes, but I dislike that I do. It's absolutely true that I'm going against what I consider principals here; I think the harm from allowing racial discrimination in the workplace is greatly and demonstrably worse than other forms of discrimination. It's a practical trade-off that I don't think we need for marijuana.
I'd also like to see employers discriminate against alcohol users, even though I consume myself. There's plenty of fields that would benefit from employer enforced teetotaling. I don't think that either marijuana or alcohol make you a bad person, just a worse one. They're called vices for a reason. Everyone should have one, but I'd encourage people to play 40k or practice trainspotting or eat too much chocolate, all things shown to have less effect on mental health.
I would not like to see employers discriminate (per se) against alcohol or cannabis users, even though I don't consume myself.
If alcohol (or cannabis) in fact cause problems, then it is not necessary to discriminate against all users, just those who manifest the problems.
I am unclear on why many people (of a libertarian tilt) think that discrimination based on stereotypes is to be defended.* It seems to me to be a way of shifting internal costs of evaluating people onto society, and therefore we should not expect an unregulated market to provide an optimal amount of it.
* Provided it is not against a legally protected class.
Better people? that is somewhat insensitive to people who use marijuana for medical purposes. for example i smoke in mornings to avoid nausea from medications and to curb migraines and i work better because of it.
If a more able bodied person is "better" still, I guess you're right, you / employers can be the judge of it; after all, no one would be so blatantly honest about discrimination, be it marijuana use or overall health... there's always another reason to give to a candidate or worker. I have to agree that I don't think more government regulation would help in that regard. But maybe that's based off of my apathy, lol.
Anyways, im hoping you can consider there are reasons to consume marijuana other than just getting fucked up. its not always a reflection of bad character or poor work ethic.
"im hoping you can consider there are reasons to consume marijuana other than just getting fucked up. its not always a reflection of bad character or poor work ethic."
Even if someone does consume marijuana just to "get fucked up", I don't really see what's wrong with that, or why one would consider it a sign of bad character or poor work ethic.
Plenty of people consume alcohol just to "get fucked up", yet I have yet to hear of an employer refusing to hire people just because they drink alcohol for pleasure. Sometimes drinking alcohol is even tacitly encouraged by employers having holiday parties or other office parties at bars. I really don't see how anyone could unhypocritically look down on recreational users of one substance but not the other.
Of course, if alcohol (or marijuana) use becomes abuse, and starts actually interfering with one's life or work, that's problematic, but that's not what we're talking about here.
This is not true for monopolistic markets, such as those created by "drug free workplace" incentives. Until enough of them stop there can't be any meaningful competition.
13 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 39.0 ms ] threadMaybe eventually, in some ideal marketplace.
In the meantime, without such legislation real people will be suffering real consequences, such as getting fired or having difficulty in getting hired because of what's otherwise legal activity they perform outside of work.
Your argument of non-interference could also be applied to all sorts of other laws against discrimination, such as laws that prevent companies from discriminating against people because of their disabilities or because of the color of their skin. We've seen how well "non-interference" in those cases have worked out.
Do you think there should be laws against that?
I'd also like to see employers discriminate against alcohol users, even though I consume myself. There's plenty of fields that would benefit from employer enforced teetotaling. I don't think that either marijuana or alcohol make you a bad person, just a worse one. They're called vices for a reason. Everyone should have one, but I'd encourage people to play 40k or practice trainspotting or eat too much chocolate, all things shown to have less effect on mental health.
If alcohol (or cannabis) in fact cause problems, then it is not necessary to discriminate against all users, just those who manifest the problems.
I am unclear on why many people (of a libertarian tilt) think that discrimination based on stereotypes is to be defended.* It seems to me to be a way of shifting internal costs of evaluating people onto society, and therefore we should not expect an unregulated market to provide an optimal amount of it.
* Provided it is not against a legally protected class.
If a more able bodied person is "better" still, I guess you're right, you / employers can be the judge of it; after all, no one would be so blatantly honest about discrimination, be it marijuana use or overall health... there's always another reason to give to a candidate or worker. I have to agree that I don't think more government regulation would help in that regard. But maybe that's based off of my apathy, lol.
Anyways, im hoping you can consider there are reasons to consume marijuana other than just getting fucked up. its not always a reflection of bad character or poor work ethic.
Even if someone does consume marijuana just to "get fucked up", I don't really see what's wrong with that, or why one would consider it a sign of bad character or poor work ethic.
Plenty of people consume alcohol just to "get fucked up", yet I have yet to hear of an employer refusing to hire people just because they drink alcohol for pleasure. Sometimes drinking alcohol is even tacitly encouraged by employers having holiday parties or other office parties at bars. I really don't see how anyone could unhypocritically look down on recreational users of one substance but not the other.
Of course, if alcohol (or marijuana) use becomes abuse, and starts actually interfering with one's life or work, that's problematic, but that's not what we're talking about here.