Can Employers Legally Fire You for Medical Marijuana Use?

[Ivan Seeking]

Jan. 24 (Bloomberg) -- An employee fired for his medicinal use of marijuana can't sue his employer for unlawful discrimination under California law, the state's top court ruled.

In a 5-2 ruling today, California's Supreme Court upheld a lower-court decision that plaintiff Gary Ross can't sue his employer, Ragingwire Telecommunications Inc., after it fired him for his off-duty medicinal smoking. [continued]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIJ90qlEwzdg&refer=home

What a strange situation. Employers can fire people for smoking cigs or drinking, but in the case of a prescribed medical treatment this seems rather odd. Of course this again gets back to the feds stepping on State's rights; ie. the justification was federal law.

We threw the feds out of Oregon re pot and assisted suicide.

 

[Amp1]

The employer - I'm guessing is anti-marijuana - ironic though that he did something that marijuana is said to do... get you unemployed.

edit: he's the butt because he was supposedly doing something benificial for himself.

 

[Evo]

An increasing number of employers require screening for illegal drugs. As the article states

Kennard agreed with the majority that Ross had no public policy-based claim because federal law makes marijuana possession and use illegal.

My company not only requires that you pass a drug test, you also have to pass a background check and a credit check. Apparently bad credit will get you fired. When I hired on, employment was contingent on passing all of these requirements. That was in your job offer letter that you had to agree to when you accepted the job. Last year a guy got fired a couple of months after being hired because he failed the background check.

 

[Art]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIJ90qlEwzdg&refer=home

What a strange situation. Employers can fire people for smoking cigs or drinking, but in the case of a prescribed medical treatment this seems rather odd.

Depends on the job they're doing of course. Wouldn't be much consolation to know your pilot has a doctor's prescription for his 'pot' as you hear him exclaiming 'hey man, look at all the pretty lights' as you're coming into land in LAX

 

[Amp1]

I suppose its like when those with DUIs exclaim "Wow there's nothing to driving".

 

[BobG]

An increasing number of employers require screening for illegal drugs. As the article states

My company not only requires that you pass a drug test, you also have to pass a background check and a credit check. Apparently bad credit will get you fired. When I hired on, employment was contingent on passing all of these requirements. That was in your job offer letter that you had to agree to when you accepted the job. Last year a guy got fired a couple of months after being hired because he failed the background check.

This trend bugs me. I think there should have to be some sort of correlation between the screening they do and the job a person is doing.

I can see requiring a background check of an applicants criminal record for a school teacher. You don't want a grade school teacher that's been convicted of molesting a kid.

In the case of pilots, there's restrictions for off-hours alcohol use, as well - both the anti-drug and anti-alcohol restrictions are for functional reasons.

It's harder to justify a drug test for an office worker. How's off hours drug use going to have a different effect than off hours alcohol use?

 

[Art]

An increasing number of employers require screening for illegal drugs. As the article states

My company not only requires that you pass a drug test, you also have to pass a background check and a credit check. Apparently bad credit will get you fired. When I hired on, employment was contingent on passing all of these requirements. That was in your job offer letter that you had to agree to when you accepted the job. Last year a guy got fired a couple of months after being hired because he failed the background check.

As an equal bargaining partner couldn't you just have refused to sign and instead negotiated a contract you were happy with as Economist recommends

Any idea what the thinking is behind the credit check? I can't see how that relates to the job at all What happens if you default on a loan after you take up employment with them. Would they fire you?

 

[BobG]

As an equal bargaining partner couldn't you just have refused to sign and instead negotiated a contract you were happy with as Economist recommends

Any idea what the thinking is behind the credit check? I can't see how that relates to the job at all What happens if you default on a loan after you take up employment with them. Would they fire you?

Not if the folks that gave you the loan garnishee your wages.

 

[Evo]

As an equal bargaining partner couldn't you just have refused to sign and instead negotiated a contract you were happy with as Economist recommends

Right.

Any idea what the thinking is behind the credit check? I can't see how that relates to the job at all What happens if you default on a loan after you take up employment with them. Would they fire you?

My guess is someone with bad credit might be a risk for fraud, theft (material and intellectual), embezzling. As long as the employee keeps their nose clean, I don't believe they continue to do checks.

 

[Evo]

It's harder to justify a drug test for an office worker. How's off hours drug use going to have a different effect than off hours alcohol use?

If your blood alcohol level is too high on a test, I'm sure it raises a red flag.

At my company, we deal with sensitive records on the public. I personally work with (not for) a particular Government agency.

 

[EnumaElish]

If your blood alcohol level is too high on a test, I'm sure it raises a red flag.

At my company, we deal with sensitive records on the public. I personally work with (not for) a particular Government agency.

Aren't these checks a condition for working with government agencies?

 

[chemisttree]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIJ90qlEwzdg&refer=home

What a strange situation. Employers can fire people for smoking cigs or drinking, but in the case of a prescribed medical treatment this seems rather odd. Of course this again gets back to the feds stepping on State's rights; ie. the justification was federal law.

We threw the feds out of Oregon re pot and assisted suicide.

Smoking marijuana has not been tested for safety while the synthetic form of the active ingredient, found in the drug Marinol, has been FDA approved. If the plaintiff were serious about the nausea, he should be taking Marinol.

Likewise morphine is an approved product while smoking opium is not.

This is a case of State law stepping on Federal jurisdiction... not the other way around.

 

[Evo]

Aren't these checks a condition for working with government agencies?

I would suppose so, but every company employee has to pass these checks. I am one of a small number that actually deals with the Federal Government.

 

[drankin]

I think a company should be able to hire and fire as they choose. Regardless of reason.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is a case of State law stepping on Federal jurisdiction... not the other way around.

Why is this a matter of federal jurisdiction? Where does it say that in the Constitution? IIRC, if not specified, it defaults to State's rights. And in fact the State governments like Oregon's are claiming this right.

sidenote: I once had a potential employer tell me straight up that he wouldn't hire me if I went to church [Sunday conflict]! I had another one tell me that prayer during lunch meetings is required! So much for the law. It's still the wild west out here.

 

[DrClapeyron]

This issue was settled in 1865.

 

[chemisttree]

Why is this a matter of federal jurisdiction? Where does it say that in the Constitution? IIRC, if not specified, it defaults to State's rights. And in fact the State governments like Oregon's are claiming this right.

sidenote: I once had a potential employer tell me straight up that he wouldn't hire me if I went to church [Sunday conflict]! I had another one tell me that prayer during lunch meetings is required! So much for the law. It's still the wild west out here.

Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html

Marijuana hasn't undergone rigorous scientific testing. Sorry, but that is the law. A lot of laws aren't specified in the Constitution... the Federal Government still has the right and mandate to enact them as it has regarding the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. In this case the excipient is a known carcinogen! The Feds haven't gotten around to suing the states yet for political reasons. Kind of like not actually enforcing the laws on the books regarding immigration...

BTW. You don't have the right to any job you want under the constitution. Just the right not to be forced to work at one that conflicts with your religious beliefs. You might have a point about the employer that requires a lunch meeting prayer...
Why didn't you sue? (y'know, for your rights)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Laws can be challenged on the basis that they are unconstitutional. That is the basis for the ruckus here in Oregon. I don't know the exact state of this except that in spite of Bush's attempts at interference, assisted suicides are done routinely in Oregon. I also know that people do get or grow med pot legally. So perhaps as far as Oregon is concerned, you are right; this is settled.

Why didn't I sue? What proof do I have of what was said in a private interview. Besides, I wouldn't want to work for either employer. In fact I took great pleasure in turning down their job offers.

 

[edward]

Smoking marijuana has not been tested for safety while the synthetic form of the active ingredient, found in the drug Marinol, has been FDA approved. If the plaintiff were serious about the nausea, he should be taking Marinol.

The pill form is fine for nausea, but for someone who is vomiting every five minutes for the next three days after chemotherapy, they just don't work effectively.

Ironically even if the person is taking the pill form the drug test will still come back positive.

 

[Gokul43201]

Laws can be challenged on the basis that they are unconstitutional.

But what's the point of the FDA if states can go about allowing untested drugs to be prescribed? Are you suggesting that the FDA be decentralized, or altogether eliminated, or become merely advisory (not regulatory) in nature?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the Constitution gives the State any right not specified othewise or prohibited by the Constitution. So it would be up to each State to honor the FDA standards or not; or to make exceptions when they seem appropriate. And this is what we see happening - the States asserting their rights in spite of the ranting of the Fed government. The business in California only happened because for the man involved, it is already legal for use in that State.

It could be considered herbal therapy. Besides, it may well be that the only reason that the FDA wouldn't approve it for use are the existing laws.

Where does the Constitution give the Fed government jurisdication over personal medical decisions?

Something else comes to mind here. When we went to Europe, Tsu had some problems and needed pain pills that are prescribed for her here in the States. We nearly panicked when her back went out in Holland because she didn't have any pills. I asked my cousin if he knew what to do, and he replied: "Just go get what you need. You can just buy it. ~ Here adults are treated like adults."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

 

[Evo]

I think the Constitution gives the State any right not specified othewise or prohibited by the Constitution.

It could be considered herbal therapy. Besides, it may well be that the only reason that the FDA wouldn't approve it for use are the existing laws.

Where does the Constitution give the Fed government jurisdication over personal medical decisions?

I believe that the point here is that is it illegal under federal law and the right in some states for flaky doctors to prescribe it in some states under "good samaritan" law does not make it legal. There are other drugs that are probably more effective that are legal. Marijuana has MANY down sides to it, it decreases productivity, it makes you tired, it makes you want to do nothing but eat and sleep. People, on marijuana have slower relexes, can't then think as clearly, there is a reason we gave them the derogatory name of "potheads". I lived through the 60's and heavy pot use. I tried pot. I'd bike to someone's house, they were all smoking pot, within an hour of breathing second hand smoke, I could barely cycle home to go to sleep. My day would be shot.

It does not kill pain. Unless you're so doped up that you don't realize you have an injury. Marijauna should not be legalized, it's bad stuff, it makes you lazy and hungry and have dry mouth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is not about using pot. This is about how the Feds continually violate State's rights.

Besides, there clearly are many people and doctors who believe that pot does help with pain or nausea. As for being legal, it already is for this in a number of states...not sure how many now. As I said, we kicked the Feds out of Oregon, but I don't know what all has happened in this regard elsewhere.

Worthy of mention: The Governer personally went to war with Rummy when the Feds tried to come and take away our air defenses. Rummy lost and we still have our aircraft. For that I will vote for our Governer as long as he wants to be Governer.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would also point out that saying pot doesn't help with pain or nausea is completely indefensible because pain is measured subjectively. There is no other way to do it.

 

[turbo]

sidenote: I once had a potential employer tell me straight up that he wouldn't hire me if I went to church [Sunday conflict]! I had another one tell me that prayer during lunch meetings is required! So much for the law. It's still the wild west out here.

I once worked for a company out of south Georgia that placed a high premium on my being a "Christian" but required that I work Sundays whenever a client was having problems.

These executives would set up sales meetings and technical service meetings in cities that had expensive restaurants and strip clubs instead of holding them on home turf so they could go out and kick up their heels. I was given a practically unlimited budget for booze, food, golf, and other enticements to get paper machine executives to buy our fabrics. It was a twisted way to live and work.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

FYI, I made a number of late edits in several posts above.

Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about Turbo. For a number of years I was a support engineer and had to work closely with the salesmen. I ate at the best restaurants every day of the week and hated every minute of it! And I can honestly say that the one and only time that I have ever entered a nightclub, one having nude dancers that is, I had to do it for my job. Of course I can't really say that I hated that one...

 

[Saladsamurai]

I think a company should be able to hire and fire as they choose. Regardless of reason.

Right, I mean just fire away. If your black, your fired. . . gay, fired. . . Jewish, fired.

Regardless of reason, what a great idea

 

[Contrapositive]

Marijuana has MANY down sides to it, it decreases productivity, it makes you tired, it makes you want to do nothing but eat and sleep. People, on marijuana have slower relexes, can't then think as clearly, there is a reason we gave them the derogatory name of "potheads". I lived through the 60's and heavy pot use. I tried pot. I'd bike to someone's house, they were all smoking pot, within an hour of breathing second hand smoke, I could barely cycle home to go to sleep. My day would be shot.

Not to mention paranoia. Have you ever witnessed someone go psycho on pot? I mean they literally go crazy. I've seen it happen several times, and it happened to me once. All I remember was being in an extreme state of panic and being paralyzed, scariest night of my life. The next morning my roommate had a scar on his face and told me I punched him in the face and complete trashed our room, yelling and screaming all night long.

Right, I mean just fire away. If your black, your fired. . . gay, fired. . . Jewish, fired.

Regardless of reason, what a great idea

Any company dumb enough to descriminate based on race won't stay in business very long, anyway. I agree 100% with drankin.

 

[mheslep]

I think a company should be able to hire and fire as they choose. Regardless of reason.

Right, I mean just fire away. If your black, your fired. . . gay, fired. . . Jewish, fired.

Regardless of reason, what a great idea

Internet poster that thinks more laws and regulations are the answer ... fired.

 

[Evo]

In the US, many states have "Employment at will" which means an employer can fire anyone, anytime, for any reason (except discrimination). The employee has the right to quit at anytime and for any reason.

Missouri is such a state.

The courts of Missouri follow an "Employment-at-Will" doctrine. This means that both the employee and employer can end the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as it is not discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. Unless there is a written employment agreement, an employer may dictate or change the terms and conditions of employment. The employee can either agree to the terms and conditions, or refuse them and risk termination. The exact laws can be found in Chapter 290 RSMo and Regulations (Rules) under 8CSR 30, 4.010-050.

http://dolir.mo.gov/ls/faq/faq_general.htm

 

[Huckleberry]

What do you think a court verdict would be?
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html

Disability Discrimination​

the pros

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations. The ADA's nondiscrimination standards also apply to federal sector employees under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, and its implementing rules.

An individual with a disability is a person who:

Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
Has a record of such an impairment; or
Is regarded as having such an impairment.

the cons

Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Employees and applicants currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs are not covered by the ADA when an employer acts on the basis of such use. Tests for illegal drugs are not subject to the ADA's restrictions on medical examinations. Employers may hold illegal drug users and alcoholics to the same performance standards as other employees.

I think all this guy should have to do is go to court and show his prescription. If the prescription is legal then his drug use was not illegal. This assumes the nature of his job would not be hampered by off-hours use of marijuana.

 

[Evo]

I think all this guy should have to do is go to court and show his prescription. If the prescription is legal then his drug use was not illegal. This assumes the nature of his job would not be hampered by off-hours use of marijuana.

The problem is that it's illegal under Federal Law and it's not discrimination based on disablity, there are legal medications he could take.

 

[Huckleberry]

Yes, but it is not illegal in the state where the employee was. (I think?) This document does not specify that the drugs be illegal by federal law, only that they be illegal. If he had a valid prescription for medicinal marijuana then he wasn't breaking any law in that state and this federal discrimination law should protect his rights.

This law overrides state and local governments. It's right in the first paragraph.

 

[Huckleberry]

This is the definition of Illegal used in the official document that has a link on the site I posted.

6) Illegal use of drugs. -

(A) In general. - The term ``illegal use of drugs'' means the use
of drugs, the possession or distribution of which is unlawful under the
Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.]. Such term does not
include the use of a drug taken under supervision by a licensed health
care professional, or other uses authorized by the Controlled Substances
Act or other provisions of Federal law.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/ada.html

Note that it does not apply to drugs taken under the supervision of licensed health care professionals.

So what's the problem with California?

 

[Evo]

Yes, but it is not illegal in the state where the employee was. (I think?) This document does not specify that the drugs be illegal by federal law, only that they be illegal. If he had a valid prescription for medicinal marijuana then he wasn't breaking any law in that state and this federal discrimination law should protect his rights.

This law overrides state and local governments. It's right in the first paragraph.

As far as I know it's not legally prescribed, he claims his doctor recommended it. I can't search on the subject from work.

If you read the original article, it will fill you in.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIJ90qlEwzdg&refer=home

 

[drankin]

Right, I mean just fire away. If your black, your fired. . . gay, fired. . . Jewish, fired.

Regardless of reason, what a great idea

Regardless of reason! If some employers wants to hire gays only, why can't he? If an employer wants to hire blacks or Jews only, why the hell not? Who are you to tell him to hire people he doesn't want in his company? It is HIS company. I think its a great idea. *shrug*

-edit-

But, there are laws against outright discrimination for a reason. And those laws have their place. To me, if my employer doesn't like me for my race (which I've experienced), I really don't care. I can quit and work somewhere else. You won't find me in court suing anyone over it.

 

[Huckleberry]

Ok, I think I see the problem now. Even though, by the letter of the law, this fits the federal governments definition of disability discrimination, the federal government (Bush administration) does not like that states approve the use of marijuana. So while this law should protect this man's rights, since he hasn't done anything wrong by the law of his state, it won't because somebody in federal government is wearing their underwear too tight.

California State government is no better because they write a law to provide people with disabilities the right to use marijuana under some circumstances, but then they cannot enforce it when employers choose to fire these disabled people for its use because the employers are not criminally persecuting the employee.California is a 'right to work' state and can fire an employee for any reason that isn't discrimination, but technically they fired him for legal drug use used to medicate his disability, but not actually for being disabled. That's disingenious. That's California.

edit - they should sell California Law books as connect the dot puzzles and coloring books for children. Put those things to good use.

 

[Moonbear]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIJ90qlEwzdg&refer=home

What a strange situation. Employers can fire people for smoking cigs or drinking, but in the case of a prescribed medical treatment this seems rather odd. Of course this again gets back to the feds stepping on State's rights; ie. the justification was federal law.

I'm going to jump in without reading the full discussion, but...my view on this is that the problem really is that someone who is ill enough to NEED that sort of treatment has to work in the first place rather than being out on disability/sick leave. The same could be said of a number of legal prescription and non-prescription drugs. I'd treat it the same as someone taking a prescription narcotic...if they are in that much pain and need that strong of medication, they don't belong in the workplace at all. What sort of job could someone do with that type of medication? You can't give them a desk job, because they can't think clearly enough to make appropriate decisions, and you can't give them a physical job because their reactions are altered to be unsafe in such a job (not to mention that whatever is causing their pain probably also prevents them from doing a physical job). People shouldn't even be forced to go to work when they are on some cold medicines that make them too loopy to be anywhere but in bed.

So, if something is a temporary illness, take time off for sick leave, and if it's long-term, then there should be a disability program for them to be on to not be at work. The employer shouldn't have to be hindered by being required to hire someone whose medication hinders them from doing the job, especially when there is no way to make reasonable accomodation to permit them to do the job (as would be the case in jobs protected by the ADA).

 

[Saladsamurai]

Regardless of reason! If some employers wants to hire gays only, why can't he? If an employer wants to hire blacks or Jews only, why the hell not? Who are you to tell him to hire people he doesn't want in his company? It is HIS company. I think its a great idea. *shrug*

-edit-

But, there are laws against outright discrimination for a reason. And those laws have their place. To me, if my employer doesn't like me for my race (which I've experienced), I really don't care. I can quit and work somewhere else. You won't find me in court suing anyone over it.

That's right, shrug it off. It's a free country, right?

 

[drankin]

That's right, shrug it off. It's a free country, right?

Yes it is. Why the flippant attitude?

 

[denverdoc]

Don't believe it, and yet understand it. There are conditions such as iatrogenic treatment of cancer with intractable nausea, or loss of apppetite from Aids. There are few if any nausea related illnesses except maybe anxiety/marijuana withdrawal that could find medical evidence as a palliative treatment. Barking up the wrong tree here. I see addicts of all descriptions and this self-medication excuse has gained a lotta currency--usu for mental conditions. Hree IMHO its being extended in the guise of a physical one. Glaucoma maybe, nausea my belly hurts laughing. But if you think you need it ain't no substitute--on that I will swear!

 

[DrClapeyron]

If you chose not to sue, you have chosen a role unparticipatory regarding the issue of civil duty. Our society runs (here in America) off the ability to bring forth claim to a court of law settled by a judge. Property rights, contracts, divorce, marriage, wills, power of attorney could not exist if people did not bring forth their grivences as cases to be settled in court. You can do only a diservice by shrugging the world as though you are atlas, that is not how it works.

 

[mheslep]

If you chose not to sue, you have chosen a role unparticipatory regarding the issue of civil duty.

Do you really assert that it is always a civil duty to sue?

 

[Beeza]

I'm going to jump in without reading the full discussion, but...my view on this is that the problem really is that someone who is ill enough to NEED that sort of treatment has to work in the first place rather than being out on disability/sick leave. The same could be said of a number of legal prescription and non-prescription drugs. I'd treat it the same as someone taking a prescription narcotic...if they are in that much pain and need that strong of medication, they don't belong in the workplace at all. What sort of job could someone do with that type of medication? You can't give them a desk job, because they can't think clearly enough to make appropriate decisions, and you can't give them a physical job because their reactions are altered to be unsafe in such a job (not to mention that whatever is causing their pain probably also prevents them from doing a physical job). People shouldn't even be forced to go to work when they are on some cold medicines that make them too loopy to be anywhere but in bed.

So, if something is a temporary illness, take time off for sick leave, and if it's long-term, then there should be a disability program for them to be on to not be at work. The employer shouldn't have to be hindered by being required to hire someone whose medication hinders them from doing the job, especially when there is no way to make reasonable accomodation to permit them to do the job (as would be the case in jobs protected by the ADA).

I'm not really looking to stir-up any trouble, but they can indeed perform physical labor. I've been working construction a long time, and atleast 60% of every construction worker I've ever met gets high every day and continues to work perfectly fine-- even at extreme heights.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not really looking to stir-up any trouble, but they can indeed perform physical labor. I've been working construction a long time, and at least 60% of every construction worker I've ever met gets high every day and continues to work perfectly fine-- even at extreme heights.

I worked a lot of construction too and everybody got high after work, never before. I don't buy your assertion.

 

[drankin]

If you chose not to sue, you have chosen a role unparticipatory regarding the issue of civil duty. Our society runs (here in America) off the ability to bring forth claim to a court of law settled by a judge. Property rights, contracts, divorce, marriage, wills, power of attorney could not exist if people did not bring forth their grivences as cases to be settled in court. You can do only a diservice by shrugging the world as though you are atlas, that is not how it works.

Are you suggesting one should litigate themselves into the ideal world? Sorry, that's NOT how it works on my "atlas". It's certainly isn't my civic duty to sue anyone that doesn't like the color of my skin. Personally, I respect everyones right to have their opinion no matter how caustic it may seem.

 

[Beeza]

I worked a lot of construction too and everybody got high after work, never before. I don't buy your assertion.

Don't buy what? Theres nothing to dispute. It's fact as far as every construction company I have ever worked with all over New England and even a bit in Michigan. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm giving my input based on my experience.

 

[chemisttree]

Are you saying that their work didn't appear to suffer as opposed to 'you couldn't tell any difference' in their work? I've always wondered why all of our jobs were migrating overseas and down south...

 

[mheslep]

Don't buy what? Theres nothing to dispute. It's fact as far as every construction company I have ever worked with all over New England and even a bit in Michigan. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm giving my input based on my experience.

Fact? The only fact on the table is that you posted some words on the internet. How do you actually know 1/2 the crew was high? Blood test 'em? On my crews if you were working dangerous gear, scaffling, whatever where other guys were depending on you, and you showed up high then you were very likely to get you a*s kicked and then fired.