1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. Powder_Reality
    CN AB: Judge Rules For Man Fired After Smoking Pot
    by Sarah O'Donnell, (29 Jun 2006) Calgary Herald Alberta
    An Alberta judge has ruled a construction company discriminated against a man when it fired him from an oilsands project after his pre-employment drug screening tested positive for marijuana.

    Instead, Justice Sheilah Martin said the man -- a recreational user -- should have been treated the same way as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in a growing body of human rights case law across Canada.

    In 2002, John Chiasson was hired by Kellogg, Brown & Root as a receiving inspector at Syncrude's plant north of Fort McMurray. He was required to take and pass a pre-employment drug test.

    It is the first time that Alberta's Court of Queen's bench has addressed pre-employment drug testing under Alberta human rights legislation. And while the judgment is specific to one company's policy, some are calling it a significant decision that could place new legal limits on when workers can be tested for drugs.

    Leanne Chahley, an Edmonton labour lawyer who regularly represents unions, said it means a worker does not have to be disabled to challenge a policy as discriminatory. It also means companies cannot use drug tests to automatically weed out potential employees who test positive, she said.

    Companies that require employees to drug test before setting foot in the workplace say they do so for important safety reasons.

    KBR argued that drug testing was "a necessary facet of a wider drug and alcohol strategy to counter the danger of the growing drug culture in Fort McMurray."

Comments

  1. Motorhead
    This is deffinately a big decision, and we probably will hear more about it in the coming months. Swim himself has dramatically decreased his weed consumption in anticipation of the drug testing he will no doubtly undergo when he goes to Alberta this fall.
    The oil based Albertan economy is booming hard-core, and its increasing transient population of young working men out in the boonies with large bank rolls and nothing to do has deffinately fostered a large drug trade. O swim has heard tales! Copious amounts of readily available, and cheap, crack, meth, and BC bud. Temptations abound.
    From what swim has heard some companies are more tyranical than others when it comes to drug testing. But as much as swim is against drug testing he does see the point when it comes to safety. These are very rigorous jobs that involve long hours, heavy machinery, dangerous gases, exposure to the elements, you name it. Swims have to keep their heads on strait!
    I am actually kind of torn about going out. I have become a big proponent of alternative fuels, but at the same time I have to make some fucking money. I am in the same position as thousounds of atlantic canadians-willing to work but no work around, so we have to pack up and leave our families just to support them. Crazy eh?
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!