>>The mere possibility that Walmart would have faced legal ramifications in this situation, simply for not following federal statue, is far more absurd than any "frivolity" of this case.
>
>It's not this specific situation that Wal-Mart has to design their policies around. It's all situations where they could be legally liable if it's found out that an employee injures someone while testing positive for an illegal narcotic.
>
>>Given that Mr Casias was prescribed medical marijuana legally after 2008, it's hard to understand the concept that "federal law says marijuana is illegal".
>
>It's not hard to understand the concept at all. State law permits using marijuana with medical permission, federal law prevents it. This case was filed in state court. If someone was injured by Mr Casias, their case would be filed in federal court.
>
>>On a boarder issue, so many people have their heads up their rear ends regarding marijuana. Cigarette smoking kills more people every year. There are far more car accidents involving drunks. Yet there are no laws that say you can't light up or take a drink.
>
>There are many laws regarding where, when and how you may consume cigarettes and alcohol. There are specific taxes targeting their consumption. There are regulations on %s of nicotine and alcohol. There are transportation laws. There are laws regarding how much and how late alcohol can be served. Laws about over serving. Laws regarding their use by previous violators. There are conditions put upon their use in custody hearings. There are recently passed laws banning flavored cigarettes, cloves, etc...and so on.
>
>>I don't smoke pot, never have, don't plan on it (unless I'm diagnosed with some illness where M.M. might alleviate symptoms)......but am sick and tired of companies like Walmart hiding behind these specious arguments (and Jake, I'm sorry, they ARE specious).
>
>If this was an intra-state company I would be more inclined to agree, especially given the current administration's statement regarding pursuit of marijuana violations. That's not the case here. The current cloudy mix of state v. federal statutes makes it impossible for any company that operates in multiple states to operate in a clearly defined legal manner. In the case of a multinational they must design policy to conform with the majority of potential cases. In the US, the federal and laws of 36 states say marijuana is illegal. From a business standpoint, the decision to prohibit its use is easy.
>
>During the previous administration as a business owner I would've been quite justified in developing policy to conform with federal statute in order to protect my business. In fact, I could likely mount a gross negligence case against a company that did not enforce such a policy if someone was injured by an employee who tested positive.
>
>>As for the "advocate to change policy"....are you serious????? I'd have better odds of living to be 150 than his odds of changing the policy.
>
>That it is difficult does not make it impossible nor unworthy. In addition, dislike for a policy does not give one the right to violate it. There were other options, not the least of which is masking his use. ;)
>
>>I'll freely admit that I have it in for Walmart - they suck as a company, they treat their employees like crap, they try to use the govt to seize property (E.D.), and I'd love to see them get knocked down about 100 pegs.
>
>Fair enough. Of course, Wal-Mart, like any business, will simply pass on any incurred expense to its customers so your joy will be misplaced if they are "knocked down". In reality you'll be joyfull that the poor who shop at Wal-Mart are having it stuck to them.
>
>personally, I think it's cruel to wish higher prices on the poor. ;)

The same argument was made before child labor laws and other labor laws were created.