Oregon TV anchor: Pot got me fired (video)

[Boston.Knight2]

The morning weekend anchor at Eugene's ABC affiliate says she was fired in late May after testing positive for marijuana.

Cyd Maurer, 25, a University of Oregon graduate, said she got into a minor fender-bender while on assignment for KEZI on May 22 and was ordered, per corporate policy, to undergo a drug test.

http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2015/07/eugene_tv_anchor_says_she_was.html

 

[UCFEE]

People that do things out of social norms are very dangerous. She should just drink alcohol and get on anti-depressants to offset its depressive effect, like sane people do.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

If you don't want to be fired from your job for smoking dope, then don't smoke dope.

 

[Sir Galahad]

People that do things out of social norms are very dangerous. She should just drink alcohol and get on anti-depressants to offset its depressive effect, like sane people do.

How about not be stoned while working.

 

[UCFEE]

How about not be stoned while working.

People dumb enough to get stoned and go to work should be fired.

 

[EweSeaEff]

How about not be stoned while working.

I read it as she wasn't stoned while at work, rather she tested positive. THC stays in your system for up to 30 days typically.

 

[Happy Hands]

Would.

 

[UCFKnight85]

uhhhh I've personally seen multiple Tampa anchors getting high.

What a dumb firing

 

[Sir Galahad]

I read it as she wasn't stoned while at work, rather she tested positive. THC stays in your system for up to 30 days typically.

Don't care, she got into what she calls a minor fader bender WHILE ON ASSIGNMENT and tested positive for THC. If it's not corporate policy to terminate someone if they test positive for drugs or alcohol over limits after a traffic crash it should be. A company that I hear about on these board quite regularly that most people love requires those with company cars to have a piss test in the glove compartment at all times. You have four hours to drop off you piss to a lab or the transportation department.

Do you have any idea the liability this idiot put that TV station in? If someone got hurt while she had THC in her system driving a company vehicle they could get destroyed, let alone the increase in insurance costs.

 

[crambone]

uhhhh I've personally seen multiple Tampa anchors getting high.

What a dumb firing

interesting...

 

[goodknightfl]

If you don't want to be fired from your job for smoking dope, then don't smoke dope.

this

 

[Boston.Knight2]

The intent of the employers drug test is to identify if the person behind the wheel was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Instead, it is punishing recreational MJ users (something fully legal in Oregon by the way) who in fact are NOT intoxicated.

2+2 does not equal 4 in this case. Eventually, these type of invasive laws will be repealed. Some day, we'll look back at how silly it all was, just like we look back today at the ridiculousness and corruption of alcohol prohibition.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Don't care, she got into what she calls a minor fader bender WHILE ON ASSIGNMENT and tested positive for THC. If it's not corporate policy to terminate someone if they test positive for drugs or alcohol over limits after a traffic crash it should be. A company that I hear about on these board quite regularly that most people love requires those with company cars to have a piss test in the glove compartment at all times. You have four hours to drop off you piss to a lab or the transportation department.

Do you have any idea the liability this idiot put that TV station in? If someone got hurt while she had THC in her system driving a company vehicle they could get destroyed, let alone the increase in insurance costs.

Do you realize how moronic your argument is? C'mon, old man. Most companies don't allow people to drink while working; however, I guaran-fvcking-tee you that most of us would "test positive" for alcohol a week or 30 days after drinking. It doesn't mean we were drunk or even over the limits while driving, or that we were impaired in any way; rather, it just means it would continue to show up like THC does. Like the story says, she admitted to smoking a week leading up to the accident, but says she wasn't DWI. Who knows? They didn't release levels, etc., but the law needs to speak to that...just like it does for alcohol.

All you old fuddy-duddies need to get with the times and realize that you're doing more harm to your bodies with your Milwaukee's Best and Yellow Tail. And I say this as someone that doesn't even smoke the stuff and probably wouldn't even if it was legal.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

The company had no choice. She can't prove she wasn't toking up in the company vehicle or did it three weeks before. We have a zero tolerance policy with our drivers. We haven't had an accident in more than a decade so there's no way to know now but if someone gets in an accident and they test positive for anything they are gone instantly, no questions asked. We all know the consequences if we decide to take the risk.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

...Milwaukee's Best and Yellow Tail. And I say this as someone that doesn't even smoke the stuff and probably wouldn't even if it was legal.

LOL Hard time believing Sir G is a Milwaukee's Best type of guy

 

[goodknightfl]

The intent of the employers drug test is to identify if the person behind the wheel was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Instead, it is punishing recreational MJ users (something fully legal in Oregon by the way) who in fact are NOT intoxicated.

2+2 does not equal 4 in this case. Eventually, these type of invasive laws will be repealed. Some day, we'll look back at how silly it all was, just like we look back today at the ridiculousness and corruption of alcohol prohibition.

legal under state law, illegal under federal law.

 

[FearTheKnight]

The company had no choice. She can't prove she wasn't toking up in the company vehicle or did it three weeks before. We have a zero tolerance policy with our drivers. We haven't had an accident in more than a decade so there's no way to know now but if someone gets in an accident and they test positive for anything they are gone instantly, no questions asked. We all know the consequences if we decide to take the risk.

If you see an employee drinking within the calender month that they drive do you fire them because they can't prove they weren't drinking on the job? Asinine post is asinine.

 

[cnsaguy]

I've been with a prominent local newsperson quite a few times and seen him doing beer funnels and getting nice and ripped. He doesn't want you to take pics because he's afraid his squeaky clean image will get tarnished.

 

[EweSeaEff]

I've been with a prominent local newsperson quite a few times and seen him doing beer funnels and getting nice and ripped. He doesn't want you to take pics because he's afraid his squeaky clean image will get tarnished.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

If you see an employee drinking within the calender month that they drive do you fire them because they can't prove they weren't drinking on the job? Asinine post is asinine.

Come up with a test that can show the time frame then. If an employee has alcohol in their system they're fired. If a driver gets in accident and tests positive for anything we're out of business, with our margins there is no way we could compete and afford the insurance. I don't care if people want to smoke but you're not putting my livelihood at risk.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Come up with a test that can show the time frame then. If an employee has alcohol in their system they're fired. If a driver gets in accident and tests positive for anything we're out of business, with our margins there is no way we could compete and afford the insurance. I don't care if people want to smoke but you're not putting my livelihood at risk.

So basically, your employment policy leaves the door open for Mormons and fundamentalist Muslims only.

 

[cnsaguy]

Same channel. Hunker down!

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

So basically, your employment policy leaves the door open for Mormons and fundamentalist Muslims only.

Insurance will not cover damages if the driver tests positive for alcohol or drugs. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Weather guy in the Jville area Tim Deegan. Tons of DUIs never fired

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Weather guy in the Jville area Tim Deegan. Tons of DUIs never fired

If they were in a company vehicle he would have been.

If you have a DUI in your past our auto insurance won't allow you on the policy.

 

[UCFWayne]

 

[btbones]

Lots of TV weather folks that are raging alcoholics over the years. No idea why

 

[UCFKnight85]

Lots of TV weather folks that are raging alcoholics over the years. No idea why

Because their job is something easily replaceable by clicking weather.com

 

[Sir Galahad]

Do you realize how moronic your argument is? C'mon, old man. Most companies don't allow people to drink while working; however, I guaran-fvcking-tee you that most of us would "test positive" for alcohol a week or 30 days after drinking. It doesn't mean we were drunk or even over the limits while driving, or that we were impaired in any way; rather, it just means it would continue to show up like THC does. Like the story says, she admitted to smoking a week leading up to the accident, but says she wasn't DWI. Who knows? They didn't release levels, etc., but the law needs to speak to that...just like it does for alcohol.

All you old fuddy-duddies need to get with the times and realize that you're doing more harm to your bodies with your Milwaukee's Best and Yellow Tail. And I say this as someone that doesn't even smoke the stuff and probably wouldn't even if it was legal.

Ok, help me understand this. So I sound "moronic" because I am looking out for every other employee who works for a company that decided not to get stoned and drive a company vehicle? Don't bitch at me, bitch at the trial lawyers who will sue anyone with a pulse over anything. I got hit from behind on I-4 by a mom in a minivan while I was at a complete stop and her doing 35 mph. When she found out the car I was driving was owned by one of the largest companies in Florida, she actually tried to sue me.

Fact is, if you want to smoke, drink, take pills, whatever and it is going to stay in your system, be fking adult enough to know the consequences and stop blaming others for your poor choices.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Ok, help me understand this. So I sound "moronic" because I am looking out for every other employee who works for a company that decided not to get stoned and drive a company vehicle? Don't bitch at me, bitch at the trial lawyers who will sue anyone with a pulse over anything. I got hit from behind on I-4 by a mom in a minivan while I was at a complete stop and her doing 35 mph. When she found out the car I was driving was owned by one of the largest companies in Florida, she actually tried to sue me.

Fact is, if you want to smoke, drink, take pills, whatever and it is going to stay in your system, be fking adult enough to know the consequences and stop blaming others for your poor choices.

Once again you miss the point - surprise, surprise. She didn't "get stoned and drive a company vehicle". She indulged on her own time and because a chemical of that particular indulgence happens to stay in one's system for up to 30 days, she got rung up. It's bvllshit and anyone that can't see that has their head firmly up their ass.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Marijuana is illegal. If she would have killed people in the accident the insurance company would have told her employer sorry good luck we're not covering anything. The companies insurance premium is already going to sky rocket since they obviously don't drug test their drivers. Meh no big deal, people are going to lose their jobs because she wanted to smoke some weed and drive a company vehicle.

Prove she wasn't smoking while or prior to driving.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Once again you miss the point - surprise, surprise. She didn't "get stoned and drive a company vehicle". She indulged on her own time and because a chemical of that particular indulgence happens to stay in one's system for up to 30 days, she got rung up. It's bvllshit and anyone that can't see that has their head firmly up their ass.

Tell me something, at your job, do you have people reporting to you? Do you have to deal with human resources, do reviews of other employees, set budgets, present to senior staff, any of that? I ask because when one of your employees is responsible for injuring an innocent person not employed by your company you will quickly realize why she was fired.

I don't care when she smoked it, if she can't prove in a court of law that it had no factor in the accident she should be fired.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Marijuana is illegal. If she would have killed people in the accident the insurance company would have told her employer sorry good luck we're not covering anything. The companies insurance premium is already going to sky rocket since they obviously don't drug test their drivers. Meh no big deal, people are going to lose their jobs because she wanted to smoke some weed and drive a company vehicle.

Prove she wasn't smoking while or prior to driving.

Bob, you're wasting your time, some people just have no idea how business works.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

If they didn't fire her and this happened again--only this time she hurt people or killed them--how much worse would a lawsuit be against that news station? I imagine they'd have to write a blank check to everyone involved.

I understand pot is legal in that state (I support its legalization), but I also support the right for an employer to set drug-free policies if they so choose. And I especially support the latter when we live in a world that is this litigious. This is similar to the time BTbones found empty beer cans in one of the trucks his employee was driving. Did this employee drink and drive or drink the beers and throw the empties into the truck when he was done? Were the empties 15-minutes old or 15-days old? It doesn't matter. There is now a huge liability for BT and his company is now at stake. He had to fire him.

 

[goodknightfl]

If you see an employee drinking within the calender month that they drive do you fire them because they can't prove they weren't drinking on the job? Asinine post is asinine.

Booze is legal, Just can't be driving drunk. Once pot is legal on federal level, no reason to test for it unless suspected of driving under influence.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Tell me something, at your job, do you have people reporting to you? Do you have to deal with human resources, do reviews of other employees, set budgets, present to senior staff, any of that? I ask because when one of your employees is responsible for injuring an innocent person not employed by your company you will quickly realize why she was fired.

I don't care when she smoked it, if she can't prove in a court of law that it had no factor in the accident she should be fired.

The answer to your question is yes, and also let me point something out. I'm not arguing that what happened was wrong in the context of the current rule. The news station did what they were afforded under the current rule. Where my argument lies is with the rule itself. I'm the farthest thing from an advocate for the ACLU, but it's at a time like this where it's hard not to argue that they should pick this up and run with it. I get that organizations are allowed to make whatever rules they want so long as they're non-discriminatory; however, there's a glaring double-standard here. Kudos to the people of Oregon for taking the first step in legalizing such a harmless substance - now, take the next step and make sure that the rules on all sides (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc.) are equal.