Reader: Amendment 64 allows companies to drug test, and the results could get ugly

Sam Levin's post about business groups urging the federal government to clamp down on Amendment 64 collected plenty of views and comments. Among those weighing in was marijuana advocate and A64 opponent Kathleen Chippi, who warns that the measure doesn't prohibit drug testing -- and predicts terrible repercussions for employees...

By Michael Roberts

December 6, 2012

[
        {
          "name": "Air - MediumRectangle - Inline Content - Mobile Display Size",
          "component": "12017618",
          "insertPoint": "2",
          "requiredCountToDisplay": "2"
        },{
          "name": "Editor Picks",
          "component": "17242653",
          "insertPoint": "4",
          "requiredCountToDisplay": "1"
        },{
          "name": "Inline Links",
          "component": "18838239",
          "insertPoint": "8th",
          "startingPoint": 8,
          "requiredCountToDisplay": "7",
          "maxInsertions": 25
        },{
          "name": "Air - MediumRectangle - Combo - Inline Content",
          "component": "17261320",
          "insertPoint": "8th",
          "startingPoint": 8,
          "requiredCountToDisplay": "7",
          "maxInsertions": 25
        },{
          "name": "Inline Links",
          "component": "18838239",
          "insertPoint": "8th",
          "startingPoint": 12,
          "requiredCountToDisplay": "11",
          "maxInsertions": 25
        },{
          "name": "Air - Leaderboard Tower - Combo - Inline Content",
          "component": "17261321",
          "insertPoint": "8th",
          "startingPoint": 12,
          "requiredCountToDisplay": "11",
          "maxInsertions": 25
        }
      ]

Sam Levin's post about business groups urging the federal government to clamp down on Amendment 64 collected plenty of views and comments. Among those weighing in was marijuana advocate and A64 opponent Kathleen Chippi, who warns that the measure doesn't prohibit drug testing -- and predicts terrible repercussions for employees.

KathleenChippi writes:

A64 Section 6 a and d clearly grants the employer the right to continue to drug test and fire employes over a failed tests -- which shows that the "business community" has also not even read A64 --DA-- They are the ones who got RIGHTS granted under 64 -- not the pot smokers. They preserved the right to FIRE employee's over marijuana use, yes, even use away from work, enshrined into our constitution.

And the Beinor ruling is the current law of the land on this issue -- employee's lawfully fired over marijuana use (MMJ or MJ) will NOT receive unemployment compensation for their lawful firing over the use of illegal drugs -- be it on the job or on a Friday night party away from work.

For more memorable takes, visit our Comment of the Day archive.

KEEP WESTWORD FREE... Since we started Westword, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Denver, and we'd like to keep it that way. Your membership allows us to continue offering readers access to our incisive coverage of local news, food, and culture with no paywalls. You can support us by joining as a member for as little as $1.

Michael Roberts began his career with Westword in 1990 as music editor. In 1999, he took on a new role, full-time media reporter, as author of a column called The Message. In 2008, he became the lead writer for Westword's news blog, The Latest Word, a position he held until January 2023. Michael continues to freelance for Westword, covering everything from business to sports and the media; he also contributes to Jazziz, a national music magazine. He holds a bachelor's degree from what is now Colorado Mesa University and master's degrees from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Northwestern University.

Contact: Michael Roberts

Follow:

Facebook: 111180895657427

Twitter: @mikerobertscolo