Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*
I think that is a fair take.
Employers don't want employees high on the job. Makes sense. But they don't want them drunk either--they simply don't want their employees intoxicated in any form. So I'm not really sure why a line should be drawn between the two.
I assumed employers still test for it because it is a federally controlled substance. For example, medical marijuana is legal in my state, but my employer will not recognize that as a valid excuse for a positive test in a drug test as long as it is illegal at the federal level. A person with this company could have cancer and use it during chemotherapy and still lose their job--seems pretty messed up to me...
An employer has a right to choose its employees just like an employee has the right to choose his/her employer. Although tobacco isn't a federally controlled substance, many employers have chosen not to hire tobacco users. Likewise, they have the right not to hire drinkers. Personally, I think across the board characterizations make little sense to the employer. Each employee is different; some drinkers are drunks, some are not; some smoke casually (tobacco or otherwise), some allow it interfere with work. Evaluate accordingly.
But the conversation is quite different when you're talking about the coach of a college team. As someone else mentioned, players get suspended for pot use, and coaches should be held to the same standard. Arguably, the standard should be higher because the coach is the leader; he sets the example.