# It’s Getting Harder to Fire People for Using Pot



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/it-s-getting-harder-to-fire-people-for-using-pot

"(Bloomberg Businessweek) -- The stories all go something like this: An employee is ordered to take a drug test. They have a medical marijuana prescription for a legitimate illness and tell their employer as much. The employer goes ahead with the test, gets back the positive results, and fires the employee. Most states have statutes giving companies the right to drug-test the people they hire and to fire them for coming to work under the influence; in the ones that don’t, courts have largely blessed the process. The precedents are murkier when it comes to employees who partake in a state-sanctioned, medically helpful drug in their off hours—and even more so for those who partake recreationally where it’s legal to do so. Until the last few years, courts had largely backed companies that"


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

What a question...if i have a prescription for what ever, than i use it legally, and if i even tell my employer about it...where is the question...he cannot fire me for using it...statutes back or forth...Especially since the drug test will probably just determine that i used it but not that i was under influence while a work...
Not quite sure while people fight against something that most dont even have the background about why it got banned...and with marijuana it was just straight lobby/political reasons...It helped to discriminate a certain group, it blocked cheaper and better products to prevent the plastic and wood paper based society and so on...
And compared to alcohol or cigarettes it is almost a saint


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

The problem is that there is no test that can prove whether or not a person is currently inebriated with pot, as the article mentions. That's important on some jobs - same way you don't want a currently drunk person driving a city bus, or operating heavy equipment, you really don't want someone who is high doing that, either. And as of right now, you can't test for that. I get the worry of employers (you're setting yourself up for huge lawsuits if an employee is high and injures/kills someone else), I get the necessity of pot in their off hours for some people. No easy answer on this one until some genius comes up with a test like the BAC test that can tell you if someone was high when something happened.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Just read that in Illinois, if you have a medical marijuana card and own guns, your permit, called a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification Card) and or CCL (conceal carry), and or FFL (dealers) license will be revoked and you can no longer legally possess or own or sell a pistol or rifle or ammunition in that state.


----------



## prinellie (Mar 16, 2016)

There are so many fraud prescriptions handed out - for one. I don’t blame companies for wanting someone with all their faculties at work - if their is some accident guess who pays... also you can’t drink while on most jobs without the possibility of getting fired. And most places won’t let you smoke either.
Employers just need to be more circumspect in their reason for firing. And could do the same with hiring...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There is a difference between using enough to ease the pain and being baked. I am actually more worried about over people on overprescribed opiates than pot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Just read that in Illinois, if you have a medical marijuana card and own guns, your permit, called a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification Card) and or CCL (conceal carry), and or FFL (dealers) license will be revoked and you can no longer legally possess or own or sell a pistol or rifle or ammunition *in that state*.


Under Federal law it's illegal to possess a firearm if you are "an unlawful user" of drugs.
Since MJ is not legal under Federal law, a prescription makes no difference.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Some employers are caught between a rock and a hard place on this topic. For example, if a company does business with the Federal Government, they are required to meet OFCCP guidelines. Part of that is drug testing. While a state may say medical marijuana is fine, the Federal Government does not. If a company drug test an employee who based on state law meets the requirements, they still have to deal with the Federal Government if they want to keep their contracts. And, really, I'm not taking about BIG Defense contractors.....I'm talking about companies that supply just about anything whether big or small.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

We screen everyone before they are hired and do randoms.
Too much heavy steel and equipment, too much precision machining, welding, etc.
We don't want some grinning goofball killing someone.
Someday, someone will come up with a way to test for being baked like they do for alcohol, but until then, why take a chance on someone getting hurt or killed?
I'm excluding medical use here.
Grownups have to decide between being a pot head and having a grownup job.
Same with booze, you show up drunk, you go home for good.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Pot or other legal medical drug on a many types of job site or highway putting me or mine at risk ? No thanks. 

Go get a job running a cash register or stocking groceries or what ever so that your not likely to hurt someone. Be responsible for your own actions. It’s simple.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> Just read that in Illinois, if you have a medical marijuana card and own guns, your permit, called a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification Card) and or CCL (conceal carry), and or FFL (dealers) license will be revoked and you can no longer legally possess or own or sell a pistol or rifle or ammunition in that state.


In Ohio too. Lots of people have suggested I try for a prescrip for pain relief. No thanks, I'll keep my guns.

I have concerns about second hand exposure though. When we were on vacation you could smell the stuff all through the ground level areas of the motels. Recently I was beside another car at a red light and the occupants of the other car were smoking pot. It was enough that the smoke was rolling out the window. Often you'll smell it in the parking lot at Wal-mart. Last week I watched a couple sitting in their car smoking. Then before getting out of the car the woman sprayed herself with what might have been "pot-b-gone" spray. I know there are several articles quoting the same study which found that unless you are in a tightly closed room with a smoker you don't have enough of the compounds in your urine to test positive, but I still have doubts.
https://www.newsweek.com/could-second-hand-pot-smoke-make-you-fail-marijuana-test-278913

I didn't read the quoted article. Bloomberg wanted a credit card number in order to view it.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> In Ohio too. Lots of people have suggested I try for a prescrip for pain relief. No thanks, I'll keep my guns.
> 
> I have concerns about second hand exposure though. When we were on vacation you could smell the stuff all through the ground level areas of the motels. Recently I was beside another car at a red light and the occupants of the other car were smoking pot. It was enough that the smoke was rolling out the window. Often you'll smell it in the parking lot at Wal-mart. Last week I watched a couple sitting in their car smoking. Then before getting out of the car the woman sprayed herself with what might have been "pot-b-gone" spray. I know there are several articles quoting the same study which found that unless you are in a tightly closed room with a smoker you don't have enough of the compounds in your urine to test positive, but I still have doubts.
> https://www.newsweek.com/could-second-hand-pot-smoke-make-you-fail-marijuana-test-278913
> ...


I think I can set your mind at ease. Hypothetically we might have a medical user in the household and someone else who has a job that requires regular strict drug testing. No false positives yet.

In my experience, you're more likely to have false positives taking prescription pills. Someone I know popped positive for amphetamines while taking buproprion (Wellbutrin) for depression, quite a fight convincing them, though.

The no MJ prescription/no firearm ownership annoys me to no end. Drunks with guns scare me more than potheads with guns, personally.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> I think I can set your mind at ease. Hypothetically we might have a medical user in the household and someone else who has a job that requires regular strict drug testing. No false positives yet.
> 
> In my experience, you're more likely to have false positives taking prescription pills. Someone I know popped positive for amphetamines while taking buproprion (Wellbutrin) for depression, quite a fight convincing them, though.
> 
> The no MJ prescription/no firearm ownership annoys me to no end. Drunks with guns scare me more than potheads with guns, personally.


I agree. Maybe all gun owners should have to take breathalyzers and drug test randomly.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I can fire and employee for listening to AM radio on their off hours Why should pot be any different?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I can fire and employee for listening to AM radio on their off hours Why should pot be any different?


Because listening to AM radio isn't a medication for a medical condition. You could fire someone for taking prescription opioids, or diabetes medication, but you're going to get sued. And according to the article, courts are upholding pot use as medication more frequently.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I agree. Maybe all gun owners should have to take breathalyzers and drugs test randomly.


Yeah, who cares about the Constitution and unreasonable searches?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, who cares about the Constitution and unreasonable searches?


I'm assuming she was using a device to point out the hypocrisy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I can fire someone for using aspirin if I want to same idea isn’t it ?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I can fire someone for using aspirin if I want to same idea isn’t it ?


You can fire anybody for anything you want. The question is, are you willing to be sued for wrongful termination (and probably lose) to do so?

That's what the article is about, employers getting more and more stuck in a catch-22 situation.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> I agree. Maybe all gun owners should have to take breathalyzers and drug test randomly.


I like that random test idea. Except it needs to be FOR EVERYONE


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> I agree. Maybe all gun owners should have to take breathalyzers and drug test randomly.


I like that random test idea. Except it needs to be FOR EVERYONE


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

And just to add to that perhaps it’s a good idea to have driver license temporarily suspended while on many other prescription. Once your cleared by the doctor lift the suspension.


----------



## prinellie (Mar 16, 2016)

People drive with suspended licenses all the time. Isn’t going to help. The only thing that will help is if people get some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY again. Good grief - we don’t need rules for every single thing unless you are so selfish that you can’t use common sense anymore ( which is what’s happening). And there is something called the Second Amendment...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> I'm assuming she was using a device to point out the hypocrisy.


I'm assuming she really meant what she said, based on past statement on the topic of guns.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Mish said:


> The no MJ prescription/no firearm ownership annoys me to no end. Drunks with guns scare me more than potheads with guns, personally.


If they ever legalize it in Texas pot smokers will probably not shoot guns up in the air on holidays. Drunks sure do though. 

I dont waste my ammo like that.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

prinellie said:


> People drive with suspended licenses all the time. Isn’t going to help. The only thing that will help is if people get some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY again. Good grief - we don’t need rules for every single thing unless you are so selfish that you can’t use common sense anymore ( which is what’s happening). And there is something called the Second Amendment...


I agree with the personal responsibility. For those that do not have it perhaps they need some incentive or motivation. Jail time. Community service. Etc. 

I have no problem with someone owning or possessing a car or a gun. Its the use of them when they should not be using them that is the issue.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> I have no problem with someone owning or possessing a car or a gun. Its the use of them when they should not be using them that is the issue.


THIS^^^^ 100%! Under the influence of whatever, don't pickup a gun, don't drive, and don't use power equipment! 

I will admit that when I was taking a legal, prescribed industrial strength muscle relaxer I was in no condition to do much of anything until the worst of it wore off. I stayed home and in bed until I could function safely again.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Mish said:


> You can fire anybody for anything you want. The question is, are you willing to be sued for wrongful termination (and probably lose) to do so?
> 
> That's what the article is about, employers getting more and more stuck in a catch-22 situation.


 Wrongful termination is for protected classes last I checked pot smoking was not a protected class


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Wrongful termination is for protected classes last I checked pot smoking was not a protected class


True, but in states where it's legally prescribed, you could run afoul of the ADA, discrimination for a medical disability which IS a protected class.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/w...americans-with-disabilities-act-provide-35141


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> you could run afoul of the ADA


That's quite a stretch.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's quite a stretch.


How do you figure that’s with the ADA is there for


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

A few examples.
https://www.cannalawblog.com/federal-court-sides-with-employee-in-medical-marijuana-case/

https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...ating-against-employees-medical-marijuana-use

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandto...-employers-accommodate-medical-marijuana.aspx

The ADA is federal so it won't do much good in states where medical marijuana is still illegal, but in states where it IS, there are grounds to sue for wrongful termination, depending on the specific circumstances.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you figure that’s with the ADA is there for


MJ isn't legal under Federal law.
Firing someone for "illegal" drug use wouldn't be prohibited by Federal law.

Show the part of the statute that addresses marijuana.

Otherwise, the claim is a "stretch".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> there are grounds to sue


One can "sue" for most anything at all.
That doesn't mean they have a chance of winning.
There is no exemption under Federal law for "medical" MJ.
It's still considered an "illegal drug".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Not everything is done in federal court


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Any company that battles something out in federal court has already lost , there is a significant time and money factor involved in going to Federal court even when you win .


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

I can't get back to the article to double check unless I buy a subscription, but I believe the article was talking about how more and more judges are upholding MJ use as a medical issue and siding with the employees over employers. Not talking about federal suits, talking about judges siding with employees suing for wrongful termination.

You guys can argue it all you want, but it looks like the legal system is saying that's not how it works anymore.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Not everything is done in federal court


No one made such a claim, so your statement is pointless, much like the one below.



AmericanStand said:


> Any company that battles something out in federal court has already lost , there is a significant time and money factor involved in going to Federal court even when you win .


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Mish said:


> I can't get back to the article to double check unless I buy a subscription, but I believe the article was talking about how more and more judges are upholding MJ use as a medical issue and siding with the employees over employers. Not talking about federal suits, talking about judges siding with employees suing for wrongful termination.
> 
> You guys can argue it all you want, but it looks like the legal system is saying that's not how it works anymore.


I have had to look into this a bit for my job. The way it is shaking out in Canada at least, is that employers don't fire employees simply for a negative drug test. They can suspend, discipline or possibly terminate an employee for working while impaired. The impairment can be from alcohol, prescribed medication, legal recreational weed, street weed or other unprescribed drugs, or even from a severe lack of sleep. 

The extent of the discipline should be proportionate, based on frequency, whether a significant hazard was created, and other mitigating factors. 

If someone has a bona fide medical condition that requires them to take prescribed cannabis, and it is unsafe for that person to be doing their regular job function while under the influence, then the employer is expected under the doctrine of "reasonable accomodation" to reassign them to non-hazardous work for the time being. Employers can be excused from this reasonable accommodation if they can show that it is an undue burden on their business/operation. In other words, having your forklift operator assigned to tidy up the lunchroom and scrub toilets for a week while he is on T3s for wisdom teeth should be accommodated. Having the same forklift operator be idle for 12 months because he needs cannabis to deal with chronic lower back pain would not be reasonable. That operator might have to be laid off, or placed on medical leave, etc. 

Although its different jurisdictions, I imagine most of the recent American court decisions and ADA would be similar in nature.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I agree. Maybe all gun owners should have to take breathalyzers and drug test randomly.


Maybe all welfare recipients should take it also....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

popscott said:


> Maybe all welfare recipients should take it also....


I am not aware that welfare recipients are operating a dangerous piece of equipment just because they are on welfare.

I am fine with all guns and vehicles having a breathalyzer or other test built-in so that no one drinking or taking drugs can operate them.  Not sure it would pass the constitution test though. I do believe that as drugs become legal in more places, a test for being under the influence will be forthcoming. Someone will make a lot of money off of it.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

If I am sitting on my couch, watching tv, tossing down a bottle of whatever, minding my own business and some jack face breaks down my door I don't want to have to resort to hoping I can beat the poop out of them before they get me. I want to be able to defend myself with whatever means I have available. If those means happens to be a firearm I shouldn't have to beat them with it in order to protect myself.

There are already laws on the books prohibiting shooting while intoxicated or even with an open container nearby. Those laws do not apply if some jack face breaks down my front door. Neither should some feel-good safety measure like breathalizers.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I am not aware that welfare recipients are operating a dangerous piece of equipment just because they are on welfare.


We should not be supplying people food when they can afford drugs.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

popscott said:


> We should not be supplying people food when they can afford drugs.


Are you sure they can? Maybe the drug fairy leaves them under their pillow. Maybe they need those drugs to increase their appetite for health reasons. Maybe they grow their own for their own use. They could sell them for food but that is illegal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Danaus29 said:


> If I am sitting on my couch, watching tv, tossing down a bottle of whatever, minding my own business and some jack face breaks down my door I don't want to have to resort to hoping I can beat the poop out of them before they get me. I want to be able to defend myself with whatever means I have available. If those means happens to be a firearm I shouldn't have to beat them with it in order to protect myself.
> 
> There are already laws on the books prohibiting shooting while intoxicated or even with an open container nearby. Those laws do not apply if some jack face breaks down my front door. Neither should some feel-good safety measure like breathalizers.


Are you sure that person breaking down the door is not your loved one? You just never know when you drink to excess or get baked. I think the breathalyzer is a great idea. It just might be good for the pejorative you.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Are you sure they can? Maybe the drug fairy leaves them under their pillow. Maybe they need those drugs to increase their appetite for health reasons. Maybe they grow their own for their own use. They could sell them for food but that is illegal.


Maybe like our former dope smokin', cocaine snorting, drug dealing president that was in a gang...
The "toot" fairy leaves it under his pillow... but no one is ever going to go there...

....or they could sell their food for drugs, that is illegal also....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

popscott said:


> Maybe like our former dope smokin', cocaine snorting, drug dealing president that was in a gang...
> The "toot" fairy leaves it under his pillow... but no one is ever going to go there...
> 
> ....or they could sell their food for drugs, that is illegal also....


Glad to see you are on board. I will agree to drug test all welfare recipients if you agree to have all gun owners tested. I will let you decide on how often they get tested as long a the testing schedules are the same.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I thought it was pretty easy to grow marijuana? Wouldn’t have to spend anything just have a few of your friends over ,party in your garden and then rake the soil later .


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> I thought it was pretty easy to grow marijuana? Wouldn’t have to spend anything just have a few of your friends over ,party in your garden and then rake the soil later .


Don't take my word on this because I have never partaken but I thought the seeds are removed before they sell it. Not a good business tactic to give them the means to grow their own.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I know you can buy garden seeds on snap I don’t know if you can find marijuana seeds in the little packets ?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> I know you can buy garden seeds on snap I don’t know if you can find marijuana seeds in the little packets ?


It is not legal in my state so I am not going to try.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Probably a wise choice. It is legal in my state and I’m still not gonna try.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Probably a wise choice. It is legal in my state and I’m still not gonna try.


Stay away from Copperhead road.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

popscott said:


> We should not be supplying people food when they can afford drugs.


We should not be supplying food to anyone with the mental/physical capacity to provide for themselves. But we do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Maybe you are the confused one who can't tell when some one is pulling your leg. You still don't get I am not anti gun either, just anti idiots.


I'm that way myself. Guns, drugs, etc aren't the problem. It idiots with guns, or idiots with drugs, idiots behind a steering wheel, idiots in voting booths, idiots on the ballots that are dangerous!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We should not be supplying food to anyone with the mental/physical capacity to provide for themselves. But we do.


But we have to or the poor American employers would have to pay more money and of course they can’t afford that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> But we have to or the poor American employers would have to pay more money and of course they can’t afford that.


No, we don't have to. We didn't up until FDR figured out he could buy the poor mans votes with the rich mans money.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No, we don't have to. We didn't up until FDR figured out he could buy the poor mans votes with the rich mans money.


Do you think you have that backwards?
Don’t you mean Finding out how to buy the poor vote by subsidizing the rich man?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

I don't much care what an adult does when they are off duty and there aren't kids in the home,
I'm about as anti illegal drug as they come.
I'm an employer, and it's zero tolerance around here, there are just too many things in a machine shop that will take a hand off in a heart beat.

I have seen what pot does for chemo patients and severe PTSD in vets first hand.
It's MUCH better than doping them up to the point of crapping themselves & drooling, even if they do get a little spacy...
Powerful anti-psychotics aren't viable for long term treatment where a 'Pinch' of pot (I don't know what you call those little metal tubes good for one puff) calms people headed for a meltdown right now, and chemo patients can eat & hold it down.

I still don't want them operating something potentially dangerous...


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

I've worked with folks that were better medicated than not.


----------



## kinnb (Oct 23, 2011)

JeepHammer said:


> I don't much care what an adult does when they are off duty and there aren't kids in the home,
> I'm about as anti illegal drug as they come.
> I'm an employer, and it's zero tolerance around here, there are just too many things in a machine shop that will take a hand off in a heart beat.
> 
> ...


@JeepHammer those are called "one-hitters."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jeep hammer reminds me of some jobs where it is claimed you have to be heavily medicated to repeat the same action 12 million times a day.........


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The Paw said:


> I have had to look into this a bit for my job. The way it is shaking out in Canada at least, is that employers don't fire employees simply for a negative drug test. They can suspend, discipline or possibly terminate an employee for working while impaired. The impairment can be from alcohol, prescribed medication, legal recreational weed, street weed or other unprescribed drugs, or even from a severe lack of sleep.
> 
> The extent of the discipline should be proportionate, based on frequency, whether a significant hazard was created, and other mitigating factors.
> 
> ...



It is or at least it is heading that way now as many states are legalizing it.
Until the federal law is changed there will still be cases that will be challenged in court, both pro and con, but if it's for medicinal use and no danger to safety involved, it won't be as simple as "pee in the cup or your fired", as it was in the past.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I do believe that as drugs become legal in more places, a test for being under the influence will be forthcoming. Someone will make a lot of money off of it.


I've been thinking about that for days now.............I'd sure like to make that money, selling test kits by the millions.


It's gotta be simple, accurate for all possible variables, mobile and fast enough to be used immediately on the scene or on site.................
Hmmmmmm.............

Maybe for a prototype test a bag of Doritos and a Hershey bar and maybe a small chocolate milk to wash it down.

The suspect is taken to a secure room, with only those items present in front of him.
Then leave and start the clock.
If they aren't consumed within 15 minutes, the suspect is released and determined to be NOT under the influence.

1 item consumed, positive, but still under legal limit. Released with only a warning.
2 items consumed, over the limit and will have to go to court appearance.
3 items, all gone, fried.
Get a good lawyer and sell your stash, you're gonna need the money.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Jeep hammer reminds me of some jobs where it is claimed you have to be heavily medicated to repeat the same action 12 million times a day.........


A lot of woodworking factories around here,
The running joke (which wasn't much of a joke) was you could tell how long someone had worked there by how many fingers he was missing...

Now they try to child proof everything so you can't mash or cut body parts off, but they still manage to do it anyway.
It's like 20 airbags, automatic brakes in cars, self driving cars, etc.
Here's an idea, how about being sober, sitting up, putting the cell phone down and paying attention when you are behind the wheel! 

In a machine shop, you don't have long sleeves, long hair or anything else that a machine can get ahold of, otherwise it's like an electrician using un-insulated tools.
Back in the early '70s a 'Hippie' working a summer job on a farm got scalped when his hair got into a tractor PTO shaft, wanted long hair, now doesn't have any hair...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

And another one bites the dust.


----------

