I heard some docs smoke weed, Do they get fired?

[jjeangi]

Would a doctor get fired if he smokes weed? I mean not at his job, but recreationally?

What if he has a medical marijuana card?

What google gave me:
http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/features/27290/i-am-a-doctor-pothead

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MossPoh]

Would a doctor get fired if he smokes weed? I mean not at his job, but recreationally?

What if he has a medical marijuana card?

What google gave me:
http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/features/27290/i-am-a-doctor-pothead

Depends on a lot of things. The majority of people with medical marijuana cards have it more because they can than because they need it. The evidence that it helps is not very strong and even then, it is more beneficial in palliative care type situations where we also have very good and affordable medications to do the same things it is intended for. If you're in a state where they screen, if you ever show up high or any of those sort of things then there could be consequences for being stupid.

I think there are some moral/ethical issues with a doc who has a medical marijuana card personally.

 

[SOcash]

What if he has a medical marijuana card?

It depends on the state, but you can be legitimately fired for using marijuana legally, even after work. In most of the fourteen states where medicinal marijuana is legal, employers can legally fire employees who use it.

 

[ArkansasRanger]

If they employer had a drug testing policy then termination may be an option for testing positive for THC. I'd fire them for it quickly.

 

[orthomyxo]

Would a doctor get fired if he smokes weed? I mean not at his job, but recreationally?

What if he has a medical marijuana card?

What google gave me:
http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/features/27290/i-am-a-doctor-pothead

Would you want your doctor to potentially be under the influence while working? I doubt it.

Also, if he has a medical marijuana card, the use of the drug is for a documented medical condition and therefore is not "recreational use."

 

[morning]

I think there are some moral/ethical issues with a doc who has a medical marijuana card personally.

Also, docs should never, EVER drink alcohol. Totally morally and ethically wrong, amirite?

 

[kami333]

If they employer had a drug testing policy then termination may be an option for testing positive for THC. I'd fire them for it quickly.

Are there any employers that don't have a drug testing policy?

All hospitals I've worked/volunteered at have required one, some even for volunteers. I can't think of any national company, including McDonalds (franchise dependent) that doesn't. Most people only get tested on hire and if there is cause (ie workers comp or liability), even random testing is often targeted at the younger/newer employees.

 

[Ras Tafari]

There is a hospital (at least one) in downtown Boston, MA that neither drugs screens employees upon hire nor performs random drugs tests. I was extremely surprised when I found this out from a friend who used to work there.

But to answer the OP, I'm fairly certain that yes, a doctor would get fired, or at least punished in some form, for testing positive for THC.

 

[crasiman]

I think it comes down to whether it affects their ability to function at work, whether they are breaking any laws, and/or whether they are lying about it to their employer. Same goes for coming into work under the influence of alcohol, or coming in hazy and sluggish due to a hangover.

 

[kavorca]

Physicians and other health care workers have an option where they won't get immediately dismissed, their state's Physician Health Program. It goes to a separate panel who will drug test you for 10 years or whatever, and no one will ever find out including the state's medical licensing board. I have read that many physicians will stay in the program after their ten years because it helps them stay on the straight and narrow. I think the confidentiality agreement doesn't apply if the physician was diverting prescription drugs for trade or sale, acting inappropriately with a patient, or reusing drugs once in the PHP.

Louisiana's PHP
http://www.phfl.org/

 

[FlowRate]

If they employer had a drug testing policy then termination may be an option for testing positive for THC. I'd fire them for it quickly.

As another poster said, would you also fire a doc who gets a little drunk on saturday night, off call, too?

 

[roseglass6370]

Two points...

1) I second the people who said that firing a doc who smokes marijuana off the job is equivalent to firing one who puts back a couple beers on a night off. I am by no means advocating marijuana, I'm just sayin'.

2) If a doctor has a private practice, who would by "firing" the doctor? Perhaps the more important question would be whether or not his license could be revoked.

 

[wagmanager]

it boils downs to this a) is it legal in the said state and b) does the doctor have a medical card. if he does and it is not interfereing with his ability to perform his duties i believe he can't be fired.(the same way u can't be fired for taking oxycontin for pain if you have a legitmate prescription).If it is interfering with your abilty to perform they have the right to ask you to resign or fire you or work something out with you as you are putting patients lives in danger.
At my work they randomly rest us for narcs, benzodiazepines etc. if you test positive you have 24 hours to produce a legitimate prescription for it , if you can't then ur fired.

 

[ArkansasRanger]

As another poster said, would you also fire a doc who gets a little drunk on saturday night, off call, too?

Well, I don't believe at present we can have an enforceable workplace policy anywhere governing that. However, if that were possible I'd unequivocally say yes. I've only supervised around 42 people in the workplace, all of which were held to high standards, so that's not a lot of experience, but if it's policy you've got to abide by it. I expected that of all my people too.

I'm in law enforcement. I have no tolerance for substance abuse.

 

[gimmick8891]

Well, I don't believe at present we can have an enforceable workplace policy anywhere governing that. However, if that were possible I'd unequivocally say yes. I've only supervised around 42 people in the workplace, all of which were held to high standards, so that's not a lot of experience, but if it's policy you've got to abide by it. I expected that of all my people too.

I'm in law enforcement. I have no tolerance for substance abuse.

This may be one of the most incoherent ramblings I've ever read on the internet. There are plenty of policies (enforcable ones no less) regarding alcohol use/abuse at almost every place of employment. Further, a policy banning off the job drinking would almost certainly be enforcable (not that anyone would want to work under such a draconian employer). As a private employer, you can run your business as you see fit so long as your practices are not deemed discriminatory. That said, if your policy is to fire someone for breaking your drug policy, then go ahead. If not, follow whatever is dictated as the proper course of action in response to a violation of drug policy. If it's mandatory rehab, send the guy to rehab. If it's a high-five, well then dammit get your bro on and high-five the guy.

The question at hand is whether or not an employee would be fired by his employer for a drug violation, and I hate to break it to you hoss, but it's not a matter for law enforcement. I'm an upstanding and productive citizen, and I have no tolerance for law enforcement encroaching on my private life (ya know, so long as I'm not out killing or maiming people in my spare time).

 

[mspeedwagon]

The consequences of smoking weed for physicians can go far beyond that of just being fired. I've seen a couple of cases as I've traveled around the country of employees being caught. While point one may be be true, remember that there is no federal law banning people from having beers on a night off while, for better or worse, smoking marijuana is in direct violation of federal law.

So in certain states doctors can loose their licenses (KY, TN, UT come to mind). In other doctors are suspended (MA, NY, CT come to mind). In all cases repeat offenders can end up in jail (there is a doctor that had his licensed revoked and is serving a jail sentence, in MS, for this as it was in direct violation of the contract he signed with the hospital and in violation of federal law). [Edit: This doctor was male. I had earlier type her/she in error].

I thinking "risking" it is not worth it if/until there is a change in federal law. You pretty much have everything to loose (medical license, career, reputation) and the potential to face time in jail, while there is very little to gain.

Although, I don't smoke, I'm all for the legalization of marijuana. However, as long as it is illegal, you are better of refraining while a practicing physician.

1) I second the people who said that firing a doc who smokes marijuana off the job is equivalent to firing one who puts back a couple beers on a night off. I am by no means advocating marijuana, I'm just sayin'.

 

[gimmick8891]

Well said Mspeedwagon.

 

[Suenya]

I'm in law enforcement. I have no tolerance for substance abuse.

Generally speaking, substance use and abuse are different things.

Alot of the cops I know (not saying that's your area of law enforcement, just the ones I know best), and one of the federal protection guys I know drink off the job. Most of them are great guys, and wouldn't be caught dead showing up to work with alcohol (that I know of).

I personally don't get it, because I don't like alcohol at all. Getting tipsy to drunk once in a while doesn't really strike me as abuse, as little as I understand the impulse to do it. I can't help but wonder why you'd think differently.

 

[FlowRate]

Well, I don't believe at present we can have an enforceable workplace policy anywhere governing that. However, if that were possible I'd unequivocally say yes. I've only supervised around 42 people in the workplace, all of which were held to high standards, so that's not a lot of experience, but if it's policy you've got to abide by it. I expected that of all my people too.

I'm in law enforcement. I have no tolerance for substance abuse.

Wait, to be clear, you'd fire people for drinking at all *off the job?*

 

[metallica81788]

Also, docs should never, EVER drink alcohol. Totally morally and ethically wrong, amirite?

WE ARE NOT FREAKING TALKING ABOUT THAT HERE!!!

Every damn time someone starts a thread like this, someone like you devolves this into comparing apples to oranges and screws the whole damn thing up by preventing legit conversation.

...Sorry, back to the conversation.

 

[metallica81788]

The consequences of smoking weed for physicians can go far beyond that of just being fired. I've seen a couple of cases as I've traveled around the country of employees being caught. While point one may be be true, remember that there is no federal law banning people from having beers on a night off while, for better or worse, smoking marijuana is in direct violation of federal law.

So in certain states doctors can loose their licenses (KY, TN, UT come to mind). In other doctors are suspended (MA, NY, CT come to mind). In all cases repeat offenders can end up in jail (there is a doctor that had her licensed revoked and is serving a jail sentence, in MS, for this as it was in direct violation of the contract he signed with the hospital and in violation of federal law).

I thinking "risking" it is not worth it if/until there is a change in federal law. You pretty much have everything to loose (medical license, career, reputation) and the potential to face time in jail, while there is very little to gain.

Although, I don't smoke, I'm all for the legalization of marijuana. However, as long as it is illegal, you are better of refraining while a practicing physician.

👍

Great post. Someone has their head on straight.

 

[nopressure]

personally, i think what you do in your spare time is nobody else's business.

but yeah, it's best not to do things that are illegal when you are a doctor.

 

[morning]

WE ARE NOT FREAKING TALKING ABOUT THAT HERE!!!

Every damn time someone starts a thread like this, someone like you devolves this into comparing apples to oranges and screws the whole damn thing up by preventing legit conversation.

...Sorry, back to the conversation.

Comparing marijuana consumption to alcohol consumption IS a legit association/train of thought.

 

[ArkansasRanger]

This may be one of the most incoherent ramblings I've ever read on the internet. There are plenty of policies (enforcable ones no less) regarding alcohol use/abuse at almost every place of employment. Further, a policy banning off the job drinking would almost certainly be enforcable (not that anyone would want to work under such a draconian employer). As a private employer, you can run your business as you see fit so long as your practices are not deemed discriminatory. That said, if your policy is to fire someone for breaking your drug policy, then go ahead. If not, follow whatever is dictated as the proper course of action in response to a violation of drug policy. If it's mandatory rehab, send the guy to rehab. If it's a high-five, well then dammit get your bro on and high-five the guy.

The question at hand is whether or not an employee would be fired by his employer for a drug violation, and I hate to break it to you hoss, but it's not a matter for law enforcement. I'm an upstanding and productive citizen, and I have no tolerance for law enforcement encroaching on my private life (ya know, so long as I'm not out killing or maiming people in my spare time).

I never suggested it was a law enforcement issue. I did state that regardless of which I'd terminate the person for either assuming it was in compliance with company policy.

 

[metallica81788]

personally, i think what you do in your spare time is nobody else's business.

but yeah, it's best not to do things that are illegal when you are a doctor.

👍

Comparing marijuana consumption to alcohol consumption IS a legit association/train of thought.

But that is not the point of the OP's post and it's a red herring.

Plus one is illegal, the other is not...

 

[Bleg]

Also, docs should never, EVER drink alcohol. Totally morally and ethically wrong, amirite?

Yes, urrite. I agree that doctors should not drink alcohol, socially or otherwise. But the big difference between booze and pot is: Booze is legal.

 

[morning]

But that is not the point of the OP's post and it's a red herring.

Plus one is illegal, the other is not...

I wasn't responding to the op. There was a quote box in my reply - maybe you should go back and read it.

Just because something is illegal and therefore stupid to partake of does not make it morally/ethically wrong to do (again - READ my reply instead of reacting to it.)

These are big concepts. They take a bit more thought than blanket statements and knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Bleg]

Just because something is illegal and therefore stupid to partake of does not make it morally/ethically wrong to do (again - READ my reply instead of reacting to it.)

Doing something illegal isn't morally or ethically wrong?

 

[FlowRate]

👍



But that is not the point of the OP's post and it's a red herring.

Plus one is illegal, the other is not...

Neither should be illegal or punishable when it doesn't affect anybody. That's the point.

 

[metallica81788]

Neither should be illegal or punishable when it doesn't affect anybody. That's the point.

I never said something should or should not be illegal - but the fact is that one is illegal and the other isn't. That's just the way it is right now.

 

[morning]

Doing something illegal isn't morally or ethically wrong?

Things don't become unethical or immoral to do just because they're illegal. Is it immoral for a gay person in Arkansas to take care of his brother's kid after his brother dies, just because it's illegal for gay couples in Arkansas to adopt?

You might want to read this here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=316148

The first post there, and then scroll a bit down the page to read the rest (the original post that is quoted in full was on another forum and is now deleted.)

It's about a healthcare worker and his spouse (a midwife) who lived in Saudi Arabia for the tax-free income and their misadventures. Really an incredibly interesting read even outside of philosophical discussions about morality and ethics.

The guy talks a bit about how they bring and drink alcohol in one of the most conservative, anti-alcohol countries in the world. One method is importing the woodchips used to make alcohol in America - telling the customs officials they're just for incense burning - and then soaking them. It's breathtakingly stupid to make alcohol in Saudi Arabia, but is it IMMORAL or UNETHICAL? Would it be immoral or unethical for his wife to take her abaya off in public?

 

[armorshell]

Doing something illegal isn't morally or ethically wrong?

You should ask Jean Valjean

 

[metallica81788]

Doing something illegal isn't morally or ethically wrong?

That is probably where the issue lies. I personally don't think so - we definitely agree on that, Morning.

 

[Bleg]

Things don't become unethical or immoral to do just because they're illegal.

Of course they do. Unless you are upholding a higher ethical principle (e.g. hiding Jews from Nazis), disobeying the law is both immoral and unethical. That's implicit by definition. I'm astounded any rational person would argue the point.

It's breathtakingly stupid to make alcohol in Saudi Arabia, but is it IMMORAL or UNETHICAL?

Of course it is.

Would it be immoral or unethical for his wife to take her abaya off in public?

Of course it would be. If you don't like Saudi laws, don't live in Saudi Arabia. No one is forcing you. If you want to live there for tax reasons, by agreeing to live there you are explicitly agreeing to uphold the laws. One of those laws is that women remain covered. Don't like the law? Leave.

If disobeying the law is not immoral or unethical per se, what is the moral or ethical imperative for acting lawfully?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Doing something illegal isn't morally or ethically wrong?

laws are supposed to derive from morality, not the other way around

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Of course they do. Unless you are upholding a higher ethical principle (e.g. hiding Jews from Nazis), disobeying the law is both immoral and unethical. That's implicit by definition. I'm astounded any rational person would argue the point.



Of course it is.



Of course it would be. If you don't like Saudi laws, don't live in Saudi Arabia. No one is forcing you. If you want to live there for tax reasons, by agreeing to live there you are explicitly agreeing to uphold the laws. One of those laws is that women remain covered. Don't like the law? Leave.

If disobeying the law is not immoral or unethical per se, what is the moral or ethical imperative for acting lawfully?

your conception of morality is disturbing.

 

[marshds]

Yes, urrite. I agree that doctors should not drink alcohol, socially or otherwise.

Why do you think doctors should not drink socially? I am just curious. I guess eating fatty foods is out of the question as well.

 

[metallica81788]

laws are supposed to derive from morality, not the other way around

your conception of morality is disturbing.

👍 and 👍

 

[morning]

If disobeying the law is not immoral or unethical per se, what is the moral or ethical imperative for acting lawfully?

To be a person other people would like to be around? To get along in a society of primates?

You're lawful neutral, I'm more chaotic good - I doubt we'll see eye to eye. I don't think obeying laws for the sake of obeying laws carries any sort of moral weight and has often led to disgusting consequences. I don't think things become right or wrong based on the capricious whims of a legislature that changes every few years. Alcohol was once illegal here, too, and is still illegal for adults between the ages of 18 and 21.

 

[guyski79]

You should ask Jean Valjean

👍

 

[Bleg]

your conception of morality is disturbing.

Because it doesn't agree with yours? Yes, I suppose it is disturbing to many people when they find others that don't share their worldview.

 

[Bleg]

You're lawful neutral, I'm more chaotic good

A breathtakingly judgmental comment, in an earnest, pimply, D&D sort of way.

 

[Bleg]

You should ask Jean Valjean

I should ask a fictitious character? Nice.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Because it doesn't agree with yours? Yes, I suppose it is disturbing to many people when they find others that don't share their worldview.

no because it carries implications that you don't seem realize. in which case i suppose it's not per se disturbing, but instead simple-minded. in the off chance you do realize the full meaning of your 'worldview,' which i certainly do not share, it is highly disturbing.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I heard some doctors like teh mudkipz too..... They no get fired...














We should totally ban their ass's for playing pokemon!

 

[Bleg]

laws are supposed to derive from morality, not the other way around

Laws derive from common morality. As long as people agreed that unborn babies should not be vacuumed out of the mother's uterus for trivial reasons, abortion was illegal. When the Supreme Court overruled that law and a generation was raised with the idea that unborn babies were simply "tissue", the abortion culture was born, and now a fair percentage of people do not agree with the morality of protecting unborn life. So since it's no longer a common morality, it's no longer law. Does that mean it's morally acceptable to tear your unborn child to pieces, just because it is legal?

When we make laws, the point of the laws is this: We agree that this basic minimum standard of morality must be enforced. To live together (as someone else so inelegantly put it) as primates in a society, we all consent to live by at least the basic minimum rules of social decency, which we call laws. Unless the laws are so corrupt that they mandate explicitly immoral things -- such as Nazis hunting down Jews -- we are ethically and morally bound to uphold the law. Breaking the law is, by definition, antisocial and unethical.

There are more and less important laws, of course. No rational person argues that speeding on the freeway is as serious as murder. But the fact that all laws are not equally important or of equal moral force does not negate the underlying truth that laws are common social morality.

I may not like having to pay taxes, and I may even disagree with how my taxes are spent, but it is unethical and immoral for me to avoid paying taxes by illegal means. As long as I am represented in society and have a voice in the decision-making process, and as long as the law does not mandate that I perform an immoral activity, I am morally and ethically bound to uphold the law. This, I would think, should be evident to any thinking person.

 

[armorshell]

You're lawful neutral, I'm more chaotic good - I doubt we'll see eye to eye.

 

[Bleg]

no because it carries implications that you don't seem realize. in which case i suppose it's not per se disturbing, but instead simple-minded. in the off chance you do realize the full meaning of your 'worldview,' which i certainly do not share, it is highly disturbing.

You need to deal in specifics, not meaningless generalizations. You have no idea what I realize or do not realize, and your vague warnings of "implications" and accusations of "simple-mindedness" are useless. Enough with your silly ad hominem arguments. I have laid out my logic. Kindly do the same.

 

[morning]

A breathtakingly judgmental comment, in an earnest, pimply, D&D sort of way.

I'm not judging you. It's the way you are. I don't really care one way or another.

I've never played D&D in my life, not pen and paper D&D anyway...I did love me some BGII though. I don't know what pimples have to do with it. Gunning for derm or...?

 

[Colonol Forbin]

Yes, urrite. I agree that doctors should not drink alcohol, socially or otherwise. But the big difference between booze and pot is: Booze is legal.

Who are you? Why should doctors not be allowed to drink socially? Thats an absurd remark to make. I think MANY physicians would disagree. As a previous poster said - maybe they shouldn't be allowed to eat fast food? Being a physician Doesn't mean you can't do things unhealthy on your FREE time. As long as it's not on the job and doesn't afffect your performance do what you want.