CASUAL DRUG USE TOO DANGEROUS FOR OIL WORKERS

Dear Sharon: I'm outraged to learn the Alberta Human Rights
Commission has appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to rule
against the firings of oil workers who test positive for drug use.
How could anyone justify the rights of a drug user over the right to
safety of other employees? K.

Dear K: Essentially, this case raises the question, "Do oil companies
have the right to fire an employee who works in dangerous
environments for evidence showing drug use off the job?" Up to this
point, the answer has been "Yes" because impairments on these jobs
may result in serious injury. Of course, this argument assumes that
casual drug use off the job impacts the employee's ability to perform
the job safely.

When the Ontario court ruled against these firings because they were
deemed discriminatory against individuals with disabilities, i.e.
drug users, it inherently decided that the rights of the drug users
trump the safety rights of the people they work with.

Perhaps a thought experiment devised by American philosopher John
Rawls would clarify our thinking on this issue.

Imagine you are part of a group of free and equal individuals whose
mission is to devise a fair decision-making system for all. You don't
know what your role will be in this society. In other words, how
would a justice on the Supreme Court of Canada rule on this issue if
he or she discovered that his role from now on was to be an oil
worker? Would the judge want to work around casual drug users in a
safety-sensitive environment where a slip of the hand could result in
the loss of his own limb?

I think we all know the answer.