FUZZY THINKING ON MARIJUANA

"Pardon my disability," the pot-smoker says as he (or she) draws
deeply on a spliff of B.C. Bud. It is not a likely comment or
scenario, but it now has a legal precedent owing to an odd ruling
from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

The case concerns John Chiasson, who was hired in 2002 as an
inspector at a Syncrude oilsands project north of Fort McMurray. Less
than two weeks later he was fired after his urine sample yielded
positive results for marijuana use. Not use on the job, mind you, but
recreationally, five days before his engagement, at least according
to his own testimony.

The construction company, Kellogg, Brown & Root, has a zero-tolerance
drug policy, as do many other firms across the land. The case for
draconianism is based in part on what it calls "the growing drug
culture in Fort McMurray." One can imagine. Winter nights are long up
there, and potential pastimes limited. The company says it has
reduced lost time recently because of its tough stand on alcohol and drugs.

It is an interesting case on a few levels. Do companies have the
right to invade the privacy of the individual with such testing? One
might argue that employers should act only after an employee has
reported to work impaired, rather than gratuitously assume the worst.
But workers, once hired, are often hard to fire, as this whole
business demonstrates in and of itself.

Had the worker in question drained a martini five days earlier, there
would obviously be no repercussions. If there is a major company in
Canada that expects strict temperance from its workforce, we have not
made its acquaintance. And alcohol possession is legal.

Marijuana possession, however, is not. Whether its use or even abuse
should be classed along with the use of drugs that are addictive and
far more debilitating is a long-running social debate. But the status
of marijuana as a drug technically qualifies its use - like
alcoholism and hard-drug dependency - as a disability.

This is the creative approach Chiasson used when he took the matter
to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which dismissed the
complaint. The very panel that is charged with deciding such matters
concluded that pot-smoking does not qualify.

Which is why it is so strange that Justice Sheilah Martin should open
the door to this notion.

Her ruling, let it be understood, was based on other considerations
and can be taken as a comment on the justice of the particular case.
It is significant that the worker was already hired. A company better
versed in the rules of fair play would probably wait for the results
before hiring the employee.

But to add pot-smoking to our burgeoning list of disabilities is to
defy nationwide opinion and common sense. The concluding question is
inevitable: What was she smoking?