POT RULING HURTS SAFETY PUSH

Judge Sheilah Martin's ruling that recreational use of marijuana is
tantamount to the disability of addiction is a disappointing sop to
the cult of victimization and its members' refusal to take
responsibility for their behaviour.

John Chiasson started work at Syncrude's Fort McMurray plant five days
after he smoked marijuana. Nine days later, when his pre-employment
drug test turned up positive, he was fired.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission found against him in a sensible
ruling, which acknowledged companies' attempts to fight the rampant
drug use in Fort McMurray via employee testing.

Martin overturned the ruling, declared Chiasson had been the victim of
discrimination, and further stated that, as a recreational user, he
should have been treated no differently than someone with an addiction
- -- his pot use thus fell into the category of being a disability.

There is a huge gulf between recreational use and addiction. The first
label assumes the ability to make choices about when and how often to
use a substance; the individual is very much in control. The second
label clearly presumes the habit rules the individual's life and
professional help is needed to get the drug use under control.
Chiasson was not an addict.

When a company entrusts its employees with dangerous equipment or they
must work at a site with a variety of potential hazards, the company
has every right to ensure that those employees are not under the
influence of drugs or alcohol -- not just for their own safety, but
the safety of their co-workers.

Chiasson would have known that drug-testing is a fact of life for
workers in Fort McMurray.

He always had the choice not to smoke pot or, at least to refrain from
using it during the time frame when it would show up in a drug test.

He knew a positive test would result in losing his job.

When you flout the rules and then get caught, that's not
discrimination -- it's consequences.

It's unfortunate Martin saw no difference between the two.