The article makes a lot of assumptions, I feel that it's intellectually lazy. What if an employee is under the influence of marijuana? Well gosh, if your emplo

The article makes a lot of assumptions, I feel that it's intellectually lazy. What if an employee is under the influence of marijuana? Well gosh, if your employee constantly comes to work drunk, you probably fire them. The article tries to point out that it's harder to test for cannabis intoxication than alcohol intoxication, but few businesses are going to administer a test anyways. They will just fire you if you are inebriated. So why would it be any different? The question is never posed. And then, the assumption that randomly drug testing employees is somehow normal or OK pops up, with some hand waving about how some companies are shirking their presumed responsibility towards this. In a lot of countries, you're not even allowed to do employee drug testing unless the work is dangerous. I wonder how they are coping? The article tries to paint a picture of some big complicated problem, but it smells like bullshit to me. HR departments already have ways of dealing with these problems, and the legalization of the substance has little to nothing to do with it.