[420 Girl]

Two weeks ago, the Oregon Appeals Court created rights for medical marijuana patients at employers' expense. The Oregon Appeals Court decided that it is invalid for an employer to fire employees for medical marijuana use outside work. Whether or not this is a valid or rational reason does not concern the government, for a business is the property of its owner not the government.

A business owner delegates authority to employers. Consequently, employers fire employees on behalf of the business owner. Thus, employers' firing motives are protected by the business owner's natural rights. Only employers' superiors or the business owner may override firings. Therefore, business owners and employers have the right to fire, and hire employees for any reason. For example, medical marijuana use outside work, heroine use outside work, Tylenol use outside work, Tylenol work inside work, gender, race, pregnancy, eye color, fashion sense, etc.

This is not to argue that any hiring-firing motive is virtuous. Basing employment and termination on arbitrary physical characteristics, such as gender, race, and eye color is indeed vicious. The problem is these motives do not concern the employee's abilities and merits. Instead, the motives are based on collectivistic irrationalities. For example, 'all blondes are stupid' collectively identifies all blondes for all of time as ignorant. One must judge each person as an individual, not as a collective's piece.

However, enforcing virtues and punishing vices is not the government's concern. The government's only concern is to protect individuals' natural rights from infringement. An employee's natural rights are not violated if he is fired for medical marijuana use outside work. Of course, others will argue that it violates his right to work. This is a fallacy. Individuals' right to work is already protected by their natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property. In turn, one has the right to seek employment and engage in labor. No one has the right to be provided employment and offered labor.

Unfortunately, it is often assumed that people do have the right to be provided employment; consequently, the government tries to protect it. However, since it is a fictional right, an employer does not initiate force when he fires an employee for irrational reasons. Therefore, the government cannot use defense force against the employer. The government must initiate force against the employer. The government must violate the employer's natural rights. The employer's right to property is violated; one may use one's property as he desires. His right to pursue happiness is violated; one may try to be satisfied even if one is misguided. His right to liberty is violated; one may choose even if the choice is vicious. Finally, his right to life is violated; one's life is one's own not a pie to be cut and divided for a collective.

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/in...a-patient.html