Mmmm, it would have to be specific I'd think...it's illegal for everyone, technically, yet not in those states.
No, you're wrong.
Under federal law, it's illegal for EVERYONE including in those two states.
Under state law, it's legal for people in those two states.
A state law making it legal only affects the STATE, it doesn't over rule the federal.
Technically, for people in those states, it's still ILLEGAL on a federal level. They're still engage in illegal activity even if it's not illegal at a state level.
If they are not testing, it should be none of their business if they are not breaking the laws.
Disagree. If the business wants to make that a requirement for employment I have no issue with it. Don't like it, don't work for them.
If the feds have stated they'll ignore pot use (as they have) in those 2 states...then the feds have said exactly that for those employees unless it's written out in the employee contract.
No, it hasn't.
People using pot in those two states are still doing so in an ILLEGAL fashion as it comes to federal law....the feds simply are just choosing not to take action against it. That doesn't change the fact it IS illegal. You are still not
ALLOWED federally to smoke pot in those two states, you're just unlikely to have any reprucussions if you do it.
The question in the OP was should it be
ALLOWED. I would say no. Just like it's not
ALLOWED for anyone else under the law. As to whether or not the individual employing agencies would like to state that they TOO will ignore it should be up to those agencies imho.
And can the feds control the alcohol use of their employees on their own time?
Unlikely to hold up in court, as they're engaging in a LEGAL activity in that case. Smoking pot is not a LEGAL activity, even in those two states. It's legal on a state level, illegal federally.