Not Because

Sentences that follow a negative verb with because create confusion for readers.

I don’t love you because you’re beautiful.

No man can safely say this to his girlfriend because she hears the negation first and doesn’t listen to anything else he says. Our readers, like the girlfriend, hear “I don’t love you,” and then believe what follows to be an explanation for our heartlessness.

We meant to say, of course, that we do love our girlfriend, but that she is special in many ways, only one of which is her beauty. But that’s not what we said. To make sure she listens to our entire declaration, not just the first four words, we need to revise our first draft:

Good: I love you, but not because you’re beautiful.

Good: I love you not just for your beauty.

BEST: I love you for your beauty and your generous heart.

Clearly (at least I hope it’s clear to you, gentlemen) the boldest, most specific, most straightforward claim, without negatives, is the best. And of these sentences, the best are those that eliminate the because altogether.

TR Section: Copy these sentences adapted from a student essay into the Reply field below and revise them for boldness, specificity, and directness.

1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.

2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.

4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.

MW Section: Copy these sentences adapted from a student essay into the Reply field below and revise them for boldness, specificity, and directness. Replace negative verbs with positive verbs. (Example: replace didn’t resign with declined to resign)

WASHINGTON — The director of the Secret Service ordered an internal review of its security procedures around the White House after a man armed with a knife who jumped the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Friday night managed to make his way through the front door of President Obama’s home before being stopped, officials said Saturday.

7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it  responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

About davidbdale

Inventor of and sole practitioner of 299-word Very Short Novels. www.davidbdale.wordpress.com
This entry was posted in davidbdale, Professor Post, x ICE (In-class Exercise), x Writing Tips. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Not Because

  1. gamer1comp says:

    7. Omar Gonzalez’s attempt to penetrate deep into the White House was halted by the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

    8. The Secret Service is being compelled to explain its actions in allowing a breach of the White House to occur, regardless of how they responded to the breach.

    9. Despite her testimony before Congress yesterday, Secret Service chief Julia Pierson’s incompetence might cost her her job.

    10. The intruder was carrying only a knife with a 4-inch blade; therefore, the Secret Service agents didn’t require the use of deadly force to subdue him.

    Like

  2. supafreak1comp says:

    7. Thanks to the swiftness of the secret service agents, Omar Gonzalez failed to penetrate deep into the White House.

    8. The topic on how the breach occurred is more under question as oppose to how the secret service responded to the breach.

    9. Julia Pierson’s testimony before Congress saved her from getting fired, however her incompetence potentially could cost her her job.

    10. Since only a 4-inch blade was involved, Secret Service disregarded the use of deadly force.

    Like

  3. tobes1comp says:

    7. The swift actions of the Secret Service agents were able to keep Omar Gonzalez from getting deep into the White House.

    8. The Secret Service is being questioned on their incompetence and why an intruder was able to get so deep into the White House without being noticed.

    9. The chief of the Secret Service, Julia Pierson, may be penalized for her inability to fulfill the duties of her job.

    10. The 4-inch blade that the intruder used apparently wasn’t a high enough threat to the Secret Service, who refused to use deadly force.

    Like

  4. fluffy1comp says:

    7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.– Omar Gonzalez failed to penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

    8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.– Only the breach itself is being questioned, not the secret service.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though. — The only reason why Julia Pierson might lose her job is because she is incompetent, not because of her testimony.

    10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.–

    Like

  5. munchkin1comp says:

    7. The swift actions of the Secret Service agents prevented Omar Gonzalez from penetrating deep into the White House.

    8. The question of how the breach occurred is still under way, which is preventing the Secret Service from explaining its actions.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson’s incompetence might cost her her job, not for her testimony before Congress yesterday.

    10. Secret Service agents used deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

    Like

  6. matteo1comp says:

    7. Omar Gonzalez failed to penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

    8. The only fact under question is how exactly the breach occurred, not the way the Secret Service responded to the break-in.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson is not under fire after giving her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

    10. Secret Service agents simply tackled the intruder because he was only armed with a simple 4-inch blade.

    Like

  7. thedawg1comp says:

    7. The swift actions of Secret Service agents prevented Omar Gonzalez from penetrating deep into the White House.

    8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question. The Secret Service is being compelled to explain how the breach of the White House occurred, but not the way Secret Service responded to the breach

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson may be fired because of her incompetence rather than her testimony before Congress

    10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because they believed Omar Gonzalez’s weapon wasn’t an immediate threat.

    Like

    • thedawg1comp says:

      ***** 8) The Secret Service is being compelled to explain how the breach of the White House occurred, but not the way they responded to the breach.

      Like

  8. mazda1comp says:

    7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.
    -Omar Gonzalez wasn’t able to penetrate deep into the White House, via the swift actions of the Secret Service Agents.

    8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.
    -The Secret Service responded to the breach in such a way that they aren’t compelled to respond, while the breach is still under question.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.
    -Secret Service chief Julia Pierson may be fired due to her incompetence, not for her testimony to Congress.

    10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.
    -Carrying a 4 inch blade, was an action that didn’t require the Secret Service to use deadly force.

    Like

  9. rowansonlyjetsfan1comp says:

    7. The swift actions of the Secret Service prevented Omar Gonzales from penetrating deep into the White House.

    8. The Secret Service is being compelled to explain its actions not because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson dodged being fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday, but her incompetence might cost her her job.

    10. Secret Service agents avoided using deadly force against the intruder because he was only carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

    Like

  10. aspiretoinspire1comp says:

    7. Omar Gonzalez penetrated deep into the White House due to the sluggish actions of Secret Service agents.

    8. The Secret Service is being compelled to explain its actions due to the way it responded to the breach of the White House which is now under question.

    9. Though her incompetence might cost her her job, Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired due to her testimony before Congress yesterday.

    10. Secret Service agents used deadly force against the intruder due to the fact that he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

    Like

  11. bukowski1comp says:

    7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

    Omar Gonzalez penetrated deep into the white house because of the slow actions of secret service agents.

    8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

    The Secret Service is being compelled to explain its actions because of the way the breach in the white house occurred.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

    Secret Service Chief Julia Pierson will be fired because of her incompetence; not because of her testimony before Congress

    10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

    Even though the intruder was carrying a 4-inch blade, the Secret Service did not use deadly force.

    Like

  12. thestayathomedad1comp says:

    7. The swift actions of Secret Service agents prevented Omar Gonzalez from penetrating deep into the White House.

    8. How the breach occurred is under question not the Secret Service responds to the breach of the White House.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson might be fired because her incompetence might cost her her job not her testimony before Congress yesterday.

    10. The intruder was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade which didn’t require deadly force against by Secret Service agents.

    Like

    • thestayathomedad1comp says:

      8. How the breach occurred is under question not the Secret Service’s response.

      9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson might be fired due to her incompetence not her testimony before Congress yesterday.

      10. The intruder was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade which doesn’t require deadly force against by Secret Service agents.

      Like

  13. vermster71comp says:

    7. Omar Gonzalez could not penetrate deep into the White House because of the actions of the swift Secret Service agents.

    8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it acted toward the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is still under question.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her persuasive testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence toward the breach might cost her her job though.

    10. Secret Service agents resisted using deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

    Like

  14. frozen81comp says:

    7.The swift actions of Secret Service agents prevented Omar Gonzalez from penetrating deep into the White House.

    8. The questioning way in which the breach occurred is preventing the Secret Service from explaining its responding actions.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson’s incompetence might cost her her job, although she will not
    be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday.

    10. The intruder was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade, preventing Secret Service agents from using deadly force

    Like

  15. treehugger361comp says:

    7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

    A. The swift actions by the Secret Service prevented Omar Gonzalez from entering the White House.

    8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

    A. How the breach occurred is under question, not why the Secret Service acted on the aggressive contact.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

    A. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson might lose her job for the incompetence at the time, not for her testimony that she said yesterday.

    10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

    A. The 4-inch blade that the intruder was carrying prevented the Secret Service agents from using deadly force.

    Like

  16. thefluxcapacitor1comp says:

    7. Omar Gonzalez was able to penetrate deep into the White House, exposing flaws in the Secret Service.

    8. The Secret Service is compelled to respond to how breach into the White House occurred.

    9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson will be fired after her testimony before Congress yesterday.

    10. Secret Service used deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

    Like

  17. kai1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy not for using marijuana for legitimate purposes.

    2. An employer is able to fire a person who violates the workplace policy.

    3. The use of marijuana in Colorado is just as legal as going out to have a few beers after work.

    4. Although Coats was treating the pain he endured on a daily basis, he was fired.

    5. He used the marijuana prescription to help with the pain of his multiple spasms.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time so he was not harming anyone at the workplace.

    Like

  18. ovechkin1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired not because of the legal use of marijuana but because he violated workplace policy.

    2. The use of anxiety medication can’t be a reason to fire an employee.

    3. Legal activities such as the use of marijuana and alcohol can’t be reasons to fire someone in Colorado.

    4. Coats’s treatment of his daily pain should not be a reason to fire him.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against Coats for using marijuana to treat his multiple spasms.

    6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job by smoking marijuana; he was smoking on his own time.

    Like

  19. tiger1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy; his prescription for marijuana had no effect on the success of his job.

    2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person for taking medication to treat anxiety.

    3. Employees are legally allowed to drinking alcohol after work; similarly, in Colorado an employee can legally use marijuana.

    4. Coats should not have been fired for trying to treat the pain he was enduring on a daily basis.

    5. Discrimination against Coats for the treatment of his spasms with medicinal marijuana is seen as unjust.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time and not harming anyone with his smoking at work.

    Like

  20. velociraptor1comp says:

    1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.
    -Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, not for his legal drug use for which he had a prescription and a legitimate purpose.

    2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.
    – an empolyer isn’t able to fire a person for drug use if the drug is being used for a medical issue.

    3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.
    – Alcohol is legal and employees don’t get fired for drinking, but the use of marijuana is not legal everywhere

    4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.
    -Coats endured pain on a daily basis and shouldn’t have been fired for trying to treat it.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.
    – He was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana, therefore its not fair to discriminate against him.

    6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.
    – Smoking marijuana at his job didn’t cause Coats to be fired, it was because of his harmful actions to people on his own time.

    Like

  21. bloo1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired because he violated workplace policy, not for using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. If a person who has anxiety is taking the correct medication to deal with the issue, an employer isn’t able to fire them for having the condition.

    3. Since alcohol is legal, employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work, but so is marijuana in Colorado.

    4. Coats was not fired for trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis, but for other reasons.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him; he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time but not at his job; he wasn’t harming anyone at work.

    Like

  22. falooda1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired because he violated workplace policy not for using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. An employer can’t fire a person for his anxiety if he is taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

    3. In Colorado marijuana is legal, just as alcohol is and employees are not fired for going out and having a few beers after work.

    4. Coats endured pain on a daily basis and should not have been fired for trying to treat it.

    5. To discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana is not fair

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time and not at work which was not harming anyone at his job.

    Like

  23. bagofchips1comp says:

    1. Even when Coats was legally using marijuana for which he had a prescription, he was fired for violating workplace policy.

    2. Employers should not fire a person who has been taking the correct medication to deal with anxiety.

    3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work; the same should be said for marijuana since it is legal in Colorado.

    4. Coats was fired for trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

    5. He was discriminated against unfairly for using marijuana to treat his multiple spasms.

    6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job since he had been smoking marijuana on his own time and not at work.

    Like

  24. mandragon1comp says:

    1. Coats was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription yet was fired for violating workplace policy.

    2. An employee that is taking correctional medicine for anxiety issues can’t be fired by employers.

    3. Employees don’t get fired for doing legal activities, both marijuana and alcohol are legal in colorado.

    4. Coats was only trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis he shouldn’t have been fired.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him, he was only trying to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time and not at work this wasn’t harming anyone at his job.

    Like

  25. greentwinky1comp says:

    1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.
    Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, not for his use of legal, prescribed marijuana.

    2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.
    Taking medicine to deal with anxiety is not a viable reason for an employer to fire a person.

    3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.
    In Colorado, smoking marijuana is just as legal as going out and having a few beers after work; employees cannot be fired for either reason.

    4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.
    Coats should not have been fired for was trying to treat the pain that he endured on a daily basis.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.
    His use of marijuana to ease the pain of his multiple spasms does not justify discrimination against him.

    6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.
    Coats was not harming anyone at his job by smoking marijuana; he was smoking on his own time and not at work.

    Like

  26. mica1comp says:

    1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.
    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy; not because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.
    *2.

    3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.
    *3. Employees do not get fired for participating in legal activities.

    4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.
    4. Coats was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis, he should not have been fired for this.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.
    5. Since marijuana eases the pain of his multiple spasms, its not fair to discriminate against him for his using.

    6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.
    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time only, therefore not harming anyone at his workplace.

    Like

  27. giantsfan1comp says:

    1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.

    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, and for using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

    2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety if they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

    3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.

    3. In Colorado, employees don’t get fired for having a few beers after work, but can for smoking marijuana even though both are legal.

    4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

    4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired if he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him for he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

    6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time and not at work, so he wasn’t harming anyone at his job.

    Like

  28. garwin1comp says:

    1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.

    Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, not for using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

    An employee taking the correct medication to deal with anxiety cannot be fired.

    3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.

    Employees in Colorado don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work, but they do if they smoke marijuana even though both are legal.

    4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

    Coats was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis, so he should not have been fired.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

    His use of marijuana to ease the pain of his multiple spasms does not make it fair to discriminate against him.

    6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.

    Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time and not at work, so he was not harming anyone at his job.

    Like

  29. owllover1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy by using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose which he had a prescription for.

    2. A person who has anxiety cannot be fired by an employer if said person is taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

    3. Employees who go out and have a few beers after work do not get fired considering alcohol is legal, but in Colorado, marijuana is also legal.

    4. Coats was fired simply for using marijuana to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

    5. Discriminating against Coats is not fair for he was using marijuana to ease the pain of his multiple spasms.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time and not at work, therefore, he wasn’t harming anyone at his job by smoking marijuana.

    Like

  30. iglesias1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, not because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. A person who has anxiety and takes the correct medication to deal with the issue, cannot be fired by their employer for reasons regarding their illness.

    3. Alcohol is a legal substance so employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work, but in Colorado marijuana is now also legal, creating a new issue at the workplace of when employees can use it.

    4. Coats was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis with the aid of medical marijuana, he should not be fired for a drug that had been prescribed to him.

    5. Coats use of marijuana eased the pain of his multiple spasms making it unfair to discriminate against him for using this substance.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time and not at work, so he was not harming anyone at his workplace which is why he was not fired for this reason but rather for violating workplace policy.

    Like

  31. eagles1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, not because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. A person with anxiety can’t be fired for taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

    3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and doing legal activities.

    4. Coats was fired for trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis but should not have.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against Coats for using marijuana to treat his multiple spasms.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time and not harming anyone at his job.

    Like

  32. dean1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired for the use of the legal drug, marijuana, but Dish justifies it by saying it was for him violating the Drug-Free Workplace rule.
    2. A person who suffers from an anxiety disorder would never be fired for the use of his prescription medication.
    3. Legal activities should be treated with the same work rules and guidelines. A worker who went out for a few beers after work wouldn’t be fired, so neither should a person who went home and smoked marijuana.
    4. Coats was fired for the attempt to ease the pain he suffered on a daily basis.
    5. Discrimination at the workplace is illegal and that’s exactly what Dish did when they fired Coats for using medicinal marijuana.
    6. Coats was smoking marijuana, but at the same time he was doing it on his own time, not harming anyone at his job or his work ethic.

    Like

  33. perry1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, even though he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose.

    2. An employer cannot fire a person with anxiety who is taking the correct medication to treat the issue.

    3. Legal activities, such as drinking beer and smoking marijuana in Colorado, should not get employees fired.

    4. Coats was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis and should not have been fired for using a legal drug.

    5. It is not fair to discriminate against Coats for legally using marijuana to ease the pain of his multiple spasms.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time and was not harming anyone at his job.

    Like

  34. jaime1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy; not because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. An employer is able to fire a person who has anxiety, only if they are not taking the correct medication to control it.

    3. Employees getting few beers after work do not get fired because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado marijuana should be treated the same way, since it is legal.

    4. Coats was fired because he was just trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

    5. It is wrong to discriminate against Coates, simply because he used marijuana to ease the pain of his injuries.

    6. Coats was smoking marijuana, but he was doing it on his own time, not at work so, was not
    harming anyone at his job.

    Like

  35. sparky1comp says:

    1. Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, not because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. An employer cannot fire a worker who has anxiety and is taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

    3.Employees should not get fired for legal activities such as drinking beer or smoking marijuana.

    4. Coats was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis, therefore he shouldn’t have been fired for marijuana use.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

    6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana on his own time and not at work.

    Like

  36. Domia abr Wyrda says:

    1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.
    –Coats was fried for violating workplace policy, not for using marijuana for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

    2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.
    –If Coats was taking the correct medication to deal with his issue, his employer should not have fired him for anxiety.

    3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.
    –In Colorado employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work, but they can for marijuana use, though both are are legal.

    4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.
    –Coats should not have been fired for trying to treat the pain he was enduring on a daily basis.

    5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.
    –It’s not fair to discriminate against Coats as his marijuana use easies the pian of his daily spasms

    6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.
    –Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job. He was smoking marijuana but on his own time and not at work.

    Like

    • Domia abr Wyrda says:

      1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.
      –Coats was fried for violating workplace policy, not for using marijuana for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription.

      2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.
      –If Coats was taking the correct medication to deal with his issue, his employer should not have fired him for anxiety.

      3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.
      –In Colorado employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work, but they can for marijuana use, though both are are legal.

      4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.
      –Coats should not have been fired for trying to treat the pain he was enduring on a daily basis.

      5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.
      –It’s not fair to discriminate against Coats as his marijuana use easies the pian of his daily spasms

      6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.
      –Coats was not harming anyone at his job, he was smoking marijuana but on his own time, not at work.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s