View Full Version : Legalize Marijuana...
Being a new member here, I’m a bit reluctant to make this post…but here goes...
I’m a fairly conservative person, and yet I occasionally smoke marijuana. I never smoke outside my own house. I do not sell marijuana or give it away…and I use only 3 or 4 times per week…in moderation.
I think it should be legalized nationally for recreational use. We should all learn from the mistakes of the 1920’s alcohol prohibition. It didn’t work. A lot of good cops died before the government admitted that prohibition was a mistake and legalized (but regulated) the sale of alcohol.
How many good cops have died trying to prevent marijuana use in America? Far too many…and they died for NOTHING…for a lost cause…I know of at least 5 sources right now where I could buy marijuana.
Some perfectly reasonable people will disagree with me, I know…but as reasonable as they may be, they are wrong…marijuana use is widespread, increasing, and provides a wonderful experience…
If you don’t want to indulge and enjoy, then don’t…I respect your decision.
iris lilies
5-2-13, 9:17pm
My friend, I am sitting here with a little red wine myself, having abandoned MJ about 35 years ago. It was fun for the time, but red wine is now my drug of choice. Anyway.
Last night I attended a political fundraiser where those in the room wrote a check to meet and greet Rand Paul. After Rand's speech (he is very cool, by the way!) I had a short conversation with a local Tea Party guy who is lobbying for relaxation of Cannibis of laws. He just happens to be a City policeman, and also just happens to live in my neighborhood.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-sergeant-sues-department-for-silencing-his-pro/article_34b1f9ab-b2b7-5429-b95e-fcf7bb9e89d1.html
Gary told me that he is really working toward getting the Feds out of Cannibis regulation. He's not convinced that it needs to be totally legal, but he want the Federal government to step out; he wants it regulated, if it IS regulated, by the states. He also said that the confiscation of property is giving great wealth to law enforcement, and that's a big driver of keeping it illegal.
So that's the political perspective from St. Louis as of 5/2/2013.
Now that it's legal here, I predict I'll sample tincture or maybe vapor at some point in the future. It was never my favorite of the mind-altering drugs, but I like the idea of revisiting it.
move to Denver, it is everywhere here. I can say that I don't mind however there are places I drive by and can really smell it. Every other block has a medical marijuana place as well. I wouldn't be bothered, just wish it wasn;t as stinky is all.
Colorado and Washington should be good test grounds to see if legalizing pot is actually workable. I think responsible adults should be able to choose if they want to use pot or alcohol. The concerns I hear is that by legalizing MJ, it will be more available to young people and others who are not capable of making good choices. I spent some of my college years in the early 70's with a pretty fast living crowd and have sadly seen several of my old friends suffer ruined health, careers, and families due to alcohol abuse. I can't think of any who have had similar catastrophic issues with pot. Most quit or cut back significantly years ago after spending too much time eating chips, napping, and watching TV.
After reading the Botany of Desire which differentiates the "stupid" pot from the "mind altering" type, I have wanted to revisit the stuff. I will likely wait til a lot of the legal stuff gets sorted out though-I think by the beginning of 2014 or so. For now, there's no real legal way to obtain marijuana in Colorado, though I suppose I could start growing (which CO law allows with limits). I did hear something interesting awhile back on NPR too: beyond all the issues of pot used as a drug, the US is the biggest consumer of hemp in the world. Hemp is illegal for farmers to grow in the US, yet it's a multi-use crop plant with greater drought resistance than corn. Yeah, shoot yourself in the foot much? >:(
Colorado is an interesting place to be right now, to be sure. I'm thinking of starting a list of the best medical marijuana dispensary names....I laugh every time I drive by a good one. Zoe, you'll be glad to hear one is called "Mr. Stinky's"
I too am waiting until it all sorts itself out. MJ does nothing but put me to sleep, but in these jagged days of perimenopausal insomnia, maybe that's not such a bad thing! :) Of course, I grow lots of medicinal plants already, so this is pretty normal stuff to me.
I'm a cannabis user for osteoarthritis. Now that it's legal in WA, I am hoping to get my nearly 86 year old retired attorney father to try it for his chronic pain & degenerative joint disease. I use it in edible form & in tincture. Smoking it hurts my lungs, and is too intense for me.
Tomorrow I have an intake appt. at a Bastyr Naturopathic College, in their oncology clinic, and I will be most interested to see how my cannabis use is viewed in light of my cancer treatment. (I'm not expected to have chemo at this point, but will be having radiation.) My stepson uses cannabis to ease the inflammation of ankylosing spondylitis. It helps him a lot.
Does cannabis lower inflammation markers? If so, maybe we should all be vaping away...
(The main Bastyr campus is lovely, btw, set in its very own forest.)
I dropped out of the cannabis crowd when my kids were born for legal and motivational reasons. If all things were equal and it were to be legalized here I can easily see sitting on my deck in the evening with a bong on the table instead of a cocktail.
Legalization makes sense to me for lots of reasons. Classifying it as a schedule 1 drug is absurd; it just isn't. There are thousands and thousands of people, mostly young men of color, in jail for dealing small quantities of produce. That is also absurd. Not that our country needs new addictions (figuratively speaking), but the argument that it's no worse than alcohol is valid in my experience. It's the #1 cash crop for the Mexican drug cartels who cause all kinds of problems. Legalize it and you cut their legs off. Legalize it with a tax and regulation structure similar to tobacco and the money that used to go to those cartels now goes to legal cartels in the US (government, big pharma and probably big tobacco). At least we might see a trickle down from that.
Hemp, as Rosie mentioned, is a whole different reason. It was grown in significant quantities during WWII around where I grew up. The seeds have spread and flourished and now "ditch weed" grows everywhere. If you want to see something funny take your college roommate from California home to the ranch and show him a 100 acre patch of wild marijuana. Trust me, there is no THC in that weed, but that won't stop him from collecting several Hefty bags of samples just to be sure. Anyway, it is still one of the most versatile crops that can be grown and could easily generate a whole new domestic industry if properly promoted.
Answering my own question:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080720222549.htm
Marijuana is, in fact, anti-inflammatory. And since nearly all our killer diseases are inflammatory, maybe it should be as ubiquitous as aspirin in our medicine cabinets.
I don't smoke pot... never liked the kind of high it gave me. I've "inhaled" maybe a handful of times in my life. I, like Iris lily, will take the red wine.
However, I think the attention and the money and the taxpayer resources spent in criminalizing pot is ludicrous. And I think that keeping it from people who would benefit from it medicinally is even more stupid. Medical marijuana, BAD. Oxycontin, GOOD. I don't get it.
While it isn't yet legal to purchase it here in Colorado without a medical card, it is now legal to have small amounts for personal recreational use. It is not legal to use in public places, but I've seen people smoking from a pipe on the street and a friend who uses the bus has seen kids smoking on the bus. The laws are so new that people probably don't know how to react to these situations and there are some cans of worms being opened. Right now taxation rates and DUI limits are hot topics. In my book there is a large difference between legal pot for medical purposes and legal selling and use for recreational purposes.
There was an excellent program on Frontline last week on the overcrowding of prisons due to the war on drugs. Not just pot, but it is totally out of control. One guy who was a repeat offender was serving life without parole for having a small quantity of meth. Of course this should be illegal, but some of the sentences are ridiculous. I think their conclusion was that this is not so much targeting minorities, but in effect removing lower class citizens from the population at the great expense of the taxpayer. Something needs to change.
I think drug use is a public health issue. Not a criminal issue.
The U.S. incarcerates at a rate higher than ANY country in the world. We have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated. Much of it due to the drug war and unreasonable sentencing surrounding that. The U.S. incarcerates at rates 7 and 8 times higher than Canada and Europe. Why are we so different? Portugal decriminalized personal possession of drugs 12 years and the country hasn't gone up in flames. Change seems to be coming but the states are having to pave the way. The Feds aren't making any moves to end the drug war or decriminalize drugs.
I think it shoould be legalized or at least decriminalized. Our gov't spends billions fighting this "war" on MJ and they are not winning. MJ is not a huge detriment to society. These billions could be better spent in other ways and then money could be also made by legalizing it and taxing it. This would also clear out overcrowded prisons and keep real criminals (violent people, killers, child molesters, etc) from being released due to overcrowding.
I am a chronic pain patient who does not care to take the narcotics that are recommended for me, they are expensive, addictive and are a pain in the butt to try and get from doctors. You also build up a tolerance for them and they stop working.
I am all for legalizing it.
Medical marijuana, BAD. Oxycontin, GOOD. I don't get it.
Pot smokers don't have much of a lobby on capitol hill. Plus, you can't grow Oxycontin in your back yard.
Gardenarian
5-3-13, 12:11pm
I have never used cannabis but it certainly seems to cause fewer problems than many other drugs, including legal ones.
My one concern is public use. In SF (where we live) there are people smoking it at playgrounds and other areas where there are lots of kids. I also object to people sitting around playgrounds and parks drinking beer and wine. Oh, well - SF is just not a family-friendly place.
The drug laws are crazy; the land of the free seems to have turn into the land of incarceration.
One problem is the use of marijuana and the DUI laws. It appears that marijuana can be detected in the system up to a month after you used it, so if you smoke and then 3 weeks later drive and injure someone in a wreck, are you legally DUI? Legislatures are struggling with this.
I think drug use is a public health issue. Not a criminal issue.
The U.S. incarcerates at a rate higher than ANY country in the world. We have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated. Much of it due to the drug war and unreasonable sentencing surrounding that. The U.S. incarcerates at rates 7 and 8 times higher than Canada and Europe. Why are we so different? Portugal decriminalized personal possession of drugs 12 years and the country hasn't gone up in flames. Change seems to be coming but the states are having to pave the way. The Feds aren't making any moves to end the drug war or decriminalize drugs. I agree that drug use and addiction are public health issues and that non violent marijuana users shouldn't be incarcerated in droves for minor offenses, but legalizing mj won't reduce much of the criminal activity surrounding other drugs. The growing, manufacturing and trafficking of drugs -both domesticly and internatonally - will go on and the criminal activity that comes with that - often very violent criminal activity - will continue. As will the need for law enforcement activities. When I was in the coast guard most of our drug busts were mj in the beginning, but years later it was almost exclusively cocaine and heroin. That will continue along with the need for continued law enforcement..
As for legalizing mj... I'm still on the fence but leaning toward strict legalization with restrictions for age, etc... But support it for Dr supervived medical use for sure.
...
As for legalizing mj... I'm still on the fence but leaning toward strict legalization with restrictions for age, etc... But support it for Dr supervived medical use for sure.
Hell would freeze over before I let some doctor supervise my health care--I wouldn't trust most of them to supervise a wart. And I certainly wouldn't show up at a clinic asking for a prescription for marijuana to treat my geriatric achy parts. Good God. Glad it's legal here.
I think we all realize the conflicts inherent with the pharma-doctor-patient pipeline. We moved out of CO not long after the first round of dispensaries opened, but then it was merely a case of bringing a Rx in one time and then you were on the 'approved patient' list. I didn't do it, but have several friends who did. It was bogus of course: $295 paid to the "doctor", tell him/her you hurt your back and the Rx was yours. Whatever. If pot helps anyone who has an affliction they should be able to get it without fear of being arrested. If someone wants to use it in a recreational setting in private, why should anyone else care? The only problem I have that I'm not sure how you address is (as others have mentioned) DWI, or DWS in this case. That is a big hurdle and I don't think we should pull out ALL the stops until we know how to deal with that.
The only problem I have that I'm not sure how you address is (as others have mentioned) DWI, or DWS in this case. That is a big hurdle and I don't think we should pull out ALL the stops until we know how to deal with that.
That is already a problem whether pot is legal or not. I suspect there is enough floating around illegally to justify defining DUI. Most states probably already have loosely defined laws making DUI under the influence of drugs illegal, but have failed to refine or quantify the definition. By making MJ legal it forces the issue to be more specific. I would propose if better definition of DUI due to drug use is in order, legalization will force the issue. That is what seems to be happening here.
Perhaps defining the unsafe driving behaviours, and not worrying so much about blood levels would be a way forward. Especially since people react so differently to different substances(*).
I don't care if the guy swerving across the road is doing it because of beer, pot, cold meds, or lack of sleep - I want him off the road. Stop the behaviour, sort out the cause later.
(*) I responded to a medical call this week. Lady wandered off into the woods, naked, in early morning hours, surprising her husband when he woke up to find her missing. We found her shortly thereafter. She thought she was on a vacation in Japan, and was having a lovely time... Turned out to be merely a really bad reaction to over-the-counter cold medications, taken in the proper doses, with some interactions with other meds she was on.
I believe it was the ACLU that proposed a computerized baseline competency test in lieu of drug screening. So if there was any question of your sobriety/ability to perform on the job you would re-take the competency test on the spot. It was some time ago that I heard about this, so I may have got details wrong. But I agree with bae that it's about performance. I worked with one or two technicians who did their jobs perfectly well drunk or stoned--which was amazing to me, because if I had a glass of wine with lunch I could barely answer the phone correctly afterwards.
If marijuana were legal, I'd smoke every day!
iris lilies
5-6-13, 11:29am
Perhaps defining the unsafe driving behaviours, and not worrying so much about blood levels would be a way forward. Especially since people react so differently to different substances(*).
That's nice in theory, but you'd need cops at every corner, cops on every mile stretch, to identify the crazy driving behavior. Not enough cops and I'm not going to pay for that, anyway.
That's nice in theory, but you'd need cops at every corner, cops on every mile stretch, to identify the crazy driving behavior.
Well, today we don't have magic blood level measuring devices that sample drivers as they pass by every corner.
Today we have cops, who observe driving behaviour, who then decide a driver is driving crazily, and through their experience and training are able to identify sufficient cause to pull over the driver and do further testing.
So we wouldn't need any more cops than we have today.
Inattentive drivers are everywhere--texting, eating, disciplining kids in the back seat, fiddling with audio controls... I'm pretty sure they're at least as dangerous as drivers with residual marijuana in their systems. Sometimes, like when I'm trying to avoid being rear-ended by some airhead texter, I wish there were alert cops on every corner.
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-13, 12:28pm
I just thought of something involving marijuana being legal in Washington and Colorado. Suppose I go for a job interview, and an offer is extended. I am so excited as let's say this job offer actually has insurance and a 401(K) match - both are becoming rarer and rarer in Arizona at any rate. But let's say I indulge on the weekends, and passing a drug test is a prereq to getting the job - is this legal? If MJ is found in your system from a job related drug test in WA or CO, is this just ignored as there it is not illegal? I don't know the ins and outs of this but if it is not thrown out, I see some attorneys getting wealthy and some enterprising litigants perhaps never needing to worry about work again.....Rob
Employers can not hire you for all kinds of legal activities and pot smokers are not a protected class.
I just thought of something involving marijuana being legal in Washington and Colorado. Suppose I go for a job interview, and an offer is extended. I am so excited as let's say this job offer actually has insurance and a 401(K) match - both are becoming rarer and rarer in Arizona at any rate. But let's say I indulge on the weekends, and passing a drug test is a prereq to getting the job - is this legal? If MJ is found in your system from a job related drug test in WA or CO, is this just ignored as there it is not illegal? I don't know the ins and outs of this but if it is not thrown out, I see some attorneys getting wealthy and some enterprising litigants perhaps never needing to worry about work again.....Rob
There are two different types of workplace drug testing, pre-employment and periodic/random. Pre-employment testing is designed to screen out potential risks before they have the ability to affect the workplace.
Random/periodic drug testing is administered in the workplace to protect the employer and other workers from impaired employees. Making pot legal does not affect the employers responsibility to ensure that employees are not impaired on the job. Unfortuntely for some, signs of pot will remain in the bloodstream longer than alcohol and will result in the loss of a job at worst and mandatory treatment at best.
Employers can not hire you for all kinds of legal activities and pot smokers are not a protected class.
Exactly. I just had to pass a drug test which screened for marijuana for a job here in Washington, after we legalized marijuana. Any positive return would have resulted in dismissal.
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-13, 12:43pm
Exactly. I just had to pass a drug test which screened for marijuana for a job here in Washington, after we legalized marijuana. Any positive return would have resulted in dismissal.Maybe I am missing something here.....I haven't smoked in years as for me this was part of my rebellion phase so I'm not making a stand for marijuana here. It just seems to me that the law legalizing it in WA and CO is a joke - if one can lose their job for indulging in a legal drug, how legal is that drug really then? This makes no sense at all to me, and once again, I am not here making a stand for legalization, that's a whole other thread methinks. I just don't understand what seems to me to be a lack of total common sense legal contradiction.....if it can't show up in drug tests and be ok, why was it legalized in the first place? Rob
You aren't entitled to a job, or benefits, Rob.
In my case, they don't want me driving a 40,000 pound fire engine down the public road while I am possibly under the influence. Nor do they want me operating the pumps, or going inside a burning building while high. So there's zero tolerance, and we get retested immediately after any accident.
Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it is appropriate while on-the-job.
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-13, 12:58pm
You aren't entitled to a job, or benefits, Rob.
In my case, they don't want me driving a 40,000 pound fire engine down the public road while I am possibly under the influence. Nor do they want me operating the pumps, or going inside a burning building while high. So there's zero tolerance, and we get retested immediately after any accident.
Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it is appropriate while on-the-job.I'm not disagreeing with what you have said here Bae, I guess it's more that I don't understand then why the law was passed to begin with. In my mind it should be blanket legal or not passed at all - that being said, though, tomorrow I am going to get in a plane and fly to Salt Lake City and would I want my pilot high from a joint he smoked on the tarmac at Denver International? Of course not. I wonder how much gray area there is in these laws - from what I am hearing, only the self employed really are covered by this law as you don't have to pass a drug test to hire yourself in most cases.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-13, 1:02pm
I would like to add that I understand that if I am 21 or older it is legal in the US for me to drink alcohol - but I understand that I can be fired for being under the influence at work. This is as it should be IMHO. What bothers me is that if someone smokes on their time off - say on the weekend, and gets randomed a week later, when they are no longer under the influence, and in a state where it is legal to smoke on your own time - is this a system that is acceptable? Seriously. I find this very very very scary. And I say this making no stands for legalization and as a non-smoker 100% since 2001. Rob
PS Another point - why bother passing laws in the first place if they don't hold up on your own time vs. an employer's?
I'm not disagreeing with what you have said here Bae, I guess it's more that I don't understand then why the law was passed to begin with
So people wouldn't be arrested and thrown in jail for marijuana possession and use.
"Legal" doesn't mean "good idea in all situations, and no consequences."
It's legal for me to wear ratty shorts and a t-shirt to work. If my job were one typically done by people wearing $5000 bespoke suits, it would likely be a bad idea to show up in shorts though.
What bothers me is that if someone smokes on their time off - say on the weekend, and gets randomed a week later, when they are no longer under the influence,..
My understanding is that marijuana matabolites are fat soluble. The test shows marijuana still in your system at some detectable level.
An organization that has a zero-tolerance policy will flag that. Imagine the liability if I were to kill someone by running them over with a fire truck, and there were *any* detectable levels of behaviour-altering subtances in my system.... Some employers simply won't go there. If you want to work for those people, don't do drugs.
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-13, 1:08pm
So people wouldn't be arrested and thrown in jail for marijuana possession and use.
"Legal" doesn't mean "good idea in all situations, and no consequences."
It's legal for me to wear ratty shorts and a t-shirt to work. If my job were one typically done by people wearing $5000 bespoke suits, it would likely be a bad idea to show up in shorts though.I do think it's good that people are not being thrown in jail for possession and use where it it legal, I grant that. My issue is still with the potential for consequences for losing a job via a random drug test revealing THC in someone's system long after the effects have worn off.....I'm still thinking there's huge lawsuits potentially in this and on this one, I side 100% with the litigants in WA and/or CO. Rob
Huge lawsuits? Washington State is an employment-at-will state, your employer can legally fire you here because they don't like the color of your shirt.
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-13, 1:11pm
My understanding is that marijuana matabolites are fat soluble. The test shows marijuana still in your system at some detectable level.
An organization that has a zero-tolerance policy will flag that. Imagine the liability if I were to kill someone by running them over with a fire truck, and there were *any* detectable levels of behaviour-altering subtances in my system.... Some employers simply won't go there. If you want to work for those people, don't do drugs.I'm 50/50 on this one. I do see your point.....but it seems that in WA and CO (to me anyway) a can of worms has been opened by this law passing - detectable does not mean under the influence and I cheer any future successful litigants on this one, even though I'm undecided on legalization overall. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-13, 1:12pm
Huge lawsuits? Washington State is an employment-at-will state, your employer can legally fire you here because they don't like the color of your shirt.I'm no attorney BAE, granted, but passing this legal pot law does seem to leave a lot of room for litigation open to me.....Maybe there is fine print in here for exceptions, however, I have not read the law and once again, I am no attorney. Rob
Over the past decade there have been two things in US public policy that never fail to make me feel teeth-gnashingly frustrated: the war in Iraq and the futile, mind-numbingly stupid "war on drugs." I suppose what both have in common is their ability to wreck lives and flush countless billions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet.
Again, competence tests can be administered, just like they are now for dui: touch your nose, walk in a straight line, count backwards, look into the tester's eyes. A driver who isn't impaired would pass. No need for invasive testing.
I'm no attorney BAE, granted, but passing this legal pot law does seem to leave a lot of room for litigation open to me.....Maybe there is fine print in here for exceptions, however, I have not read the law and once again, I am no attorney. Rob
I wonder if you can test positive from secondhand exposure?
My work started doing random drug testing on a much bigger section of its workforce this year. For things oxycodone, codeine, etc, a doctor's prescription will get you off the hook for testing positive - not so for testing positive for cannibis, prescription or not (MA has legalized medical marijuana although they are still sorting out the details).
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-13, 2:11pm
Over the past decade there have been two things in US public policy that never fail to make me feel teeth-gnashingly frustrated: the war in Iraq and the futile, mind-numbingly stupid "war on drugs." I suppose what both have in common is their ability to wreck lives and flush countless billions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet.+1
I cheer any future successful litigants on this one, even though I'm undecided on legalization overall.
Funny, I'm just the opposite. I support legalization, you ought to have the right to do what you want as long as you aren't endagering others. Along the same line, employers should have the right to hire who they want. I support the right to free speech and association. You should have the right to join the KKK. I should have the right to not hire Klan members.
I should have the right to not hire Klan members.
But, but, how will Klan members get jobs that have good healthcare and 401k matching then? Isn't that a constitutional right?
Would it be easier to start with the list of what, if anything, ISN'T an entitlement and work backwards from there? Either way, the Google car will solve the DWI dilemma (but Google Glass might make the workplace issue more problematic).
In Washington and probably Colorado the DUI limit is going to be based on levels of THC in the blood. This pretty much stacks the deck against users since there hasn't been much study to correlate impairment to THC levels and like has been mentioned, frequent users can have this level in their system without having used before driving.
As unfair as this seems, I can't see a physical or reaction time type test that would be better. I have a friend who lost toes in a motorcycle accident and also has a slight speech impairment. The fact that he can't walk a straight line and talks with a slur has resulted in more than one incident of police harassment as a drunk driving suspect. Maybe after years of study a better method of determining impairment will come along.
In Washington and probably Colorado the DUI limit is going to be based on levels of THC in the blood. This pretty much stacks the deck against users since there hasn't been much study to correlate impairment to THC levels and like has been mentioned, frequent users can have this level in their system without having used before driving.
As unfair as this seems, I can't see a physical or reaction time type test that would be better. I have a friend who lost toes in a motorcycle accident and also has a slight speech impairment. The fact that he can't walk a straight line and talks with a slur has resulted in more than one incident of police harassment as a drunk driving suspect. Maybe after years of study a better method of determining impairment will come along.
I wonder why if the levels are supposedly so important we don't have levels defined for all impairing substances? Painkillers and lots of other drugs can impair driving function, why no push to define levels for those?
On the flip side, things like pain and nausea can potentially impair driving more than the marijuana or other drugs some people take to combat them.
I wonder why if the levels are supposedly so important we don't have levels defined for all impairing substances? Painkillers and lots of other drugs can impair driving function, why no push to define levels for those?
On the flip side, things like pain and nausea can potentially impair driving more than the marijuana or other drugs some people take to combat them.
I thought the same thing. What about mental state? Anger? Aggression? Stress? Anxiety? How do we measure those? I stand by some kind of field competency test as the best option.
I stand by some kind of field competency test as the best option.That's the way it was done prior to the ease of Breathalyzer's and quick blood tests. Field Sobriety Tests or competency testing is still used for those drivers who refuse invasive testing. It takes a little more effort to convict absent a measurable metric, but is still quite common.
ApatheticNoMore
5-6-13, 7:13pm
Employers should be required to prove that being intoxicated at work actually poses a danger before they can do testing at least. For a lot of jobs it simply doesn't. We should at least have that minimum legal standard of privacy protection. Now it may impair performance if intoxicated at work without posing a danger, but then they can always fire someone for performance if that becomes an issue - they don't need to have random testing for that, it's completely unnecessary and invasive.
Employers should be required to prove that being intoxicated at work actually poses a danger before they can do testing at least. For a lot of jobs it simply doesn't. We should at least have that minimum legal standard of privacy protection. Now it may impair performance if intoxicated at work without posing a danger, but then they can always fire someone for performance if that becomes an issue - they don't need to have random testing for that, it's completely unnecessary and invasive.
Really? Can you imagine the liability if an employee under the influence caused a workplace accident or harassment or a judgment call which negatively impacted the business or any amount of possibly harmful actions impacting others?
It's not a privacy protection issue, it's a safe workplace issue.
What ever happened to the simple principled idea that one should be fully in command of one's mental state for the protection of both oneself and those around, ie., drug-free?
When did the right to be spaced out trump responsible self-government? Can you tell that I am horrified at the suggestion?
I thought the same thing. What about mental state? Anger? Aggression? Stress? Anxiety? How do we measure those? I stand by some kind of field competency test as the best option.
What's harder about testing for those is usually the shock of getting pulled over will pull one back to reality, even if they were miles away when they were driving.
ApatheticNoMore
5-6-13, 7:49pm
Really? Can you imagine the liability if an employee under the influence caused a workplace accident or harassment or a judgment call which negatively impacted the business or any amount of possibly harmful actions impacting others?
Well, I've never been drug tested for a job I've actually gotten in my life. So apparently it's a risk that they are willing to take. Oh the damage I could do if intoxicated at the keyboard. If you are going to reduce the potential harm caused by drugs to bad judgement calls, are drugs really the only thing that impacts judgement?
It's not a privacy protection issue, it's a safe workplace issue.
no it seems more like an issue of violating *everyone's* privacy for the sake of a few potheads. Besides I don't think it's primarily safety that determines which jobs are drug tested. Yes, that plays a part, but at least a big a part is played by class. Low wage jobs are tested even when they are not dangerous, professional jobs are mostly not (at present).
ApatheticNoMore
5-6-13, 7:57pm
What ever happened to the simple principled idea that one should be fully in command of one's mental state for the protection of both oneself and those around, ie., drug-free?
Because the danger one poses to those around them and themselves while using drugs may be very minimal? Yes of course *driving* while intoxicated should be illegal (like drunk driving is). But that's entirely different than using marijuana at home and driving nowhere.
Yes, that plays a part, but at least a big a part is played by class. Low wage jobs are tested even when they are not dangerous, professional jobs are mostly not (at present).
The starting wage for Firefighter Recruit in Seattle is $64,884 per year, plus lots of benefits. You can easily get 10-15% more base pay for simply having a few additional qualifications. Blood and urine tests are required.
I worked at a computer hardware/software company that designed "sensitive" equipment, drug testing was mandatory there if you wanted the contract, all the way up the food chain.
Drug testing is a royal pain to set up and administer, and it's expensive, I suspect most companies don't engage in it just for the fun of class oppression.
Besides I don't think it's primarily safety that determines which jobs are drug tested. Yes, that plays a part, but at least a big a part is played by class. Low wage jobs are tested even when they are not dangerous, professional jobs are mostly not (at present).
I think you're wrong. Outside of the military, I've only ever had two jobs over the past 36 years. In the first, we began our pre-employment and random screening in the mid 80's. In the second, I became one of our drug screening administrators when I started there in 2007. I believe at that time it was estimated that approximately 85% of all US professional jobs, especially in the manufacturing industry, required some level of drug testing, either pre-employment, random or just cause.
They may do things differently in Southern California....:)
... I suspect most companies don't engage in it just for the fun of class oppression.
I suspect you are right. I don't know about other states but in Ohio the Bureau of Workman's Compensation and Insurance companies providing liability coverage incentivize employers to implement drug free workplace programs. It's all about safety and liability.
... Besides I don't think it's primarily safety that determines which jobs are drug tested. Yes, that plays a part, but at least a big a part is played by class. Low wage jobs are tested even when they are not dangerous, professional jobs are mostly not (at present).
+1
Stories about Wall Streeters hard drug use are rampant, but no drug testing required. They're not piloting a plane, but they are entrusted with pension funds and other monies that they treated as their personal casino cash.
I think that you have the right to smoke pot and a company has the right to drug test for it. You don't have to work at a company that tests for MJ and a company doesn't have to hire you if you smoke.
Eventually, this may be the case for people who smoke cigarettes. There are already companies that are testing for tobacco. This is more for health care cost reasons.
What is the data for health costs for chronic pot smokers? I'm not sure, but I would think that smoking a joint or inhaling from a bong is putting smoke directly into the lungs and the long-term ramifications of that cannot be good.
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-13, 10:30pm
+1
Stories about Wall Streeters hard drug use are rampant, but no drug testing required. They're not piloting a plane, but they are entrusted with pension funds and other monies that they treated as their personal casino cash.To me it's absolutely inexcusable if these folks are not getting tested. Just no excuse for it at all.....Rob
As I understand occupational drug testing for MJ, it tests for trace amounts indicating use over the last many days, but not necessarily for impairment. If it were legal, why would the importance of testing would be any more significant than other legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco? I could see testing for pot dropping off the radar for many occupations and possibly litigation to encourage that.
As I understand occupational drug testing for MJ, it tests for trace amounts indicating use over the last many days, but not necessarily for impairment. If it were legal, why would the importance of testing would be any more significant than other legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco? I could see testing for pot dropping off the radar for many occupations and possibly litigation to encourage that.
I think that you are correct that, eventually, there will be legal limits. The battle will be uphill though if this recent ruling sets any precedence:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/colo-court-says-no-job-pr_n_3156072.html
Eventually, this may be the case for people who smoke cigarettes. There are already companies that are testing for tobacco. This is more for health care cost reasons.
What is the data for health costs for chronic pot smokers? I'm not sure, but I would think that smoking a joint or inhaling from a bong is putting smoke directly into the lungs and the long-term ramifications of that cannot be good.
I know that this is mainstream thinking, but it is getting into some privacy issues I find objectionable. I understand caution over substances causing impairment, but when it comes to health issues where is the line to be drawn? Would overweight people be required to meet weight standards or would there be cholesterol or blood pressure requirement for people with poor diets and lifestyle.
I think that you are correct that, eventually, there will be legal limits. The battle will be uphill though if this recent ruling sets any precedence:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/colo-court-says-no-job-pr_n_3156072.html
Interesting and appropriate for the discussion. It doesn't sound like the dust has settled and the final word determined quite yet, but indeed an uphill battle.
gimmethesimplelife
5-7-13, 12:23am
As I understand occupational drug testing for MJ, it tests for trace amounts indicating use over the last many days, but not necessarily for impairment. If it were legal, why would the importance of testing would be any more significant than other legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco? I could see testing for pot dropping off the radar for many occupations and possibly litigation to encourage that.This is what I was getting at a few posts back and I totally agree with you. I do see potentially pot testing dropping off the radar and some juicy legal battles before such happens....and maybe mj being legal in more states, for better or worse. Personally my mind is not made up on this one. Rob
I know that this is mainstream thinking, but it is getting into some privacy issues I find objectionable. I understand caution over substances causing impairment, but when it comes to health issues where is the line to be drawn? Would overweight people be required to meet weight standards or would there be cholesterol or blood pressure requirement for people with poor diets and lifestyle.
There are already companies that are requiring employees to disclose their Body Mass Index, smoking status, and get blood panels completed. If the employee does not comply, the companies are charging the employees a surcharge on their health insurance premiums.
I tend to agree with this because lifestyle choices can cost a company huge amounts of money trying to provide health insurance as well as with employee absenteeism and productivity costs. Thus far, the courts are not ruling in the employees' favor when they challenge these practices.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/LifeStages/story?id=3513963&page=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/business/08smoking.html?_r=0
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/03/20/cvs-pharmacy-wants-workers-health-information-or-theyll-pay-a-fine/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-04-01/employee-health-incentives/53932628/1
There are already companies that are requiring employees to disclose their Body Mass Index, smoking status, and get blood panels completed. If the employee does not comply, the companies are charging the employees a surcharge on their health insurance premiums.
I tend to agree with this because lifestyle choices can cost a company huge amounts of money trying to provide health insurance as well as with employee absenteeism and productivity costs. Thus far, the courts are not ruling in the employees' favor when they challenge these practices.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/LifeStages/story?id=3513963&page=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/business/08smoking.html?_r=0
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/03/20/cvs-pharmacy-wants-workers-health-information-or-theyll-pay-a-fine/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-04-01/employee-health-incentives/53932628/1
The data is not compelling that BMI equals higher health care costs. Checkout the website Health at Every size for a much saner approach to having a healthy body.
http://www.haescommunity.org/
ApatheticNoMore
5-7-13, 1:30am
health insurance tied to employment - world's dumbest idea ever
I just went through the medical certification, using the national standards, for health/wellness for a firefighter. At the age of 50. My BMI is the highest in the department, because I am built like a troll, and still a bit out of shape.
The standards specify completing certain specific physical tasks, in a certain time, then examining your vitals before, after, and 10 mins after that. I passed fine, because even as off-the-charts as I am, I could do the job, not die, not cause lawsuits.
gimmethesimplelife
5-7-13, 8:03am
health insurance tied to employment - world's dumbest idea everEvery time I'm in Mexico doing something health care related, I am just flabbergasted at how much saner Mexican health care delivery is than what we endure in America. Not only is it incredibly less expensive, high quality where I have gone to, they also work on your schedule, not theirs. I now consider Mexico an employee benefit of sorts - it is my solution to inaccessible medical, dental, and optical.....and getting to the point, I don't have to subject myself to revealing BMI numbers or any other health status indicators. I still back Obamacare but I also am a big believer in offshoring all medical and dental and optical.....it's just too much profits over people in the US in these areas for me to deal with. Rob
It is all about safety. From an employer standpoint our old company had a zero tolerance policy. You could do drugs. You could work for us. You couldn't do both. We were in the construction industry and imparment around the equipment used in the field was potentially dangerous not only to an individual, but in many cases to the whole crew. Think of a crane operator who spaces out and hits the wrong button dropping the payload on the workers below. No one had any right that allowed them to put others in danger.
Any employee who came to work impared or got that way at work was fired on the spot. "At work" is the key. The only exception was perscriptions (as in theirs, not someone elses). We asked employees to let us know if they were on any kind of Rx that could have side effects. When that happened we simply found tasks for them to minimize any risk until the Rx ran its course. That was purely voluntary, but everyone understood the purpose and supported the idea.
We did not drug test pre-employment or randomly. What someone did when they punched out was their business. If there was ever an incident, however, the person involved was immediately tested for THC and a variety of other compounds. That was a mandate from workman's comp, not from us, but it was the correct thing to do. If anyone ever tested positive in that case they were fired. Period. It doesn't matter if you smoked a j at break or picked up second hand smoke at the neighbors bbq two weeks before, zero tolerance means zero tolerance. A positive test also meant that they were not eligible for workman's comp, a government policy, not ours.
We had an office staff of about 10 people. Some will argue that it would be silly to include them because how dangerous could a keyboard be? I say the true discrimanatory practice would have been to subject the field staff to one policy and the office staff to another. Everybody played by the same rules and those rules were defined by the highest risk position, not the lowest.
Really? Can you imagine the liability if an employee under the influence caused a workplace accident or harassment or a judgment call which negatively impacted the business or any amount of possibly harmful actions impacting others?
It's not a privacy protection issue, it's a safe workplace issue.
My work instituted random drug testing not for safe workplace issues but to help determine "risk" factors for anyone with even just potential access to financially sensitive information. It was added to the credit and criminal checks they already did on us for the same reasons. Those in my workplace that don't have this potential access are not required to.
In my case it really has more to do with how I lead my life outside the workplace than in it. It does make you wonder how far the envelope can be pushed in terms of employer control outside the workplace.
It is all about safety. From an employer standpoint our old company had a zero tolerance policy. You could do drugs. You could work for us. You couldn't do both. We were in the construction industry and imparment around the equipment used in the field was potentially dangerous not only to an individual, but in many cases to the whole crew. Think of a crane operator who spaces out and hits the wrong button dropping the payload on the workers below. No one had any right that allowed them to put others in danger.
We did not drug test pre-employment or randomly. What someone did when they punched out was their business. If there was ever an incident, however, the person involved was immediately tested for THC and a variety of other compounds. That was a mandate from workman's comp, not from us, but it was the correct thing to do. If anyone ever tested positive in that case they were fired. Period. It doesn't matter if you smoked a j at break or picked up second hand smoke at the neighbors bbq two weeks before, zero tolerance means zero tolerance. A positive test also meant that they were not eligible for workman's comp, a government policy, not ours.
In my book this is a throw-back to the Reefer Madness days. There is absolutely no reason I'm aware of to think that pot is more hazardous than alcohol and test for "drugs" but possibly exclude prescription medications or alcohol. It this thinking that is in part why our prisons and courts are crowded with minor drug violations and an extension of the war on drugs.
I spent part of my career working in a brewery where for a number of years employees could drink on shift as long as they were able to perform their job. At a point this became a legal issue and was prohibited, but beer was readily available and consumed on the sneek quite commonly. Without telling lengthy stories, suffice it to say that I've seen the needle and the damage done. I could even argue that alcohol is the true gateway drug. It is a dual standard to have different expectations for a drug that is probably less harmful.
In my book this is a throw-back to the Reefer Madness days. There is absolutely no reason I'm aware of to think that pot is more hazardous than alcohol and test for "drugs" but possibly exclude prescription medications or alcohol.
We didn't 'exclude' perscription drugs at all excpet to say that no one was ever going to be punished for working to legally improve their health under a doctor's care. If there was ever a question about the effects of a Rx we simply found other things that person could do until there was no risk. Our policy was geared toward contraband and was simply an offshoot of the Workman's Comp requirement that anyone who is hurt in a work related incident WILL be tested. There was no Reefer Madness, no paranoia, no anything except a hard line that you could not come to or be at work in an impared state. It made no difference whatsoever if it was alcohol or pot or coke or a slice of magic mushroom pizza at lunch that was doing the imparing so no double standards existed. People who were operating very large machines would pose a danger to others (and to themselves) if they were impared. It was a chance I was not willing to take. Everyone who applied to our company was told this before a job offer was extended. Anyone who was uncomfortabe with that policy was free to seek employment elsewhere with my best wishes. The ones who stayed knew the goal was keeping everyone as safe as possible. It's that simple.
The one thing that always comes up in these discussions is OTC meds and the affect some have on some people. Life doesn't take place in a vacuum. All you can do is minimize the risks as much as possible and encourage people to use their common sense after that. We held safety meetings weekly (OSHA requirement). It was common for the superintendent presenting the meeting to let people know that they should not be on machines if they did not feel on top of their game. There was no demerit for turning a machine off if you didn't feel fully in control. That was a common practice in all the firms like ours that I knew of.
And there are always exceptions that you hope remain isolated. We had one of the office staff who went through a chemo/radiation regimine that was pretty extreme. Tincture combined with occasional smoking helped her feel better. We were lucky to be in a position to just put her on paid leave until she was better, but I fully realize such instances wouldn't be so easily addressed in many situations. There aren't going to be a lot of simple answers.
ETA: I completely agree in regards to alcohol being a true gateway drug. Next to meth it is probably the most dangerous drug on the street.
I totally understand the need for safety and at least the intentions of the testing. Because there are probably no standards for what defines impairment with mj, I would assume that trace amounts would imply some sort of guilt regardless of impairment. Unlike alcohol, which has been studied and defined. So the testing seems in some respects a witch hunt to target users rather than to specifically reduce accidents.
I just want to be clear that in our scenario the ONLY way anyone ever got drug tested is if they were involved in an incident in which someone got hurt. That was a Workman's Comp mandate and there was nothing we could have done to change it even if we wanted to. I had absolutely no desire to try to expose the recreational drug users through any kind of pre-employment or random testing. Our policy applied only to working hours, not the lives of employees in general. The only way I cared about what they did on their own time was if the effects of whatever they ingested lingered into the work day. That happened more than you might think.
In a non-governmental sense a workplace is a private enterprise. The employer should have the right to implement pretty much any policy regarding employees codes of conduct that they see fit (assuming they all fit within standard, non-discriminatory practices). Almost every company has some kind of dress code defining what is appropriate and what is not in their workplace. Anyone who applies to UPS knows they will have to wear ugly brown uniforms if they're hired. The applicants can decide if that's ok or if its more than their fashion sense can stand, but there is no violation of anyone's civil rights because UPS has a my way or the highway approach to uniforms. A no drug policy isn't much different as long as it is clear from the beginning. Successful applicants can decide if they would rather take the job or take the drugs. Since they are free to choose at that point no civil liberties are compromised.
The shortest route I see to a witch hunt is letting the insurance companies get involved. IMO it's virtually guaranteed if they get their way.
If marijuana were legal, I'd smoke every day!
It's not legal where I live, and I still smoke every day...cause I grow my own....
iris lilies
5-7-13, 9:37pm
The Department of Transportation requires drug testing, I think, of some kind. DH used to work for a tree company and while it was hard enough to get tree climbers, it was really hard to get tree climbers who didn't have THC in their bloodstream. They all had to test for drugs randomly due to DOT requirements. They all drove big trucks.
Those guy could swing like monkey through trees with a chain saw in one hand, but they couldn't lay off the MJ.
Where I work, we both randomly test for drugs AND alcohol and we will test for both if someone is acting as though they are under the influence. If the person tests positive in both the field test and lab test, s/he is fired. Thus far, we have fired 100% of the people tested, so our field judgement is good. This is a medical industry-related company that follows the same standards as the local hospitals. I was tested before I was hired as well.
Some industries are more strict than others.
My employment huddles go back to the lie detector days. I well remember the questions about working or going to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I got a little tripped up over taking pencils from a previous employer, but passed. Even then they were having trouble finding people in certain trades who could pass the drug and alcohol questions. Times have changed and maybe will change again.
Most recent news here is that it looks like lawmakers are on the verge of passing numeric DUI blood/THC limits for pot. I wonder if this limit could also be applied to workplace impairment rather than something subjective. It seems like it is one big interesting experiment and maybe will set precedence for other states...or possibly become unworkable. Retail sales will be taxed at hefty 25 or 30 percent, which should allow a decent income for the state. Part of that tax is an excise tax that will be used for school construction projects. The sales tax portion will be used to regulate pot sales.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.