Marijuana

Far as I can tell, Colorado courts have already settled the basics of the issue, though I'm sure there will be some refinements. Basically all the cards are in the employer's hand and an employee can be fired for off-the-job use even if the person is not impaired at work. People who were required to undergo drug testing previous to legalization probably won't see any change and their hiring or employment will still be contingent on being drug free.

"Nothing in the law will "affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees," the amendment states.That includes getting high at work or even after hours, according to legal experts and judicial rulings.
Tests can't determine exactly when pot was ingested. Marijuana metabolites can remain in the human body for weeks, so employers don't know whether a positive test resulted from on- or off-duty use. Nor do they care, if they have a strict no-drug policy."

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2310482...duty-marijuana

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Spoken by someone who doesn't have to fund the entire program that trains, and carries out, tests that would only be imperfeclty administered at best.

I say, don't wanna lose your job for smoking pot? don't smoke then.

DH worked in the tree and lawn industry where the operators of large vehicles are required by the feds to take regular drug tests. The tree climbers are a macho bunch who also, as a general group, like to smoke dope. There were many an employee placed on leave for a bad test, then when the wait period was up, came back on duty. It's very difficult to hire highly skilled tree surgeons, especially if they have climbing skills.

Also, Dh mentioned a few new hires who would take the required drug test and never come back to work because they knew they hadn't passed.

---

I had to take a drug test once. I had to list all the supplements I took, etc. I passed, natch, then went to work in an office where the lead guy was a raging alcoholic. Such irony. I don't think performance tests (which I understand are something like a computer game) would be an onerous burden on the employer. You'd only need one unit, and it would be a writeoff.

Funny how we don't drug test most of the higher-ups in this country--just the peons. Thankfully, I don't have to report to anyone, so I can use marijuana as soon as it's available here.

Calif can drug test before hiring but can only drug test after a person is employed if they exhibit behavior of drug or alcohol intoxication or if their job is one that requires occasional drug testing (those in usually hazardous positions or who are entrusted with the safety of others like a school bus driver or who work with heavy machinery, etc...). Drivers who are suspected of DUI of either drugs (including marijuana) or alcohol and don't pass a field sobriety test can choose either a urine or blood test. The urine test will be positive for marijuana use over an longer period of time but a blood test will only be positive if it's been used recently - like that day.

Calif employer drug testing law: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...g-testing.html

Calif drug DUI law:

Driving under the influence:

It is unlawful to drive while under the influence of marijuana (or alcohol or any other drug) by Vehicle Code 23152. "Under the influence" is not specifically defined in the statute, but is interpreted to imply some degree of impairment. Therefore the mere fact of having taken a toke of marijuana does not necessarily mean one is DUI. For evidence of impairment, officers may administer a field sobriety test. Arrestees may also be required to submit to their choice of a urine or blood test under Vehicle Code 23612. Since marijuana is detectable for much longer periods in urine than in blood (several days vs. several hours), a positive urine test constitutes much weaker proof of recent use and impairment than a positive blood test.

In a previous life, I and my team were told we were going to be asked to be drug tested, if our company got a particular government contract. As we were software and hardware engineers, we politely declined, refusing to work on the project, offering to go work down the street at a competitor if need be. Management decided to pull out of the deal.

In my current life, I am subjected to mandatory drug testing several times a year during our medical screenings, and after *any* incident involving vehicle damage or injuries to others. But in *this* job, I can sort of understand that, though of course I'd prefer a performance-based approach - guys who show up in the middle of the night for a call and are sleep-deprived are often just as dangerous. We have a pretty good culture of people waving off if they don't feel fit that instant, and their team-mates calling them on it, constructively, if they don't bow out.

Well we always had to burn some of that evil weed off the back of the ship and inhale it to make sure all those bales really were M.J. making our mandatory drug tests pretty useless :-)! For some reason they wouldn't let us do "inhale" any cocaine we picked up to test it - had to do a chemical test for that. Shucks!

I had mandatory random drug testing for my civilian job too but I knew that would be a requirement of the job before I was hired.

I see here that cannabinoids are neuroprotective--at least in MS. Interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420365

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

My understanding from friends with kids is that pot is/was readily available to teens and young adults through whatever black market underground channels exist. Possibly the legalization might add some validity to it's use, but maybe not a big change in availability to the younger age groups.

---

I would suspect that for the same reason that pot has reportedly easier for teens to get than alcohol (no regulation/enforcement/concern from sellers about the purchaser's age) that with pot legal the black market channels that were so easy for teens to access will likely dry up somewhat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

I see here that cannabinoids are neuroprotective--at least in MS. Interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420365

---

This is most interesting to me since I have MS..... I wish they would at least legalize medical marijuana here! My doctor would write me a script in a minute...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

I see here that cannabinoids are neuroprotective--at least in MS. Interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420365

---

I don't know anything about medical marijuana but I do know that the average stuff the regular person buys on the street is something like 10 times more powerful(more concentrated levels of THC) than it was back in the 1970's (when Cheech and Chong were trying to find Dave - who wasn't there man :-)!). I wonder if the medical grade stuff is higher then the street level stuff. Maybe more like hash was back then. Unfortunately pot has so many other chemicals in it that I imagine it can be bad for overall health if used long term even if it helps relieve pain. I don't partake of the stuff myself (tried it back in the day of course but didn't like it or any mind altering drugs) so don't know how strong the effects are now a days. People I know who do get high seems to be totally stoned and out of it though after just a small amount. Whoa...the colors man!

Apparently, they're growing specialized strains to treat different illnesses:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health...cal-marijuana/

I hope most of the country will at least embrace medical use of marijuana; so many could benefit.