Weed Cop

[Reeltarded]

Home remedy and homeopathy aren't the same thing..

Your grandmaw would hand you a bong. A homeopath would hand you a bottle of water distilled from an olympic sized swimming pool of water with a single THC molecule floating in it.

I have suffered my self with most every form of mental alteration. It's the big reason my mind doesn't fit anymore.

This is your brain. (brain)

This is your brain washed in hot water and then tumble dryed on normal. (brain)

[tribi9]

a big F.U. to the feds. People are sick of them controlling their personal life.

Wether or not you think weed isn't right or Abortion, gay marriage, gun control and on and on its just not for the feds to decide. It's not their job.

+ everything.

+1

I usually try not to"+1" comments but this comment just calls for it.

This is it. We're all adults, there are certain decisions that provided we're not harming anyone else we should be able to make ourselves.

So yeah.... A big +1

[Zippy]

SO what would happen if you were prescribed weed and failed a drug test at work?

My company requires that you report any such prescriptions before you start taking them. If such a prescription prevents you from doing your work, you may be temporarily reassigned or, if it warrants a prescription that seriously inhibits your ability to work, take sick leave.

[boots]

If I get high (legally) in Colorado on the weekend (45 mins away from NM) and get picked for a random drug test the next week at work (in NM), and THC shows up, I get fired, no questions asked.

I haven't smoked weed in about 14 years, but it would be kinda cool to do it just once, legally. But I think I'll wait for the kinks to get worked out first.... Just because it's "legalized" doesn't mean you can't still get in plenty of trouble for it.

Not that it ever stopped me before. But I'm a responsible adult now (HA!). And besides, I don't want to set a bad example for my kids. Even if it is eventually perfectly legal, it won't always be seen as morally OK by a lot lf folks.

Not that it ever stopped me before.

[cbass]

I won't take a drug test.It's no ones business.I'll go out and cut wood to feed my family.Before I give in to that shit.They are flawed anyway I mean if you can quit doin meth for 24 hours you can pass a test.

Weed doesn't impair regular smokers anyway.To people that smoke everyday its not much different than smoking tobacco.

I've worked on crews where everyone got high several times a day.Doing very dangerous hard work.

I don't know if you guys know anything about framing houses but it requires being able to walk 3 1/2" wide walls all day.No saftey nets.Sometimes 30-40' in the air.If you are impaired you aren't gonna make it long.

No one got hurt and we were in high demand because we did excellent work quickly. All while stoned.

[Structo]

Yes in Oregon medical doctors can prescribe "Medical Marijuana" to patients with chronic pain or for cancer patients for a variety of reasons.

The doctor my wife works with does this.

But no employer in the state that does drug screening will tolerate it to my knowledge.

It's kind of a catch 22 because the state says it's OK but the Feds say it isn't.

And because of drug screening, which is pushed by insurance companies, you have a real dilemma for people that work at these companies.

I have always thought that drug screening is bogus, especially for THC.

Sure if a person injures another at work, by all means test them.
But the real problem is, was the person stoned at work or was it just residual THC in the fatty tissues giving the positive results?

Now with Colorado and Washington legalizing it, they are under threat by the Feds to withdrawing funding for the states.
The Feds have, to my knowledge, still not said how they will address it.

Personally, I think it should be up to the state or individual to decide.

Alcohol sure costs a lot of lives and tears apart families every year, yet it is legal to drink in every state......

[briane]

Code: Select all

Weed doesn't impair regular smokers anyway.To people that smoke everyday its not much different than smoking tobacco. 

Finally someone said it - some of us have a high tolerance - where I grew up - vashon island - just off from seattle - it was common to offer it to guests like a cookie or soda pop.....It was part of everyones experience.

I've always thought it was a pretty weak drug - doesnt seem to do anything other than make you relax for 10 minutes or so....At least for me.

Then I've seen other's who fall over on their face from less than a single toke.

Its really individually biologically dependent how it affects you - once they figure out how to measure dose....How do they measure effect on the system? You cant! Thats going to be the real problem implementing a DUI system.

[ampdoc1]

++Cbass

I quit years ago, but about 5 years after that I took a new job. After a year or so, my employer announced they were going to start random screenings.
I told my immediate superior I hadn't imbibed for years, but if they called me, they could kiss my ass goodbye, As I was a reliable and valuable asset to the business, I never heard another word about it. I don't know if my stand made them think about the legal repercussions that they might face, but the bottom line was always the most important to them.

I see no problem with testing if there is a documented problem with an employee's performance. But random testing? There is just something wrong with that in a free society.













==

[LeftyStrat]

Got to agree. The only thing worse than a Government invading your privacy is a corporation invading it. At least the former is somewhat accountable.

[sepulchre]

Alcohol sure costs a lot of lives and tears apart families every year, yet it is legal to drink in every state......

+1! Legal alcohol but not weed? Sort of the definition of hypocrisy, isn't it?

And the same +1 for the rest of this thread!

[boots]

Most places that I've worked have required a pre-employment drug screen. If you so much as hesitate, it raises a red flag for the employer. But most people can quit partying long enough to pass a drug test when they are job hunting.

Around here, most of the big companies we do consulting work for require that all their subcontractors have a random drug screening program in place, so my boss implemented one last year. It is a zero tolerance policy. We haven't had anybody fail yet. My number came up a few months ago, they told me one morning that I had to go do a pee test by the end of the day. Some places, they say "drop everything right now and go for a pee test". All I do anymore is drink, so I had no problems.

I don't agree with random testing, but it is a fact of life in my industry. I suppose the pre-employment screening is a good idea. But I figure that if someone can do their job well, and do it safely, it shouldn't matter if he smokes a joint at lunch time or not. It should only be an issue if the job performance suffers.

[vibratoking]

Whether you want to be screened or not is your choice. If your employer demands it and you feel strongly against it, then refuse. You may or may not lose your job, but you have stood up for your beliefs.

...But I figure that if someone can do their job well, and do it safely, it shouldn't matter if he smokes a joint at lunch time or not. It should only be an issue if the job performance suffers.

I spent quite a lot of time in my younger days smoking and/or drinking at lunch, so I can relate to what you are saying. I did it, but I knew it was wrong. Mainly for the reason that I knew it's GENERAL result - laziness. Some can accomplish while buzzed and others can't. As an employer, I would not tolerate that while on the job. What you do in your spare time is up to you? Hmmm...maybe not. I could get alot done while smoking pot. Not so much while drinking alcohol. The problem is where do you draw the line? Is the drug that is being done in spare time creating a problem during work hours? Is speed or meth OK on the job? You can get alot done, but you have all the behavioral problems that come with it. Is it OK in spare time? Is heroin OK? What about reds? Reds are good. How about a little valium? I like those too. Employers don't want to, and really can't, discern between which drugs are acceptable and which aren't for each employee. Drugs have different effects on different people. So the easy answer for the employer is NO DRUGS. The only practical method for the employer to stay aware and keep some employees 'motivated' is drug testing. Make a rule and someone will abuse it. Drug testing is not perfect for many reasons. It does not test for all drugs equally. And you have the problem of false positives. Although some wish there were false negatives.

I can see both sides. Be thankful you didn't work for Henry Ford during the social engineering period and/or the Harry Bennett period. Then there'd really be some bitchin.

[Lynxtrap]

Employers don't want to, and really can't, discern between which drugs are acceptable and which aren't for each employee. Drugs have different effects on different people. So the easy answer for the employer is NO DRUGS. The only practical method for the employer to stay aware and keep some employees 'motivated' is drug testing.

I see what you mean, but I don't see a reason for employers to even have to think about what effect drugs have on people in the first place.
If someone is acting weird, not doing their job properly or whatever, the sensible thing to do is find out what the problem is, talk to the employee, maybe even pretend to act like a human and be worried about the person.
If someone turns up drunk or high at work, the case is clear. The company can choose to help or fire.

Prevention by tests is a different thing. The company basically show that it views the employees as guilty until proven innocent, and that they don't care about them. That's a good way to keep people unmotivated, which in the end is bad for the company.

[briane]

I quit years ago, but about 5 years after that I took a new job. After a year or so, my employer announced they were going to start random screenings.

ok - heres the real legal ease - I work for a large state employer -they were sued a while back by the ACLU over this issue.

The washington state supreme court ruled that a company (ie this one) can only regulate what an employee does while their being paid - if they wanted to regulate employees behavior at home - those had to be paid hours.

My employer decided they did not want to pay everyone 24 hours a day - thus no screening on off hours activities allowed - legal or illegal I was told by HR.

If theres an accident, or someone gets hurt - yeah then everyone pees in a bottle - I work with computers so biggest 'accident' would be carpal tunnel - clearly not related.

Most employers dont follow the law - then oppress employees into believeing they know the law - and of course we need the job - so its really management through oppression.

No better than north korea or the KKK as in my book.

thank god we have the ACLU (sometimes).