Calif. court: Medical pot not OK at work

[Taomon]

Foxy I think we all agree that this crap should not be utilized on the job...........none of it................!

I disagree.

 

[nibor]

I disagree.

Well Tao I grew up in an era of dangerous jobs, I worked in industry and around heavy machinery.........I know nothing of playing in an ass grab/ water cooler environment...........so I can't speak to that............but I also drove trucks and operated heavy equipment and any type of drug or alcohol can be extremely detrimental!!!!!!!!!

 

[mattskramer]

But they can maintain drugs like aspirin and cold medicine? How about prescription narcotics? This is do-able.

We allow alcohol consumption. We allow the smoking of tobacco cigarettes. I think that we should allow the smoking of marijuana cigarettes.

 

[Foxfyre]

We allow alcohol consumption. We allow the smoking of tobacco cigarettes. I think that we should allow the smoking of marijuana cigarettes.

I agree, but only if the person is not engaged in any activity in which he or she could be a danger to others. Smoking a cigarette in the privacy of your own vehicle or office does not significantly endanger others. Having a cold beer after work or a glass of wine with dinner does not significantly endanger others. Smoking a joint of quality weed and getting behind the wheel or operating heavy machinery does.

And therein is the difference.

 

[Foxfyre]

Truck drivers who drive 12 hours straight? Marijuana is a sedative. Truck drivers prefer drugs that keep them awake. Your argument is flawed because most marijuana users are not professional truck drivers.

Besides, most jobs are not dangerous if someone is smoking pot while on the clock. And recreational use? Pot is not a dangerous drug.

But 12.5% of fatal crashes involved truck drivers using marijuana. You can't get around that.

 

[Angel Heart]

MJ most definately has killed people. It has ruined lives and it has inspired crime.

Tell those hikers in remote areas of Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and California never seen again or found shot to death for the affront of walking where illegal growers of pot were so paranoid they murder anyone that comes within smelling distance. Tell the Hawaii Police and National Guard fired on when they finally had enough and raided the hidden sites to try and stop the murders.

All due to it being ILLEGAL. If it was legal these deaths wouldn't happen. They are still not due to the drug. We are talking ODs. NO one has ever ODed from it.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I acknowledge Nibor who seems to be one of the cooler heads on this thread and agrees that marijuana use should not be acceptable nor legal for those who are engaged in any activity in which the marijuana use could increase danger to others.

To recap my position:

Marijuana should be legal for adults NOT engaged in any activity in which the marijuana use could increase danger to others.

Employers or any others in authority should be able to order with impunity no tolerance policies for marijuana or any other substance that can impair alertness, judgment, or reaction time sufficiently to affect their ability to perform their jobs and/or that could make them a danger to others.

Recreational marijuana, as opposed to medical marijuana or alcohol use, is always used for the explicit purpose of obtaining a high. Therefore there is little likelihood of a safe level of marijuana use should the user engage in activities that could put himself or others at higher risk for accident, injury, or death.

Legalizing marijuana would most likely reduce certain kinds of crime as well as arrests, convictions, and jail and prison populations. It would also increase incentives for dealers to increase efforts to sell the stuff to kids. Marijuana is absolutely harmful for kids.

 

[nibor]

I agree, but only if the person is not engaged in any activity in which he or she could be a danger to others. Smoking a cigarette in the privacy of your own vehicle or office does not significantly endanger others. Having a cold beer after work or a glass of wine with dinner does not significantly endanger others. Smoking a joint of quality weed and getting behind the wheel or operating heavy machinery does.

And therein is the difference.

Yes that IS the difference, but like anything else, it's changed by education and REAL perspectives...................

 

[jillian]

But 12.5% of fatal crashes involved truck drivers using marijuana. You can't get around that.

And what part of the remaining 87.5% is due to alcohol?

You think that should be illegal, too? Or is it just you don't like change?

 

[Shogun]

I'm going to keep beating the drum here. (I'm assuming Shogun's comment about me starting a lot of threads on alcohol was intended for somebody else since I haven't started ANY threads on alcohol or substance abuse in general.)

The arguments here are all true but all avoid the real issue which is protecting the public from people who will use marijuana (or any other substance) in a way as to endanger others. The fact that there are other substances just as dangerous as marijuana does not translate to 'we might as well make it legal then.' At least it doesn't to most people.

It is highly unlikely that a full blown alcoholic will die of alcohol poisoning--he or she will pass out before he ingests enough to kill him immediately so the process of dying via acute alcoholism is long and drawn out usually over years. Non alcoholics can definitely ingest enough alcohol to kill them via alcohol poisoning.

The fact that alcohol is more immediate danger to the user than is marijuana, however, does not translate to the fact that everybody should be using marijuana instead of alcohol. Scientific studies suggest that very light alcohol use can have some medical benefits. No such benefits have been identified for marijuana use except to reduce debilitating nausea in chemo patients, etc.

Marijuana, other than medical use, is used to get high. There is simply no other purpose for ingesting marijuana. Alcohol users can simply enjoy the taste--there's nothing like an icy cold beer after you've mowed the lawn on a hot day--but most alcohol users do not drink to get high; in fact most consider getting high on alcohol to be alcohol abuse.

The critical thing is that marijuana is unique among most such substances used recreationally in that it does remain in the body in a detectable way for up to 30 days. So there is no way to know in a quick evaluation whether a person is impaired via marijuana. And that is why it should not be legal in any quantity for people engaged in activities that can endanger others and employers are quite correct in demanding a zero tolerance policy for it.

The Supreme Court got it right.

Every year, 1,400 American college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related inadvertent injuries, including motor vehicle accidents.

In the United States during 2004, 16,694 deaths occurred as a result of alcohol-related motor-vehicle crashes. This amount was approximately 39% of all traffic fatalities. This amounts to one alcohol-related death every 31 minutes.

Injuries, alcohol poisoning, and other fatalities. Students who misuse alcohol also risk personal injury and even death. Although it is difficult to unambiguously attribute injuries to drinking in some studies, personal injuries to students as a result of heavy drinking have been documented (Perkins, 1992; Presley et al., 1996a,b; Wechsler et al., 1998, 2000a). The U.S. Department of Education has evidence that at least 84 college students have died since 1996 due to alcohol poisoning or alcohol-related injury. However, it is believed that the total is much greater, since reporting is incomplete. Certainly when alcohol-related traffic crashes are taken into consideration, estimates are much higher. A recent study estimates that more than 1,400 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries and 500,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 sustain unintentional alcohol-related injuries each year (Hingson et al., 2002). Traffic crash data provide additional insight about injuries related to drinking and driving (see Alcohol Use and Driving by College Students).

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/NIAAACollegeMaterials/Panel01/HighRisk_04.aspx



Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2007) — The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm




Marijuana Use in Supportive Care for Cancer Patients

Cancer, and cancer therapies and their side effects, may cause a variety of problems for cancer patients. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and anorexia and cachexia are conditions that affect many individuals with cancer.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/marijuana


so much for that noise.

 

[Shogun]

I agree, but only if the person is not engaged in any activity in which he or she could be a danger to others. Smoking a cigarette in the privacy of your own vehicle or office does not significantly endanger others. Having a cold beer after work or a glass of wine with dinner does not significantly endanger others. Smoking a joint of quality weed and getting behind the wheel or operating heavy machinery does.

And therein is the difference.

yea, the difference being the criteria that you used for each substance

driving danger
smoking no

drinking hell yes

pot hell yes



You keep equating a joint of high grade marijuana with a sinigle serving of alcohol while assuming that people who are allowed to drink DO SO MORE RESPONSIBLY THAN THOSE WHO YOU SEEM TO THINK WOULD BE OUT ON A KILLING SPREE AFTER SMOKING A JOINT. Clearly, our drunk driving record of re-occuring ANNUAL statistics prove that your opinoin of responsible alcohol consumers don't reflect reality at all. Sure, I could drink a shot of whiskey and still drive but who goes to the bar for one drink? Further, why won't you evenly compare the amount of alcohol it wold take to intoxicate someone on par with a joint full of hydro? is it because defending alcohols legal status gets a whole lot tougher when having to admit that a comparable intoxication level from EITHER substance slaps the halo from your alcohol hypothetical?

 

[nibor]

And what part of the remaining 87.5% is due to alcohol?

You think that should be illegal, too? Or is it just you don't like change?

I HATE playing with these types of numbers games because it negates many unknown factors like equipment malfunction.........what happened TO CAUSE those 12.5% of the accidents that the ones on pot had BESIDES pot smoking..............were they actually caused by inebriation............or was it that they couldn't regain control because they were inebriated or whether they could have regained control whether they were high or not but just happened to have smoked a joint sometime before the accident.......numbers don't tell the true story.................

 

[Shogun]

But 12.5% of fatal crashes involved truck drivers using marijuana. You can't get around that.

Neither, too, do you get around the fact that you are ASSUMING 12.5% indicates intoxication rather than merely the presence of THC in the blood. Does your source clarify that this 12.5% was HIGH during the fatal accident or just that THC was found in the system? Again, assumptions won't support a causal relationship just because traces of pot store in fat cells for 30 days.

 

[Foxfyre]

Neither, too, do you get around the fact that you are ASSUMING 12.5% indicates intoxication rather than merely the presence of THC in the blood. Does your source clarify that this 12.5% was HIGH during the fatal accident or just that THC was found in the system? Again, assumptions won't support a causal relationship just because traces of pot store in fat cells for 30 days.

I didn't assume anything. I quoted the statistics that you can check for yourself through numerous credible sources. Clinical tests, however, have proved that a single joint of potent marijuana will significantly impair judgment, coordination, and/or reaction time and many people coming off a marijuana high will experience fatigue and intense drowsiness. And with a significant number of drivers arrested for driving erratically or recklessly testing negative for alcohol but positive for THC, it is not difficult to draw reasoned conclusions.

There is no justification for less than a zero tolerance for marijuana for people operating vehicles, heavy equipment, or engaged in any other activity in which they can be a danger to themselves or others.

 

[Foxfyre]

yea, the difference being the criteria that you used for each substance

driving danger
smoking no

drinking hell yes

pot hell yes



You keep equating a joint of high grade marijuana with a sinigle serving of alcohol while assuming that people who are allowed to drink DO SO MORE RESPONSIBLY THAN THOSE WHO YOU SEEM TO THINK WOULD BE OUT ON A KILLING SPREE AFTER SMOKING A JOINT. Clearly, our drunk driving record of re-occuring ANNUAL statistics prove that your opinoin of responsible alcohol consumers don't reflect reality at all. Sure, I could drink a shot of whiskey and still drive but who goes to the bar for one drink? Further, why won't you evenly compare the amount of alcohol it wold take to intoxicate someone on par with a joint full of hydro? is it because defending alcohols legal status gets a whole lot tougher when having to admit that a comparable intoxication level from EITHER substance slaps the halo from your alcohol hypothetical?

If I go to a bar and I am driving home, I have one drink. All responsible people do that I think. It is highly irresponsible to not do that which is why it is illegal to drive drunk. And it is illegal to drive impaired by any other substance too.

Again, the point is that mostly people can have one ounce of alcohol or one beer with no significant impairment of judgment, reflexes, reaction time. Few if any people can smoke one joint of high grade marijuana without significant impairment of judgment, relfexes, and reaction time.

Potheads who don't want any restrictions on their behavior of course do not wish to acknowledge this. Hopefully, we will continue to have enough lawmakers making the rules who do.

 

[nibor]

I didn't assume anything. I quoted the statistics that you can check for yourself through numerous credible sources. Clinical tests, however, have proved that a single joint of potent marijuana will significantly impair judgment, coordination, and/or reaction time and many people coming off a marijuana high will experience fatigue and intense drowsiness. And with a significant number of drivers arrested for driving erratically or recklessly testing negative for alcohol but positive for THC, it is not difficult to draw reasoned conclusions.

There is no justification for less than a zero tolerance for marijuana for people operating vehicles, heavy equipment, or engaged in any other activity in which they can be a danger to themselves or others.

Foxy coming off ANY TYPE of inebriation creates those same symptoms.............that's why pot can't get singled out and unfairly has........all these years.......in actuality it should be realized as to THE REAL reasons that it's actually illegal and made that way BY WHOM and FOR WHAT REASONS............. actually at first it looks to me as if it was done so to make criminals out of black people because they used it more extensively than whites in the days of prohibition.................much like crack today!

And then all sorts of vile propaganduh had to be furnished to keep knee jerk reactions alive and well..................

 

[Shogun]

I didn't assume anything. I quoted the statistics that you can check for yourself through numerous credible sources. Clinical tests, however, have proved that a single joint of potent marijuana will significantly impair judgment, coordination, and/or reaction time and many people coming off a marijuana high will experience fatigue and intense drowsiness. And with a significant number of drivers arrested for driving erratically or recklessly testing negative for alcohol but positive for THC, it is not difficult to draw reasoned conclusions.

There is no justification for less than a zero tolerance for marijuana for people operating vehicles, heavy equipment, or engaged in any other activity in which they can be a danger to themselves or others.

yea, you quotes a stat that indicates that THC was in the system, not weather or not inebriation CAUSED the accident. No one is argueing that smoking a joint WONT impair driving. WE ALL KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE WITH ALL INTOXICANTS. But you keep insisting that a test for the presence of THC smoked in a 30 day period indicates intoxication causing the accident. Can you prove this to be the case or are you going to ASSUME that such is a reasonable conclusion?


I agree, people who operate motor vehicles should not be high while driving anymore than they should be drunk or fucked up on oxycontin. WHO is suggesting otherwise? Now, does that single drink you have at dinner 15 days ago become the cause of your accident today if I could prove that you've partaken in an adult beverage within 30 days? no. Of course not. Neither, too, is this the case with pot. ESPECIALLY if it is prescribed by a doctor.

 

[Shogun]

If I go to a bar and I am driving home, I have one drink. All responsible people do that I think. It is highly irresponsible to not do that which is why it is illegal to drive drunk. And it is illegal to drive impaired by any other substance too.

Again, the point is that mostly people can have one ounce of alcohol or one beer with no significant impairment of judgment, reflexes, reaction time. Few if any people can smoke one joint of high grade marijuana without significant impairment of judgment, relfexes, and reaction time.

Potheads who don't want any restrictions on their behavior of course do not wish to acknowledge this. Hopefully, we will continue to have enough lawmakers making the rules who do.

First, what you THINK most responsible people do with their drinking is simply not reflective of the TANGIBLE yearly stats that suggest otherwise.

second, again, A JOINT DOES NOT EQUAL THE INTOXICATION OF ONE OUNCE OF ALCOHOL. If you are going to compare the substances at least try to make the slightest effort in comparing them both on an even scale.


Alcoholics who can rationalize their own drug of choice seem hellbent on ignoring this and, hopefully, more legislation will be passed to unravel the illogical status quo considering the hazards involved with both since pot is CLEARLY less hazardous to the individual and society than is your yeast piss nectar.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxy coming off ANY TYPE of inebriation creates those same symptoms.............that's why pot can't get singled out and unfairly has........all these years.......in actuality it should be realized as to THE REAL reasons that it's actually illegal and made that way BY WHOM and FOR WHAT REASONS............. actually at first it looks to me as if it was done so to make criminals out of black people because they used it more extensively than whites in the days of prohibition.................much like crack today!

And then all sorts of vile propaganduh had to be furnished to keep knee jerk reactions alive and well..................

Balony. This has nothing to do with race or gender or age or what other substances a person is or is not using. It has nothing to do with the medicinal value of any substance or illnesses associated with any substances or that one substance is less dangerous than or more dangerous than or no better or worse than another.

My argument is strictly based on public safety and the right of employers to insist on drug free employees. I have no problem with legalizing marijuana for private use so long as such persons are not likely to be a danger to themselves or others. I strongly advocate zero tolerance for marijuana (or any other substance that can cause impairment) on the job or in any setting in which drug impairment can make the person a danger to himself and/or others. If that means beer drinkers have to wait several hours while pot smokers have to wait 30 days to test negative, so be it. If the rules are that you test negative or suffer the consequences, everybody should know what the rules are.

The potheads can keep throwing out red herring after red herring, all unrelated to my argument, and it isn't going to change my mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

P.S. Shogun is absolutely right that one joint of quality pot does not equal the intoxication of one ounce of alcohol. That joint will cause measurable impairment in most people. That one ounce of alcohol will not.