Calif. court: Medical pot not OK at work

[Shogun]

and of COURSE it was the pot, and not anything from an almost infinite list of circumstantial mistakes, that caused the accident, eh? Do you have conclusive proof of this or shall we assume that 30 days of traceable THC is the root of all folly and error?

Neither does smoking pot 30 days ago have any impact on job performance today than does drinking a 5th of whiskey over the weekend. Without a test to indicate intoxication you are pretty much blaming the easy, first excuse that pops up. Again, I am not suggesting getting high at, or before, work is a positive. But, neither do testing methods indicate a hazard to job performance as illustrated by the above example of qualification for unemployment.


and no, it would not bother me in the slightest to find out that employee x engages in recreational use of pot any more than It would finding out that an employee is an alcoholic off of the jobsite. a 30 day window is not indicative of intoxication or a job hazard.


Hell, you do realize that drug testing was the result of a continually failing federal drug policy and NOT because of any specific scourge of deadly potheads on the jobsite, right?


So, i'll ask again, do you apply the same standard to people prescribed Tylonol 3 or oxycontin, arguably worse drugs that cause greater risk than pot, or just marijuana?

The court fucked up Kelo too so it's not like they are infallible in their bullshit decisions.

 

[Steerpike]

Haven't you ever seen Reefer Madness, Shogun? That's shows what pot can do...

 

[Foxfyre]

That's a bad argument, Foxfyre. If your own argument that right now gays are treated equally is true, then the very same will be true if you legalize gay marriage because any two people of the same sex, whether "black, white, polka dot, tall, short, medium, gay, straight, or anything in between" would still be equal under that law. It's exactly the same argument whether you have gay marriage or don't, so if you are opposed to it you need a better one.

My argument is that to allow same sex marriage, if it is limited to gays, makes what is now a 100% equal system now into something unequal. if you allow any two same sex adults, gay or straight, to marry, you change the definition of marriage into something it was never intended to be and also stress the system protecting the institution far more than it already is.

Right now gay people have the exact same rights, privileges, and operate under identical rules with straight people so far as the marriage laws are concerned.

It isn't much different as the straw men and red herrings Shogun and others want to toss into the zero tolerance policy for controlled substances. Should the brittle diabetic have the same rights and ability to pilot an airplane as the person with no such disability? If you're depending on the guy working next to you to not do something stupid that could injure or kill you, would you be bothered to know he was high on pot? Or do we accept that there are rules that are for the good of everybody, including those who would like to break them?

 

[Steerpike]

My argument is that to allow same sex marriage, if it is limited to gays, makes what is now a 100% equal system now into something unequal.

But it wouldn't be limited to gays. Two heterosexual men could get married under the law, just like your argument is now that a homosexual can marry a person of the opposite sex. It's exactly the same argument.

 

[Paulie]

I hate this issue... it's so stupid and puritanical. Everyone knows it should be legal, but the nutters can't bring themselves to let it be.

Was the State's high court deciding it though. But I always hated the Supreme Court case, too. Puritanical BS. Problem was it was the right wing Supreme Court that said the feds don't have to honor the state laws. Maybe complain to Scalito??? Or take Scalia duck hunting and get him some medical marijuana.

Can Cheney go along with him?

 

[Steerpike]

I hate this issue... it's so stupid and puritanical. Everyone knows it should be legal, but the nutters can't bring themselves to let it be.

Was the State's high court deciding it though. But I always hated the Supreme Court case, too. Puritanical BS. Problem was it was the right wing Supreme Court that said the feds don't have to honor the state laws. Maybe complain to Scalito??? Or take Scalia duck hunting and get him some medical marijuana.

True, but if the more progressive minded hadn't spent the last 60 years bending the Commerce Clause out of all semblance of what it was meant to be, the Court might not have upheld it

 

[Shogun]

Haven't you ever seen Reefer Madness, Shogun? That's shows what pot can do...

I know.. it's amazing that more potheads haven't tried to fly out the window instead of, say, going on to becoming presidents and shit...

hehehe..

 

[Shogun]

Red herrings, eh?

Substance Abuse
According to a 1993 study, substance abuse drives up health care costs:
<
Between 25&#37; and 40% of all general hospital patients have been admitted for complications related
to alcoholism;
<
Between 17% and 53% of falls are alcohol related, and falls are the second leading cause of fatal
injuries;
<
When heavy smokers are hospitalized, they stay 25% longer than do nonsmokers; and
<
About 28% of all ICU admissions and nearly 40% of all ICU costs at one major hospital were due
to substance abuse. (3)
http://www.workplace.samhsa.gov/ResourceCenter/r125.pdf.



Drug Testing in the Workforce:

* Research results indicate that drug use does not pose significant productivity or safety problems in the work force. In 1994, the National Academy of Sciences published results from a three year research effort compiling research resulting from all major studies of drug testing program effectiveness. The report concluded, "the data . . . do not provide clear evidence of the deleterious effects of drugs other than alcohol on safety and other job performance indicators."

Source: "Drug Testing," from 1994 NAS study "Under the Influence: Drugs and the American Work Force," (hereafter, NAS study) available at above site.
* Though frequently inaccurate and ineffective, drug testing is extremely expensive. Texas Intruments reports that their drug testing program costs $100 per employee. Drug testing products and services are a multi-billion dollar industry. But the incidence of drug use in the workforce is very low. The federal government reported in 1990 that only 0.5% of tested employees tested positive. The same year, the government spent $11.7 million on its drug testing program. That works out to $77,000 per identified drug user.

Source: "Drug Testing," pgs. 4, 14.
* The NAS looked for and was unable to find evidence of drug testing programs' deterrent effects. Studies which appear to show a decrease in positive test rates since the implementation of drug testing programs usually don't adjust for the expansion of such programs' testing groups to include not only for-cause drug tests but also suspicionless drug tests. That is, as drug-testing programs have expanded, they have tested more and more people who aren't suspected of drug use, improving their numbers and subjecting thousands of non-users to invasive testing procedures.

Source: "Drug Testing," pg. 15 from NAS study.
* Perhaps the greatest cost of invasive employee drug testing programs is the consequent loss of worker morale.

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/10842res20021021.html




hey, if you don't want to be consistant in your application of prohibition then so be it. If you want to take some 1950's position that demonizes pot as an easy scapegoat when, CLEARLY, you have no more evidence to blame pot than any other substance or instance of human error then such is your prerogative. Indeed, ASSUMING that your example was stoned out of his gourd is probably easier on the brain than coming to the FACT that you are projecting rather than deducing the cause of that accident. if it's your OPINION that pot is worse than pharmies and alcohol and you would not put either through the same rigors as you would pot then, well, this is America where ignorant assholes have a right to be what they are. You are no better than a tobacco hating pink lunger trying to ban smoking in bars despite a single example of a single cancer caused by second hand smoke. Sure, blame THC that may have been in the body for 30 days prior to an accident. Hell, who needs facts when there is a witch hunt to engage in? It's not like you want to admit that there has never been a scourge of pot-related injuries on the job so let's pretend that Medicine Prescribed by a Doctor is more Hazardous when it is pot even though the reality of pharmies is clear as day.


Your entire premise insists that people are smoking bongs on the clock. How many times must I repeat that no one is advocating being high at work? Are there no Diabetic Pilots? You'd like to think so, eh?

 

[Alucard]

The only reason marijuana is illegal is because it was grouped in with serious hard drugs... The fact is, it is less dangerous than alchahol... The most dangerous thing about it, and the main reason it is illegal is the belief that it will lead to the use of more serious drugs...

The truth is... If the fed didnt put it in the same catagory as dangerous drugs, users would be less likely to experiment with other more dangerous narcotics.... But since we have gave the impression they are equally dangerous people dont see the danger of testing other drugs we have catagorized with marijuana (coke /heroin/ meth) the reasoning being...If the penalty is the same the dangers must be also...

If marijana was legal and regulated... the dangers of spicing (spraying with bug killers and other dangerous chemicals) to increase effect would be eliminated...

By keeping marijuana illegal we have increased the danger to users...

My advice is "learn to clone grow your own" shogun!

Thats sound advice from someone who's worked in narcotics for the past 20...

 

[Angel Heart]

There's even police behind legalizing: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

 

[Paulie]

The only reason marijuana is illegal is because it was grouped in with serious hard drugs... The fact is, it is less dangerous than alchahol... The most dangerous thing about it, and the main reason it is illegal is the belief that it will lead to the use of more serious drugs...

I happen to think marijuana is illegal, because making it legal, would allow hemp production to be legal. Hemp threatens many industries in this country, and corporate America would never have that.

This, plus how would the CIA make all that money, then?

Only my opinion, of course.

 

[Shogun]

To be honest, i've never brought a plant to maturity because it's quite a leap from posession to Manufacture with intent to distribute. However, I do think that an indica house plant would make a gnarly addition to my efforts in green thumbing. Last year, from seed mind you, I grew 4 giant pumpkins, poppies, catnip, 8 broccoli (two of which are still alive as house plants), a tomato plant, a peanut plant (another house plant) and started some Aloe clippings. This year, i think, i'm going to go with the Purple theme.... you know, purple flowers, purple veggies.. that kind of thing. One of these day, hopefully, I can follow your advice legally.



I think most people disregard just how much emnity is held between strait up stoners and other drugs like Meth, Heroin, and Coke. I've seen more potheads make fun of coked out sniffers, junkies and Meth Mouththan I;ve seen them mix in some kind of graduated heirarchy. The comparison with alcohol is a no brainer.

 

[Paulie]

To be honest, i've never brought a plant to maturity because it's quite a leap from posession to Manufacture with intent to distribute. However, I do think that an indica house plant would make a gnarly addition to my efforts in green thumbing. Last year, from seed mind you, I grew 4 giant pumpkins, poppies, catnip, 8 broccoli (two of which are still alive as house plants), a tomato plant, a peanut plant (another house plant) and started some Aloe clippings. This year, i think, i'm going to go with the Purple theme.... you know, purple flowers, purple veggies.. that kind of thing. One of these day, hopefully, I can follow your advice legally.



I think most people disregard just how much emnity is held between strait up stoners and other drugs like Meth, Heroin, and Coke. I've seen more potheads make fun of coked out sniffers, junkies and Meth Mouththan I;ve seen them mix in some kind of graduated heirarchy. The comparison with alcohol is a no brainer.

When I was younger, I grew 2 real nice plants. First time doing it, too. Only had a little advice I got online.

One was male, but the other gave me about 2 ounces of bud. About 4 feet tall. I probably could have gotten more bud production, but like I said, I was a novice.

I think it's an awesome looking plant. There's no other "weed" that even remotely looks as pretty as a pot plant.

 

[Shogun]

Have you seen the program called "High Grow"? hehehe.. the legal way to grow pot, it say! hehehe..



Like I've always said... legalization would be the greatest boon to American farmers, espeically those being kicked in the balls for growing tobacco, since Willie Nelson

 

[Alucard]

When I was younger, I grew 2 real nice plants. First time doing it, too. Only had a little advice I got online.

One was male, but the other gave me about 2 ounces of bud. About 4 feet tall. I probably could have gotten more bud production, but like I said, I was a novice.

I think it's an awesome looking plant. There's no other "weed" that even remotely looks as pretty as a pot plant.

The trick is..

grow say..... 15 plants to about a foot tall

cut the tops off all of them and # them plant 1-15.. wrap them in wet paper towels and put them in a dark place (under the couch)... keep them damp (youll see little roots after a week or so...

Change the light cycle after clipping the tops and bring the small plants to bud.... seperate all your clippings by gender...eg... plants 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 are all female... keep those clippings

throw everything else away.... EVERYTHING... all 15 plants you started with all the pots the soil everything is contaminated by the males... the only thing you should have left is the rooted female clippings...

replant the female plants.... now you have females only with no chance of contamination...

important... grow the plants to desired height...CLIP YOUR TOPS BEFORE CHANGING LIGHT CYCLE and reroot clippings... as long as you do this each time you will have no Seeds! with no chance of male contamination.... you can now just regrow the same plants over and over....

there you go.... you have been given the all important cloning process...

Oh yea one more thing.... Dont get cought!!!!

 

[CharlestonChad]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the obvious reason it is still illegal. Taxation.

The government cannot tax marijuana. Marijuana can be grown in the backyards of every state in the country. Very few people will be buying weed if you could get some from your friend with 50 plants in his garden.

 

[Alucard]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the obvious reason it is still illegal. Taxation.

The government cannot tax marijuana. Marijuana can be grown in the backyards of every state in the country. Very few people will be buying weed if you could get some from your friend with 50 plants in his garden.

Are you nuts? thats llike saying The gov. cant tax tabacco...

Taxation along with the fact that it can be regulated and kept safe is the main reason we should legalize...

at a 75&#37; tax rate and $20 a pack (10 marijuana cigs in a pack)... they would make a killing... Availiable any where they sell alchahol and tabaco....

I see everything from an enforcement perspective...

How do you control stoners driving around 6 miles an hour on interstates...

How do you test them...? A blood test I guess...?

Cops sure will be busy...I think thats why....enforcement....

I can see it now... "Excuse me sir .... you seem to be driving very causiously, and are non aggressive... your going to have to come downtown and take a blood test...."

We'll have park rangers charging fly fisherman with "public stonerdness"....

It creates a pretty sticky enforcement problem...

 

[Shogun]

This is why we need a test to determine inebriation rather than use.


And, it could be taxed easier than shit. Sure, many will grow their own plants BUT would they do so if getting busted with untaxed pot, simlar to untaxed cigarettes, would remove the liberty of consuming legal pot? Hell, I'd use legalized pot use as positive reinforcement to lower OTHER criminal behaviour. Im betting that many peeps would make a concerted effort to protect their status to legally consume pot IF the authorization to do so was removed in the case of any list of applicable criminal action: including growing a plant.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is why we need a test to determine inebriation rather than use.


And, it could be taxed easier than shit. Sure, many will grow their own plants BUT would they do so if getting busted with untaxed pot, simlar to untaxed cigarettes, would remove the liberty of consuming legal pot? Hell, I'd use legalized pot use as positive reinforcement to lower OTHER criminal behaviour. Im betting that many peeps would make a concerted effort to protect their status to legally consume pot IF the authorization to do so was removed in the case of any list of applicable criminal action: including growing a plant.

Actually one of the reasons that the anti-pot groups don't want marijuana legalized is that there is no way to really field test it if a person is stopped. If you blow a 2.0 for alcohol in a traffic stop, there is no doubt that you're over the legal limit. I don't believe there is any comparable test for marijuana. That is the reason for zero tolerance on the job too.

 

[Angel Heart]

Heck even the breathalyzer isn't proven science. A court just put all that into question.