Calif. court: Medical pot not OK at work

[Foxfyre]

You do know that people don't stay high for as long as the THC stays in the bloodstream, right?

So can I take it you're pro gun control because someone might use a gun in a dangerous manner? Personally, I don't want to be on the road with someone with a gun and road rage.

Or should we have psychological profiling so we make sure that people who get road rage aren't allowed to drive at all? I don't want to be on the road with them either.

Yes, I have been pretty clear that the high doesn't last as long as the substance can be detected in bloodstream/urine. But while a person will test negative for alcohol after so many hours and you know that person is sober, no such test exists for marijuana. There is no way to know whether the person who tests positive for marijuana is impaired or not. So a zero tolerance policy is the practical one.

Road rage and hand guns are separate issues and are red herrings in this discussion. Just because there are other reasons a person should not be driving is no reason to say that oh well then, we shouldn't be concerned if he or she is high on pot.

 

[jillian]

Yes, I have been pretty clear that the high doesn't last as long as the substance can be detected in bloodstream/urine. But while a person will test negative for alcohol after so many hours and you know that person is sober, no such test exists for marijuana. There is no way to know whether the person who tests positive for marijuana is impaired or not. So a zero tolerance policy is the practical one.

Road rage and hand guns are separate issues and are red herrings in this discussion. Just because there are other reasons a person should not be driving is no reason to say that oh well then, we shouldn't be concerned if he or she is high on pot.

No they aren't red herrings. No one should be impaired while driving. But, by the same token, one doesn't outlaw guns because someone *might* use them badly and one shouldn't make a substance that's not nearly as dangerous as alcohol illegal because the person *might* drive a car.

And, for the record, someone got arrested today for driving under the influence of pot. I heard about it on the news, though I haven't seen a link to it yet.

 

[nibor]

No they aren't red herrings. No one should be impaired while driving. But, by the same token, one doesn't outlaw guns because someone *might* use them badly and one shouldn't make a substance that's not nearly as dangerous as alcohol illegal because the person *might* drive a car.

And, for the record, someone got arrested today for driving under the influence of pot. I heard about it on the news, though I haven't seen a link to it yet.

The amounts of people driving under the influence and impaired by what ever is not good, it's a bad choice, prove to me that pot is worse than ANY of the "legal" ones??????????

 

[jillian]

The amounts of people driving under the influence and impaired by what ever is not good, it's a bad choice, prove to me that pot is worse than ANY of the "legal" ones??????????

Why would I prove it? I'm the one who's been saying all along that there's no reason it shouldn't be legalized.

Please put down the bong before posting. Pretty please.

 

[nibor]

Why would I prove it? I'm the one who's been saying all along that there's no reason it shouldn't be legalized.

Please put down the bong before posting. Pretty please.

No Jill I'M SORRY the statement wasn't only for you, I was trying to add to what you said?


Oh and actually I don't have a bong..................I came into this as a proponent of renewable raw materials and resources that we can produce cheaply and industries that we can recreate safely and cleanly.........I could actually care less if they legalize it for getting high or not............those that do, do it legal or not............to bad they have to be treated like criminals.

 

[jillian]

No Jill I'M SORRY the statement wasn't only for you, I was trying to add to what you said?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... my bad.

Was still a good line, though. heh...

FWIW, I agree with you about hemp. Silly and ignorant not to use it.

 

[Paulie]

oh yea.. it gets confiscated.. but i'll take that and a municipal fine over being treated like a fucking crack dealer anyday.

And you know damn right well where that weed goes.

 

[nibor]

And you know damn right well where that weed goes.

Yeah because the cops and politicians are to cheap to buy it..................

 

[Paulie]

Yeah because the cops and politicians are to cheap to buy it..................

Well, in the case of a criminal charge for possession, where you'd need the dope as evidence, it would be a little tougher to confiscate and keep it. In a case where it's been been decriminalized, and only a ticket was given for it's possession, I'd think it would be much easier to pull off pocketing it.

 

[nibor]

Well, in the case of a criminal charge for possession, where you'd need the dope as evidence, it would be a little tougher to confiscate and keep it. In a case where it's been been decriminalized, and only a ticket was given for it's possession, I'd think it would be much easier to pull off pocketing it.

well LEGALIZED.......DECRIMINALIZED or not I've known a vast number more that aren't criminals that smoke it INCLUDING COPS AND POLITICIANS..................the whole issue IS A LEVER..............and a totally BULLSHIT lever at that...................

 

[Foxfyre]

No they aren't red herrings. No one should be impaired while driving. But, by the same token, one doesn't outlaw guns because someone *might* use them badly and one shouldn't make a substance that's not nearly as dangerous as alcohol illegal because the person *might* drive a car.

And, for the record, someone got arrested today for driving under the influence of pot. I heard about it on the news, though I haven't seen a link to it yet.

I see your rationale but you're still arguing apples and oranges. It is quite easy to determine whether a gun is being used improperly or in a dangerous manner.

It is NOT so easy to determine whether a person is impaired when on pot. Nor is a person who had a reasonable glass of wine at dinner likely to be anywhere close to the legal limit, much less a danger to anybody purely because he had that wine. But we can field test him to ensure that he is not likely to be impaired by alcohol and send him on his way. There is no comparable test to ensure that the guy on pot is not impaired and there is no basis to know that he probably won't wipe out a family on down the road. And therein is the difference.

 

[nibor]

I see your rationale but you're still arguing apples and oranges. It is quite easy to determine whether a gun is being used improperly or in a dangerous manner.

It is NOT so easy to determine whether a person is impaired when on pot. Nor is a person who had a reasonable glass of wine at dinner likely to be anywhere close to the legal limit, much less a danger to anybody purely because he had that wine. But we can field test him to ensure that he is not likely to be impaired by alcohol and send him on his way. There is no comparable test to ensure that the guy on pot is not impaired and there is no basis to know that he probably won't wipe out a family on down the road. And therein is the difference.

SO WHAT..........................it's really only talking about choices..........there is absolutely NO WAY that inebriation is going to be eliminated from this society legally or illegally so zero tolerance for one form over another is extremely nitwitick................gotta be a better way than creating criminals that may not really necessarily be there.............for what?

 

[Steerpike]

But while a person will test negative for alcohol after so many hours and you know that person is sober, no such test exists for marijuana. There is no way to know whether the person who tests positive for marijuana is impaired or not.

It doesn't matter because the police can't stop someone unless they have probably cause based on the person's driving to indicate impairment. Once that happens, they don't have to rely on a breath test - there are all kinds of field sobriety tests already used in place of them.

 

[Foxfyre]

SO WHAT..........................it's really only talking about choices..........there is absolutely NO WAY that inebriation is going to be eliminated from this society legally or illegally so zero tolerance for one form over another is extremely nitwitick................gotta be a better way than creating criminals that may not really necessarily be there.............for what?

It is a matter of choice all right, but the choice is rightfully made by not wanting somebody high on pot driving on public roads, operating a crane lifting a several ton beam, working in a high risk environment where good judgment and quick reflexes can make the difference whether people live or die, or flying an airliner full of passengers or doing intricate surgery. And when there is no adequate test to determine if a person is impaired or not, a zero tolerance policy is the only sensisble policy. Perhaps you would be satisfied with a provision that as long as you stayed on your own property and are not responsible for animals or children there, you can legally get as stoned asyou want? But you can't leave your premises until you test negative?

I know that is an extreme solution, and I am not seriously suggesting it, but it really is the only way to at least attempt to protect the public from potheads who would use marijuana irresponsibly.

 

[Gunny]

No they aren't red herrings. No one should be impaired while driving. But, by the same token, one doesn't outlaw guns because someone *might* use them badly and one shouldn't make a substance that's not nearly as dangerous as alcohol illegal because the person *might* drive a car.

And, for the record, someone got arrested today for driving under the influence of pot. I heard about it on the news, though I haven't seen a link to it yet.

I disagree that pot is "less" dangerous. It is nor more or less so than alcohol.

I do agree if alcohol is legal, there's no real reason for pot to be.

 

[nibor]

It is a matter of choice all right, but the choice is rightfully made by not wanting somebody high on pot driving on public roads, operating a crane lifting a several ton beam, working in a high risk environment where good judgment and quick reflexes can make the difference whether people live or die, or flying an airliner full of passengers or doing intricate surgery. And when there is no adequate test to determine if a person is impaired or not, a zero tolerance policy is the only sensisble policy. Perhaps you would be satisfied with a provision that as long as you stayed on your own property and are not responsible for animals or children there, you can legally get as stoned asyou want? But you can't leave your premises until you test negative?

I know that is an extreme solution, and I am not seriously suggesting it, but it really is the only way to at least attempt to protect the public from potheads who would use marijuana irresponsibly.

The brand of inebriation means nothing in those jobs, one slip you're dead, no matter what you're on and any inebiant can create the same results and is irresponsible..................being any type of drunk on the job should not be tolerated and in that ZERO IS the right number!!!!!


One addled mind or another both seeing double, does one have three eyes and not the other??????????

 

[Shogun]

Yes, I have been pretty clear that the high doesn't last as long as the substance can be detected in bloodstream/urine. But while a person will test negative for alcohol after so many hours and you know that person is sober, no such test exists for marijuana. There is no way to know whether the person who tests positive for marijuana is impaired or not. So a zero tolerance policy is the practical one.

Road rage and hand guns are separate issues and are red herrings in this discussion. Just because there are other reasons a person should not be driving is no reason to say that oh well then, we shouldn't be concerned if he or she is high on pot.

I've posted examples of field tests. Why don't you take a minute and think about their application

 

[Shogun]

And you know damn right well where that weed goes.

No shit

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnZb5wi_jsU[/ame]

 

[Shogun]

I disagree that pot is "less" dangerous. It is nor more or less so than alcohol.

I do agree if alcohol is legal, there's no real reason for pot to be.

really, Gunny? I'll tell you what.. YOU get a case of your alcohol of choice and I"LL bring a pound and we'll see who consumes their drug of choice and DIES first.

I think the total lack of marijuana overdoses speaks volumes to which is deadlier than the other.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I disagree that pot is "less" dangerous. It is nor more or less so than alcohol.

I do agree if alcohol is legal, there's no real reason for pot to be.

Alcohol is many times more dangerous than herb.

Weed is non-addictive, alcohol is.
Weed does not impair judgment and coordination to the extent that alcohol does.
Weed does not bring out violence, alcohol does.
Weed does not damage brain development, alcohol does.
Weed does not damage internal organs, alcohol severely does.
Weed cannot be lethal at any dosage, alcohol is at different dosages for different people.

Weed can shrink tumors, fight Alzheimer's disease, help cancer patients with cancer treatment, help glaucoma patients.

If eaten or vaporized, weed has no adverse effects on the respiratory system.

The only reason it isn't legal is because it can so easily be grown that the government could not regulate it to the levels that it can with tobacco and alcohol.