outgoing california government signs reduces marijuana possession to a small fine

[Foxfyre]

FYI re officer training:

Drug Influence - 11550 H&S
Course Description- This 36-hour course is specifically designed for all law enforcement officers. It will familiarize the officer with the major drugs of abuse, user identification, and enforcement of applicable laws pertaining to the arrest and conviction of narcotic abusers.

Who Should Attend- All law enforcement personnel assigned to patrol, general or narcotic investigations.

Course Objectives- To provide the students with an understanding of sources, distribution, packaging and use of the most common drugs of abuse; to enable students to identify the symptoms of persons under the influence of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, PCP, alcohol, various Rave & Club Drugs; and properly articulate a subject's condition in order to successfully prosecute under Section 11550 of the California Controlled Substance Act (Division 10, Health & Safety Code).

Course Outline
Drug and User Identification

Opiates
Stimulants
Hallucinogens
Marijuana
Applicable Law, Health & Safety Code
Clandestine Laboratory
Professional Case Investigations
Developing Expert Testimony
Medical Aspects of Addiction and Abuse
Seven Step Drug Influence Testing Process
Alcohol Intoxication Workshop

I should add there is also a DAR (Drug and Alcohol Recogntion) class as well as other training. Most officers are trained and anyone with a good nose and can usually smell MJ, giving s/he Probable Cause to search and conduct a field sobrity test.

In New Mexico the employer is allowed to require a mandatory drug/alcohol test immediately following any work comp incident. And if any controlled substance is found in the body, and there is a written policy prohibiting such substances on the job, the person's workers compensation can be reduced.

As marijuana stays in the body for days, week, even up to a month, there is no way to know whether the employee was high at the time of the accident or whether he smoked a joint or two at a party two weeks earlier. So a zero tolerance policy is not only warranted, but considered prudent especially in occupations in which quick reflexes/responses make the difference between avoiding bad accidents or getting hurt or killed.

It's been years since my last training (I've been retired since 2005) but the knowledge then was that only chronic (daily) smokers would test positive for THC after a 30-days abstinence.
Urine tests for THC are quick, easy and reliable. A field sobriety test failed provides probable cause for an office to detain and test a driver. CA law requires a driver to submit to testing (though if 19 passes it will require modification to include urine testing as the breathalyzer would not be able to measure THC presence).

I don't think you're 'hearing' what I'm 'saying' here.

You can test for the LEVEL of alcohol in the blood and have a pretty good chance to determine whether the person is impaired by the level of alcohol in the blood.

There is no way to know whether the THC present in the body of the tested person was acquired a few minutes ago or weeks ago. And THAT is why any employer should be allowed to instigate and enforce a zero tolerance for the presence of ANY THC in the body and if it is detected, the person can be fired on the spot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In New Mexico the employer is allowed to require a mandatory drug/alcohol test immediately following any work comp incident. And if any controlled substance is found in the body, and there is a written policy prohibiting such substances on the job, the person's workers compensation can be reduced.

As marijuana stays in the body for days, week, even up to a month, there is no way to know whether the employee was high at the time of the accident or whether he smoked a joint or two at a party two weeks earlier. So a zero tolerance policy is not only warranted, but considered prudent especially in occupations in which quick reflexes/responses make the difference between avoiding bad accidents or getting hurt or killed.

It's been years since my last training (I've been retired since 2005) but the knowledge then was that only chronic (daily) smokers would test positive for THC after a 30-days abstinence.
Urine tests for THC are quick, easy and reliable. A field sobriety test failed provides probable cause for an office to detain and test a driver. CA law requires a driver to submit to testing (though if 19 passes it will require modification to include urine testing as the breathalyzer would not be able to measure THC presence).

I don't think you're 'hearing' what I'm 'saying' here.

You can test for the LEVEL of alcohol in the blood and have a pretty good chance to determine whether the person is impaired by the level of alcohol in the blood.

There is no way to know whether the THC present in the body of the tested person was acquired a few minutes ago or weeks ago. And THAT is why any employer should be allowed to instigate and enforce a zero tolerance for the presence of ANY THC in the body and if it is detected, the person can be fired on the spot.

Well, I suspect such a policy you suggest - in the last sentence - might have unintended consequences, but that's for another thread.
As for level of THC vis a vis alcohol, that's simply a matter of evidence. For example, an officer makes a stop based on an observation (Red light infraction, drifting in and out of lane, expired tags, speeding, etc.) and upon making conduct with the driver observes their behavior.
If the officer believes, by his or her training and experience that the drive may be impared, s/he has probable cause to investigate. A common tool is the field sobriety test, failure results in the driver's required submission to a further test (breathalyzer, blood or urine).
If the test (urine) as noted above is positive, that along with the officers testimony under oath is likely sufficient to result in a conviction.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's been years since my last training (I've been retired since 2005) but the knowledge then was that only chronic (daily) smokers would test positive for THC after a 30-days abstinence.
Urine tests for THC are quick, easy and reliable. A field sobriety test failed provides probable cause for an office to detain and test a driver. CA law requires a driver to submit to testing (though if 19 passes it will require modification to include urine testing as the breathalyzer would not be able to measure THC presence).

I don't think you're 'hearing' what I'm 'saying' here.

You can test for the LEVEL of alcohol in the blood and have a pretty good chance to determine whether the person is impaired by the level of alcohol in the blood.

There is no way to know whether the THC present in the body of the tested person was acquired a few minutes ago or weeks ago. And THAT is why any employer should be allowed to instigate and enforce a zero tolerance for the presence of ANY THC in the body and if it is detected, the person can be fired on the spot.

Well, I suspect such a policy you suggest - in the last sentence - might have unintended consequences, but that's for another thread.
As for level of THC vis a vis alcohol, that's simply a matter of evidence. For example, an officer makes a stop based on an observation (Red light infraction, drifting in and out of lane, expired tags, speeding, etc.) and upon making conduct with the driver observes their behavior.
If the officer believes, by his or her training and experience that the drive may be impared, s/he has probable cause to investigate. A common tool is the field sobriety test, failure results in the driver's required submission to a further test (breathalyzer, blood or urine).
If the test (urine) as noted above is positive, that along with the officers testimony under oath is likely sufficient to result in a conviction.

I'm not talking about 'convictions'. I'm talking about allowing a zero tolerance policy for substances that have been proved to be dangerous to use in certain circumstances. It is for that reason that airlines have a zero tolerance policy for alcohol as there is no way to be sure at what level a person's judgment or reaction time may be impaired; therefore you don't take a risk at any level.

However, alcohol will clear the system within 48 hours. THC will not. And since there is no way to determine at what time the THC was taken into the body, a zero tolerance for THC makes sense whether or not somebody can pass a field sobriety test.

 

[California Girl]

Weird, it's ok to smoke MJ, but Heaven Forfend that one smoke a cigarette.

figures you would make the first stupid comment of the thread.

people don't want others smoking cigarettes where they are, forcing them to inhale the cancer causing smoke. Similarly, pot will not be able to be smoked in public / public places for the same reasons. This will affect people who want to do it at their homes / on their own property and they should be able to do as they please there

I honestly don't give a shit what other people choose to do with their bodies - unless I am expected to pick up the tab for their stupidity. I'm not interested in whether or not they legalize pot or anything else, as long as it doesn't affect me. I just fail to see why we demonize some people for what they choose to do and not others. I have no problem with people smoking - outside. Yet we have stupid politicians legislating what people can do in outdoor public spaces. The whole argument is pathetic, as far as I am concerned. Kill yourself if you choose, just don't ask me to pay for it.

 

[blu]

Weird, it's ok to smoke MJ, but Heaven Forfend that one smoke a cigarette.

figures you would make the first stupid comment of the thread.

people don't want others smoking cigarettes where they are, forcing them to inhale the cancer causing smoke. Similarly, pot will not be able to be smoked in public / public places for the same reasons. This will affect people who want to do it at their homes / on their own property and they should be able to do as they please there

I honestly don't give a shit what other people choose to do with their bodies - unless I am expected to pick up the tab for their stupidity. I'm not interested in whether or not they legalize pot or anything else, as long as it doesn't affect me. I just fail to see why we demonize some people for what they choose to do and not others. I have no problem with people smoking - outside. Yet we have stupid politicians legislating what people can do in outdoor public spaces. The whole argument is pathetic, as far as I am concerned. Kill yourself if you choose, just don't ask me to pay for it.

agreed on all points.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't think you're 'hearing' what I'm 'saying' here.

You can test for the LEVEL of alcohol in the blood and have a pretty good chance to determine whether the person is impaired by the level of alcohol in the blood.

There is no way to know whether the THC present in the body of the tested person was acquired a few minutes ago or weeks ago. And THAT is why any employer should be allowed to instigate and enforce a zero tolerance for the presence of ANY THC in the body and if it is detected, the person can be fired on the spot.

Well, I suspect such a policy you suggest - in the last sentence - might have unintended consequences, but that's for another thread.
As for level of THC vis a vis alcohol, that's simply a matter of evidence. For example, an officer makes a stop based on an observation (Red light infraction, drifting in and out of lane, expired tags, speeding, etc.) and upon making conduct with the driver observes their behavior.
If the officer believes, by his or her training and experience that the drive may be impared, s/he has probable cause to investigate. A common tool is the field sobriety test, failure results in the driver's required submission to a further test (breathalyzer, blood or urine).
If the test (urine) as noted above is positive, that along with the officers testimony under oath is likely sufficient to result in a conviction.

I'm not talking about 'convictions'. I'm talking about allowing a zero tolerance policy for substances that have been proved to be dangerous to use in certain circumstances. It is for that reason that airlines have a zero tolerance policy for alcohol as there is no way to be sure at what level a person's judgment or reaction time may be impaired; therefore you don't take a risk at any level.

However, alcohol will clear the system within 48 hours. THC will not. And since there is no way to determine at what time the THC was taken into the body, a zero tolerance for THC makes sense whether or not somebody can pass a field sobriety test.

So you're making a decision based on the psychoactive nature of THC without the facts.
Consider. MJ is a popular drug. People are driving under the influence of alcohol and MJ everday. Making MJ a legal regulated drug will (IMO) result in a market for testing the level of THC in the body.
The other cost-benefit analysis of moving MJ from the status of a scheudle I drug have been argued, and never refuted. It makes sense to allow states to regulate the cultivation, distribution and laws (legal or not legal) of MJ; not doing so is stupid.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I suspect such a policy you suggest - in the last sentence - might have unintended consequences, but that's for another thread.
As for level of THC vis a vis alcohol, that's simply a matter of evidence. For example, an officer makes a stop based on an observation (Red light infraction, drifting in and out of lane, expired tags, speeding, etc.) and upon making conduct with the driver observes their behavior.
If the officer believes, by his or her training and experience that the drive may be impared, s/he has probable cause to investigate. A common tool is the field sobriety test, failure results in the driver's required submission to a further test (breathalyzer, blood or urine).
If the test (urine) as noted above is positive, that along with the officers testimony under oath is likely sufficient to result in a conviction.

I'm not talking about 'convictions'. I'm talking about allowing a zero tolerance policy for substances that have been proved to be dangerous to use in certain circumstances. It is for that reason that airlines have a zero tolerance policy for alcohol as there is no way to be sure at what level a person's judgment or reaction time may be impaired; therefore you don't take a risk at any level.

However, alcohol will clear the system within 48 hours. THC will not. And since there is no way to determine at what time the THC was taken into the body, a zero tolerance for THC makes sense whether or not somebody can pass a field sobriety test.

So you're making a decision based on the psychoactive nature of THC without the facts.
Consider. MJ is a popular drug. People are driving under the influence of alcohol and MJ everday. Making MJ a legal regulated drug will (IMO) result in a market for testing the level of THC in the body.
The other cost-benefit analysis of moving MJ from the status of a scheudle I drug have been argued, and never refuted. It makes sense to allow states to regulate the cultivation, distribution and laws (legal or not legal) of MJ; not doing so is stupid.

I do not accept any words, concepts, or points inferred from my posts other than what I explicitly said. And no amount of trying to make what I said into what YOU want me to have said is going to cut it.

What I have said is I have no problem with marijuana being decvriminalized BUT I want it understood that employers or governing authorities can mandate a zero tolerance policy when it is in their or the public's interest to do so.

That allows anybody to stone themselves into whatever stupor they want whenver they want if they choose to do that, but it does not give them license to endanger anybody else.

I believe I have provided sufficient accurate rationale to back up my preference on this topic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not talking about 'convictions'. I'm talking about allowing a zero tolerance policy for substances that have been proved to be dangerous to use in certain circumstances. It is for that reason that airlines have a zero tolerance policy for alcohol as there is no way to be sure at what level a person's judgment or reaction time may be impaired; therefore you don't take a risk at any level.

However, alcohol will clear the system within 48 hours. THC will not. And since there is no way to determine at what time the THC was taken into the body, a zero tolerance for THC makes sense whether or not somebody can pass a field sobriety test.

So you're making a decision based on the psychoactive nature of THC without the facts.
Consider. MJ is a popular drug. People are driving under the influence of alcohol and MJ everday. Making MJ a legal regulated drug will (IMO) result in a market for testing the level of THC in the body.
The other cost-benefit analysis of moving MJ from the status of a scheudle I drug have been argued, and never refuted. It makes sense to allow states to regulate the cultivation, distribution and laws (legal or not legal) of MJ; not doing so is stupid.

I do not accept any words, concepts, or points inferred from my posts other than what I explicitly said. And no amount of trying to make what I said into what YOU want me to have said is going to cut it.

What I have said is I have no problem with marijuana being decvriminalized BUT I want it understood that employers or governing authorities can mandate a zero tolerance policy when it is in their or the public's interest to do so.

That allows anybody to stone themselves into whatever stupor they want whenver they want if they choose to do that, but it does not give them license to endanger anybody else.

I believe I have provided sufficient accurate rationale to back up my preference on this topic.

Okay, given that most business and industry already have such policies in place, what's your point?