Community Chat

[ALRATIBA]

I lived in CA almost 20 years (1970-1989).  A short time in LA and the rest of the time in SF / Bay Area.

You would never have thought pot was illegal.  You'd smell it all over the place.  Openly smoked on buses, on the street, on the movie ticket line, at the Embarcadero on lunch breaks.  

Can't imagine what it's going to be like now!

[SusieQ_2]

"Unfortunatly for employeers there can be no "gray areas".  There are liability and workers comp issues that are present no matter the industry or job a person is doing.  It is not a case of your word, it is a positive test.  A test that can get a person terminated."

Actually that's not always true. Currently there are at least four states that protect workers who have a doctor's recommendation for mmj, and we all know that getting a mmj card is as easy as getting your teeth cleaned--easier actually as it can be done online.  Employers must demonstrate a worker's impairment rather than rely on drug testing. I imagine more states will follow suit as legalization becomes more mainstream. 

[Lipstickdiva]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

I find it odd that so many have no problem with people working under the influence of anything, yet when they pick up a cell phone all **** breaks loose. 

---

@CrazyDaisy, please don't even get me started on this.  We had a young mother killed in her own home by a girl who was texting and driving.  The girl lost control, went off the road and went into the home with her vehicle, landing on top of a mother who was holding her baby.  The mother died and the baby survived but suffered severe burns.

The girl was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in jail.  The judge just let her out after 6 months!!!!!!!  Apparently when he sentenced her he told her that if she kept her nose clean while in prison and didn't get into any trouble, he would let her go after 6 months.  She stayed clean and he felt he needed to keep his promise.

People around here are outraged. 

[Lipstickdiva]

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

Yeah, I see the whole 'drug testing' thing being problematic.     I can only imagine that if people work where there is drug testing they are just going to have to abstain entirely.

Or maybe if they have a medical card for weed there is another level of structure for an employer.

I have never worked at a place that had drug testing but I'm curious as to if you smoked weed several days ago, last night, as opposed to today - if it shows differently in a test.   Maybe just in volume/strength in the blood stream?      

---

@chickenbutt, this is what I think as well.

I'm not subjected to drug or alcohol testing with my job.  I never have been.  My DH is and always has been.  He is subject to random drug and alcohol testing through work plus because he has a CDL, he also gets tested periodically.  He also runs a backhoe at work and if he ever hits a gas line or rips out something while digging, even if it wasn't properly marked, he has to go immediately.

Even though alcohol is legal, if he would have any in his system when they test him, he would be terminated.  That's why when he's on call for work, he doesn't go out at all and if he's been out drinking, even if it's been several hours, if he gets called into work, he tells them he can't come in.      

[sunshine45]

---

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

I find it odd that so many have no problem with people working under the influence of anything, yet when they pick up a cell phone all **** breaks loose. 

---

@CrazyDaisy, please don't even get me started on this.  We had a young mother killed in her own home by a girl who was texting and driving.  The girl lost control, went off the road and went into the home with her vehicle, landing on top of a mother who was holding her baby.  The mother died and the baby survived but suffered severe burns.

The girl was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in jail.  The judge just let her out after 6 months!!!!!!!  Apparently when he sentenced her he told her that if she kept her nose clean while in prison and didn't get into any trouble, he would let her go after 6 months.  She stayed clean and he felt he needed to keep his promise.

People around here are outraged. 

---

@Lipstickdiva  this is what we experienced with a drunk driver. he killed both my father AND my aunt and served 18 months total in jail......no prior records.

it is NEVER "fair."

[chickenbutt]

---

---

---

LipstickDiva wrote:

---

chickenbutt wrote:

Yeah, I see the whole 'drug testing' thing being problematic.     I can only imagine that if people work where there is drug testing they are just going to have to abstain entirely.

Or maybe if they have a medical card for weed there is another level of structure for an employer.

I have never worked at a place that had drug testing but I'm curious as to if you smoked weed several days ago, last night, as opposed to today - if it shows differently in a test.   Maybe just in volume/strength in the blood stream?      

---

@chickenbutt, this is what I think as well.

I'm not subjected to drug or alcohol testing with my job.  I never have been.  My DH is and always has been.  He is subject to random drug and alcohol testing through work plus because he has a CDL, he also gets tested periodically.  He also runs a backhoe at work and if he ever hits a gas line or rips out something while digging, even if it wasn't properly marked, he has to go immediately.

Even though alcohol is legal, if he would have any in his system when they test him, he would be terminated.  That's why when he's on call for work, he doesn't go out at all and if he's been out drinking, even if it's been several hours, if he gets called into work, he tells them he can't come in.      

---

Hi LD!   See, that is the way that responsible people will act - whether it's alcohol or weed.  He is a great example.

I just cannot imagine that having weed become legal will suddenly turn responsible people into irresponsible people, and that's all I'm saying as far as the 'oh no, what's going to happen now that it's legal'.

I had my party days and I ALWAYS had a job, up until I was 50 or so.  But never did I let anything leak over into my work.    That's how responsible people act. 

[stevieb]

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

I wasn't limiting my comment to mmj.  I have known numerous recreational users who are not impaired.

---

From personal experience, I've never known that to be a true statement, however, I'm not saying your experiences have not been different from mine.

I don't understand though. If using pot doesn't affect a person in some way, what would be the point? 

---

@SusieQ_2

Years ago, I trained with quite a few of the best MD's and psychologists in the world at that time.  Overwhelmingly, they used recreational MJ.  Some are still practicing and doing just fine.

---

That didn't answer the question. If pot had no affect then why did they bother using it? Answer: It did, and they used it to get high. 

I'm sure many wonderful, intelligent, successful people use recreational mj, but they don't do it because they think they look cool holding a joint. 

---

Oh yes, it did answer the question, @SusieQ_2 , which was based on your observation that mj use means impairment.  I never said it didn't have an effect.  FYI effect and impairment are not one and the same.

---

Sorry, Noel, but I disagree. Anything that does not leave you as mentally and physically acute as you were pre-imbibing means you are impaired. A reading of 0.07 is not enough to say a person is too drunk to drive, but when it comes to my child, it's way too impaired for that person to be driving her home. 

And today it's a whole other story with pot. The recreational mj of today is not our mama's mj of the old days. One hit is enough to do the trick.

---

Aspirin makes me sleepy. So I guess it should be a controlled substance, since I'm clearly 'impaired' after taking one... Allergy medicines do the same yet millions of people take aspirin and allergy products every day. Of course, this 'society' that we keep hearing about wasn't conditioned to believe they were at risk by those taking aspirin or antihistmines...

That same society can continue to stick their collective head in the sand, continue to criminalize use of a substance many people want, continue spending millions of dollars in the losing effort to control it, continue absorbing the cost of prosecuting 'offenders' and paying for their 'rehabilitation'... or they can accept reality and possibly even generate revenue. The former path worked so well during prohibition; but then,  'society' rarely learns its lessons from history...

Medically or recreationally, there are lots of reasons people choose to imbibe and, as with any other substance, there are both positive and negative aspects to its use.

[Noel7]

Does anyone remember the old phrase about "The two martini lunch"?

Then there was "The Three Martini Lunch".

It will be pretty much just the same.

[stevieb]

There really is no argument or question for me. I prefer a system that permits individuals to make choices. They then, hopefully, manage their choices responsibly and live with the consequences of those choices and the way they manage them , good or bad. Short of living alone on a mountain top and never venturing out, we are all potentially impacted by the choices other people make every blessed day. For me, this is no different. 

[Noel7]

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

I wasn't limiting my comment to mmj.  I have known numerous recreational users who are not impaired.

---

From personal experience, I've never known that to be a true statement, however, I'm not saying your experiences have not been different from mine.

I don't understand though. If using pot doesn't affect a person in some way, what would be the point? 

---

@SusieQ_2

Years ago, I trained with quite a few of the best MD's and psychologists in the world at that time.  Overwhelmingly, they used recreational MJ.  Some are still practicing and doing just fine.

---

That didn't answer the question. If pot had no affect then why did they bother using it? Answer: It did, and they used it to get high. 

I'm sure many wonderful, intelligent, successful people use recreational mj, but they don't do it because they think they look cool holding a joint. 

---

Oh yes, it did answer the question, @SusieQ_2 , which was based on your observation that mj use means impairment.  I never said it didn't have an effect.  FYI effect and impairment are not one and the same.

---

Sorry, Noel, but I disagree. Anything that does not leave you as mentally and physically acute as you were pre-imbibing means you are impaired. A reading of 0.07 is not enough to say a person is too drunk to drive, but when it comes to my child, it's way too impaired for that person to be driving her home. 

And today it's a whole other story with pot. The recreational mj of today is not our mama's mj of the old days. One hit is enough to do the trick.

---

@SusieQ_2

That deduction sounds as if it came straight out of Reefer Madness. 

There will be people who can't handle it well, but most will.  You do know, legal or not, it's been used a lot for at least 50 years, and most of those who imbibed are still in good shape, not walking around like zombies the uninformed think they are.