Community Chat

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@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

Oh, I remember the "old days". There was stuff around that would indeed "do the trick" (and then some) with one hit.

:

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@Ms tyrion2 wrote:

---

@RoughDraft wrote:

Anyone here ever listen to the side effects of  prescibed medications hawked by bloated pharmaceutical companies?  Millions just march into their pharmacies with their little scrips, never considering the damage to their own bodies.  Don't even get me started on LEGALLY prescribed opiates and what road that leads down.

A recreational or medically (prescribed) MJ (as far as I know) has never wreaked the havoc of legal pharmaceuticals being "pushed" by drug companies and some doctors.

---

very well said. 

I wonder how many here who are having fits over MJ use happily fill their opioid or anti anxiety  scripts every month.

I have friends who cannot and will not take opioid pain medication. MJ allows them to lead an almost normal life.

---

@Ms tyrion2

OH, but they got a script from their DOOOOCtors, who surely wouldn't give them something that would impair them.  And if it does, well, that's no biggie, it's a legal impairment, after all!

[LTT1]

@SeaMaiden@chickenbutt@RainyDayGal@CrazyDaisy@RainCityWoman

I think workers have been getting “high” for “high’s sake” for a LONG TIME.” (Watch the movie “Aristocracy.”)

I’m not referring to those in exceptionally responsible positions.

[Cats3000]

Is this a real question?  Is this a rhetorical question?  Either way, the answer is simple.  You fire the employee immediately.

Certain jobs require periodic random drug testing and alcohol testing.  Employee fails the tests?  Employee is fired immediately.

Do you really want to be riding on a train or bus or flying on a plane when it's being operated by someone who is drunk or high on drugs? 

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@LTT1 wrote:

@SeaMaiden@chickenbutt@RainyDayGal@CrazyDaisy@RainCityWoman

I think workers have been getting “high” for “high’s sake” for a LONG TIME.” (Watch the movie “Aristocracy.”)

I’m not referring to those in exceptionally responsible positions.

---

So are you saying it is OK?

[chickenbutt]

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

Oh, I remember the "old days". There was stuff around that would indeed "do the trick" (and then some) with one hit.

:

---

Oh wow, I just had a flashback of the day of my high school graduation.  Some friends picked me up so we could all go together (sans the parents and such. heh).  Anyway, one guy said he had some weed and let's drive up the mountain and get a little buzz before we go.

Well, we found out just a tiny bit late that it was some kind of insane weed that one hit gets you wasted.    Shoulda seen us arriving at the school.  The pics my father took - and he was wielding a Polaroid with a flash.  Every time he jutted out from the aisle and took a shot I thought I was going blind.

Anyway, thanks for the memory! 

[SusieQ_2]

It seems natural to me that as times change, and new laws are enforced, people are bound to have questions. I also think it's a little more complicated than "Who cares, people have been high on the job for years" or conversely "Look out, pot's legal, the sky is falling!" A person can be concerned without being a so-called professional pearl clutcher, and one of the concerns is that with legalization comes gray areas that didn't exist before. 

For one thing, people keep talking about drug testing as though it's simple, when with leagliaztion that's no longer true. Alcohol and mj are not the same when it comes to how we test to determine whether a person is under the influence. Alcohol is pretty simple--a urine test, blood test, or blow into the breathalyzer. BAC too high? You're considered to be under the influence.

Not so with mj which lingers in the fat cells for days, even weeks, rather than being eliminated within hours like alcohol. And since it's now legal how would an employer prove you went out at lunch and smoked a joint in the parking lot when you swear the last time you did that was at a party last weekend? And since automatic termination is no longer applicable in many cases it's a case of your word against theirs. That's not really a good thing for employers. 

That applies to drivers who share the road with you and your loved ones as well. So here we are in CA, with no reliable way to determine legal impairment, we plan to open hundreds, if not thousands, of dispensaries.  As I said earlier, I voted for legalization, and I'm far from a professional worrier, but I do wonder if maybe we didn't put the cart before the horse in terms of how to we intend to hold people accountable when the situation presents itself. Hopefully, things will work out, because if they don't, I'm partially responsible. And frankly, that does concern me. 

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

Oh, I remember the "old days". There was stuff around that would indeed "do the trick" (and then some) with one hit.

:

---

Oh wow, I just had a flashback of the day of my high school graduation.  Some friends picked me up so we could all go together (sans the parents and such. heh).  Anyway, one guy said he had some weed and let's drive up the mountain and get a little buzz before we go.

Well, we found out just a tiny bit late that it was some kind of insane weed that one hit gets you wasted.    Shoulda seen us arriving at the school.  The pics my father took - and he was wielding a Polaroid with a flash.  Every time he jutted out from the aisle and took a shot I thought I was going blind.

Anyway, thanks for the memory! 

---

@chickenbutt

A little bit of Panama Red, perhaps?

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then there were those sweet Thai sticks.

EVERYBODY SING!

[chickenbutt]

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?      

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

It seems natural to me that as times change, and new laws are enforced, people are bound to have questions. I also think it's a little more complicated than "Who cares, people have been high on the job for years" or conversely "Look out, pot's legal, the sky is falling!" A person can be concerned without being a so-called professional pearl clutcher, and one of the concerns is that with legalization comes gray areas that didn't exist before. 

For one thing, people keep talking about drug testing as though it's simple, when with leagliaztion that's no longer true. Alcohol and mj are not the same when it comes to how we test to determine whether a person is under the influence. Alcohol is pretty simple--a urine test, blood test, or blow into the breathalyzer. BAC too high? You're considered to be under the influence.

Not so with mj which lingers in the fat cells for days, even weeks, rather than being eliminated within hours like alcohol. And since it's now legal how would an employer prove you went out at lunch and smoked a joint in the parking lot when you swear the last time you did that was at a party last weekend? And since automatic termination is no longer applicable in many cases it's a case of your word against theirs. That's not really a good thing for employers. 

That applies to drivers who share the road with you and your loved ones as well. So here we are in CA, with no reliable way to determine legal impairment, we plan to open hundreds, if not thousands, of dispensaries.  As I said earlier, I voted for legalization, and I'm far from a professional worrier, but I do wonder if maybe we didn't put the cart before the horse in terms of how to we intend to hold people accountable when the situation presents itself. Hopefully, things will work out, because if they don't, I'm partially responsible. And frankly, that does concern me. 

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.

---