The evils of pot

[cs]

Just why do people risk it for just a quick high? The policy is in effect, the people know it and the know the consequinces. The policy is set more by workman's comp rather than the company, but you can't overlook it.

When an accident happens on the job, workman's comp requires that a drug test be done. If you pop hot you are terminated. Simple and straight forward. So why risk it? Pot is not that important, esp. when you have a family.

The short of it. A good friend of mine and a great worker. Has some serious potential as a job supertindant, but what does he do? He goes out and pops hot on a drug test and was terminated.

I feel sorry for him and regret the loss, but than again I can't condone pot use and I think he reaped what he sowed.

Chad

[mmd]

Will you feel so strongly if they ban alcohol or nicotine and develop a test to determine whether you have imbibed in the past thirty days?

I understand the need to ensure that workers on the job have all their faculties working, but is not a hung-over, but legally sober, train engineer more incapacitated than one who smoked a joint three days ago? If you are going to decree that all workers must be drug free, apply the rule even-handedly to all recreational drugs, legal or no. If you can't do that, then test only for intoxication while on the job.

[cs]

Our workman's comp insurance covers alcohol also. If found in your system, just like pot, you are terminated.

Chad

[John Bell]

I'll argue all day for legalization, but until then, I agree with Chad -- It ain't worth it.

(And even if it were legal, I don't think I'd mess with it anyway. I'd rather have a gin and tonic any day!)

[htom]

I suspect that they think that they won't get caught.

Legalize it, penalize those who adulterate, don't pay the taxes, and have accidents while under the influence.

Stop trying to be the world's perfect nano-nanny.

[pipefitter]

I have to agree with mmd. There is nothing worse than a hung over coworker. I haven't seen any probs with the ones I have worked with that smoked pot.They were also much easier to get along with.What the drug test really ought to prove in all fairness is if the injured worker was using it while at work. The after effects of smoking the day before are nonexistent.It is just another way for workman's comp to get out of paying out alot of $. I myself have never filed a comp claim in my 25 yrs in construction and industrial trades but sure have payed plenty into it. Was like 25% of my wages as a subcontractor. Now if I get hurt I should be able to collect back what I have paid in without question which would take care of me for a very long time. If one's career depends on taking that chance of getting caught then they should make the wiser choice for sure but it is still wrong to discriminate as to what vice is right or wrong. Alcohol is much worse.It really depends on the person and if they overindulge in their vices no matter what it is.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Have not touched the stuff for thirty years. Not tempted, so cannot see why people do it, when they must know it stays in the system for ever and a day.

[cs]

If you notice I pointed out that our workman's comp doesn't discriminate between pot and alcohol. Any positve result with either of these will get you terminated.

Chad

ps: The alcohol content is really low, something like .04 (or somewhere in that range). Either way it is way below the legal limit.

[mmd]

Chad, does your workman's comp advocate that if you have a few beers on Saturday that you be fired from work on Monday? That is the gist of my disagreement with the current "zero-tolerance" laws. To be fired for using alcohol you must be found to be intoxicated on the job, but you can be fired for using pot anytime in the previous month. To follow the logic of being fired for a misdemeanor offense involving recreational drugs, you should be fired if you are caught with a beer in your hand at the public beach on Saturday. Such actions involves drugs (alcohol) and illegal activity (drinking in public).

Don't take me wrongly here, I'm not advocating public intoxication regardless of the medium, but only that if you are going to harshly penalize recreational drug use, it should be applied evenly across the board.

[BrianY]

this has nothing to do with the supposed "evils" of pot and everything to do with the stupidity of people. It isn't the pot that got the guy canned. No performace issue related to the drug, no adverse effect on his co-workers because of it, etc. It was his decision to use it when he knew - or should have known - that he would get fired if it was detected in a test.

[cs]

If you drink beers Saturday and get hurt Monday morning and you still have beer in your system, yes you will get fired.

As far as pot staying in your system longer. A joint a week or two before will get you fired. But than pot is an illegal substance and beer is not.

I don't write the rules, but they are in place and I know what happens if you violate them. Not worth it to me.

Chad

[LeeG]

CS,,you're right it's a judgement issue. But the alcohol hangover is debilitating without %.04 blood level. Workplaces should have oxygen for the hungover.
It's our legacy in the War On Drugs that pot heads get driven into harder stuff like scotch and Merlot in order to stay on the good side of the law.

[brad9798]

If you drank more than about 35 drinks on Saturday night, which is nearly impossible, then you would still have it in your system Monday morning ...

For the average person, one drink (5 ounce wine; 1.5 ounce hard; 12 ounce beer) an hour will leave through exhalation ...

W-comp plans do not discriminate between pot and alcohol ... as has been said.

[Memphis Mike]

You're company seems a bit behind the times Chad or simply isn't a very compassionate employer.

More and more companies are offering a plan of rehabilitaion rather than termination for someone who tests positive.

If I were interviewing at a place and found out they had zero tolerence rules, I'd think twice before going to work for them. It tells me a LOT about who I might be working for.

[ 04-29-2005, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Memphis Mike ]

[Katherine]

My company offers rehab, depending on the offese, but get caught driving while intoxicated in a company owned car, forget it, you're out.

[km gresham]

If your loved one died or was injured because their surgeon or airline pilot was using drugs or alcohol I could almost guarantee people would see the benefit of firing someone who tested positive for drugs or alcohol following the incident of injury or death. No matter how open minded you are about one's personal freedom.

There are many jobs that are dangerous if everyone is in their right mind, and if someone is impaired then the chances for catastrophe increase greatly.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I am inclined to agree that trying to work with a hangover is as bad as trying to work whilst still drunk; both should be out of the question.

[Memphis Mike]

Yeah, but a drafting firm? What are you gonna do, stab yourself with a pencil? :rolleyes:

[mmd]

Just to twizzle the spoon in the pot a bit (pun intended)...

So being charged with intoxication in a public place on a Saturday night is a charge resulting in a fine and a criminal record but won't get you fired 'cause it supposedly doesn't affect your work on Monday, but testing positive for pot useage sometime in the past few weeks won't bring any criminal charges but gets you turfed outta the office, right? Sounds sorta unfair.

Did you know that it has been shown that trace THC can be detected in the blood of a person who has not personally partaken of the stuff, but has been in close proximity to it's use? Better keep this in mind when you attend a rock concert and the guy in the row behind you lights up. You'd better leave the show right away, 'cause ya wouldn't want to lose your job for paying to attend a public concert.

[cs]

Mike we are not a drafting firm. We are a design/build. These guys work construction. It is not a place to have imparied judgement.

If he cleans up and passes a drug test he will be hired back, but will than be subject to random drug test.

Andrew, if you have a hangover you still have enough alcohol in your system to flunk the test.

Chad

[Memphis Mike]

Those in more dangerous fields and everyone for that matter should be required to remain clean and sober while at work but to fire someone or not hire them because they smoked a joint a few days ago is totally unfair.

[Katherine]

MMike, I think the main problem stems from when what you do in your personnel life affects you work life.

[George Roberts]

mmd ---

You misstate the pot test. Let me explain.

The alcohol test specifies a level and it does not matter if the alcohol was drunk on the job, early in the day, a week ago, or a month ago.

The pot test specifies a level and it does not matter if the pot was taken on the job, early in the day, a week ago, or a month ago.

Same standard.

[htom]

No, it's more of a "guilt by association" test. It's hard to imagine getting a detectable blood alchohol level from inhaling fumes from the cups of beer as you walk through the crowd on your way out, but entirely possible to collect enough to flunk a drug test a week or month later.

Part -- not all -- of the problem is that there is a presumption that if you have detectable levels then you are at the time "under the influence".

I, for one, would like a blood test that detects any stupid decision made in the last thirty days. We could get rid of a lot of folk with that one.

[km gresham]

He should have been fired for being stupid enough to break a rule he knew would get him fired. They don't call it dope for nothing. ;)

[cs]

The levels of pot in your system needed for termination are high enough that second hand smoke will not do it, that is unless you are locked in a closet with heavy smokers.

Chad

[km gresham]

If you want to use dope or get drunk get a job where it isn't an issue and may even be a smart career move (especially if you make a big show of going into rehab every year) - musician, actor, one of those jobs.

If you have a job where it is an issue don't use dope or get drunk.

How hard is that? Did he at least have a good excuse for why he should get a special dispensation? ;)

[ 04-29-2005, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

[Jack Heinlen]

Maybe this has been answered, but are pot tests sensitive enough to get an idea how recently the pot was smoked? I mean, if a guy has a few tokes on Friday night, can they tell it wasn't a roll out of bed and a light up on Monday morning kinda situation? There is a huge difference.

I'm in agreement with Mike and Michael and others. Hung over from alcohol from a Sunday night binge is much more dangerous than a few tokes on Friday, that show up on a pot test Monday.

However, Chad's friend and coworker knew the rules of the company, took the chance, and got caught. And employers should have the freedom to apply the rules they see fit - no matter how unfair and stupid.

I'm sorry for your friend's difficulties Chad. It sounds like your company lost a good worker, needlessly.

[km gresham]

I think his friend lost a good job - needlessly.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by John Bell:
I'll argue all day for legalization, but until then, I agree with Chad -- It ain't worth it.

(And even if it were legal, I don't think I'd mess with it anyway. I'd rather have a gin and tonic any day!)My sentiments exactly

Cheers John ;)

[Gonzalo]

George Roberts wrote:

You misstate the pot test. Let me explain.

The alcohol test specifies a level and it does not matter if the alcohol was drunk on the job, early in the day, a week ago, or a month ago.

The pot test specifies a level and it does not matter if the pot was taken on the job, early in the day, a week ago, or a month ago.

Same standard. At best, this statement is misleading. The tests for alcohol detect either alcohol in the breath or alcohol plus metabolites in the blood while it is still intoxicating. These tests don't detect alcohol after the intoxicating effects pass. (Hangover can probably be called part of the intoxicating effects.) In other words, you won't blow 0.08 for a six pack you drank a week ago, and if you are not impaired on the job, the test won't detect alcohol.

The urine tests for pot are different. They test THC metabolites that are dissolved in fatty tissue and are released in small amounts over a period of time, long after the intoxicating effects of smoking pot have passed. It used to be stated that the detection limit was 1 month after use, but I think tests are more sensitive now.

The significant difference is that the alcohol test is easily related to actual impairment, while the pot test only confirms that you were impaired some time in the last month or so. They are not the same thing.

For the record, I smoked a little pot in college and some afterwards, but haven't touched it in years because of the prevalence of these tests.

[Bob Cleek]

It's all a lot of bunk. The comp insurance companies are just cutting their exposure. Intoxication is one thing, a dirty test is another. But, hey, you think you've got problems? Ukiah, CA (Mendocino Co.) about 40 miles north of me, just passed a city ordinance outlawing pot growing outdoors in your back yard. Yep, all pot must be grown indoors within the city limits. Come harvest time, "skunk weed" gets pretty stinky and the neighbors were complaining. The town did a survey and determined that one out of every three households were growing their own outdoors. Bit of a cottage industry up there, dontcha know. If they keep increasing all this government regulation, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start voting Republican!

[ 04-29-2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

[George Roberts]

Gonzalo ---

If you wish, we can do a liver test.

All statements about drugs are misleading.

.1 or .2 alcohol test, harmless for a guy sitting in a office doing spread sheets all day. Why fire all the drunks?

We might notice that public drunks are under control, public pot users are under control. Seems like the tests are doing their job.

[Chadd Hamilton]

All statements about drugs are misleading.
uuuuuuuuuuuuuh, ok.

[Victor]

Implementation of the CDL on 86 made a lot of people change their habits - or their jobs. I'm with Karen, they don't call it dope for nothing. Why take the chance? Should've done a hit of speed, that only lasts 36 hours.

[ 04-29-2005, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[imported_Dutch]

What are you gonna do, stab yourself with a pencil? but dont ya see? its E V I L

god made it, but the us governement says its bad, and thats good enough for me dam it!

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

If they want to win the war on drugs they're just going to have to improve reality. :D

The benifits of Pot use are usually worth the risks.
You can always find another job, you only live once. ;)
I can buy stuff at the local head shop to beat just about any drug test for 30 bucks and have done so repeatedly. tongue.gif

[imported_Dutch]

remind me to never to get aboard your plane ;)

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

I have a valad Class B CDL in Ohio.
Never had an accident or ticket in 30 years of driving.
Scary ain't it? :D

[L.W. Baxter]

Anybody got the number for the Ohio DMV?

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

The number is on the back of my truck LW.
1-800-eat-**** . :D

[Mrleft8]

I don't think that a person who smoked a joint last night is as much of a problem as a person who drank a bottle of booze last night, is on the job today. That said...... If you know you have a chance to be "random"ed, you're just asking for trouble if you take a testable drug.
My wife has had to send people in for second, third and final tests for opiate positives because they ate lemon poppyseed muffins at the airport, knowing that these guys were clean as a whistle. So..... If you're gonna be tested, drink beer, smoke tobac, and eat twinkies.....
(BTW, contrary to popular opinion, I haven't smoked dope since freshman year in college).

[High C]

Originally posted by Mrleft8:

(BTW, contrary to popular opinion, I haven't smoked dope since freshman year in college).Is your sophomore year going any better?

[pipefitter]

If the companies didn't abide by the drug test rules their insurance would eat their lunch. Most of the people I have worked for were indifferent of pot use in your spare time as long as you were sharp on the job front.They call it dope because some of the people that smoke it are dopey enough to begin with without it.Some act stupid every day. I wonder why they aren't just automatically chosen for a test. I mean,they naturally act like they are on something.We had a discussion of this at work and my boss said I dont care what you do after hours but no smoking at work because afterall,it is illegal. So I had to point out to him that so was driving after the 3 beers he had at lunch. The whole pot topic died with that one statement.I'll burn one with the guys while out fishing but I can take it or leave it. If I had a shining career that depended on me not doing it for consequence of termination ,I wouldn't at all.

[Mrleft8]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mrleft8:

(BTW, contrary to popular opinion, I haven't smoked dope since freshman year in college).Is your sophomore year going any better?</font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you keep sucking toad sweat, and leave us average reprobates to our own devices? ;)

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

Sucking toad sweat ya say? tongue.gif :confused:

I thought I'd done everything at least once.
Smoked banana peels back in the 60's.
Shrooms and LSD in the 70's.

Now this. :rolleyes:
I didn't even know toads sweated.
You just popped my bubble Lefty. :D

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

A harmless organic plant hardley seems evil at all. :cool:

http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca/images/grcropbud8kwks.jpg

[Stiletto]

I question the moral validity of tests without reason to suspect. In other words, if there is no loss of performance by the worker, where's the problem?

[huisjen]

Gonzalo has it right. As a former Navy legal officer I can tell you that drug tests test for metabolites, not for the actual substance. This is important because it means that a sample can't be tainted by a third party dumping drugs into it. Metabolites hang around for quite a while, whereas alcohol leaves the system promptly. Hangovers last longer than the alcohol stays in the system. Hangovers include dehydration (because alcohol effects neurotransmitters that increase kidney output) and the effects of various compounds other than alcohol in the beverage.

Dan

[htom]

[directions for contaminating by introducing metabolites deleted. ;) ]