I just thought I would start a discussion about this current topic. When it was just far away states dabbling in legalization (medical/recreational or both) then it was really easy to write it off as "Well, it's still illegal at the federal level!" as a means of HR policy. But as medical marijuana is not legal in a highly restricted form in New York a new reality is unfolding. The fact is that we never question a physician note. Even if it is for heavy duty opiate based drugs. We recently had a meeting with our PPO. Anyone involved in a workplace accident immediately reports to them for a drug/alcohol test and an evaluation of their injury and development of a treatment and return to work plan. The rule has always been that if a person pops positive they are contacted by a physician who asks if they have a prescription for anything. If they do, a copy is obtained and the PPO simply sends us back a "Pass." We never know what drugs a person is taking as long as they were legally prescribed. They confirmed that the same will be true of medical marijuana unless we REALLY wanted to specifically disallow that drug on the basis of the federal ban. Even the most ardent critics found it odd to say that we're OK with a NY physician's prescription EXCEPT for medical marijuana. So we've kind of entered a new phase and with significantly less thrashing and foot stomping than I expected. Recreational use will probably not be so easy, though.
The biggest obstacle to treating marijuana like alcohol is that the two substances remain in the body for different lengths of time. A person, post-accident, who goes for a blood test and is found to have a BAC of .05 (for example) is, for our purposes, considered to be intoxicated at work. BAC gives us a precise indicator as to how much alcohol is present in their system. To my knowledge, we don't have a similar test for marijuana. Someone can smoke/ingest cannabis and, a month later, be tested and test positive for cannabis. Obviously, nearly a month after ingestion, you aren't high at work. But we need a test that can differentiate between presently under the influence and recreational use outside of work. There are insurance and liability reasons why we need to enforce some reasonable standard.
Agree completely. We need to ditch the big one-size-fits-all federal ban on cannabis and let the people of each state decide for themselves how to deal with the issue. On a related note, today the DEA moved to make Kratom a schedule 1 drug, despite overwhelming evidence that it does not meet the criteria for this designation. DEA Bans One Of The World's Most Healing Plants - Reset.me
As a Canadian - this kind of concerns me. As you probably know, Canada is on the way to legalizing marijuana at the Federal level. I heard on the Canadian news today that US Border authorities can now ask anyone wanting to cross from Canada into the US if they have ever smoked marijuana recreationally. And they can deny (and have denied) people access for an affirmative answer. Hell, if our Prime Minister wasn't travelling on a diplomatic passport, they could keep him out! (Justin Trudeau is well-known to have admitted to using marijuana quite a few years ago, perhaps half a dozen times in his life. Kudos for honesty.) C'mon. Light up --- oops, I mean lighten up. :smile: My answer: "Yes, I have, 40 or 50 years ago, but it wasn't recreational - no fun at all, in fact. I went right back to bourbon." :laugh: Actually, I haven't been across the border for over 20 years and I think the US was a VERY different country at that time. If you were Canadian, you were welcome, unless you didn't play by the rules. I never needed to show any paperwork. I enjoyed it then and I'll stick with those great memories. Attitudes like this at the border now don't help. Then again, none of the many Americans I met back then were like those guys. J.
From the law enforcement side, in my experience, most cops wouldn't care if marijuana was completely legalized tomorrow. I know I certainly wouldn't care; I wouldn't use it myself, but I also know that I'd much rather deal with someone who just smoked a bowl of hydro-weed than someone who just blasted down a 12-pack of Natty Ice. My opinion is; do it, or don't. Let's stop these games where under a certain amount is perfectly okay, an amount between certain parameters is a civil monetary fine, and anything over is criminal. Legalize it, tax the shit out of it, and attach the same conditions as alcohol; no driving under the influence, no smoking it in public places, and 18+ to purchase it.
That's basically what Canada intends doing, from what I'm told - target date is Spring 2017. I'm with them in principle, but right now, the proposal seems as fuzzy as a sinsemilla high. Some guesses as to what the legislation's going to look like, here. Patchwork and holes, methinks. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legislation-knowns-unknowns-1.3660258 J.
I might have told this story on this forum before, but my memory has not been so sharp lately and can't say for sure :dunce: A few years ago, I had a major tooth abscess and needed oral surgery to, literally, save my life. They sent me home with a prescription of oxycodone. I followed the dosage directions to a T, but let me tell you- WOW! It got me high. I'd never felt anything like it before. After about two hours of feeling like everything was right with the world, I collapsed into my bed and woke up 10 hours later, feeling as if I had just risen from a month long hibernation. I know from my own experience that oxycodone packs quite a wallop and I know both from reading on the subject and observation of some of my family members that it is extremely addictive. Cannabis, in moderate doses, is tamer in effect, less addictive and has more potentially positive health benefits (although some of the claims of such are either overblown or not yet entirely confirmed by reliable research). Medically speaking, there is literally ZERO reason why one should be allowed and the other not. Recreationally? Whatever. As much distaste as I have for deliberately clouding one's ability to reason via substance intake (obviously, I make an exception for medical reasons, since the benefit presumably outweighs the sacrifice), I don't think that marijuana use is such a serious social offense that it warrants a law enforcement response. I'm sure we could use the money and manpower elsewhere. Very well said. Save the money wasted on enforcement, gain the money from the taxes. That's a huge budget swing in the opposite direction. The right direction.
Legalization is, of course, just one aspect. How it will affect private industry is another. Personally, I have always been a fan of replacing the post-accident drug test with a post-accident reaction test. There have been a handful of incidents where a, typically younger, employee fails the blood test because they didn't stop partying until the wee hours of the morning prior to work. Despite appearing sober their BAC comes back below legal intoxication but higher than our .002 allowance. I'm also a fan of completely abolishing post-accident testing for anyone who works in an office area. My coworkers love telling the possibly apocryphal story of the office worker whose clock fell off the wall and hit him on the head. As required for all workplace accidents he was sent for a drug test, tested positive for marijuana, and was fired. Many of them find it amusing. I think it sounds like a waste of resources and an example of corporate schadenfreude.
Well, you have now. Have you ever smoked weed? Answer this question and you could be banned from the U.S. - Politics - CBC News Looks like they aren't kidding. I think this is totally crazy and I'm not buying into it. This is obviously not the same country I had the pleasure of visiting many times, years ago. J.
Hey man, it's a litigious culture. Imagine the following scenario... A guy is working in a factory. He crosses to another work area using a designated pedestrian crossing. A driver on a forklift clips him as he walks by. Totally the driver's fault. Both are sent for testing. The driver is found to have a BAC above .002. Let's say he's working off an early morning buzz and he's clocking in around .01. That's definitely not legally intoxicated but that's also not mouthwash. We take no action. A few months later he seriously injures another worker. That worker hires a lawyer who uncovers that previous BAC and incident during discovery. Even if it is minute. Even if it did not contribute to the accident. We have to draw a pretty firm line. And that's not just our rule. A lot of this is driven by our Workers Comp and Liability carriers. Don't stick to the loss control measures? Run the risk of the insurance company refusing to pay out and we're on the hook for the full judgment (plus legal fees). Of course, if you hit a pedestrian with a forklift you're probably getting fired even if you're completely sober. Just sayin'.
For those under 21, the threshold in MA for OUI (DUI) is 0.02 or higher. The reasoning is, you shouldn't be drinking anything at all at that age. The slight leeway from 0.00 is to allow for things like acidic food, drinks that contain trace alcohol (O'Doul's), etc.
What is going to mess up the forthcoming legalization here in Canada is proven Government ineptness at controlling anything. E.G. cigarettes. Half the cigarettes smoked in my home Province are bootleg, untaxed and most originate on Native reserves. Every smoker knows a local "runner" who'll sell to them at around 1/3 (or slightly less) of the taxed retail price. Untaxed cigarettes are legal for sale to First Nations people on Reserves and smokes can be (and are) legally manufactured there without tax. But they are, of course, being sold elsewhere. There are some very rich aboriginal people - who can't, for obvious reasons, keep their money in banks. The police seem powerless to even make a dent in the traffic. They might occasionally bust some loser with a trunkful of smokes, who will whine and say he can't pay the $600 fine because he's on welfare. Can't remember when I last heard about a big takedown of a professional. Our Governments, Federal and Provincial, lose billions this way - and I can't see anything being much different with legalized marijuana - who's going to pay retail if they don't have to? The only difference - growing and production likley won't be concentrated on Native Reserves. Many others have played the game for years and will continue to profit. My only objection to legalized marijuana: Our Governments will mess up the money part - the exact reason they're doing it in the first place. J.
