Try to find employees who can pass a drug test

[mtnbkr]

Because I haven't really looked into it, I honestly don't know if pissing hot means you're impaired at that moment.  As far as I know, it merely means you smoked pot within the last few days.  When pot was universally illegal, that was good enough, but if we're going to start treating it like alcohol from a recreational usage perspective, it may be time to develop a test that determines if you're currently impaired or not.

Think of it this way, would you be so accepting of a guy who was never impaired *at work* losing his job because he had a 6-pack of beer every night (TBH, if that was a fire-able offense, I would be ok with it in a voluntary arrangement)?  What about the guy who is never impaired at work or while driving, but smokes a bit on the weekends?  Why is his use more dangerous to everyone than the functional drunk who can pass a breathalyzer test at work?

I think some of the attitudes in this thread are a result of decades of poisoning by the WoSD. 

Chris

[Boomhauer]

Because I haven't really looked into it, I honestly don't know if pissing hot means you're impaired at that moment.  As far as I know, it merely means you smoked pot within the last few days.  When pot was universally illegal, that was good enough, but if we're going to start treating it like alcohol from a recreational usage perspective, it may be time to develop a test that determines if you're currently impaired or not.

Think of it this way, would you be so accepting of a guy who was never impaired *at work* losing his job because he had a 6-pack of beer every night (TBH, if that was a fire-able offense, I would be ok with it in a voluntary arrangement)?  What about the guy who is never impaired at work or while driving, but smokes a bit on the weekends?  Why is his use more dangerous to everyone than the functional drunk who can pass a breathalyzer test at work?

I think some of the attitudes in this thread are a result of decades of poisoning by the WoSD.  

Chris

I imagine a blood test would be the most accurate way vs a piss test

[wmenorr67]

Because I haven't really looked into it, I honestly don't know if pissing hot means you're impaired at that moment.  As far as I know, it merely means you smoked pot within the last few days.  When pot was universally illegal, that was good enough, but if we're going to start treating it like alcohol from a recreational usage perspective, it may be time to develop a test that determines if you're currently impaired or not.

Think of it this way, would you be so accepting of a guy who was never impaired *at work* losing his job because he had a 6-pack of beer every night (TBH, if that was a fire-able offense, I would be ok with it in a voluntary arrangement)?  What about the guy who is never impaired at work or while driving, but smokes a bit on the weekends?  Why is his use more dangerous to everyone than the functional drunk who can pass a breathalyzer test at work?

I think some of the attitudes in this thread are a result of decades of poisoning by the WoSD. 

Chris

Those are my thoughts on pot vs alcohol.

I imagine a blood test would be the most accurate way vs a piss test

Problem is cost and time in testing the blood or even piss to see if you're currently impaired.  Plus what level of THC is considered impaired?

[roo_ster]

Because I haven't really looked into it, I honestly don't know if pissing hot means you're impaired at that moment.  As far as I know, it merely means you smoked pot within the last few days.  When pot was universally illegal, that was good enough, but if we're going to start treating it like alcohol from a recreational usage perspective, it may be time to develop a test that determines if you're currently impaired or not.

Think of it this way, would you be so accepting of a guy who was never impaired *at work* losing his job because he had a 6-pack of beer every night (TBH, if that was a fire-able offense, I would be ok with it in a voluntary arrangement)?  What about the guy who is never impaired at work or while driving, but smokes a bit on the weekends?  Why is his use more dangerous to everyone than the functional drunk who can pass a breathalyzer test at work?

I think some of the attitudes in this thread are a result of decades of poisoning by the WoSD. 

Chris

Pot use is a proxy for a host of other characteristics, most of which would be undesirable in an employee or coworker.  Pot use is one of the few ways employers can use discrimination...in the true sense of the term...to not hire or to fire.  Dont expect employers to give it up easily.

The wosd likely does have effect on attitudes too.

[K Frame]

"Because I haven't really looked into it, I honestly don't know if pissing hot means you're impaired at that moment."

From a clinical point, no, I don't think it does. From a legal standpoint, I don't know.

Marijuana metabolites show up in urine samples for weeks or more because it's stored in the fat and slowly released over a period of weeks.

Same with opiates. The effects of an opiate may wear off in a few hours, but the metabolites will show up in your system for a few weeks.

[mtnbkr]

Pot use is a proxy for a host of other characteristics, most of which would be undesirable in an employee or coworker.  Pot use is one of the few ways employers can use discrimination...in the true sense of the term...to not hire or to fire.  Dont expect employers to give it up easily.

The wosd likely does have effect on attitudes too.

Today that's true because pot is mostly illegal.  Willingness to break one law likely indicates a willingness to break others.

Fast forward to when pot is fully legal and treated like alcohol and you have people legitimately using pot responsibly, what then?  Is the guy who smokes a joint on a Friday night and doesn't return to work until Monday a risk?  What about the guy who downs a 6-pack every day, but shows up sober?  What's the difference between the two?

Functional drunks are lauded in our society (aka Sinatra), but a responsible pot user is a leper.

Chris

[KD5NRH]

Lol. I had no idea you only worked with strict Mormons and others who abstain from alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine. And refined sugar, given that some research indicates it's more addictive than cocaine.

Bwahahahahahahaa!  Clearly you've never seen how quickly the dessert table gets demolished at a LDS singles potluck.

Setting out anything with chocolate is like dropping an open can of tuna into a pack of starving rabid cats.

[Jamisjockey]

When employers have trouble keeping employees or even hiring, they may begin to reconsider how they test.

[KD5NRH]

"Because I haven't really looked into it, I honestly don't know if pissing hot means you're impaired at that moment."

From a clinical point, no, I don't think it does. From a legal standpoint, I don't know.

Marijuana metabolites show up in urine samples for weeks or more because it's stored in the fat and slowly released over a period of weeks.

Same with opiates. The effects of an opiate may wear off in a few hours, but the metabolites will show up in your system for a few weeks.

This is something I've been wondering about; is there a simple/cheap way to test whether someone is actually currently impaired by marijuana?  Something analogous to a breathalyzer, that would show whether and/or how much it is currently affecting their function?  Obviously you could test physical/mental function, but without a baseline, that's not going to be reliable, and won't tell you what's actually causing the impairment; the guy who's been on duty 24 hours may have smoked a bowl a week ago but is currently slurring words and red-eyed from exhaustion.

[roo_ster]

Today that's true because pot is mostly illegal.  Willingness to break one law likely indicates a willingness to break others.

Fast forward to when pot is fully legal and treated like alcohol and you have people legitimately using pot responsibly, what then?  Is the guy who smokes a joint on a Friday night and doesn't return to work until Monday a risk?  What about the guy who downs a 6-pack every day, but shows up sober?  What's the difference between the two?

Functional drunks are lauded in our society (aka Sinatra), but a responsible pot user is a leper.

Chris

Yep, that is a good point, but not all of it.  Or only one aspect (pot:criminality).  There are others, such as pot:countercultures, pot:impulsiveness+short time horizons, etc.  

And the biggie: pot as a proxy for any (non-pot) reason the employer might want to fire the pot using employee without risking legal flack.

There will still be a rather large proportion of the population that will be negatively disposed toward pot use/users and will want nothing to do with them.  Heck, is not one of the pro-legalization arguments that it will not result in a buttload of new users/addicts?  That a mere law is not what keeps hundreds of millions from toking up?

If we are going to impose on regular folk and employers the burden to justify their policies and attitudes toward pot use/users, I say keep pot illegal and shoot the vendors & users out of hand.

When employers have trouble keeping employees or even hiring, they may begin to reconsider how they test.

Indeed.  Likely at the lower economic rungs.  Many concessions are made for no/low-skill jobs already.

[Sawdust]

You can easily determine if someone is currently under the influence of pot.

Drop a slice of pound cake in front of him or her.

[KD5NRH]

You can easily determine if someone is currently under the influence of pot.

Drop a slice of pound cake in front of him or her.

Must be one hell of a lot of potheads around, then.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

You can easily determine if someone is currently under the influence of pot.

Drop a slice of pound cake in front of him or her.

Use a hostess twinkie according to steve martin

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Jamisjockey]

Indeed.  Likely at the lower economic rungs.  Many concessions are made for no/low-skill jobs already.

Hey, something we can agree on.
I think most skilled professional workers would choose good employment over weed.  And considering few employers do random testing unless it's a safety critical type job, it's really probably only a choice long enough to get hired somewhere.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Hey, something we can agree on.
I think most skilled professional workers would choose good employment over weed.  And considering few employers do random testing unless it's a safety critical type job, it's really probably only a choice long enough to get hired somewhere.

You might be surprised the folks who risk job for buzz

[Jamisjockey]

You might be surprised the folks who risk job for buzz

 Not much surprises me anymore.  There's a guy at work who just got his second DUI.  He lives less than a half mile from the bar he had been drinking at.
Problem is, we need a medical certificate to work, and a second DUI puts you in the alcoholic category medically. 
Sad thing is, he's been doing scut work for 6 months while collecting a paycheck.   But he's off the boards and can't work traffic.  There is a possibility if he loses his medical for good though, that he could be fired.

[Firethorn]

Because I haven't really looked into it, I honestly don't know if pissing hot means you're impaired at that moment.  As far as I know, it merely means you smoked pot within the last few days.  When pot was universally illegal, that was good enough, but if we're going to start treating it like alcohol from a recreational usage perspective, it may be time to develop a test that determines if you're currently impaired or not.

Piss test can detect Marijuana use up to a month out.  To be fair, it's one of the longer term detection methods, but most of the research has been into extending that detection period, not determining recent inebriation. 

There just hasn't been enough research into what's going on with inebriation.  For alcohol, for example, we literally had people drink calibrated shots and took blood samples while observing behavior and doing all sorts of tests.

Except with MJ the only study that looked at blood THC levels vs level of 'Stoned' found that the correlation wasn't strong enough for it to be a good test.

[Fitz]

Not much surprises me anymore.  There's a guy at work who just got his second DUI.  He lives less than a half mile from the bar he had been drinking at.
Problem is, we need a medical certificate to work, and a second DUI puts you in the alcoholic category medically. 
Sad thing is, he's been doing scut work for 6 months while collecting a paycheck.   But he's off the boards and can't work traffic.  There is a possibility if he loses his medical for good though, that he could be fired.

just had a guy I know get arrested, then resign from his job as a cop before he was fired, for a DUI

This guy was RAILING about how the sergeant showed up, and how if he "could have talked it out" with the responding officer before the sergeant got there, it could all go away. Then it was all about how the chief had it out for him, etc.

Nothing at all about the fact he was riding his motorcycle drunk as *expletive deleted*ck. that certainly wasn't the cause.

Addicts, man.

[MillCreek]

This is something I've been wondering about; is there a simple/cheap way to test whether someone is actually currently impaired by marijuana? 

I think there is a blood test.  Washington state now uses one for DUI charges for marijuana.

[KD5NRH]

I think there is a blood test.  Washington state now uses one for DUI charges for marijuana.

Blood tests aren't generally something that can be done in the boss's office without calling in a specialist.  Would be handy if someone could develop a urine or saliva test that would give a yes or no to current impairment.

[mtnbkr]

Yep, that is a good point, but not all of it.  Or only one aspect (pot:criminality).  There are others, such as pot:countercultures, pot:impulsiveness+short time horizons, etc. 

I was lumping all those factors under a single word.  The point remains, currently, pot use is pursued by a specific culture.  Would that remain if we reduce the controls down to what we do for alcohol (ie 21 and over, no operating machinery while drunk, etc)? 

And the biggie: pot as a proxy for any (non-pot) reason the employer might want to fire the pot using employee without risking legal flack.

You keep bringing that up. I don't think it's relevant.  Employers don't need a proxy reason to fire someone. 

There will still be a rather large proportion of the population that will be negatively disposed toward pot use/users and will want nothing to do with them.

And why is that?  Why is the Sinatra-style alcoholic viewed fondly while a guy who smokes a little on the weekend and doesn't go to work stoned is a raging pothead criminal?

Heck, is not one of the pro-legalization arguments that it will not result in a buttload of new users/addicts?  That a mere law is not what keeps hundreds of millions from toking up?

I'm certain it will spike in the short term, but will level off once the "attraction" wears off.  There will always be those who abuse mind altering substances, but many more who use them responsibly.  We have that today with alcohol.

If we are going to impose on regular folk and employers the burden to justify their policies and attitudes toward pot use/users, I say keep pot illegal and shoot the vendors & users out of hand.

Nobody's imposing anything.  I'm perfectly fine with employers maintaining a  no-drugs policy as a condition of employment.  Hell, I'd be ok with a no-smoking (anywhere, not just at work) or no-booze policy.  That wasn't the point of my post.  My point was why is non-abusive-use of pot bad while alcohol abuse not so bad.

Nobody gets worked up over the guy who drinks a sixer every day and a case over the weekend as long as he's sober at work (I've known multiple instances of those types).  Let it be known a guy smokes a joint over the weekend and the tune changes.

It is nice to see that you and Boomhauer advocate violence for a non-violent "offense". 

Chris

[Firethorn]

I was lumping all those factors under a single word.  The point remains, currently, pot use is pursued by a specific culture.  Would that remain if we reduce the controls down to what we do for alcohol (ie 21 and over, no operating machinery while drunk, etc)?

What needs to be hashed out, preferably scientifically, is how long you have to abstain to be considered sober.

You keep bringing that up. I don't think it's relevant.  Employers don't need a proxy reason to fire someone.

In proper states.  In others, they actually need a legitimate reason to fire at all.  In yet others if can be much cheaper on your unemployment expenses if you can document that you fired them 'for cause'.

I'm certain it will spike in the short term, but will level off once the "attraction" wears off.  There will always be those who abuse mind altering substances, but many more who use them responsibly.  We have that today with alcohol.

It's also spiking because of regionalism.  Just yesterday mom was telling me about a dude in Florida buying a house in Colorado specifically because marijuana is legal there.

I think there is a blood test.  Washington state now uses one for DUI charges for marijuana.

There is a blood test, but recent testing has shown that the standards expressed within has about as much to do with intoxication as throwing darts at a wall while blindfolded.

[K Frame]

You can easily determine if someone is currently under the influence of pot.

Drop a slice of pound cake in front of him or her.

This.

[roo_ster]

I was lumping all those factors under a single word.  The point remains, currently, pot use is pursued by a specific culture.  Would that remain if we reduce the controls down to what we do for alcohol (ie 21 and over, no operating machinery while drunk, etc)? 
You keep bringing that up. I don't think it's relevant.  Employers don't need a proxy reason to fire someone. 
And why is that?  Why is the Sinatra-style alcoholic viewed fondly while a guy who smokes a little on the weekend and doesn't go to work stoned is a raging pothead criminal?
I'm certain it will spike in the short term, but will level off once the "attraction" wears off.  There will always be those who abuse mind altering substances, but many more who use them responsibly.  We have that today with alcohol.
Nobody's imposing anything.  I'm perfectly fine with employers maintaining a  no-drugs policy as a condition of employment.  Hell, I'd be ok with a no-smoking (anywhere, not just at work) or no-booze policy.  That wasn't the point of my post.  My point was why is non-abusive-use of pot bad while alcohol abuse not so bad.

Nobody gets worked up over the guy who drinks a sixer every day and a case over the weekend as long as he's sober at work (I've known multiple instances of those types).  Let it be known a guy smokes a joint over the weekend and the tune changes.

It is nice to see that you and Boomhauer advocate violence for a non-violent "offense". 

Chris

Don't care much about the offense.

I care very much about the bureaucratic accretion of laws and regs  and case law that have the potential to develop and strangle freedom of association if folk keep conflating pot and alcohol use.  Given recent history of supposed increases in liberty, I would vote in favor of plugging pot users every day of the week and twice on Sundays over giving up yet more freedom of association.  

Firethorn went into why it can be handy for an employer to have a "Get Out of Employer Free" card.

[Jamisjockey]

just had a guy I know get arrested, then resign from his job as a cop before he was fired, for a DUI

This guy was RAILING about how the sergeant showed up, and how if he "could have talked it out" with the responding officer before the sergeant got there, it could all go away. Then it was all about how the chief had it out for him, etc.

Nothing at all about the fact he was riding his motorcycle drunk as *expletive deleted*ck. that certainly wasn't the cause.

Addicts, man.

This guys definitely an addict.  And not just booze.
He's about 6' and 450lbs.
I've seen him knock down in one sitting what I eat in 3 days