Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on May 17, 2016, 08:55:19 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/hiring-hurdle-finding-workers-who-can-pass-a-drug-test.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
We see this a bit in our local healthcare market, now that recreational marijuana is legal here. A friend of mine works for a local builder, and says they have a tremendous problem finding construction and laborer employees who don't test dirty primarily for pot.
-
Other thing to remember is that common cheap urinalysis kits have a pretty high false positive rate. They're shocking crap. Per manufacturer, they're not supposed to be sole determination. You're supposed to always double check a positive with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Which no employer ever does, the majority of them have no idea that said tests could even have a false positive. Mythbusters did an episode on it.
Concur that it's a real problem. And the law is sketchy on recreational marijuana and employment. We test on hiring and after an accident. If a forklift driver is found to have THC in their system and says they used legal recreational marijuana while well off-shift (ie only on Friday night and it is currently Tuesday), are they still considered impaired? There is no way they're actually chemically impaired. But testing positive means that they're legally under the influence.
Haven't heard any good suggestions yet, and we have a subsidiary in Colorado.
-
Other thing to remember is that common cheap urinalysis kits have a pretty high false positive rate. They're shocking crap. Per manufacturer, they're not supposed to be sole determination. You're supposed to always double check a positive with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Which no employer ever does, the majority of them have no idea that said tests could even have a false positive. Mythbusters did an episode on it.
Concur that it's a real problem. And the law is sketchy on recreational marijuana and employment. We test on hiring and after an accident. If a forklift driver is found to have THC in their system and says they used legal recreational marijuana while well off-shift (ie only on Friday night and it is currently Tuesday), are they still considered impaired? There is no way they're actually chemically impaired. But testing positive means that they're legally under the influence.
Haven't heard any good suggestions yet, and we have a subsidiary in Colorado.
There's a clear case for reforming the law to be more like it is with alcohol. Unless the test is about assessing a level of impairment, it's just another method of detecting rule-breakers...except they aren't necessarily breaking the rules anymore.
-
An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use a recreational that is legal
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use a recreational that is legal
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
We have similar case law in Washington: the state Supreme Court ruled that an employee could be discharged for using medicinal marijuana. I am not aware of any sizable healthcare employers in the state that will not hire you or that will fire you if you are using marijuana, medicinal, recreational, or legal in Washington notwithstanding.
-
An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use a recreational that is legal
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
I know a lot of companies here in DC metro are laying down rules for employees who are either going to work in a location where recreational use is legal, or are visiting on their own time.
Most of them are saying --- don't do it. You do, and we will terminate you.
-
An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use a recreational that is legal
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Government/Military being the biggest employer who does. Dealing with a Soldier now, and it isn't legal in Oklahoma, that has popped hot 4-5 times in a row now. OKNG isn't going to discharge him anytime soon because they want their numbers up, but I damn sure am going to do my best to have him thrown out of my section. :facepalm:
-
I guess the NORMLs will need another of those laws that protects us from freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoker_Protection_Law
-
There's a clear case for reforming the law to be more like it is with alcohol. Unless the test is about assessing a level of impairment, it's just another method of detecting rule-breakers...except they aren't necessarily breaking the rules anymore.
What you're really clamoring for is another law to be inserted into the exchange of labor for currency between an employee and employer. Moar lawz!!!
-
After I was hired for my previous job, I was told the five applicants before me failed the drug test. Thanks potheads! =D
-
Where I work in the past we had temps and when we go to hire them on full time they couldn't pass the drug screen. Now the temp agencies we use do drug screens and then we also do one if we go to hire full time.
-
since it looks like every state is going with legal pot, the obvious solution is to just stop disqualifying folks that test positive for it. I am sure that is the next step in the liberal game plan to finish of America. :O
-
since it looks like every state is going with legal pot, the obvious solution is to just stop disqualifying folks that test positive for it. I am sure that is the next step in the liberal game plan to finish of America. :O
Yes, being able to get people off the welfare rolls and into productive jobs is obviously a liberal plan to destroy America.
-
Yes, being able to get people off the welfare rolls and into productive jobs is obviously a liberal plan to destroy America.
If you can afford weed without a job, what do you need a job (or welfare) for?
-
An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use a recreational that is legal
Certainly. But I view it as like looking to hire non-tobacco smokers in the '70s. You should expect to pay a premium for such workers, in both wages and difficulty in finding workers that meet the additional qualification.
What you're really clamoring for is another law to be inserted into the exchange of labor for currency between an employee and employer. Moar lawz!!!
I think he misstated, which is understandable given the mess. I won't speak for him, but I believe that as a result of legalization we need to shift from tests that check to see if you've used in the last week or so, which was fine when it was completely illegal, to whether you're currently, or were recently, intoxicated with the stuff. This will require science to figure out what metabolic compounds to look for, whether you can do it with a breath test like with alcohol, a piss test like current, or even a blood test. For example, longer term tests exist for alcohol consumption, but they're not common because they're not normally necessary.
That being said, there are state and federal laws that dictate tests be done in certain professions and cases, such as when an accident occurs, which may need to be adjusted.
If you can afford weed without a job, what do you need a job (or welfare) for?
It's easier to bum tokes off a friend than a place to stay? Current tests will pop positive if you use enough to have a recreational affect sometime in the last 2 weeks or so, if I remember right. Up to a month even.
-
Certainly. But I view it as like looking to hire non-tobacco smokers in the '70s. You should expect to pay a premium for such workers, in both wages and difficulty in finding workers that meet the additional qualification.
I think he misstated, which is understandable given the mess. I won't speak for him, but I believe that as a result of legalization we need to shift from tests that check to see if you've used in the last week or so, which was fine when it was completely legal, to whether you're currently, or were recently, intoxicated with the stuff. This will require science to figure out what metabolic compounds to look for, whether you can do it with a breath test like with alcohol, a piss test like current, or even a blood test. For example, longer term tests exist for alcohol consumption, but they're not common because they're not normally necessary.
That being said, state and federal laws that dictate tests be done, such as in the case of an accident, may need to be adjusted.
It's easier to bum tokes off a friend than a place to stay? Current tests will pop positive if you use enough to have a recreational affect sometime in the last 2 weeks or so, if I remember right. Up to a month even.
In real life I hired in the late 70's and disqualified cigarette smokers. Was not paying a premium wage and had no trouble finding folks. It was a feature not a bug
-
In real life I hired in the late 70's and disqualified cigarette smokers. Was not paying a premium wage and had no trouble finding folks. It was a feature not a bug
Expect a harder time and more pay; be glad when you don't. Probably depended on the field.
-
Smoke all you want if you work up front in the office. If you work with me around all the sharp, heavy, rolly, tipsy, flaming, turning, things that can kill us then please pass a test.
-
N/m
-
smoking pot (or doing alcohol, or having neck tattoos, or being against gay marriage, or anything else), is a personal choice that nobody should be FORCED not to do.
Employing people , is a choice made by a private entity. If you CHOOSE to smoke pot, an employer should be able to CHOOSE not to hire you.
Again, the market will correct. If you don't want pot smokers, and all the good, skilled workers looking for that position smoke pot, then you wont' be able to hire a qualified candidate.
I have nothing against legal pot, and indeed anything that one chooses to do with one's own body.
But I abhor the thought of the government being necessary to step in and force another private entity to endorse and accept your life choices.
Generally, if your response to a situation like this (be it pot, gay marriage, etc). is "we should have a law" or "we should change the law so that...", then the truth of the matter is the government is already too involved. An employer should be able to determine themselves if pot in someone's system (which, as stated earlier, doesn't necessarily mean that person is impaired given the length of time it stays in your system) is a deal-breaker for employment.
-
Stop it with the hatespeech, Fitz.
-
Stop it with the hatespeech, Fitz.
Sorry. I guess the thought that "being able to do whatever you want with your own property , body, and interests as you please" applied to employers as well as individuals.
I suppose the "market corrects" philosophy only applies to some. :-D
-
I refuse to put my life at risk by working with goddamn druggies. If the company doesn't get rid of them then I will.
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.
-
Again, the market will correct. If you don't want pot smokers, and all the good, skilled workers looking for that position smoke pot, then you wont' be able to hire a qualified candidate.
The irony here being the many folks who come to these threads to whine about not being able to find anyone who can pass a drug test.
-
smoking pot (or doing alcohol, or having neck tattoos, or being against gay marriage, or anything else), is a personal choice that nobody should be FORCED not to do.
Employing people , is a choice made by a private entity. If you CHOOSE to smoke pot, an employer should be able to CHOOSE not to hire you.
Again, the market will correct. If you don't want pot smokers, and all the good, skilled workers looking for that position smoke pot, then you wont' be able to hire a qualified candidate.
I have nothing against legal pot, and indeed anything that one chooses to do with one's own body.
But I abhor the thought of the government being necessary to step in and force another private entity to endorse and accept your life choices.
Generally, if your response to a situation like this (be it pot, gay marriage, etc). is "we should have a law" or "we should change the law so that...", then the truth of the matter is the government is already too involved. An employer should be able to determine themselves if pot in someone's system (which, as stated earlier, doesn't necessarily mean that person is impaired given the length of time it stays in your system) is a deal-breaker for employment.
It's ironic a friend of mine owns a roofing company and he started breathalyzing and piss testing his people and when you pop positive he doesn't just suspend you for a day he suspends you for a week because guys will take a day off it's just the cost of getting high.be
to get a week off hurt em financially
his workers comp claims dropped by 60% first year True irony of this is the guy that owns the company gets high
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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
-
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.
-
When employers have trouble keeping employees or even hiring, they may begin to reconsider how they test.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
:rofl:
-
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.
-
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
-
I've seen him knock down in one sitting what I eat in 3 days
Half a bag of Toll House cookies and a pint of Mrs. Claus's eggnog?
-
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.
That is a separate sentence pointing out another legal yet addictive substance, not a direct continuation of the first. I can see how you would be confused.
-
When employers have trouble keeping employees or even hiring, they may begin to reconsider how they test. will whine about it on internet forums.
Already there boss.
-
I wonder how folks defending drug testing would feel if alcohol could be detected a month after use like marijuana can, and was regularly used to screen employees for suitability.
-
I wonder how folks defending drug testing would feel if alcohol could be detected a month after use like marijuana can, and was regularly used to screen employees for suitability.
That's essentially what I've been asking. What makes a functional alcohol addict superior to a functional cannabis addict other than one is currently illegal (though both have been illegal within the last 100 years).
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.
Umm ok? I'm not talking about laws, new or old, I'm asking why is one addict acceptable and the other worthy of death. You keep dancing around that question.
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.
Got it, you want to kill pot users. Good to know.
Firethorn went into why it can be handy for an employer to have a "Get Out of Employer Free" card.
Got no problem with that, but it isn't what I was asking.
Chris
-
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.
You want to destroy people's liberty, in the most extreme way possible, because of the mere possibility that we might lose an ounce of liberty in the future?
Are you listening to yourself?
-
I'm sitting over here chuckling at some of the assumptions made about pot smokers...
I hate to tell you guys *cough cough rooster cough cough* but plenty of people who you would not immediately identify as recreational drug users smoke up without the counter culture stoner identity.
As far as hiring/firing based on impairment, I too would like to see a better way to test for actual inebriation rather than find out if someone toked up on their last weekend off.
I would also love to see roosters little world implode if everyone he knew lined up with t-shirts declaring if they smoked pot or not. I'm betting there would be a lot more than he'd ever guess (and people he actually like too :rofl: )
-
I hate to tell you guys *cough cough rooster cough cough* but plenty of people who you would not immediately identify as recreational drug users smoke up without the counter culture stoner identity.
One of the biggest Friday night potheads I've known was a drug and alcohol counselor. Absolutely clean all week, but 5:00 Friday until Saturday morning was party time.
-
It's probably because I live in Seattle, but I've had a job where I was the only person on a team of > a dozen successful professional people who didn't at least occasionally smoke pot.
-
It's probably because I live in Seattle, but I've had a job where I was the only person on a team of > a dozen successful professional people who didn't at least occasionally smoke pot.
When I lived in CO twenty years ago I had pretty much the same experience at a job and then as an IT consultant working for several professionals, Lawyers, Accountants, various business owners who employed dozens to hundreds of people. Wasn't surprised at all it became legal there.
-
Got it, you want to kill pot users. Good to know.
Golly-gee that would be terrible were it not a straw man erected from a tendentious reading of my posts.
You want to destroy people's liberty, in the most extreme way possible, because of the mere possibility that we might lose an ounce of liberty in the future?
Are you listening to yourself?
Again, read my posts, not mtbkr's pearl-clutching.
============================
Really, folks, does no one think past the first move?
1. Legalize pot. Woo-hoo. Isn't that wonderful.
Too bad it has zero effect on the War on Drugs and the liberty-crushing policy that grows from it. So, all the WoSD abuses remain, but now we have more stoners and have to tolerate not only cigarette smoke in public, but also wacky tobacky smoke in public.
2. Disability & Discrimination
Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?
A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) cannot find you disabled based solely on your diagnosis of chronic alcoholism. However, many people who suffer from chronic alcoholism have physical or behavioral changes that limit their ability to function in a work situation and that are caused by their chronic use of alcohol. The SSA will not treat your claim any worse because your impairment is a result of chronic alcoholism.
All in all, it is a diminution of liberty, a greater financial burden, and a less pleasant public sphere for everyone who does not smoke pot. Screw that noise. Shoot the stoners first.
[libertoid: Oh, but roo_ster, that is not the fault of pot users! That is the fault of over-intrusive gov't. First, we need to eliminate the ADA and entitlement programs...
roo_ster: Yeah, I 'll just let that sit there for a moment.
roo_ster: If your quirky little plan for liberty will result in less liberty unless it requires HUGE upheavals in gov't and society, your quirky little plan for liberty sucks. After marxist leftists, I am not sure who is more delusional: economists or libertarians?]
===========================
I'm sitting over here chuckling at some of the assumptions made about pot smokers...
I hate to tell you guys *cough cough rooster cough cough* but plenty of people who you would not immediately identify as recreational drug users smoke up without the counter culture stoner identity.
As far as hiring/firing based on impairment, I too would like to see a better way to test for actual inebriation rather than find out if someone toked up on their last weekend off.
I would also love to see roosters little world implode if everyone he knew lined up with t-shirts declaring if they smoked pot or not. I'm betting there would be a lot more than he'd ever guess (and people he actually like too :rofl: )
I thought I'd left the junior high decades back, but here we are with folk yukking it up whilst acting as if they know something more than they really do. My wife will regale me with a tale of someone all grown up acting in a peculiar, usually petty, manner. I will remind her, "Hon, some folks just never left junior high. Oh, their bodies aged out, but their heads never left."
-
Golly-gee that would be terrible were it not a straw man erected from a tendentious reading of my posts.
Really? Because you said it thrice:
I say keep pot illegal and shoot the vendors & users out of hand.
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.
Shoot the stoners first.
Again, read my posts, not mtbkr's pearl-clutching.
It's "pearl-clutching" to ask a direct question and expect a direct answer, not a bunch of attempts to talk around or distract from that question?
Really, folks, does no one think past the first move?
1. Legalize pot. Woo-hoo. Isn't that wonderful.
Too bad it has zero effect on the War on Drugs and the liberty-crushing policy that grows from it. So, all the WoSD abuses remain, but now we have more stoners and have to tolerate not only cigarette smoke in public, but also wacky tobacky smoke in public.
Gotta start somewhere with the WoD. Pot is low risk and partially accepted already. Also, we don't allow public drunkenness or even drinking in public in many places, so why do you expect smoking pot in public will be permissible?
2. Disability & Discrimination
All in all, it is a diminution of liberty, a greater financial burden, and a less pleasant public sphere for everyone who does not smoke pot. Screw that noise. Shoot the stoners first.
[libertoid: Oh, but roo_ster, that is not the fault of pot users! That is the fault of over-intrusive gov't. First, we need to eliminate the ADA and entitlement programs...
roo_ster: Yeah, I 'll just let that sit there for a moment.
roo_ster: If your quirky little plan for liberty will result in less liberty unless it requires HUGE upheavals in gov't and society, your quirky little plan for liberty sucks. After marxist leftists, I am not sure who is more delusional: economists or libertarians?]
So, because someone *might* abuse SS we need to keep pot illegal? Why stop there? Why not return to Prohibition full force? After all, your argument against legalization of pot is that a small percentage of abusers may also abuse SS the way that alcoholics might be abusing SS. We can solve that problem with the same tactic. Why should alcohol be legal if it's the root of such egregious abuse?
I see you still haven't addressed the original question, which is:
[q]Why is alcohol abuse preferable to pot use? Let's go a bit further in an effort to focus the discussion just a bit. This is absent any criminal activities, both substances are legal, and neither user is inebriated at work or while operating heavy machinery (or while managing your retirement fund).[/b]
Do you think you can answer that without making assumptions about what reductions in liberty will result or how the dirty potheads will abuse govt programs? Just explain why society loves the lush and hates the toker.
Chris
-
Golly-gee that would be terrible were it not a straw man erected from a tendentious reading of my posts.
Wow, it's not every day I have to google vocabulary. Congratulations. That being said, I pretty much completely agree with mtnbkr.
All we're doing is taking you at your word! You're up to 3 mentions, talking about doing it again in this very post!
Too bad it has zero effect on the War on Drugs and the liberty-crushing policy that grows from it. So, all the WoSD abuses remain, but now we have more stoners and have to tolerate not only cigarette smoke in public, but also wacky tobacky smoke in public.
You know what a slippery slope is, obviously, so why do you fall back on one so quickly? Tolerance of cigarette smoke in public is already at an all time low. Public drug use is at an all time low - you're expected to not be drunk in public, you can't smoke in 'most' public buildings and areas, etc...
2. Disability & Discrimination
All in all, it is a diminution of liberty, a greater financial burden, and a less pleasant public sphere for everyone who does not smoke pot. Screw that noise. Shoot the stoners first.
And we reach the mandatory mentioning of killing weed users. I'd also rate this as much more pearl clutching, because you're grasping at straws for this sort of stuff, assuming what I see as a worst case scenario.
[libertoid: Oh, but roo_ster, that is not the fault of pot users! That is the fault of over-intrusive gov't. First, we need to eliminate the ADA and entitlement programs...
"libertoid" isn't very high road. Also, the expense of weed use is still very much up in the air, and likely less than cigarettes and alcohol.
roo_ster: If your quirky little plan for liberty will result in less liberty unless it requires HUGE upheavals in gov't and society, your quirky little plan for liberty sucks. After marxist leftists, I am not sure who is more delusional: economists or libertarians?]
It only results in 'less liberty', to use your vocabulary, using a very tendentious reading.
-
Golly-gee that would be terrible were it not a straw man erected from a tendentious reading of my posts.
Again, read my posts, not mtbkr's pearl-clutching.
============================
Really, folks, does no one think past the first move?
1. Legalize pot. Woo-hoo. Isn't that wonderful.
Too bad it has zero effect on the War on Drugs and the liberty-crushing policy that grows from it. So, all the WoSD abuses remain, but now we have more stoners and have to tolerate not only cigarette smoke in public, but also wacky tobacky smoke in public.
2. Disability & Discrimination
All in all, it is a diminution of liberty, a greater financial burden, and a less pleasant public sphere for everyone who does not smoke pot. Screw that noise. Shoot the stoners first.
[libertoid: Oh, but roo_ster, that is not the fault of pot users! That is the fault of over-intrusive gov't. First, we need to eliminate the ADA and entitlement programs...
roo_ster: Yeah, I 'll just let that sit there for a moment.
roo_ster: If your quirky little plan for liberty will result in less liberty unless it requires HUGE upheavals in gov't and society, your quirky little plan for liberty sucks. After marxist leftists, I am not sure who is more delusional: economists or libertarians?]
===========================
I thought I'd left the junior high decades back, but here we are with folk yukking it up whilst acting as if they know something more than they really do. My wife will regale me with a tale of someone all grown up acting in a peculiar, usually petty, manner. I will remind her, "Hon, some folks just never left junior high. Oh, their bodies aged out, but their heads never left."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
Oh. It's not satire?
You believe the tripe you're spouting?
Whoops.
-
Speaking as a resident of a state where recreational marijuana is legal, I can confidently say that none of the second order effects predicted by our resident neo-nazi have come to pass.
-
The more important question, is "are these employers providing study materials for the drug tests?"
-
Speaking as a resident of a state where recreational marijuana is legal, I can confidently say that none of the second order effects predicted by our resident neo-nazi have come to pass.
That's because true patriots are shooting druggies in the face. :rofl:
Chris
-
https://youtu.be/W_i2mC5fAmI
Louder With Crowder on Pot with expert guest.
-
Speaking as a resident of a state where recreational marijuana is legal, I can confidently say that none of the second order effects predicted by our resident neo-nazi have come to pass.
So, the war on drugs has ended in your state since y'all legalized pot? Cool. And unexpected, given the news articles such as the following that still come from that corner of the USA:
http://q13fox.com/2016/03/09/dea-raids-suspected-fentanyl-lab-in-south-seattle-neighborhood-its-50-times-more-potent-than-heroin-and-its-a-hundred-times-more-potent-than-morphine/
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/king-county-detectives-lead-bust-of-high-level-drug-ring/249577303
As for the federal disability and anti-discrimination programs, I would expect those changes only when pot is legalized at the national level, especially if folk follow mtnbkr's alcohol ~ pot analogy.
Of course employers up there are not nearly as sanguine as many on this board as to the knock-on effects of legalization:
http://www.westsoundworkforce.com/what-washington-state-marijuana-legalization-means-for-employers/
That's because true patriots are shooting druggies in the face.
And we reach the mandatory mentioning of killing weed users. I'd also rate this as much more pearl clutching, because you're grasping at straws for this sort of stuff, assuming what I see as a worst case scenario.
Another swing & miss. Do please point out where I called for mandatory killing of pot users. Every single mention was as part of a trade-off.
It only results in 'less liberty', to use your vocabulary, using a very tendentious reading.
It results in less liberty given a reasonable reading of the literature, especially in the light of an analogy to ethyl alcohol as applied to employment law, disability, and freedom of association. Expect litigation making it so if not included with the legislation.
-
FYI, back in 1990, 73% of those polled favored or strongly favored the death penalty for drug traffickers:
https://books.google.com/books?id=U7Nx-lwlaQAC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=poll+americans+support+%22death+penalty+for+drug%22&source=bl&ots=Pq3AvBq__q&sig=2IpABpqBCuNHa_JEngAqIOzq40k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9j8fI1fDMAhUF0h4KHZe8CkMQ6AEIRTAG#v=onepage&q=poll%20americans%20support%20%22death%20penalty%20for%20drug%22&f=false
I am surprised by how large was that proportion. I would expect current polling to show less support given the reduction in violent crime since 1990 and the demographic changes.
-
So, the war on drugs has ended in your state since y'all legalized pot? Cool.
Non Sequitur. Those of us who support ending the war on drugs have already outright stated that legalizing marijuana is only a first step. We didn't get 50 state CCW overnight, after all. Heck, we still have a lot of progress to make.
And unexpected, given the news articles such as the following that still come from that corner of the USA:
http://q13fox.com/2016/03/09/dea-raids-suspected-fentanyl-lab-in-south-seattle-neighborhood-its-50-times-more-potent-than-heroin-and-its-a-hundred-times-more-potent-than-morphine/
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/king-county-detectives-lead-bust-of-high-level-drug-ring/249577303
Why'd you not expect it? I certainly find it unsurprising. They're still an unregulated illegal drug lab.
As for the federal disability and anti-discrimination programs, I would expect those changes only when pot is legalized at the national level, especially if folk follow mtnbkr's alcohol ~ pot analogy.
You know, if this topic was on guns, I've come to the realization that you'd be a FUDD? You're not giving the impression of being for freedom - unless it affects you personally.
Of course employers up there are not nearly as sanguine as many on this board as to the knock-on effects of legalization:
http://www.westsoundworkforce.com/what-washington-state-marijuana-legalization-means-for-employers/
And what's wrong with this? We've already covered how tests that actually look for current/recent impairment by marijuana will probably need to be developed.
Another swing & miss. Do please point out where I called for mandatory killing of pot users. Every single mention was as part of a trade-off.
Dude, you've advocated it three times. We've quoted those three times. That it's 'part of a trade-off' doesn't detract that it's a call for death.
It results in less liberty given a reasonable reading of the literature, especially in the light of an analogy to ethyl alcohol as applied to employment law, disability, and freedom of association. Expect litigation making it so if not included with the legislation.
Freedom of association? Employment law? I'd argue that your 'intrusion in the freedom of association' is the result of already existing intrusions. Your very 'citation' mentions that employers still have the power to drug test and inform their employees that they can be fired if they pop positive.
So you're arguing FOR a restriction on liberty, the right to use what drugs you want, in order to suppress a theoretical intrusion on liberty - the freedom for businesses to set the rules they want.
I am surprised by how large was that proportion. I would expect current polling to show less support given the reduction in violent crime since 1990 and the demographic changes.
I'm not surprised. Remember, the image of a drug dealer, trafficker, at the time was Scarface. Today? It's Nancy Botwin(Weeds).
-
Speaking as a resident of a state where recreational marijuana is legal, I can confidently say that none of the second order effects predicted by our resident neo-nazi have come to pass.
None?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/stoned-driving-fatal-accidents/
Really?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
And then this conservative rag weighs in
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/crime-is-up-in-colorado-w_b_5663046.html
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
And this doesn't count either
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/09/15/feds-release-marijuana-stats-to-show-negative-effects-of-legalization/
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
None?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/stoned-driving-fatal-accidents/
Really?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Troubling. I wouldn't count it for anything if the death rate had remained flat, but fatalities are UP in Washington state.
http://wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2016/05/2014_Annual_Collision_Summary.pdf
Also, it sounds like Colorado could use a campaign to bust those giving weed to minors. I have less than zero objections to that.
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/10/08/can-please-stop-pretending-marijuana-harmless/MneQebFPWg79ifTAXc1PkM/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article_More
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
This one is less clear
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/study-finds-100-percent-increase-in-fatal-pot-related-crashes-in-colorado
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/study-finds-100-percent-increase-in-fatal-pot-related-crashes-in-colorado
IMO, another key reason there needs to be a "how much is MJ currently impairing this person" test. It would also need to be quick and easy enough to use in a traffic stop. (Or at least enough so to be PC to haul them over to the hospital for a more reliable test, as with alcohol by blood draw.) Then treat it the same as alcohol. Then fix the DUI laws the way they've needed to be fixed all along. (.08-.11 first offense ticket, .12-.20 jail time, >.20 lots of mandatory jail time, 10 year minimum license revocation, etc. Most truly "drunk driving" wrecks involve drivers well over .12 from what I've seen, but legislators haven't been willing to go to serious penalties because they don't want to crush the skinny guy who's at .09 after a couple beers with dinner and got popped for failing to signal a turn. Figuring MJ equivalents would depend on what the marker for current impairment ends up being.)
My problem with "MJ related" wreck statistics is that unless the driver survives and says he was baked, or there's too much smoke in the car to find the driver, they don't really know if he was stoned right then, or had spent the last three weeks high as a kite, then let it all clear his system for 2-3 days before driving. I'm thoroughly unconvinced that they couldn't find a way to test current impairment if they hadn't had years of the disincentive of "yes or no sometime in the last month" being "good enough."
-
Then fix the DUI laws the way they've needed to be fixed all along. (.08-.11 first offense ticket, .12-.20 jail time, >.20 lots of mandatory jail time, 10 year minimum license revocation, etc. Most truly "drunk driving" wrecks involve drivers well over .12 from what I've seen, but legislators haven't been willing to go to serious penalties because they don't want to crush the skinny guy who's at .09 after a couple beers with dinner and got popped for failing to signal a turn. Figuring MJ equivalents would depend on what the marker for current impairment ends up being.)
Many states have been doing this with 'super DUI' laws that make it 'extra illegal' to be driving around with an extremely high BAC.
My problem with "MJ related" wreck statistics is that unless the driver survives and says he was baked, or there's too much smoke in the car to find the driver, they don't really know if he was stoned right then, or had spent the last three weeks high as a kite, then let it all clear his system for 2-3 days before driving.
One problem I've read is that MJ can still be affecting you even if you're not high long after your use - whether this is negative for driving requires more testing.
-
Many states have been doing this with 'super DUI' laws that make it 'extra illegal' to be driving around with an extremely high BAC.
Great. Know which ones off the top of your head? I'd love to send samples to my legislators.
-
Great. Know which ones off the top of your head? I'd love to send samples to my legislators.
Ohio has special rules kick in at .17
Arizona has "super-extreme" at .20+ - http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nba/suns/2014/07/28/suns-player-pj-tucker-dui-arrest/13299361/
Alabama "super drunk" - over .15 = double penalties. http://www.sreeravilaw.com/dui/implied-consent-law/
A lot of the names sounds like gas station soda cup namings.
-
Arizona has "super-extreme" at .20+ - http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nba/suns/2014/07/28/suns-player-pj-tucker-dui-arrest/13299361/
Good criteria. Penalties are still a bit pathetic, though. 45 days in the can and a 90 day license suspension minimum, plus $500 fine and $2,250 "additional assessments" for "super extreme." Not hard to rack those fine amounts up with a few stone cold sober 5-10 over speeding tickets. I'd rather see something like 90-180 days jail and 1-10 year mandatory license revocation for first offense over .20. That seems to be about what they're doing for a second offense within 7 years. Get truly draconian on second offense and/or driving with a license revoked for DUI.
Alabama "super drunk" - over .15 = double penalties. http://www.sreeravilaw.com/dui/implied-consent-law/
Still kind of tame; the base jail time for second offense DUI is only 5 days, so 10 days if you're "super drunk." No minimum on first offense, though their license suspension times are pretty good.
-
So, the war on drugs has ended in your state since y'all legalized pot? Cool. And unexpected, given the news articles such as the following that still come from that corner of the USA:
http://q13fox.com/2016/03/09/dea-raids-suspected-fentanyl-lab-in-south-seattle-neighborhood-its-50-times-more-potent-than-heroin-and-its-a-hundred-times-more-potent-than-morphine/
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/king-county-detectives-lead-bust-of-high-level-drug-ring/249577303
As for the federal disability and anti-discrimination programs, I would expect those changes only when pot is legalized at the national level, especially if folk follow mtnbkr's alcohol ~ pot analogy.
Of course employers up there are not nearly as sanguine as many on this board as to the knock-on effects of legalization:
http://www.westsoundworkforce.com/what-washington-state-marijuana-legalization-means-for-employers/
The abuse of the 2A didn't end when WA repealed its ban on suppressors and SBR's, but it was a step in the right direction.
-
IMO, another key reason there needs to be a "how much is MJ currently impairing this person" test. It would also need to be quick and easy enough to use in a traffic stop. (Or at least enough so to be PC to haul them over to the hospital for a more reliable test, as with alcohol by blood draw.) Then treat it the same as alcohol. Then fix the DUI laws the way they've needed to be fixed all along. (.08-.11 first offense ticket, .12-.20 jail time, >.20 lots of mandatory jail time, 10 year minimum license revocation, etc. Most truly "drunk driving" wrecks involve drivers well over .12 from what I've seen, but legislators haven't been willing to go to serious penalties because they don't want to crush the skinny guy who's at .09 after a couple beers with dinner and got popped for failing to signal a turn. Figuring MJ equivalents would depend on what the marker for current impairment ends up being.)
My problem with "MJ related" wreck statistics is that unless the driver survives and says he was baked, or there's too much smoke in the car to find the driver, they don't really know if he was stoned right then, or had spent the last three weeks high as a kite, then let it all clear his system for 2-3 days before driving. I'm thoroughly unconvinced that they couldn't find a way to test current impairment if they hadn't had years of the disincentive of "yes or no sometime in the last month" being "good enough."
I am right there with you. I would think that making a low BAC a minor offense would encourage more people to go ahead and blow in the breathalyzer and not contest those offenses. When a DUI is a potential felony even for the low BAC, people are encouraged to hire lawyers from the beginning.
-
I am right there with you. I would think that making a low BAC a minor offense would encourage more people to go ahead and blow in the breathalyzer and not contest those offenses. When a DUI is a potential felony even for the low BAC, people are encouraged to hire lawyers from the beginning.
To me, it's more a matter of the guy who had one too many isn't usually the one pinballing off parked cars for miles or plowing into a crowd. I'm good with him facing a fine, maybe a night in jail to sober up and remember not to do it again, but he really shouldn't be facing even similar penalties to the one who got snot slinging drunk and drove because he couldn't walk. I want the penalties through the roof for the latter, especially repeat offenders, without destroying the former.
-
How many near misses have all you old fart had? Where a split second is all that saved you.
Those aren't misses sometimes when you are "just a lil bit buzzed"
Many a person escapes detection. For everyone caught figure 3 slide.
On the personal anecdote level I had 2 pretty good wrecks related to pot before I even got high. Both of em first thing in am. Was driving cab had not yet picked up first fare and blew through lights while looking down for "just a second" to scoop a bowl full outa bag in my lap. Was just luck and God's grace no one was seriously hurt. And the second wreck? I was poster child for stoner. "I'm cool man last time was just a fluke"
FYI coming to a stop in an intersection in front of precinct house after T boning a week old Volvo station wagon with prime bud scattered all over the front seat and dash is a buzzkill. But not nearly as bad as looking at the Volvo ripped open motor 1/2 outa engine compartment and seeing the top of a child seat showing over the edge of door facing you and thinking you killed a kid.
And no I did not stop for another 10 years. I was special like that
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
And this source is weak in one sense but has experience
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3605274/New-York-police-commissioner-says-marijuana-responsible-vast-majority-violence-city.html?ito=social-facebook
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
How many near misses have all you old fart had? Where a split second is all that saved you.
Those aren't misses sometimes when you are "just a lil bit buzzed"
They're also not misses when you're a bit sleepy, eating a burrito or putting on makeup. Nor, for that matter when you're just a few years late hanging up the keys, but we don't treat those like a .20BAC either.
-
They're also not misses when you're a bit sleepy, eating a burrito or putting on makeup. Nor, for that matter when you're just a few years late hanging up the keys, but we don't treat those like a .20BAC either.
We don't see those as a deliberate decision to lower our skills and then use those skills in a way that threatens innocents.
Maybe we should. We already ding truck drivers for not enough rest
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
We don't see those as a deliberate decision to lower our skills and then use those skills in a way that threatens innocents.
I doubt many drunks, at any BAC, are really doing it with the intent of becoming a crappy driver before they get on the road. If I were assigning a culpable mental state using Texas' definitions, I'd call it either reckless or knowing in most cases, depending on circumstances. Mostly reckless at first offense, pretty much always knowing at subsequent ones.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
Maybe we should. We already ding truck drivers for not enough rest
No maybe about it. The victims of a driver impaired by fatigue or age are just as injured or dead as those of a driver behaving the same way because he's impaired by alcohol.
-
With the recently increasing amount of active accident avoidance systems in automobiles I'd give it another 15 years before it's a moot issue - and that's mostly just to finish their spread to all models and get most of the old vehicles off the road.
-
With the recently increasing amount of active accident avoidance systems in automobiles I'd give it another 15 years before it's a moot issue - and that's mostly just to finish their spread to all models and get most of the old vehicles off the road.
You're far more optimistic than I am.
Give up the revenue and excuse for random road blocks? Not happening for a little thing like active avoidance systems.
-
You're far more optimistic than I am.
Give up the revenue and excuse for random road blocks? Not happening for a little thing like active avoidance systems.
They aren't going to have the choice when self-drivers come out, and all the drunks, druggies, soccer moms*, and such will force changes to the laws.
*Who won't have to drive their snowflakes to school anymore!
-
They aren't going to have the choice when self-drivers come out, and all the drunks, druggies, soccer moms*, and such will force changes to the laws.
*Who won't have to drive their snowflakes to school anymore!
I won't hold my breath.
-
I won't hold my breath.
...What makes you think I could hold my breath for 15 years in the first place... :rofl:
-
With the recently increasing amount of active accident avoidance systems in automobiles I'd give it another 15 years before it's a moot issue - and that's mostly just to finish their spread to all models and get most of the old vehicles off the road.
Even then, who wants the liability of coding the decisions when it has to choose between hitting a cyclist who will almost certainly die but with little threat to the occupants of its own vehicle, nailing the back end of a pickup at higher risk to its own occupants, but lower overall risk of serious injury or death, or running off the road, which could be anything from a rough stop in the ditch to flying off a cliff?
IMO, liability concerns like that will delay widespread self-driving cars for decades. Right now, collision avoidance isn't really making complex decisions, just hitting the brakes and/or aiming for an empty chunk of road. AFAICT, they count all obstacles as completely equal. Fully taking control of the car requires a lot more complexity. Then you have the ones (including legislators) who just can't handle the delay of a car that always stops fully at a stop sign even when there's not a cop in sight, refuses to cut off other traffic, etc.
-
Even then, who wants the liability of coding the decisions when it has to choose between hitting a cyclist who will almost certainly die but with little threat to the occupants of its own vehicle, nailing the back end of a pickup at higher risk to its own occupants, but lower overall risk of serious injury or death, or running off the road, which could be anything from a rough stop in the ditch to flying off a cliff?
Actually, it turns out to be a false premise. Those doing the studies and running the simulations have found that one answer is always the correct solution when a collision is imminent: Hit the brakes.
IMO, liability concerns like that will delay widespread self-driving cars for decades. Right now, collision avoidance isn't really making complex decisions, just hitting the brakes and/or aiming for an empty chunk of road.
The way it's shaping up, pathfinding is the bigger concern, not liability. Self driving cars still lack the ability to get you from point A to point B in an efficient fashion without becoming stuck or 'confused', needing human assistance to tell it which way to go.
Safety they've actually had nailed for a while. Because guess what? Collision avoidance actually isn't about complex decisions, hitting the brakes and aiming for an empty chunk of road is relatively easy, and the 100% attention paid makes them better than humans, even if you're part of the 90% of drivers that think they're in the top 50%.
As for the legislators, do you think that they'll be able to prevent themselves from mandating self-drivers for DUI convicts, like they mandate interlocks now? That the soccer moms won't put Johnny into a self driver for his first car for the safety and insurance cut?
-
I doubt many drunks, at any BAC, are really doing it with the intent of becoming a crappy driver before they get on the road. If I were assigning a culpable mental state using Texas' definitions, I'd call it either reckless or knowing in most cases, depending on circumstances. Mostly reckless at first offense, pretty much always knowing at subsequent ones.
No maybe about it. The victims of a driver impaired by fatigue or age are just as injured or dead as those of a driver behaving the same way because he's impaired by alcohol.
Mothers Against Distracted Driving is not nearly as powerful as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They also got the domain name first.
-
Actually, it turns out to be a false premise. Those doing the studies and running the simulations have found that one answer is always the correct solution when a collision is imminent: Hit the brakes.
Velocity isn't binary. If you had 75-0 instantaneous brakes/tires, the rest of the car would rip off and continue forward. It also doesn't account for "oops, this guy is about to run the red light and at my current speed, he's going to hit my quarter panel." Slow down in that situation, and the collision becomes worse.
Safety they've actually had nailed for a while. Because guess what? Collision avoidance actually isn't about complex decisions, hitting the brakes and aiming for an empty chunk of road is relatively easy, and the 100% attention paid makes them better than humans, even if you're part of the 90% of drivers that think they're in the top 50%.
Sometimes there's no empty chunk of road within the handling capability of the car (oops; autodrive needs to track that, which means either testing it from time to time with a skid or actually measuring tire wear, road surface, etc.) and straight line braking won't happen quickly enough to completely avoid a collision either. I've been lucky, but I know plenty of people who have had to make a choice between hitting a parked car or the person who just stepped out from between the cars. Straight line braking would hit the person.
Mothers Against Distracted Driving is not nearly as powerful as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They also got the domain name first.
How about we start IPADD: Intelligent People Against Dumbasses Driving?
-
Velocity isn't binary. If you had 75-0 instantaneous brakes/tires, the rest of the car would rip off and continue forward.
Never said it was.
It also doesn't account for "oops, this guy is about to run the red light and at my current speed, he's going to hit my quarter panel." Slow down in that situation, and the collision becomes worse.
That's not the robotic car hitting something though, that's something hitting the robotic car. Also, most humans fail in such a scenario as well.
Sometimes there's no empty chunk of road within the handling capability of the car (oops; autodrive needs to track that, which means either testing it from time to time with a skid or actually measuring tire wear, road surface, etc.) and straight line braking won't happen quickly enough to completely avoid a collision either. I've been lucky, but I know plenty of people who have had to make a choice between hitting a parked car or the person who just stepped out from between the cars. Straight line braking would hit the person.
And what if there's a little kid behind the car that gets crushed because you hit the car?
You're missing a small, but crucial little trick. It takes a human approximately 1/2 second to see the situation and slam on the brakes. For the computer drivers, this is in the milliseconds.
The end result is that, even with the exact same braking power and system, the computer stops much quicker.
So it eliminates the 'hit the pedestrian or the car' question by simply stopping quicker so it doesn't have to hit either.
-
Can't steer a sliding tire, that's what antilock brakes are for, they keep lesser drivers alive longer. Watched a kid total a 240Z once at an Auto-X event because he panicked and locked the brakes and skid nose first into a light pole with the wheels turned the whole way. They don't even teach brake modulation in mortal driving school do they?
-
Can't steer a sliding tire, that's what antilock brakes are for, they keep lesser drivers alive longer. Watched a kid total a 280Z once at an Auto-X event because he panicked and locked the brakes and skid nose first into a light pole with the wheels turned the whole way. They don't even teach brake modulation in mortal driving school do they?
Not so much even 23 years ago. In the aforementioned near miss, I was kind of impressed to see that my skid marks, while continuous, varied from dark on the straight parts to almost nonexistent at maximum turn, then dark again on straightening out, then light again once I was clear of the danger zone and just wanted to get stopped ASAP. I was still a bit heavy, but definitely modulating based on whether I was skidding the way I wanted to go or not.
-
Everyone should take their kids to a local SCCA Auto-X and let them safely learn REAL driving at the limit in their street cars. We used to offer schools for members and non-members for a Very reasonable entry fee. You make that first run and think you're doing well and then someone else in the same, or even YOUR car, beats your time by Miles! Very humbling and eye opening.
Auto-X fun playing around in our Turbo Pinto
http://herohog.com/images/cars/TurboPinto.mp4
This is the same course and the same day that kid totaled his 240Z!