# Pre employment drug screening



## prolyon2 (May 28, 2019)

And random screening, guess what? You're fired..... If you toke find a job that doesnt test. And good luck!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## buckweet (Aug 8, 2011)

Step in mud, you end up muddy 
Walk out in the rain, you get wet
Take test knowing you will fail, why be surprised of result ?

No job now, may as well burn another one.........ðŸ™„


----------



## prolyon2 (May 28, 2019)

buckweet said:


> Step in mud, you end up muddy
> 
> Walk out in the rain, you get wet
> 
> ...


That's right,hate firing a good hand..party on bud.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## Captain Randy (Sep 16, 2005)

After Harvey I took a job to get a plant up and running probably 100 of us at hiring day about 30 failed the drug test


----------



## Flounder Face (Jun 20, 2012)

Just say no dude, per Nancy. Works for me.


----------



## flatsfishinfreddy (Jun 28, 2011)

Is there another page to this post that I am missing?


----------



## flatsfishinfreddy (Jun 28, 2011)

From what I am reading he got fired from a job that he did not have yet. Am I correct?


----------



## Rockfish2 (Sep 1, 2017)

My guess is he is the one doing the denials/firings.


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

Tech world hasnâ€™t drug tested in the 20 yrs Iâ€™ve been around.

Granted...Iâ€™d have no problem with it (so long as they donâ€™t test the labor I put my liver through lol).

For many industries...itâ€™s a must.


----------



## ktdtx (Dec 16, 2006)

Can't recall which state (Colorado I think) just made it illegal to Not hire someone based on a drug test.


I bet they can still sue the **** out of the employer if the stoned employee screws up.


----------



## jtburf (May 26, 2004)

ktdtx said:


> Can't recall which state (Colorado I think) just made it illegal to Not hire someone based on a drug test.
> 
> I bet they can still sue the **** out of the employer if the stoned employee screws up.


Kind of correct, a lot of companies are simply not testing for THC, only Opioids and class 3 Narcotics. Pot is treated like Booze in those states. Texas is not there yet, will be likely by 2022.

John


----------



## POC Fishin' Gal (Nov 20, 2009)

Several years ago they had to delay the opening of a new Target out here because they couldn't find enough people to pass the drug test to staff the store. (they were testing at a friends restaurant, that is how I know this is true).


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

ktdtx said:


> Can't recall which state (Colorado I think) just made it illegal to Not hire someone based on a drug test.
> 
> I bet they can still sue the **** out of the employer if the stoned employee screws up.


I wonder how that works with the airline pilots, LEOâ€™s, etc.


----------



## 223AI (May 7, 2012)

It's stupid that weed is illegal. It's illegal because of misinformation, a dumb populace that doesn't think for themselves, and because people love to force their religion and perception of morality down other people's throats (but yet claim to be small government type republicans). It's stupid, a waste of resources for the LEO community, and potentially a tremendous revenue generator for the state and federal government....

That said, if you know the job tests, and you still fail, then you are probably not a smart person.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

it says a LOT about a society's priorities where you put using drugs ahead of employment. Sorry but I have NO sympathy for someone who fails a drug test at their job. Most random drugs tests aren't administered just to catch "random people". They're administered due to the fact the employee has exhibited behavior that warrants suspicion on his/her job performance. Just saying...in over 33 years of being sober, I've not failed a drug test nor gotten a DUI...funny how that works. I don't miss the paranoia either.


----------



## surf_ox (Jul 8, 2008)

ktdtx said:


> Can't recall which state (Colorado I think) just made it illegal to Not hire someone based on a drug test.
> 
> I bet they can still sue the **** out of the employer if the stoned employee screws up.


Yea I think only for. On safety sensitive positions. Dot etc

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Plumbwader (Jan 17, 2009)

photofishin said:


> it says a LOT about a society's priorities where you put using drugs ahead of employment. Sorry but I have NO sympathy for someone who fails a drug test at their job. Most random drugs tests aren't administered just to catch "random people". They're administered due to the fact the employee has exhibited behavior that warrants suspicion on his/her job performance. Just saying...in over 33 years of being sober, I've not failed a drug test nor gotten a DUI...funny how that works. I don't miss the paranoia either.


This couldn't be further from fact where I work. True random drug tests are given on about a bi-weekly basis. I had to make a decision 20 years ago to put the weed down so I could make a decent living. I don't feel sorry for people that fail drug tests but the fact that we are allowed to consume alcohol instead of smoking weed is one of the most ludicrous things in existence.


----------



## 223AI (May 7, 2012)

Plumbwader said:


> This couldn't be further from fact where I work. True random drug tests are given on about a bi-weekly basis. I had to make a decision 20 years ago to put the weed down so I could make a decent living. I don't feel sorry for people that fail drug tests but the fact that we are allowed to consume alcohol instead of smoking weed is one of the most ludicrous things in existence.


Truth.


----------



## mrsh978 (Apr 24, 2006)

Oilfield. Hands go in for test knowing they are hot ...... location this week did random and 5 failed while on frac ..... f ing nice to know there are retards not operating 100% on high pressure equipment


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Plumbwader said:


> This couldn't be further from fact where I work. True random drug tests are given on about a bi-weekly basis. I had to make a decision 20 years ago to put the weed down so I could make a decent living. I don't feel sorry for people that fail drug tests but the fact that we are allowed to consume alcohol instead of smoking weed is one of the most ludicrous things in existence.


There have been a ton of studies on the effects of alcohol but nearly none on long term effects of pot. Combine that with the fact that pot use leads to harder drugs for a lot of people, my experience tells me otherwise. Last I checked, nobody has failed a drug test by abstaining from drugs. Last I checked, you can still be fired for coming to work drunk.


----------



## Parkerboy (Jan 21, 2018)

Nevada just passed a law prohibiting testing for THC except for jobs which may be dangerous for the employee or others which leaves a lot of room for interpretation as to what constitutes dangerous. Lawyers will do well as a result until the courts settle it out.

It is interesting that today the thought is no law is settled until the courts have their say.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## jtburf (May 26, 2004)

photofishin said:


> There have been a ton of studies on the effects of alcohol but nearly none on long term effects of pot. Combine that with the fact that pot use leads to harder drugs for a lot of people, my experience tells me otherwise. Last I checked, nobody has failed a drug test by abstaining from drugs. Last I checked, you can still be fired for coming to work drunk.


You are bias do to your stance on sobriety, I am willing to bet you partied hard back in the day!!

1. Pot being illegal did not allow for long term testing. 
2. Zero scientific studies showing a correlation to smoking pot and "Harder" drugs. Please show your data. Human addiction is the cause of "Harder Drugs Usage" not Pot. Same way some folks will drink only beer and not hard liquor. 
3. Employers now generally have to offer Alcohol rehab for those coming to work drunk. If pressed by the "Drunk employee" the courts generally rule in their favor.

Like it or hate it Pot is not going away, It will continue to work its way across America one state at a time becoming legal. Yes, I smoked a TON when I was younger, if made legal tomorrow I cannot honestly say I would not smoke a bowl.

John


----------



## redduck (Jul 26, 2006)

I would hate to know airline pilot or school bus drivers (just top to name a couple) were using drugs.


----------



## 223AI (May 7, 2012)

redduck said:


> I would hate to know airline pilot or school bus drivers (just top to name a couple) were using drugs.


I wouldnâ€™t. I would if they were high while performing said jobs. I donâ€™t care if they hit the Bong the night before...but itâ€™s a different animal all together they are high on the job.


----------



## ReedA1691 (Jan 29, 2018)

Plumbwader said:


> I had to make a decision 20 years ago to put the weed down so I could make a decent living.


Similarly, I made such a decision 33 years ago. There was no testing, but I had reasons to not smoke for a few months (a woman), and when I started again, I could feel the fog that set over my brain, and not just when I was high - for 2-3 days afterward. Memory issues, apathy and paranoia. None of these things promote job performance and short term memory loss or loss of focus while operating heavy machinery can be costly, potentially costing lives and, more likely, productivity.

Fast forward 20 years and the firm where I worked, which had never tested, in an industry that has not typically tested, got a large commission for a public entity that required our company have or implement a drug testing policy. Management hemmed and hawed about how we could staff the project, when we were pretty sure there were some users we wanted to put on that project. I went to both of them and asked them if they did use, could they abstain if we put them on the project if they had 60 days to clean up. They both agreed they could, neither complained about why they were asked, and neither failed a single test in the year and change they were on the project. These were monthly, random tests and each person was tested 3 times.

If you think pot doesn't affect workers, even if they are not high "on the job," you are wrong. If you think someone can't stop at the threat of losing their job, you're wrong. If you think some won't fail, you're wrong.


----------



## prolyon2 (May 28, 2019)

ReedA1691 said:


> Similarly, I made such a decision 33 years ago. There was no testing, but I had reasons to not smoke for a few months (a woman), and when I started again, I could feel the fog that set over my brain, and not just when I was high - for 2-3 days afterward. Memory issues, apathy and paranoia. None of these things promote job performance and short term memory loss or loss of focus while operating heavy machinery can be costly, potentially costing lives and, more likely, productivity.
> 
> Fast forward 20 years and the firm where I worked, which had never tested, in an industry that has not typically tested, got a large commission for a public entity that required our company have or implement a drug testing policy. Management hemmed and hawed about how we could staff the project, when we were pretty sure there were some users we wanted to put on that project. I went to both of them and asked them if they did use, could they abstain if we put them on the project if they had 60 days to clean up. They both agreed they could, neither complained about why they were asked, and neither failed a single test in the year and change they were on the project. These were monthly, random tests and each person was tested 3 times.
> 
> If you think pot doesn't affect workers, even if they are not high "on the job," you are wrong. If you think someone can't stop at the threat of losing their job, you're wrong. If you think some won't fail, you're wrong.


If you quit smoking for a woman...you were probably wrong,,,,lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

223AI said:


> I wouldnâ€™t. I would if they were high while performing said jobs. I donâ€™t care if they hit the Bong the night before...but itâ€™s a different animal all together they are high on the job.


Flyin high is cool!


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

There are several accurate posts on this thread. It has been well over 30 years since I smoked pot, but I still think alcohol is more dangerous than pot. I quit smoking probably just due to the laws. At that time I lived next door to a cop. I didn't think he would arrest me if he smelled it, but it struck me as a slap to his face if I didn't respect the law. Then I got a job where testing was done, and I sure wasn't going to risk that job for pot. Now retired and still haven't smoked again, but I think it should be legalized. 



I can't imagine that there isn't a way to test for THC in the blood, to see if someone is under the influence at the time. Supposedly the pee test will show positive for a long time, showing past use rather than currently high. Our government has really put out a lot of propaganda about pot.


So long as it is only sold illegally, you don't know if something else may have been added to it.


----------



## impulse (Mar 17, 2010)

photofishin said:


> it says a LOT about a society's priorities where you put using drugs ahead of employment. Sorry but I have NO sympathy for someone who fails a drug test at their job. Most random drugs tests aren't administered just to catch "random people". They're administered due to the fact the employee has exhibited behavior that warrants suspicion on his/her job performance. Just saying...in over 33 years of being sober, I've not failed a drug test nor gotten a DUI...funny how that works. I don't miss the paranoia either.


One company I worked for always signaled upcoming layoffs by doing "random drug tests" on all of their people. If they tested dirty, no severance.

(I'd add that some of their favored employees tested dirty and it was swept under the rug...)

It had nothing to do with job performance. It was just a way to save money.

BTW, I took the oath in 1988. Still, I wonder how many guys fall off their barstools or get DUI's on the way home after preaching the evils of smoking weed...


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

boom! said:


> I wonder how that works with the airline pilots, LEOâ€™s, etc.


If you treat it like alcohol, my question would be ..... do those industries not allow you to drink?

I would say jobs like interstate truck drivers and Airline pilots have to meet the *federal regulation* will still have to meet federal standards. I don't know of a federal requirement on LEO.


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

redduck said:


> I would hate to know airline pilot or school bus drivers (just top to name a couple) were using drugs.


Why would this concern you more than them being drunk?

Serious Question.

Do you think they should be barred from drinking PERIOD. ?

If you say they should be aloud to drink on their personal time, and knowing what we know about the effects of each substance, how do you square that within yourself?

EDIT
*THE QUESTION BECOMES "WHAT IS DRUGS?"*

People are going to go off on everything from caffeine, to alcohol, to Benadryl, to nicotine, to blood pressure meds. We are ALL on drugs.

I don't see pot as a "drug" of any greater concern than someone who as taken aggressive allergy meds.


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

prolyon2 said:


> And random screening, guess what? You're fired..... If you toke find a job that doesnt test. And good luck!!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


MY other question is who lost more?

The employer lost money invested in training and the money needed to find a replacement, and replacements that can pass a background check and willing to work are harder to find than some may think, and an experienced worker.

If the employee you fired was performing his duties on the job, and was not high on the job, are you really happy with what you achieved? And if so, WHY?

If he WAS high *on the job*, then get out and never come back, I'll send the check to your house. but your post didn't say that.

My company is always looking for workers, and I think we pay pretty good. We cannot find someone who can pass the background check. If you add getting someone who is on time and has attendance you can count on, the pool gets pretty shallow.


----------



## prolyon2 (May 28, 2019)

Imtheman said:


> MY other question is who lost more?
> 
> The employer lost money invested in training and the money needed to find a replacement, and replacements that can pass a background check and willing to work are harder to find than some may think, and an experienced worker.
> 
> ...


Wasn't my choice,if you wanna gamble you're a fool...jmo

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## Bukmstr (Nov 12, 2004)

*DWI*

I don't smoke, but do drink occasionally. How many people are killed every week here in Harris County from Drunk Drivers VS. How many are killed for someone smoking a blunt and then driving....? I really cant see how the society can think smoking is so bad when alcohol is a true killer.


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

prolyon2 said:


> Wasn't my choice,if you wanna gamble you're a fool...jmo
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


.

Iâ€™m not saying you are or your not, Iâ€™m just saying nobody wins.

I honestly donâ€™t care about pot one way or the other, I just want parity.

AND not that it has much of a bearing here, but I also believe if neither pot or cannabis ever existed and both substances were discovered at the exact same time, AND we automatically know the side effects of each. We know the violence / domestic and otherwise associated with each / we know the effects on the body each has / we know the addiction withdrawal/ we know the potential deaths from over consumption of each / etc.
I believe any honest person would say cannabis would be legal and pot would not.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Who ever could figure out if a person is currently under the influence would be a billionaire. I think that's all anybody really cares about.


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

poppadawg said:


> Who ever could figure out if a person is currently under the influence would be a billionaire. I think that's all anybody really cares about.


If that was truly the case, employers would be giving saliva test that test if you had used cannabis in the last 24-72 hours, not he pee test to see if you used cannabis in the past month.


----------



## Jigger (Feb 12, 2009)

The Friday before last Christmas I was handed a random. i didnt say anything to anyone but i had taken a hit from a bowl a week before. 

Ended up coming back negative and I moved on.

BUTT...I do it sometimes because I have Crohns and it helps me with handling it. If it came back positive, I had a plan to discuss with business owner and HR as to why there was failure. If they chose protocol and termination I would have been fine with that. If they would have made an exception then further proceedings would have been made.

Does this make me stupid?? Yes or No is your opinion. but i know why i do it.

How bout this, having Crohns and missing work due to doctor visits and hospital stays leading to termination? Happened before...

Or smoking/injesting THC products to help me with having a higher quality of life and being a more productive employee?


----------



## Parkerboy (Jan 21, 2018)

Some of the comments are quite entertaining.

First, the casual weekend smoker is not going to have THC in their system for 30 days. At one time quite a while ago I was the company representative to whom drug tests results were reported and I learned quite a bit from the experts both medical and scientific. 

Second, for those who make reference to having imbibed 25-30 years ago your experience has not comparison to the pot of today. Today's pot is reportedly more potent to the very best we had in the 70s by factor of at least 5-10.

As more states legalize it for medical and recreational use there will be more pressure to abandon testing for it all together. I see the laws regarding pot being more like Canada where pre employment testing is forbidden as is random testing.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Flounder Face (Jun 20, 2012)

What is drugs? Drugs are what causes one to type "WHAT IS DRUGS?" as opposed to a phrase similar to "What are drugs" for instance?


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Flounder Face said:


> What is drugs? Drugs are what causes one to type "WHAT IS DRUGS?" as opposed to a phrase similar to "What are drugs" for instance?


The difference is strictly ethnicity...On the East End of Pearland we say "What are drugs"...On the West End of Pearlend they say "What is drugs"


----------



## loco4fishn (May 17, 2010)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> The difference is strictly ethnicity...On the East End of Pearland we say "What are drugs"...On the West End of Pearlend they say "What is drugs"


No no no. You got it wrong. Itâ€™s â€œWhut Be Drugzâ€. Lol


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

Flounder Face said:


> What is drugs? Drugs are what causes one to type "WHAT IS DRUGS?" as opposed to a phrase similar to "What are drugs" for instance?


Is drugs in the context I was referring to singular or plural? I took it as singular.

â€œThat school bus driver snorts marijuanas. He does drugsâ€. Since it really refers to a singular substance, I think â€œisâ€ would be correct.

So add singular or plural to the question â€œ what is drugs?â€.


----------



## 4 Ever-Fish N (Jun 10, 2006)

Not that I ever smoked pot but "a friend" felt the same way after smoking. This was many years ago. My "friend" had a difficult time studying for a few days after smoking pot. Also, that **** can kill brain cells, make your eyes crossed, cause you to go blind and make your children retarded. DON'T DO IT.



ReedA1691 said:


> Similarly, I made such a decision 33 years ago. There was no testing, but I had reasons to not smoke for a few months (a woman), and when I started again, I could feel the fog that set over my brain, and not just when I was high - for 2-3 days afterward. Memory issues, apathy and paranoia. None of these things promote job performance and short term memory loss or loss of focus while operating heavy machinery can be costly, potentially costing lives and, more likely, productivity.
> 
> Fast forward 20 years and the firm where I worked, which had never tested, in an industry that has not typically tested, got a large commission for a public entity that required our company have or implement a drug testing policy. Management hemmed and hawed about how we could staff the project, when we were pretty sure there were some users we wanted to put on that project. I went to both of them and asked them if they did use, could they abstain if we put them on the project if they had 60 days to clean up. They both agreed they could, neither complained about why they were asked, and neither failed a single test in the year and change they were on the project. These were monthly, random tests and each person was tested 3 times.
> 
> If you think pot doesn't affect workers, even if they are not high "on the job," you are wrong. If you think someone can't stop at the threat of losing their job, you're wrong. If you think some won't fail, you're wrong.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

loco4fishn said:


> No no no. You got it wrong. Itâ€™s â€œWhut Be Drugzâ€. Lol


I stand corrected...Forgot about the Big Easy 'refugees / escapees / fugitives / exiles / displaced people / asylum seekers'


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> Yes, I smoked a TON when I was younger


We can tell John. 

TH


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

Parkerboy said:


> Some of the comments are quite entertaining.
> 
> *First, the casual weekend smoker is not going to have THC in their system for 30 days. At one time quite a while ago I was the company representative to whom drug tests results were reported and I learned quite a bit from the experts both medical and scientific. *
> 
> ...


OK, so you're saying a hair test doesn't show pot from 30 days ago-I call bullchip on that. THC is fat soluable-stays for a long time and the test depends on what amount they consider 'use' which can vary.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

jtburf said:


> Yes, I smoked a TON when I was younger
> John


2200#...Now that is a bunch of cheeba!


----------



## jtburf (May 26, 2004)

Trouthunter said:


> We can tell John.
> 
> TH


Glad you approve...lol

John


----------



## Parkerboy (Jan 21, 2018)

Jamaica Cove said:


> OK, so you're saying a hair test doesn't show pot from 30 days ago-I call bullchip on that. THC is fat soluable-stays for a long time and the test depends on what amount they consider 'use' which can vary.


I do not believe I mention hair follicle test did I. Most employers still use the "pee test" although more are testing hair follicle.

Yes, there is a threshold set by the potential employer but most companies DO NOT test to "catch people" but to meet minimum requirements of customers or governmental agencies at least that is my understanding from being responsible for the testing of 25,000 employees plus applicants. I know those who fail test many times believe someone was out to get them but that is very rare. Most employers test at the most lax thresholds which allows them to satisfy customers and defend themselves from liability in the event of injury to employees.

You can agree or disagree it matters not to me but I have been involved with drug test for 30 + years in one form or another. Individual results are no longer reported to me but to my employees and they report to me.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## jtburf (May 26, 2004)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> 2200#...Now that is a bunch of cheeba!


Quality control purposes only.

John


----------



## TranTheMan (Aug 17, 2009)

I am a code slinger and the heaviest piece of equipment that I have even touched is a keyboard, but for my last project the client required a drug test ... ok, just needed to drink more water in the morning before going to the designated center to pee. No big deal. 
To my surprise that place was packed full and some folks surely had anxiety on their faces. While waiting there, if my eavesdropping was correct, some people there were subjected to a hair test (?). That test center sure racked it in with business.


----------



## c hook (Jul 6, 2016)

*very simple*

we live in a screwed up society. there is no argument alcohol is a far far worst drug then pot. not only is it worst in terms of getting high, and not being able to function or drive, but also kills the liver/you. and i don't know of any medical alcohols either. with that being said, weed is the gateway to harder drugs for the vulnerable weak minded. making it legal will encourage weak minded young skulls full of mush to use it, and then possibly on to harder drugs. it will inevitably be legal soon, not good. i know a guy who buys urine for his drug test, you can do that now. and the ridiculous vape pins. that's like using opium or any drug, you don't know if you are smoking monkey **** with a little glue mixed in, to get u light headed or what. the pin will for sure tell you ,that you have a mental issue, and not necessarily a drug issue.:rotfl: :texasflag


----------



## WoundedMinnow (Oct 11, 2011)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> 2200#...Now that is a bunch of cheeba!


2000# in a ton... puff puff pass...don't mess up the rotation

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## loco4fishn (May 17, 2010)

WoundedMinnow said:


> 2000# in a ton... puff puff pass...don't mess up the rotation
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


Yup! Left by Law, or Right by Religion. Depending on where you are standing in the rotation.


----------



## Parkerboy (Jan 21, 2018)

WoundedMinnow said:


> 2000# in a ton... puff puff pass...don't mess up the rotation
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


Unless you're talking metric or imperial tons. If I had a ton of weed I would prefer metric or imperial weight vs U.S.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tail Chaser (May 24, 2004)

c hook said:


> we live in a screwed up society. there is no argument alcohol is a far far worst drug then pot. not only is it worst in terms of getting high, and not being able to function or drive, but also kills the liver/you. and i don't know of any medical alcohols either. with that being said, weed is the gateway to harder drugs for the vulnerable weak minded. making it legal will encourage weak minded young skulls full of mush to use it, and then possibly on to harder drugs. it will inevitably be legal soon, not good. i know a guy who buys urine for his drug test, you can do that now. and the ridiculous vape pins. that's like using opium or any drug, you don't know if you are smoking monkey **** with a little glue mixed in, to get u light headed or what. the pin will for sure tell you ,that you have a mental issue, and not necessarily a drug issue.:rotfl: :texasflag


with that being said, weed is the gateway to harder drugs for the vulnerable weak minded

The same can be said for alcohol, or even tobacco. This argument has no merit.


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

c hook said:


> we live in a screwed up society. there is no argument alcohol is a far far worst drug then pot. not only is it worst in terms of getting high, and not being able to function or drive, but also kills the liver/you. and i don't know of any medical alcohols either. with that being said, weed is the gateway to harder drugs for the vulnerable weak minded. making it legal will encourage weak minded young skulls full of mush to use it, and then possibly on to harder drugs. it will inevitably be legal soon, not good. i know a guy who buys urine for his drug test, you can do that now. and the ridiculous vape pins. that's like using opium or any drug, you don't know if you are smoking monkey **** with a little glue mixed in, to get u light headed or what. the pin will for sure tell you ,that you have a mental issue, and not necessarily a drug issue.:rotfl: :texasflag


How is weed a gateway drug and alcohol is not????? I can guarantee almost every one who became an addict to a mind altering substance was first exposed to alcohol.

The ONLY case that can be made for the gateway argument is this: :I was lied to about how bad cannabis is, (i.e. Reefer Madness). What other things did they lie to me about?

And since you mention vape pens, the THC vape pen cartridges are a FELONY in this state, while plant in class B misdemeanor, explain that to me :headshake:


----------



## Plumbwader (Jan 17, 2009)

photofishin said:


> There have been a ton of studies on the effects of alcohol but nearly none on long term effects of pot. Combine that with the fact that pot use leads to harder drugs for a lot of people, my experience tells me otherwise. Last I checked, nobody has failed a drug test by abstaining from drugs. Last I checked, you can still be fired for coming to work drunk.


If you want to single out gateway drugs then I would argue that the first gateway drug any of us ingests is booze. I know people that have smoked pot for years with no adverse physical effects. I will agree, however, that smoking weed makes you very apathetic and more likely to accept mediocrity in general. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, because I know some very driven, successful pot heads, but overall habitual marijuana use gives you an almost unshakable case of the "I don't give a damns".


----------



## THA (Jan 5, 2016)

I am going to change this discussion to my thoughts. I don't care if weed is a gateway drug (to be proven) or is alcohol. Use it or not, your choice. Where my thoughts are and towards any if my employees is that simply it is an illegal substance and alcohol is legal but how it is used is illegal (driving). 

Now, if I hire an employee I sincerely believe he should be a law abiding person. If he uses weed or any other drug without prescription, it is breaking a law. Argue all you want about the other things being discussed. If an employed works for me, I want him/her to be law abiding. Slip up and get a traffic ticket for 10 over speeding, I can accept that but get one in a company vehicle or for doing 30 over, I will reconsider his/her employment. Where to draw the line in forgiveness is the question, but I still want a person that obeys laws. If a person does not believe in a specific law, work to legally change it but, obey the laws.


----------



## Ryan H. (May 10, 2011)

commercial clean out kits with tons of water do help, I used to supervise drug court, many times they would do a clean out

Works for urine well, saliva decent, but won't work on hair follicle or toenail


----------



## Wolfie#2 (May 8, 2017)

Just saw this. Lotsa replies on a 2 day old post. Didn't read 'em all so I'll just add my $.02. I've been doing the random thing for 32 yrs. As said, If ya wanna play, ya gotta pay. I haven't toked since I got busted the first time. But retiring in 1+ yrs I'll be looking for a dealer!


----------



## prolyon2 (May 28, 2019)

Wolfie#2 said:


> Just saw this. Lotsa replies on a 2 day old post. Didn't read 'em all so I'll just add my $.02. I've been doing the random thing for 32 yrs. As said, If ya wanna play, ya gotta pay. I haven't toked since I got busted the first time. But retiring in 1+ yrs I'll be looking for a dealer!


Winning ....take a toke for all us working folk!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## Low Tech Redneck (Aug 5, 2014)

I've never smoked weed because I know that I have a habitual type personality, quitting cigarettes was tough. I had a neighbor who was a private pilot and he smoked weed occasionally and he told me that if he flew a week after smoking it really messed him up.I have no way of knowing if this is common or not but everyone reacts differently to just about everything.

There have to be some standards settled on by law enforcement but our political system is so screwed up right now that I don't see it coming any time soon.


----------



## Mattsfishin (Aug 23, 2009)

Wolfie I am in the same boat. Retired again and don't care if they want to test. Just picked up 120 hydrocodone. Doc wrote me a good one. Gonna get stoned in the morning and drunk in the afternoon EXCEPT when I am fishing and that is sober all the way.


----------



## BBCAT (Feb 2, 2010)

Mattsfishin said:


> Wolfie I am in the same boat. Retired again and don't care if they want to test. Just picked up 120 hydrocodone. Doc wrote me a good one. Gonna get stoned in the morning and drunk in the afternoon EXCEPT when I am fishing and that is sober all the way.


Hope I never meet you on the road with the lunch time munchies.


----------



## CaptDocHoliday (Feb 3, 2011)

Had to google it to be sure, but is this what The Marijuana looks like?


----------



## Mattsfishin (Aug 23, 2009)

By the way I don't drive anywhere while I take meds or recreational drugs. I will stay home and order out. Same way as when I go fishing. SOBER AND PFD ON.


----------



## loco4fishn (May 17, 2010)

CaptDocHoliday said:


> Had to google it to be sure, but is this what The Marijuana looks like?


Iâ€™ve been looking at that pic for 10 minutes and I donâ€™t see any marijuana in that pic. Guess Iâ€™ll keep looking.


----------



## Explorer123 (Oct 13, 2016)

Don't do drugs. Don't worry about testing.


----------



## sabinewhaler88 (Jan 5, 2013)

Itâ€™s insane that I can go home and drink a 12 pack of beer but canâ€™t go home and roll me one up because of a random drug test. I canâ€™t wait until itâ€™s legal. I would probably quit drinking all together.


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

Explorer123 said:


> Don't do drugs. Don't worry about testing.


If you posted this while you were drinking coffee, there is something that reeks of hypocrisy.

Just sayin, is all Iâ€™m sayin.


----------



## DSL_PWR (Jul 22, 2009)

drugs are bad, m'kay...


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

Well the states that have legalized it have created a tourist destination. I don't understand how someone could visit Colorado and partake of the herb which is perfectly legal and then go back to their home state and get fired for a dirty ua. Seem non productive.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

sabinewhaler88 said:


> Itâ€™s insane that I can go home and drink a 12 pack of beer but canâ€™t go home and roll me one up because of a random drug test. I canâ€™t wait until itâ€™s legal......


I understand that. I bet factual scientific and medical data agrees with you too.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Duckchasr said:


> Well the states that have legalized it have created a tourist destination. I don't understand how someone could visit Colorado and partake of the herb which is *perfectly legal *and then go back to their home state and get fired for a dirty ua. Seem non productive.


It's far from "perfectly legal" yet in any state. That pesky federal government always has the ability to get involved in things even though it has no business doing so.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

Yes until the feds declare it legal then it's technically still illegal everywhere, and until they figure out a roadside test to see if you are driving under the influence it ainâ€™t gonna happen is my guess. Also company policy doesnâ€™t have to be aligned with the law, so if you work in the petrochemical industry donâ€™t worry about the law because the drug testing will never go away. Interestingly doctors and nurses who have access to nearly everything are not tested the last I heard, so next time youâ€™re on the table counting backwards from 20...


----------



## BBCAT (Feb 2, 2010)

It hasn't been a problem here. Pre employment requirement and Very random testing. 
I enjoy and value my job so I'm careful with my alcohol consumption.


----------



## prolyon2 (May 28, 2019)

Category5 said:


> Yes until the feds declare it legal then it's technically still illegal everywhere, and until they figure out a roadside test to see if you are driving under the influence it ainâ€™t gonna happen is my guess. Also company policy doesnâ€™t have to be aligned with the law, so if you work in the petrochemical industry donâ€™t worry about the law because the drug testing will never go away. Interestingly doctors and nurses who have access to nearly everything are not tested the last I heard, so next time youâ€™re on the table counting backwards from 20...


Interestingly doctors and nurses who have access to nearly everything are not tested the last I heard

This is true and very strange...i know a few of both and no testing they said..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## Low Tech Redneck (Aug 5, 2014)

According to my youngest son ,who lives in Colo., and his inlaws grow and sell hemp, one of the biggest opponents to legal weed is big pharma. Now you want to talk big$$$ and buying the sleazy politicians.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

Yeah big pharma and liquor, they definitely donâ€™t want anyone to get ****ed up or relieve pain if they arenâ€™t making money on it.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

I always chuckle when I read people calling marijuana a gateway drug. How many of yâ€™all smoked the devils lettuce before drinking alcohol? You were probably also underage so save the legality argument. The major difference between alcohol and marijuana is marijuana has proven medical uses , alcohol does not. We live in a hypocritical society based on outdated information and laws. I swear some of yâ€™all are quoting Nancy Reagan ffs.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

I will add ,since the original post was about pre employment drug screening. If you are going through the hire on process and fail a drug test you know you have to take , ya dumb.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

True story, but the alcohol test gets a lot of people. If you drink heavy the night before and you take the blow test early AM you will still blow a 0.02 or so.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Kenner21 said:


> I always chuckle when I read people calling marijuana a gateway drug.......


 The main way IMO that pot is a gateway drug is due to the fact that it is illegal. Going to an illegal drug dealer to buy pot causes some some to try something stronger. Legalization would change that.

There is not really any logic to the laws against pot, which means that huge money is keeping it against the law ... very likely big pharma and the alcohol industry.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

Whitebassfisher said:


> The main way IMO that pot is a gateway drug is due to the fact that it is illegal. Going to an illegal drug dealer to buy pot causes some some to try something stronger. Legalization would change that.
> 
> There is not really any logic to the laws against pot, which means that huge money is keeping it against the law ... very likely big pharma and the alcohol industry.


Agree on all points, well said.


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

I read far into this thread, just to see if anybody used the old line from The Furry Freak Brothers;
â€œdope will get you through times of no money, better than money will get you through times of no dopeâ€.

I think this was back in the day when â€œdopeâ€ would get hard to find at times.
I donâ€™t think that applies now.
I also didnâ€™t see a post about folks switching to snorting coke instead of smoking weed.
If they have any heads up or knowledge of time line for testing then they can indulge and have it clear out before the test.
I didnâ€™t read after page sumever so sorry if itâ€™s repetitious.
Drugs have and continue to be a real challenge for all social systems. 
The work place, schools, highways, anyplace interactions between folks take place .
And are best dealt with on an individual basis, if a student, worker, friend or loved one shows signs of addiction or abuse, then help them and everyone involved by addressing the problem.
Itâ€™s really different for each person or situation.

The best defense against addictions that are sold everywhere is a strong belief in ones self and a self concept that values goals and endeavors which exclude being addicted. 
Thinking highly of yourself as you were taught to, precludes throwing your life away on drugs. 
People who were not taught to think highly of their selves are most at risk for general addiction, the highly addictive nature of modern actual drugs creates another population who were addicted after the first try.
Being raised by parents and supported by an educational system who show their belief in the young personâ€™s worth is a powerful prophylactic against addiction. This is where it starts.

The war on drugs was lost and the options for dealing with the impact that drugs have on our society should be viewed from a clear lens that leaves behind the archaic limitations of moral outrage.
Start with legalizing marijuana because itâ€™s not a drug.
Then young people have a reason to believe that actual drugs are dangerous when you tell them that.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

jtburf said:


> You are bias do to your stance on sobriety, I am willing to bet you partied hard back in the day!!
> 
> 1. Pot being illegal did not allow for long term testing.
> 2. Zero scientific studies showing a correlation to smoking pot and "Harder" drugs. Please show your data. Human addiction is the cause of "Harder Drugs Usage" not Pot. Same way some folks will drink only beer and not hard liquor.
> ...


As I said, it can be a gateway drug...it's not difficult to do a simple search online for that information. Don't dismiss my experience because you want to grandstand. Yes, pot will be legalized...but it already has shown numerous negative effects on society where it has been legalized.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887?utm_content=bufferf1aae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=pinterest.com&utm_campaign=buffer

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Kenner21 said:


> I always chuckle when I read people calling marijuana a gateway drug. How many of yâ€™all smoked the devils lettuce before drinking alcohol? You were probably also underage so save the legality argument. The major difference between alcohol and marijuana is marijuana has proven medical uses , alcohol does not. We live in a hypocritical society based on outdated information and laws. I swear some of yâ€™all are quoting Nancy Reagan ffs.


for a person who doesn't have an addictive personality, this may be true...but for the 10-15% of the population which has a proclivity towards addiction, pot can be a gateway towards harder drugs. Do a simple search.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

shadslinger said:


> .....
> Start with legalizing marijuana because itâ€™s not a drug.
> *Then young people have a reason to believe that actual drugs are dangerous when you tell them that.*


I disagree very slightly with the above, but the reasoning is absolutely right. I think marijuana is a drug, but not a dangerous or addictive drug. The bolded part is Yuge! Kids find out that marijuana isn't bad, they see friends that use it stay successful and happy. So, it is natural for a kid to reason that if our government lies to us about pot, that other drugs must be safe too. I saw it happen, and I bet everyone out there who is honest will admit the same.

Seriously, can you blame the kid for this reasoning?


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

photofishin said:


> for a person who doesn't have an addictive personality, this may be true...but for the 10-15% of the population which has a proclivity towards addiction, pot can be a gateway towards harder drugs. Do a simple search.


There is not a way to help the ?? % of the population which has a proclivity towards addiction. Sounds cold but is true.

The alcoholic drinking a quart of vodka a day very likely started with a beer. Do a simple search.

Some important decisions are a responsibility of the individual, not the government. IF government has laws against marijuana, then it should definitely have the same laws over alcohol. The current laws are so obviously contradictory.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Whitebassfisher said:


> There is not a way to help the ?? % of the population which has a proclivity towards addiction. Sounds cold but is true.
> 
> The alcoholic drinking a quart of vodka a day very likely started with a beer. Do a simple search.
> 
> Some important decisions are a responsibility of the individual, not the government. IF government has laws against marijuana, then it should definitely have the same laws over alcohol. The current laws are so obviously contradictory.


12 step programs are one of the ways to help people suffering from alcoholism/addiction. Thankfully there is treatment available today as well.
agreed...however I've yet to meet one single person who has screwed his/her life up due to staying sober and not drinking or getting high. As far as employment, here's a good read which describes what can happen if you drink at work- https://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/firing/firing-employee-alcoholism.htm


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

photofishin said:


> 12 step programs are one of the ways to help people suffering from alcoholism/addiction. Thankfully there is treatment available today as well.
> agreed...however I've yet to meet one single person who has screwed his/her life up due to staying sober and not drinking or getting high. ..


The above is factual, no denying that. You and I are arguing apples and oranges.

But I think you are saying that since a few people have a likelihood of addiction, that the freedom of choice for all should be removed. I agree with you that alcohol destroys at times. That in itself doesn't mean pot should be illegal while alcohol is legal.

By the way, no insult intended but, but I didn't click your link.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Whitebassfisher said:


> The above is factual, no denying that. You and I are arguing apples and oranges.
> 
> But I think you are saying that since a few people have a likelihood of addiction, that the freedom of choice for all should be removed. I agree with you that alcohol destroys at times. That in itself doesn't mean pot should be illegal while alcohol is legal.
> 
> By the way, no insult intended but, but I didn't click your link.


I wasn't intending that freedom of choice should be removed, however I DO see that we as a society jump into legalizing things before there's been enough research to see the positive/negative effects. 
As far as the link, it simply stated that you can't be fired for being an alcoholic...however you CAN be fired for your behavior. There's some good information in there for anyone who might be concerned enough to read.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

photofishin said:


> I wasn't intending that freedom of choice should be removed, however I DO see that we as a society jump into legalizing things before there's been enough research to see the positive/negative effects.
> As far as the link, it simply stated that you can't be fired for being an alcoholic...however you CAN be fired for your behavior. There's some good information in there for anyone who might be concerned enough to read.


Neither pot or alcohol is new, much research has been done. We would not be jumping into anything.

I have nothing against AA or 12 step programs, they have helped many people.

However, the contradictory laws now in place are doing more harm than good.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree.


----------



## Parkerboy (Jan 21, 2018)

Category5 said:


> Yes until the feds declare it legal then it's technically still illegal everywhere, and until they figure out a roadside test to see if you are driving under the influence it ainâ€™t gonna happen is my guess. Also company policy doesnâ€™t have to be aligned with the law, so if you work in the petrochemical industry donâ€™t worry about the law because the drug testing will never go away. Interestingly doctors and nurses who have access to nearly everything are not tested the last I heard, so next time youâ€™re on the table counting backwards from 20...


Not so quick. We work in Canada and their laws mostly prohibit both pre employment and random testing even in the Petro chemical industry. Canadian citizens we send to the U.S. are told about drug testing and can opt out of the assignment. Even if they bust a test at a U.S. facility they can return to Canada and work without repercussions.

Don't be surprised if U.S. laws don't follow suit in a few years. Nevada just passed very restrictive drug testing laws

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

photofishin said:


> I wasn't intending that freedom of choice should be removed, however I DO see that we as a society jump into legalizing things before there's been enough research to see the positive/negative effects.
> As far as the link, it simply stated that you can't be fired for being an alcoholic...however you CAN be fired for your behavior. There's some good information in there for anyone who might be concerned enough to read.


You realize EVERYTHING is LEGAL until there is a law against it, right? So I am confused when you say "I DO see that we as a society jump into legalizing things before there's been enough research to see the positive/negative effects."

Shouldn't the research come on the making a law to criminalize something, side?

I am also a big believer in that a free society requires us to have faith in personal responsibility, and there are inherent risk and pitfalls we will have to suffer through as a result or price of our freedom. I am ok, with that.

The problem with the good information you say to seek out is, it is all paid for by someone. And the person who paid for the information usually has a vested interest on one side or the other.

The other thing is, on the cannabis argument, it is on the DEA schedule 1 list, so there is a ton of anecdotal research, but not a ton of good science based research. Federally legalize or not, as a society, we need to move it off that list.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

The Feds are loosing the states rights issues......https://www.mpp.org/news/press/us-h...rijuana-for-all-purposes-including-adult-use/


----------



## pipeliner345 (Mar 15, 2010)

Plumbwader said:


> This couldn't be further from fact where I work. True random drug tests are given on about a bi-weekly basis. I had to make a decision 20 years ago to put the weed down so I could make a decent living. I don't feel sorry for people that fail drug tests but the fact that we are allowed to consume alcohol instead of smoking weed is one of the most ludicrous things in existence.


Amen! Ditto.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Sharpest (Mar 31, 2014)

Kenner21 said:


> I will add ,since the original post was about pre employment drug screening. If you are going through the hire on process and fail a drug test you know you have to take , ya dumb.


This. I used to administer **** tests to new hire OTR truck drivers. Probably did 10 a week or so. Every two or three weeks someone would fail the urine test. If it was for a temperature or color problem they had the option of doing a hair test which are pretty much impossible to defeat. Had a guy one time that failed the pee test and didn't have a spec of hair on his entire body :rotfl: He claimed it was alopecia but when we offered to send him to a clinic for a blood test he declined and left. Best laid plans...

Half the time it was for weed, which due to how long it stays in your system I might could understand their logic in taking a chance on the test. The other half were uppers like PCP, coke or meth which burn through your system in 3-4 days basically indicating they were shooting up in the parking lot. Those ****** me off for wasting everyone's time.

Oh and the random tests weren't random at all. Each dispatcher picked their three or four lowest performing or bad attitude drivers every week or two to test. Users almost always start acting cagey or getting really angry about trivial stuff. You learn to identify the signs.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Where I worked, random wasn't totally random, that is for sure. Any accident of course automatically triggers a 'for cause' tests. On the random, if nothing else, your schedule at least influenced the draw, because they were always your first day back after a long change.


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

No idea how they did our random. In my 32 years, I was tested a grand total of 3 or 4 times....


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

I did a consulting stint at a nuclear plant. The first day they tell you that you'll be having a drug and alcohol test on Wednesday at 9:00 am. That's THIS Wednesday... at 9:00 am.

It was shocking how many people failed, with prior knowledge. (They had to give them the heads up, or they had a hard time getting enough people to work.) What really freaked me out was how many people failed an alcohol test at 9:00 am on a Wednesday morning. Alcohol doesn't stay in your system that long.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

pocjetty said:


> I did a consulting stint at a nuclear plant. The first day they tell you that you'll be having a drug and alcohol test on Wednesday at 9:00 am. That's THIS Wednesday... at 9:00 am.
> 
> It was shocking how many people failed, with prior knowledge. (They had to give them the heads up, or they had a hard time getting enough people to work.) What really freaked me out was how many people failed an alcohol test at 9:00 am on a Wednesday morning. Alcohol doesn't stay in your system that long.


Yes it does, if youâ€™re a daily drinker your body canâ€™t process it quickly. You will still fail 12 hours after your last drink.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Category5 said:


> Yes it does, if youâ€™re a daily drinker your body canâ€™t process it quickly. You will still fail 12 hours after your last drink.


LOL. That's my point. It's not many days, or weeks like other things. Knowing the test was the next morning, they couldn't stop at noon the day before - and lost very good jobs that they had already been screened for.

That part is sad. I was always a lot more concerned about the ones who passed only because they knew the test was coming, and are working at a nuclear plant.


----------



## prolyon2 (May 28, 2019)

BretE said:


> No idea how they did our random. In my 32 years, I was tested a grand total of 3 or 4 times....


I bet that has changed...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## Walleyewilly (Jan 31, 2017)

*...*



Parkerboy said:


> Not so quick. We work in Canada and their laws mostly prohibit both pre employment and random testing even in the Petro chemical industry. Canadian citizens we send to the U.S. are told about drug testing and can opt out of the assignment. Even if they bust a test at a U.S. facility they can return to Canada and work without repercussions.
> 
> Don't be surprised if U.S. laws don't follow suit in a few years. Nevada just passed very restrictive drug testing laws
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


They do drug testing in Canada. Definitely have more hoops to jump through though....Canada is a strange place....and I work for a Canadian company...

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/drug-and-alcohol-testing-–-frequently-asked-questions


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

They need to drug test our chief elected officials pre and random post. Larry Green, a past COH Councilmember would have failed miserably. It's what killed him.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Imtheman said:


> You realize EVERYTHING is LEGAL until there is a law against it, right? So I am confused when you say "I DO see that we as a society jump into legalizing things before there's been enough research to see the positive/negative effects."
> 
> Shouldn't the research come on the making a law to criminalize something, side?
> 
> ...


Take a look at Colorado- https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/pu...eport-impacts-marijuana-legalization-colorado


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

I have posted too many times on this thread already, but .....
The subject of testing and whether it is too intrusive is interesting to me. 



As example, while I believe it is very fair for a cop to pull over an impaired driver and take him to jail for DUI, I don't think total roadblocks and checking everyone is right. There should be a reason for the initial stop.


However, at work I never felt that drug testing us was unfair. Although I always felt that getting fired for smoking a joint on an off day but not for drinking alcohol was silly, the Feds made that law, not my company. 



Is this contradictory on my part? How do others feel?


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Whitebassfisher said:


> I have posted too many times on this thread already, but .....
> The subject of testing and whether it is too intrusive is interesting to me.
> 
> As example, while I believe it is very fair for a cop to pull over an impaired driver and take him to jail for DUI, I don't think total roadblocks and checking everyone is right. There should be a reason for the initial stop.
> ...


I agree as well. I believe in following the law. CURRENTLY, pot is illegal at the Federal level whether we like it or not. If someone chooses to smoke pot at home and gets caught by a random drug screen at work, then frankly, I think they're pretty stupid to put their employment/family at risk for a few hours of enjoyment. Drink a few beers on your day off. Write your Senators and get pot legalized at the Federal level. Enjoy the day at the beach just drinking iced tea. Breaking the law and then pointing fingers elsewhere or wishing things were different is just an exercise in idiocy in my opinion.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

*Yes I agree we should be more involved. Just be aware that Dan Patrick voted against what a majority of his constituents supported. 
*

*Penalty Reduction for Possession (HB 63)* â€" HB 63 passed with a bipartisan super majority in the House, but was single-handedly stalled by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick when he refused to refer it to the Criminal Justice Committee in the Senate for a hearing. Despite hearing from thousands of Texans who wanted this legislation to advance, the Lt Governor took this action which is out of step with the platform of the Lt Governorâ€™s own party. This failure to act will mean another 120K+ Texans will be arrested for marijuana possession between now and the next legislative session in 2021.


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

Duckchasr said:


> *Yes I agree we should be more involved. Just be aware that Dan Patrick voted against what a majority of his constituents supported.
> *
> 
> *Penalty Reduction for Possession (HB 63)* â€" HB 63 passed with a bipartisan super majority in the House, but was single-handedly stalled by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick when he refused to refer it to the Criminal Justice Committee in the Senate for a hearing. Despite hearing from thousands of Texans who wanted this legislation to advance, the Lt Governor took this action which is out of step with the platform of the Lt Governorâ€™s own party. This failure to act will mean another 120K+ Texans will be arrested for marijuana possession between now and the next legislative session in 2021.


Donâ€™t be fooled. Dan Patrick is the king of the Nanny State Republicans who wants to legislate his morality to you, because you are clearly too stupid to make decisions for yourself.

And he holds the most powerful office in Texas state politics.

Itâ€™s verry sad.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Duckchasr said:


> Yes I agree we should be more involved. *Just be aware that Dan Patrick voted against what a majority of his constituents supported.
> *





Imtheman said:


> Donâ€™t be fooled. *Dan Patrick is the king of the Nanny State Republicans who wants to legislate his morality to you*, because you are clearly too stupid to make decisions for yourself.
> 
> *And he holds the most powerful office in Texas state politics.*
> 
> Itâ€™s verry sad.


The above is very disappointing. The only way that it makes any sense to me is that he is just following the Federal law. I believe it is a state's right, not Federal, but to do things in proper order is important too. Our congress needs to straighten this old and stupid mess up.

I still think SS brought up a huge point with the fact that the current law makes zero sense, and that kids know pot isn't that bad, so kids assume that all drug laws are silly since the pot law is silly. This is extremely dangerous for the kids, but I can't fault their logic.

According to our Federal law, marijuana is as dangerous as heroin, and more dangerous than fentanyl and many other pain relievers and methamphetamine.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Imtheman said:


> Donâ€™t be fooled. Dan Patrick is the king of the Nanny State Republicans who wants to legislate his morality to you, because you are clearly too stupid to make decisions for yourself.
> 
> And he holds the most powerful office in Texas state politics.
> 
> Itâ€™s verry sad.


Agree. A scumbag among scumbags.


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

Whitebassfisher said:


> The above is very disappointing. The only way that it makes any sense to me is that he is just following the Federal law. I believe it is a state's right, not Federal, but to do things in proper order is important too. Our congress needs to straighten this old and stupid mess up.
> 
> I still think SS brought up a huge point with the fact that the current law makes zero sense, and that kids know pot isn't that bad, so kids assume that all drug laws are silly since the pot law is silly. This is extremely dangerous for the kids, but I can't fault their logic.
> 
> According to our Federal law, marijuana is as dangerous as heroin, and more dangerous than fentanyl and many other pain relievers and methamphetamine.


I didn't crown him king for THIS vote, I crowned him king LONG ago (like '09) When he voted to pass a bill that required back seat passengers to wear a seatbelt he lost me. It became clear he didn't want smaller government he just wanted his government. At the same time he voted for some pretty high ages for child safety seat / booster seat laws that I felt were a government overreach.

He also willingly fell in with some pretty shady / slimey members of the Texas swamp to get elected.

This vote was exactly what I had already come to expect from him.


----------



## Parkerboy (Jan 21, 2018)

Walleyewilly said:


> They do drug testing in Canada. Definitely have more hoops to jump through though....Canada is a strange place....and I work for a Canadian company...
> 
> http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/drug-and-alcohol-testing-–-frequently-asked-questions


Much depends on the province as each has their own laws

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dk2429 (Mar 27, 2015)

I guess I'm doing pretty good at my age and haven't smoked, never will. I have friends that do, and I won't be around them while they're doing it. If they want to light it up I just hop in the truck and head home. Never understood it personally. I've got better things to do than sit around and "get high." And then when the test comes around they're all freaking out drinking a load of water and what not, while all they had to do was not smoke in the first place.. It's beyond me. I've got better things to do and better things to invest my money in


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

Quote] I've got better things to do and better things to invest my money in[/QUOTE]

Right there, thatâ€™s what keeps people from throwing their life away on drugs. Raise children in a way that instills this as a vaccine against addiction and you will find its waaaay cheaper and more effective than rehab.

Being realistic with laws and example are important. Every kid knows someone who in their opinion is fine and who smokes weed. Telling them dire things about all people who smoke weed and you make a fool of yourself. 
And separating weed from refined and manufactured drugs that destroy lives would be a nice start towards a realistic attitude about pot.
Like has been said, from caffeine to aspirin etc... they are all things that alter our perspective and philology.
The outrageous illegal focus on weed while whiskey is legal is mind boggling if you are legislating moral codes to protect the public.
I have seen 100 times more the destructive influence of whiskey and yet to see someone high on good nug, err weed, beat their spouse, shoot up the house and have SWAT called on them.
Just saying.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

There is a policeman who is a member of this forum. He has never drank or smoked pot. As straight as he is, he knows reality, he sees it everyday. I asked him about people drunk vs people high. He said drunk harder to deal with; I don't remember his exact wording but definitely agreed alcohol worse in his working with both. A combination of his past and his job makes him a reasonable judge IMO.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

My experience.... smoked the weed for several decades starting in JR high school. Was quite content as a mechanic living payday to payday. Quit smoking one day and me and a friend went out and built a 300 million dollar company. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

boom! said:


> My experience.... smoked the weed for many decades starting in JR high school. Was quite content as a mechanic living payday to payday. Quit smoking one day and me and a friend went out and built a 300 million dollar company. Your mileage may vary.


At this point in my life, I am retired and seem to have saved enough that I should do fine financially until I die. I wouldn't mind smoking and feeling content. But that **** Federal law .....


----------



## redduck (Jul 26, 2006)

Fishing and hunting are my two main vices. I have never felt the need to get a buzz on from either alcohol or drugs to have a good time. I will acknowledge drinking in the Army between 17-20 to give me courage chasing women. It was also what every other young man was doing which made it seem alright. I probably drink a six pack of beer a year now and that is usually at social events just to be social. Why do grown men and women feel the need to "relax" or "chill out" using drugs to get there.


----------



## BigPumaAg (Mar 16, 2018)

photofishin said:


> There have been a ton of studies on the effects of alcohol but nearly none on long term effects of pot. Combine that with the fact that pot use leads to harder drugs for a lot of people, my experience tells me otherwise. Last I checked, nobody has failed a drug test by abstaining from drugs. Last I checked, you can still be fired for coming to work drunk.


Also there is a definitive measure to alcohol use and when it is in vs left your system. Pot/THC isn't there yet. When the develop a test to measure impairment from pot then I think you will see universal legalization and taxation on it.


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

BigPumaAg said:


> Also there is a definitive measure to alcohol use and when it is in vs left your system. Pot/THC isn't there yet. When the develop a test to measure impairment from pot then I think you will see universal legalization and taxation on it.


If you can't spot impairment, is impairment an issue?

And what do you mean measure? Are you familiar with the saliva test?

If someone is intoxicated from Prescription Painkillers, what are they testing with?

People can and are intoxicated by a plethora of drugs that aren't alcohol or pot, and as far as I am aware, they still get got, when operating under the influence.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

In this day and age of medicine and science, is it really impossible to measure THC impairment level, or just that since the FEDS have archaic superstitious laws against it, that the test is not common or pursued? 



I find it really hard to believe it can't be done. However, it may not be as cheap and easy as a breathalyzer test.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

So does a salvia test measure recent usage only? Is it expensive? Why is a pee test preferred by industry? Insurance reasons?


----------



## Imtheman (Sep 28, 2018)

poppadawg said:


> So does a salvia test measure recent usage only? Is it expensive? Why is a pee test preferred by industry? Insurance reasons?


Yes. Only recent
Not expensive
â€œBecause thatâ€™s the way weâ€™ve always done itâ€


----------



## cloudfishing (May 8, 2005)

Follow the money !


----------



## prolyon2 (May 28, 2019)

dk2429 said:


> I guess I'm doing pretty good at my age and haven't smoked, never will. I have friends that do, and I won't be around them while they're doing it. If they want to light it up I just hop in the truck and head home. Never understood it personally. I've got better things to do than sit around and "get high." And then when the test comes around they're all freaking out drinking a load of water and what not, while all they had to do was not smoke in the first place.. It's beyond me. I've got better things to do and better things to invest my money in


If you have a friend by the name of Jack Daniels or Jim beam,they will likely get you in way more trouble,lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## Bozo (Jun 16, 2004)

prolyon2 said:


> If you have a friend by the name of Jack Daniels or Jim beam,they will likely get you in way more trouble,lol.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


When you are speaking of physical impairment, you have a good argument.

However, as long as marijuana is against federal law regardless of state law legality, if you use it you have a propensity to not follow rules at a minimum and are likely of moral character to be willing to break other laws for your personal gain or pleasure. That is why companies test to protect their risks from a slew of liabilities and securities beyond physical impairment. It is a character test as well. Test positive to the devil's lettuce, fail the character test.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

If you get hurt on the job in Texas and you have drugs in your blood, workers comp will deny your claim. That is a big reason for testing.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Bozo said:


> When you are speaking of physical impairment, you have a good argument.
> 
> However, as long as marijuana is against federal law regardless of state law legality, if you use it you have a propensity to not follow rules at a minimum and are likely of moral character to be willing to break other laws for your personal gain or pleasure. That is why companies test to protect their risks from a slew of liabilities and securities beyond physical impairment. It is a character test as well. Test positive to the devil's lettuce, fail the character test.


Good thing our founding fathers had a different attitude. In my personal opinion, sometimes the govt is wrong.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

feds looking at unjust laws.....


----------



## Fishy Eye (Sep 2, 2015)

As an employer, I decided that no insurance company would ever mandate how I treat my employees. If any of my employees can't do their job or put colleagues in danger for any reason they get fired. I also respect them as people and do not treat them like cattle at the whim of some insurance company I pay huge premiums to cover risk. I know I would not want to work for anybody that would even think treating me as such. Just my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Duckchasr said:


> feds looking at unjust laws.....


Who do you go to for reviewing unjust laws? Iâ€™d like the tax laws reviewed.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

boom! said:


> Who do you go to for reviewing unjust laws? Iâ€™d like the tax laws reviewed.


Your guess is as good as mine, sure sounds like a lot of steps. :headknock


----------



## PHINS (May 25, 2004)

Jigger said:


> The Friday before last Christmas I was handed a random. i didnt say anything to anyone but i had taken a hit from a bowl a week before.
> 
> Ended up coming back negative and I moved on.
> 
> ...


Does non-THC CBD oil help you?


----------



## TrailChaser (Nov 7, 2015)

It brings a tear to my eye when I think of all the co-works and friends I've lost over the years from OD'ing on weed. /s

Seriously, it's a darn shame that the only negative effects are to your freedom and your livelihood. 

Yet I can walk into any convenience store and buy whatever pills I want that can absolutely kill a person if abused, or I can buy all the alcohol I want and there's not limits or checks other than age. Not to mention tobacco which has now become an instant IQ test due to it's known kill record. Strange that you only need to be 18yrs old to start the process of killing yourself and anyone breathing in the immediate area of the smoke source. 

Hell, tylenol(acetaminophen) overdose accounts of about 100,000 calls per year to poison control centers and it kills hundreds of people every year. It would not be an "over the counter" drug if it were just discovered recently. 

Stay safe out there and try to enjoy life!


----------

