Cannabis

[Jim Kyle]

I agree that the problem of abuse isn't limited to any one substance, but the general problem has been around at least as long as humans have walked upright. It's not limited to our current society at all.

The problem in our current society is one of "control" in which some substances that lend themselves to abuse are legalized (and in the case of tobacco actually subsidized) by governments, while others are outlawed, with such nonsense as the unwinnable "war on drugs" as a result.

The late John W. Campbell, longtime editor of Astounding/Analog Science Fiction magazine and an outspoken rabble rouser (among other things, he published the first report about dianetics, which led to creation of the Church of Scientology, but I don't hold that mistake against him), had what I consider to be the most elegant solution: remove all regulation and restrictions on such substances, allowing unlimited access to one and all. His reasoning was that the most hopeless addicts would OD and thus remove themselves from the gene pool, while criminals would no longer be able to profit from being the sole source of supply! In the same article, he also advocated allowing anyone to practice medicine, including surgery, with no oversight or controls, on the theory that the incompetent would quickly become obvious and go out of business while the competent would enjoy unfettered success. Obviously he had not visited a sewage plant and observed what rises to the top of the vat there, and had managed to underestimate the gullibility of the average person...

[soonerguru]

Spartan, I agree with you about the need to change much more than just whether or not marijuana is legalized fully or in part. I don't know if I agree with you about the testing issue. I don't think that it's a safe summary to say that our hopes (for a better society?) are pinned on a single solution. While you may not have said that in so many words, the sentiment I see in that last sentence bothers me in that there is, in my opinion, an urgent need to change the way we incarcerate people based on these marijuana offenses. I would hate to see that urgent issue set aside while we try to ponder and solve the bigger picture.

I'm going to assume that if we ever had true legalization, employers wouldn't fire you for having it in your system -- except Wal-Mart of course.

[OKCTalker]

I'm going to assume that if we ever had true legalization, employers wouldn't fire you for having it in your system -- except Wal-Mart of course.

I test all prospective employees for drugs as a condition of hiring them, and never extend a job offer after a positive result. I would reserve the right to fire any employee who is found impaired while on the job. If one tested positive after an incident/accident/investigation, I would DEFINITELY fire them. These three standards are explained up front in the interview process. You don't have to work for me, but if you do, that's the deal.

What gives people the impression that it's OK to be mentally impaired in the workplace, whether you're greeting shoppers at the front door of a Wal-Mart, or passengers at the front door of an airliner?

[OKCTalker]

A: So what would change if mj were legal? It is currently illegal and that hasn't stopped people from driving under the influence of mj.

B: So that mean you also support new laws restricting the use of cell phones while driving.

Koko - I absolutely support restricting cellphones while driving because they distract the driver to a tremendous degree. Same goes for in-car navigation systems, and all of the other gizmos that manufacturers are installing these days. People can't use them without becoming a danger to themselves and others. We don't need new laws, we simply need to enforce existing laws regarding distracted driving. Two points in expansion of my beliefs:

1) As a bicyclist, I continually read about other cyclists being killed by inattentive motorists. I am one text message away from eternity every time I ride on the streets.
2) As a pilot, I believe that motorists should have to meet similar qualification and recurrency standards in order to earn and keep their driver's licenses.

Is it really too much of a burden to ask motorists to pay attention while they drive?

[Dubya61]

I test all prospective employees for drugs as a condition of hiring them, and never extend a job offer after a positive result. I would reserve the right to fire any employee who is found impaired while on the job. If one tested positive after an incident/accident/investigation, I would DEFINITELY fire them. These three standards are explained up front in the interview process. You don't have to work for me, but if you do, that's the deal.

What gives people the impression that it's OK to be mentally impaired in the workplace, whether you're greeting shoppers at the front door of a Wal-Mart, or passengers at the front door of an airliner?

I understand your point, but I don't think that a positive drug test for marijuana in the system proves impairment. I was always under the impression that drug tests for marijuana can come up positive as many as 30 days after use. If you can be impaired that long, then marijuana is TRULY a drug to be feared. I think that we need a test to see if the person is impaired, not if they've used the drug in the last 30 days.
If the drugs you test for are legalized, then you may be vulnerable at that stage to a discrimination lawsuit by rejecting someone who tests positive for a legal substance. You may as well tell all prospective employees that you will not hire them if they have any tattoos or have a pit bull or drink on the weekend. If the employee is not impaired when on the job or on call, it is immaterial whether or not they test positive for drugs.

[Kokopelli]

Koko - I absolutely support restricting cellphones while driving because they distract the driver to a tremendous degree. Same goes for in-car navigation systems, and all of the other gizmos that manufacturers are installing these days. People can't use them without becoming a danger to themselves and others. We don't need new laws, we simply need to enforce existing laws regarding distracted driving. Two points in expansion of my beliefs:

1) As a bicyclist, I continually read about other cyclists being killed by inattentive motorists. I am one text message away from eternity every time I ride on the streets.
2) As a pilot, I believe that motorists should have to meet similar qualification and recurrency standards in order to earn and keep their driver's licenses.

Is it really too much of a burden to ask motorists to pay attention while they drive?

Thanks for taking the the time to answer my questions.

[Stew]

I test all prospective employees for drugs as a condition of hiring them, and never extend a job offer after a positive result. I would reserve the right to fire any employee who is found impaired while on the job. If one tested positive after an incident/accident/investigation, I would DEFINITELY fire them. These three standards are explained up front in the interview process. You don't have to work for me, but if you do, that's the deal.

What gives people the impression that it's OK to be mentally impaired in the workplace, whether you're greeting shoppers at the front door of a Wal-Mart, or passengers at the front door of an airliner?

So you need a piss test to know if somebody is mentally impaired in the workplace? Wow, that must suck.

[LandRunOkie]

Legalizing it is pretty pointless when employers are still testing for marijuana just because they can not test for any other, much more serious drug use

Many employers don't drug test, the food service industry for one. Since many of the jobs that don't drug test also don't pay as well, the war on drugs hits these people the hardest. This is because simply having a decent lawyer will often reduce penalties greatly, and good lawyers aren't cheap these days.

Also what about the mature and responsible people who are self-employed? These people are sharp enough to make a living without organizational resources yet we need the government to regulate what they put in their bodies?

[soonerguru]

I test all prospective employees for drugs as a condition of hiring them, and never extend a job offer after a positive result. I would reserve the right to fire any employee who is found impaired while on the job. If one tested positive after an incident/accident/investigation, I would DEFINITELY fire them. These three standards are explained up front in the interview process. You don't have to work for me, but if you do, that's the deal.

What gives people the impression that it's OK to be mentally impaired in the workplace, whether you're greeting shoppers at the front door of a Wal-Mart, or passengers at the front door of an airliner?

You have now jumped the shark. I didn't say it would be "OK" to be impaired at work. That should be obvious. The issue is that there may be pot in your system, but you are not currently impaired. My suggestion was that merely having it in your system would not be grounds for termination if it were currently legal.

Alcohol can still be detected in your system days after drinking. Having it there does not mean you were drinking on the job.

Some of you people seem deliberately obtuse in your arguments.

[Jim Kyle]

Some of you people seem deliberately obtuse in your arguments.

Many folk are control freaks. It's good to find that out about a prospective employer, before submitting to his (economic) chains.

[bluedogok]

I've never had a drug test, never been a condition of employment even before I got into architecture and was in retail. I can definitely understand one if you are in an accident in a company vehicle but as far as someone on their own time, that is a bit much for alcohol or marijuana, many could test positive for a prescription narcotic while not "on the job", would that be a firing offense? If roughnecks were tested for what they did on the weekend there wouldn't be many them in the West Texas oilfields, just based on experience with my brother-in-law and the crew that he runs around with.

[soonerguru]

I've never had a drug test, never been a condition of employment even before I got into architecture and was in retail. I can definitely understand one if you are in an accident in a company vehicle but as far as someone on their own time, that is a bit much for alcohol or marijuana, many could test positive for a prescription narcotic while not "on the job", would that be a firing offense? If roughnecks were tested for what they did on the weekend there wouldn't be many them in the West Texas oilfields, just based on experience with my brother-in-law and the crew that he runs around with.

My current employer had a pre-employment drug screen. Merely having alcohol in your system would not create a "positive" on the test. They were looking for evidence that the employee was such an alcy that they showed up to the test drunk. Also, pharmaceuticals prescribed by a physician are not cause for failure of the screen. They were looking for non-prescribed drugs. They also tested for cannibinoids, benzos, mescaline, shrooms, coke, smack, and meth, among others.

[OKCTalker]

Many folk are control freaks. It's good to find that out about a prospective employer, before submitting to his (economic) chains.

Jim's point is well-taken and illustrates that at-will employment cut both ways. You'll want to know as much about your prospective employer before agreeing to work there (although I'd discourage handing the owner a little cup and asking him to return with a sample).

[boscorama]

My current employer had a pre-employment drug screen. Merely having alcohol in your system would not create a "positive" on the test. They were looking for evidence that the employee was such an alcy that they showed up to the test drunk. Also, pharmaceuticals prescribed by a physician are not cause for failure of the screen. They were looking for non-prescribed drugs. They also tested for cannibinoids, benzos, mescaline, shrooms, coke, smack, and meth, among others.

Mescaline and shrooms? Since when?

[MustangGT]

Mescaline and shrooms? Since when?

Since forever. They are making a comeback as is PCP.

[LandRunOkie]

The Oklahoman published a conservative version of this Tulsa World story today
Medical Marijuana Study Nixed by State Official [Brian Crain]

As a sidenote, I was in touch with a couple groups about using Amazon as a fundraiser but they didn't get back to me. So I will see if there is any interest in this.
If anyone plans on using Amazon for future purchases and would like to help raise funds for medical marijuana in Oklahoma, you can use this link to
Amazon
They have a program where 4-6% of purchases gets kicked back. I will forward the funds to the Tulsa NORML or okmedicalmarijuana.org. Of course you can always just donate directly too.

[LandRunOkie]

bump

[kevinpate]

you bumped a post 12 minutes after you made it? What, did ya take a toke and forgit when ya posted?

[soonerguru]

Whoever said it's not Republicans who are against sensible marijuana legislation, please note this story in today's Tulsa World. Constance Johnson, a Democrat, has been trying repeatedly to get the legislature to consider medical marijuana. This GOP stooge, Brian Crain, won't even allow a "study," because, you know, learnin' stuff has no place in our state. God forbid we study something.

What's even more galling about the article is the stupidity of Mark Woodward, from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics, who actually brings up the Mexican cartels to bolster his opposition! Brilliant logic. The cartels are making lots of money off this drug, so let's keep it illegal so they can continue to make lots of money off this drug.

Medical marijuana study nixed by state official | Tulsa World

[kevinpate]

Crane - a construction tool
Crain - a political tool

I always enjoy the way the typical OK R politico falls on a sword of reverence to honor the importance of a federal law he likes but will do some really oddball nonsensical twists of logic to try and justify defy anything federal should it not meet with his/her approval. Some of the most outcome determinative folks on the planet can be found in our state capitol.

[LandRunOkie]

I'll leave you guessing as to my own use but will say, well over 50% of the country is in favor of medical marijuana. Yet only around 10% of the country are regular users. So only about 1 in 5 of us actually smokes. If weed itself was my concern, wouldn't I have left for "greener" pastures by now? Many have been indoctrinated by the mainstream media to fear political activists, when they are really the civilizing force behind democracy.

[LandRunOkie]

Its amazing to me that the opposition right now is coming from Tulsa, when their NORML chapter looks like it is about 10x bigger than ours. You would think they could find a sympathetic voice in the legislature, considering they have much softer sentencing than our part of the state. Seemingly a little more popular support there, and certainly less fear.

[soonerguru]

Its amazing to me that the opposition right now is coming from Tulsa, when their NORML chapter looks like it is about 10x bigger than ours. You would think they could find a sympathetic voice in the legislature, considering they have much softer sentencing than our part of the state. Seemingly a little more popular support there, and certainly less fear.

Overall, the Tulsa delegation has more wingers than the OKC delegation.

[RadicalModerate]

I firmly believe, and in addition to that, am completely convinced that the legalization of "cannabis" will result in the malfunctioning light at 115th and Penn--plus everything else, including appreciation of good food and stuff including but not limited to selfish, incessant whining on nearly every front--being better than it is right now. How can anyone say know to that?... oops... i meant no..... (nevermind . . . call in the paraquat and napalm strike forces . . . there is no intelligent life here . . .=)

[boscorama]

Since forever. They are making a comeback as is PCP.

Wrong! Workplace tests consist of five substances, not including those two, LSD, inhalants, XTC, and so on. Oh, but they've included PCP in the panel for ages. I worked in that industry for several years.