Cannabis

[gjl]

If your boss can fire you for coming to work drunk, then why can't the boss fire you for coming to work high?

My question has nothing to do with your condition while on the job. You can come to work straight every day and test positive for pot use in your off time. Most employers that test for drug use and don't allow employment if you test positive don't test for recreational alcohol use. And what about testing for NCAA athletes in Colorado? I guess my question is should those employers or organizations change their marijuana use policies in states where it becomes legal. I guess more a question for the proponents of legalizing pot.

[Bunty]

I don't think people need fired for off job use of pot any more than for alcohol or tobacco. Further, in my opinion, employers shouldn't test employees for drug use unless they come to work impaired or act like that anytime on the job. Requiring testing all employees before they start work at the company may eliminate good people. Their legal record can be checked for involvement in drugs, including alcohol.

[onthestrip]

My question has nothing to do with your condition while on the job. You can come to work straight every day and test positive for pot use in your off time. Most employers that test for drug use and don't allow employment if you test positive don't test for recreational alcohol use. And what about testing for NCAA athletes in Colorado? I guess my question is should those employers or organizations change their marijuana use policies in states where it becomes legal. I guess more a question for the proponents of legalizing pot.

Employers, NCAA or whoever can still have drug restrictions and testing for employees, participants, athletes, etc. Colorado's new law changes nothing in regards to drug policies at work. Maybe over time some will stop testing for pot but at the moment they can still test all they want, which Im not sure I see any problem with.

[gjl]

Not really asking if they can, more if they should now that it is legal. I'm not really a proponent of legalizing it and was curious what the proponents of legalization thought about employer testing for using a now legal substance.

[betts]

The tricky thing is that marijuana persists in urine and hair for longer than its psychoactive effects. I would think impairment would be an employer's concern, not whether an employee is using it in their off hours. Probably a good sniff as they walk in the door would be more accurate.

[gjl]

Doesn't the fact that some employers test for it now indicate that they have been concerned that an employee is using it in their off hours. But they have been testing for using an illegal substance. It is the switch from illegal to legal that I'm asking about. Should they be testing for using a legal substance.

[onthestrip]

Doesn't the fact that some employers test for it now indicate that they have been concerned that an employee is using it in their off hours. But they have been testing for using an illegal substance. It is the switch from illegal to legal that I'm asking about. Should they be testing for using a legal substance.

Probably as long as an employers insurance provider gives a discount for drug testing employees, they will probably continue to test for it.

[Dubya61]

Is there a way to test for impairment in some method that is measurable?

[onthestrip]

Is there a way to test for impairment in some method that is measurable?

I think Colorado was trying to establish a THC level in blood. One problem is that a regular user who hasnt smoked that day and isnt impaired, might test over the limit.

[Dubya61]

I think Colorado was trying to establish a THC level in blood. One problem is that a regular user who hasnt smoked that day and isnt impaired, might test over the limit.

My interpretation, then, is "No", there's no quantifiable test for marijuana impairment.
THAT, IMO, is the biggest problem with legalizing marijuana.
Then, again, is there a quantifiable way to test for impairment for, oh, I don't know, meth? Oxycodone? others?

[onthestrip]

My interpretation, then, is "No", there's no quantifiable test for marijuana impairment.
THAT, IMO, is the biggest problem with legalizing marijuana.
Then, again, is there a quantifiable way to test for impairment for, oh, I don't know, meth? Oxycodone? others?

Probably field sobriety tests might be the best measure. If they can't stand up or take directions then maybe take them in for a blood test.

But about oxycodone and such, considering Oklahoma has some of the highest Rx drug use in the nation, there are no telling how many soccer moms picking up the kids or guys going to work who may be totally impaired by legal pain pills.

[boscorama]

There is Performance Testing which is done daily upon arrival for work, with immediate results. Every day! No more crap shoot random or "intelligence testing", as they call pre-employment drug screens. The performance test could be followed up with urine, hair, or other things.

This has been around for 20 years but it can't tell if someone smokes pot at home, so it never caught on.

Is there a way to test for impairment in some method that is measurable?

[OKCRT]

Employers, NCAA or whoever can still have drug restrictions and testing for employees, participants, athletes, etc. Colorado's new law changes nothing in regards to drug policies at work. Maybe over time some will stop testing for pot but at the moment they can still test all they want, which Im not sure I see any problem with.

But what happens if a kid that plays at Univ of Colo gets caught smoking a joint? Assuming he's of legal age then nothing is even reported because he didn't break any law.

[onthestrip]

But what happens if a kid that plays at Univ of Colo gets caught smoking a joint? Assuming he's of legal age then nothing is even reported because he didn't break any law.

Between the player and the coach/school/conference/NCAA...? Guess that's for them to work out. It may be legal in Colorado but it doesn't mean employeers and organizations can't make their own work policies.

I suppose though, that an athlete who gets caught smoking by a coach could go unpunished. But hell, that could happen now. And it definitely happened in the past.

[mugofbeer]

I don't think people need fired for off job use of pot any more than for alcohol or tobacco. Further, in my opinion, employers shouldn't test employees for drug use unless they come to work impaired or act like that anytime on the job. Requiring testing all employees before they start work at the company may eliminate good people. Their legal record can be checked for involvement in drugs, including alcohol.

Apparently, you've never owned a business

[bluedogok]

As far as testing, there is now a quantifiable standard for marijuana impairment that was implemented in legislation.

Marijuana is "banned" on State of Colorado college campuses and according to NCAA regulations for athletes. For private schools whether it is allowed on campus or not is up to their administration.

Employers can still ban use of marijuana as a condition of employment.

[Bunty]

Apparently, you've never owned a business

No, I haven't owned a business before. Why? In Colorado are businesses now required by law to give drug tests before they can hire new help?

[Garin]

Man Allegedly High on Marijuana Made a Big Mistake on a Colorado Interstate | Video | TheBlaze.com

Sorry officer.

[Mel]

Is there a way to test for impairment in some method that is measurable?

Have them sing the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious song. Or tempt them with oreo's.

[Dubya61]

Have them sing the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious song. Or tempt them with oreo's.

Ha! I'm sorry, sir, but you're going to have to come with me. You're rated at 6 oreos impaired. Sad, too. 5 and you could have gotten back in the car.

[onthestrip]

The stoner jokes I guess are funny to some but the lazy, munchies loving stoner stereotype is pretty far off considering Colorado has long had the lowest obesity rate in the U.S. and probably could be considered the healthiest state.

[Bunty]

As with same sex marriage, it's thought people should have the right to medical marijuana from this court case soon to come up:

Do Citizens Have A Right Under The Constitution To Use Medical Marijuana? | The Weed Blog

And that court has ruled again that citizens don't have the right to use marijuana for medical purposes: http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/01...-dispensaries/

[Bunty]

Medical Marijuana Hearing Coming to the Oklahoma State Capitol Feb. 12!

A medical look at marijuana » Featured Story » The Enid News and Eagle, Enid, OK

[PWitty]

I know a lot of people are against it, but OK passing a law to at least legalize medical grade cannabis would go a LONG way to shaking off some of the stereotypes that people across the country have about the state.

[ctchandler]

I have never tried marijuana. I had an opportunity in a visit to Amsterdam a couple of years ago, but my upbringing wouldn't let me. Now with COPD, I am very interested in it, but it would have to be legal medical marijuana, I don't have the guts (and the old "upbringing" thing raises it's ugly head) to break the law. I'm not suffering now and I don't know if I will, but I'm definitely a "wimp" when it comes to pain. I have to have anesthesia when I get a haircut or a manicure/pedicure. Now, baloney aside, count me in as wanting medical marijuana in Oklahoma.
C. T.