Yeah my parents pretty much oppose anything that is different from the way they grew up. I hope I can keep perspective when I get their age. Seems like such a waste of energy to be angry all the time about things that are outside your control.
There's a hospital in Little Rock that started doing this as well. They'll test you if they think you've been smoking too, so you can't come in smelling like it either.
I always wondered how companies were able to get away with banning and testing for legal, non-intoxicating things. Such as nicotine. Does anyone know wha grounds they use?
Smoke breaks and insurance costs I imagine. Asshat takes 6-10, 15-25 minute smoke breaks a day. We kept up with it once and he's at his desk less than 50% of the time he's here all day.
Also, in at-will states they wouldn't have to show anything. By as someone pointed out, insurance costs generally double so that should be enough even in non at-will states.
I mean, the only thing smoking does is harm your health. There are no positive healthy side effects. I wish our company would go smoke-less. I smoke a cigar on weekends, but I'd never pop a piss test. Asshat would die.
It's pretty sad that a huge portion of the American voting pool will vote for candidates based on their stance for things that don't affect them individually. "Gun control? Environmental concerns? Fuck that... Candidate x is ok with two dudes getting married, won't vote for him/her" It's even more sad that those issues have to even be a talking point in the first place.
To me that doesn't seem like grounds to ban smoking in off hours. Just don't let people who smoke take breaks. That seems like a pretty simple policy issue. Edit: Just realized how old this was.
I've only read this page on this thread, but what happens if a truck driver gets in an accident and has to take a drug test and fails for marijuana. He couldve smoked three days ago and it still been in his system. He's just fired with no recourse, correct?
Federal law preempts state law. FMCSA bans drivers from using certain drugs. It doesn't matter if they were prescribed or used legally in whichever state.
I guess the question would be if it was legal federally as well. How can someone prove they werent high at the time and that it was from smoking the wknd before? Alcohol is out of the system in hours. Everyone knows you cant drive drunk. Say weed is approved at every level. YOu still wont be able to drive will high. What happens then.
Even if it was federally legal, it would be banned for truck drivers under the federal motor carrier safety act. So, a positive test would lead to negative consequences regardless. Now for just a normal driver in a DUI context, the prosecutor would have the burden of proving he was under the influence (e.g. Testimony of red eyes, delayed speech, smell, etc.). In an employer/employee relationship, it would depend on state employment laws, collective bargaining agreements, specific employment contract terms, and/or company policies.
You can determine active thc levels with a blood test which is what I think they use in Colorado for people suspected of driving under the influence.
Just to add onto this, private employers can fire for whatever they want under at will (obviously barring the usual EEOC stuff)
A recent case in Colorado, a quadriplegic who smoked medicinal marijuana to reduce muscle spasms was fired because Dish Network has a zero tolerance policy. he challenged the firing, and the Colorado supreme court ruled it was legal, 6-0, because weed is illegal at the federal level. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...eme-court-affirms-lower-court-rulings-medical
Yeah. All of this state's rights drug legalization is only momentum for the Feds to evolve. Until Federal law is changed, pot is illegal. Regardless of what your statehouse says. That being said, if it's state legal, chances are the Feds won't care for a personal user.
I voted yes in Colorado, but the Ohio marijuana oligarchy scheme was just too ridiculous to deserve passage.
Yes. Even Pro-Marijuana Legalization Groups were opposed to Issue 3. The fact that is got beat 2-1 though doesn't bode that well for a better written ballot initiative that were floated around for next cycle. It did appear to perhaps push along potential legislation to legalize medical marijuana.
They way some laws are proposed is baffling to me. It's like the people who want the law propose it in a good form and then the opponents say that there should be more oversight to the point that anyone who is for the general idea of the law are now going to vote against it because of extra regulations or addins. Then the people opposing the original law go and say that people don't want legal cannabis because it was voted down while ignoring the fact that they made the proposed law unpassable for anyone. The challenge for voters is do you vote for an imperfect law and live with its flaws until they get fixed, if they ever do, or do you vote down laws until you get what you want? If I had a chance to vote on the cannabis laws in CT, I probably would have voted yes for the flawed system we have now because it's better than nothing, even though the state went the most big government way possible about it.
all of these were reported by the arresting officer for a bogus DUI I got in April. I hadn't smoked in about a week and a blood draw showed that. In Colorado they initially test for a handful of drugs including all cannabinoids at 20 nanagrams in the blood. I was 'non-detectable' at these levels so my case was dismissed. It's a cheaper test that is not so precise, but generally accurate for most, heavy smokers, obese ppl etc being outliers. There is a more expensive test that can test for the psychoactive cannabinoid (thc-delta9 I believe) present, it doesn't allow much wiggle room as the surgeon general of CO suggested very low levels of ngs in the blood to correspond to impairment/under the influence. DAs generally don't push for the more stringent test if you're clean at the basic test level as they have people beating down the doors for marijuana related DUIs. I believe they account for 1/4th to 1/3rd of all DUIs in Colorado atm.
There was a flood of anti-marijuana ads that came online in the two weeks before the election. My 10 year old actually asked if we should check her Halloween candy to make sure that no one gave her marijuana candy. It worked, went down in flames so to speak.
Fear Mongering in ads is the worst. On some LGBT issue in Houston, Lance Berkman had an ad that ran that stated: "My wife and I have four daughters, Proposition One would allow troubled men to enter women's public bathrooms, showers and locker rooms."
We still had to check her Halloween candy for the usual assortment of razor blades and LSD hits disguised at rub-on tattoos.
Wondering how soon it'll be back on the ballot? I think 16 would be too early but it wouldn't surprise me to see it on there in 17. Hopefully it's not like gambling was in Ohio, wait until every state around us gets it, lose millions of dollars in revenue to surrounding states, and then it passes 10 years later. I was surprised it lost 2-1, I thought it would be closer....makes me think Ohio may vote more conservative next November.
The likelihood of anyone giving thc candy to any kid is almost none. One 10mg lollipop is like $5 in Colorado. I'd rather spend that $5 getting myself high than drugging some poor kid as a joke. The assholes who would do something like that don't have enough money to hand out drugged candy.