- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
hey now. controlling pot is very important, just like gun control keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and prohibition stopped people from drinking. What you suggest is madness.
Urine Test????
- Thread starter old_man
- Start date
JNickel101
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Alamogordo, NM
A. Freeloaders
B. Crazy Liberal Democrats
C. Illegal Mexicans
D. Dumbass Hollywood types
E. All of the above
- Location
- Central Maine
do stupid little rich kids qualify under 'hollywood types'?
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
Pre-employment and random sampling by your employer is not unethical. If you're breaking the law outside of work, that's something your average employer would want to know. If you are willing to bend/break the law at home, maybe you're more likely to at work. Not to mention any possible after effects of the previous night's activities.
- Location
- Central Maine
there was a pretty wide survey a few years ago about pot smokers at work, they were 80% more likely to get promoted and more likely to be on time.....hell when I used to get high I'd stare at the clock for hours........maybe that's why
can't remember:wierd:
can't remember:wierd:
xcm
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Southern Oregon
i hate to do it, but i agree with you old_man... they do jack shit for their checks... they can at LEAST not get high with go`ment monies.
and im all for getting high, if thats what you wanna do. but buy your own, with money you earned, instead of money the government gave you to keep you from eating garbage.
and im all for getting high, if thats what you wanna do. but buy your own, with money you earned, instead of money the government gave you to keep you from eating garbage.
Jeepman401
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Lisbon CT
Here's an interesting thought: I live in Montana, and here we have legal use of medicinal marijuana. They have it pretty tightly regulated, there's only a few symptoms\ailments in their list that you have to have to get approved and I don't have anyso I don't get to legally smoke pot. But I also work in a public school (not a teacher, IT support) and in the employee handbook it says they can and will (but have not yet on me at least) do random urine tests. So lets say a teacher had one of the illnesses that qualifies for medical marijuana and gets tested at work. Of course the test will show that they have been smoking marijuana or using it in any other way, but they were doing it legally. So if your employer has a "no drug tolerance" policy where if you fail you are fired on the spot, and they found THC in your pee and fired you, would that be discrimination? You are using it legally to treat an illness, so as long as you are not getting stoned while on the clock, I don't think they technically could fire you.
I have a friend that had a drug test to get a job. He has asthma, and takes a steroid for it. they showed up on his drug test, and he didn't get the job. He talked to a lawyer, and was told there was nothing you can do about it.
I am currently collecting unemployment, and I would have no problem with random drug testing, but then I had random testing at my old job.
WB9YZU
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Madison, WI
I believe that if you are on meds & you take them in with you. They will note the drugs on the drug test and not count them against you.
I did that recently for some Predizone the DR. Had prescribed, and the guy looked at it and told me they were just checking for MJ and Coke, but made a note of it. I passed ( no pun intended ) with no problem.
Tom, I also agree. If you are on WF you should be tested for Drugs and or Alcohol abuse. If abuse is found, then WF should be denied because IIRC the idea behind WF was to help you stay solvent between jobs & not meant as a sole means of support.
Ron
I did that recently for some Predizone the DR. Had prescribed, and the guy looked at it and told me they were just checking for MJ and Coke, but made a note of it. I passed ( no pun intended ) with no problem.
Tom, I also agree. If you are on WF you should be tested for Drugs and or Alcohol abuse. If abuse is found, then WF should be denied because IIRC the idea behind WF was to help you stay solvent between jobs & not meant as a sole means of support.
Ron
joe_peters
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Grants Pass, OryGun
I'm in favor of drug tests for all employees--the President, Senate, House Members, Supreme Court and all employees of the federal government. They get paychecks, they are employees.
Same for state, county, city, and townships.
I recommend that all of the above are tested at a minimum quarterly, with 25% of all employees tested randomly throughout each quarter IN ADDITION to their mandatory test quarterly.
How long before testing would fall out of favor with governments?
Same for state, county, city, and townships.
I recommend that all of the above are tested at a minimum quarterly, with 25% of all employees tested randomly throughout each quarter IN ADDITION to their mandatory test quarterly.
How long before testing would fall out of favor with governments?
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
A week.
YELLAHEEP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Littleton, Colorado
Preface: This isn't directed in anyway at JNickel101. I'm just commenting on his statement in general.
Ok, so you legalize it. Then you find yourself having been t-boned in your flimsy little XJ by the driver of a semi who's all mello and couldn't react in time for the red light.
You're laid up in the hospital or worse - dead - but let's just look at the slightly more positive. Banged up and hospitalized.
Semi driver is an independant contractor without sufficient insurance - if any at all. Or, the company he worked for drops him immediately and trumps up some story that he was to have been fired prior to the accident..... or the driver signed some sort of disclaimer that releases the company from liability if he's involved in an accident and found to have been under the influence of an intoxicant/depressant, etc.....
The driver isn't worth a damn nickel, you get tied up for 10 years in court trying to sue, or your insurance gets tied up trying to recover their losses from the company......
Who did "Darwin's law" weed out here?
It still sickens me that any human being thinks they need a mind altering substance to get by each day - even "recreationally". If I wanna forget what's stressing me out, I go 'wheeling. Hit the hard trails, psych myself out, get my blood pumping. All the while in full control of my senses/thoughts/body. Hell, get a hobby. Go out and do some recycling and put some money INTO your pocket instead of driving to your pusher for a "dime bag" and 20 minutes of euphoric time out.
Nope, we don't need MADD to take initiative and make DUI penalties stiffer. We need the public in general to take a serious look at exactly WHY we value the lives of the freaks that have no human compassion. Those sitting on death row, those serving life sentences for whatever heinous crime they committed.
Do a mass DNA test and evidence comparison of all of 'em doing life/on death row just to be sure we've done all we could to NOT kill an innocent.....and let's rid ourselves of them..... make some bed space for our DUI offenders and dope users/sellers. Room for those folks that could actually be rehabilitated.
Ok, I digressed a little......
And for urine or blood testing - whatever testing I totally support it in all realms. I could care less if someone questions my sobriety. I'll EASILY be able to prove it and rub their nose in it afterwards. After the shooting I was involved in back in '99, the shoot investigation included an optional blood test. I told them that if they hadn't asked, I was gonna demand it. I held out my arm and told 'em to stick me and take as much as they needed and to be sure to make the results public.
Jeezus..... legalize marijuana.
I think we have plenty of proof that even with it being illegal, it likely played a big part in getting Obama elected. How many stoned 20-somethings went to the polls to cast their vote hoping this guy's leadership would help legalize it? Yeah, let's have the masses all fawked up before the elections......
Last edited:
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
And for urine or blood testing - whatever testing I totally support it in all realms. I could care less if someone questions my sobriety. I'll EASILY be able to prove it and rub their nose in it afterwards. After the shooting I was involved in back in '99, the shoot investigation included an optional blood test. I told them that if they hadn't asked, I was gonna demand it. I held out my arm and told 'em to stick me and take as much as they needed and to be sure to make the results public.
Jeezus..... legalize marijuana.
Maybe if we legalize it they'll be at the convenience store for munchies instead of at the polls. IMO, it being illegal simply keeps prices high and enriches a whole bunch of cartels while bringing violent illegals into the country to smuggle it or even grow it in the national forests. We'd be better off without that. It's also not doing a damn thing to stop anyone from using it, just like prohibition did nothing to stop people from drinking... but enriched violent gangs, and for that matter brought us the Kennedys.
I'm guessing you're a current or former peace officer (nothing against that, personally, mind you - we need more, and better, officers on the streets) from the shoot investigation bit. What's your take on whether it would be better controlled if legalized? From what I've seen, the controlled substances that are the most effectively controlled are those which are taxed, so I tend to think legalizing and taxing pot would be a step in the right direction.
I say this all as a non smoker... I don't partake and see no reason to, but hey, apparently some people enjoy it. As long as they aren't driving under the influence of it, same as not driving drunk, I see no problem with this.
"hard" drugs, i.e. those with extreme addictive properties, like crack, heroin, meth, etc - I am all for keeping those illegal and for that matter making trafficking or producing them much more harshly penalized crimes. Those drugs will kill a person's humanity well before they kill the body.
YELLAHEEP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Littleton, Colorado
Yep, current LEO with 18 yrs on.
Do I think it'd be better controlled if legalized? Nope. It'd just change the "control". Legalizing it just gets the Govt involved in YET ANOTHER aspect of our lives telling pot smokers how much they gotta pay for getting high, when and where they can/can't smoke it, etc. I see marijuana as something that provides NOTHING positive to society. Yeah, yeah, medical marijuana... blah blah blah. There's ways of helping those folks and store front dispensaries ARE NOT IT. Allowing every and any Dr. to prescribe it ISN'T IT.
Imagine all the new legal precidents that would be set if it were legalized? What's next? Cocaine legal? What'd be the real arguement against it? "Hey, cocaine is harmless when folks use it in their homes and don't drive or go out in public when they do." And if they do, we'll just create more laws (with no real teeth) condemning those that do. Yeah, let's just dope up our society and tax 'em into oblivion. :thumbup:
I'm surprised it hasn't happend more - but what about entering into contracts? All those laws that say no contract is legally binding if one of the parties signs while under the influence of an intoxicant/depressant, etc. If we make these intoxicants/depressants/narcotics legal, how is that going to affect these contractual situations? Gives someone a pretty good way out if you ask me......
I have no interest in alcohol either, so if all that went away it wouldn't bother me a bit.
But again, I digress.......
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
Tried that once. Epic failure. The violence along the border, 6 police officers beheaded this week, in my opinion would diminish.
You cant say "If you do X then you are more likely to do Y" and expect it to always work that way. That is why we legislated this.
And if you refer to my previous post you will see that I said as long as you can safely and responsibly do your job, then I dont see what business your employer has with what you do at home.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
And just as an addon, if you ever work for a large company, they are indeed interested in what you do outside of work. Your actions reflect on their company, regardless of if you think it should or not. Just about everywhere I've worked since getting out of the Marine Corps has been concerned with how an employees actions, even off the clock, could reflect on them if it comes out that you work for them.
Would you want to buy a washing machine from a company that's run by child molesters? I mean what if they completely leave the creepiness at home and are very knowledgeable?
And because I can hear you typing from here, no I am not calling pot smokers child molesters or even saying there's any similarity outside of both currently being against the law.
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
and never ask the sheep, sheep lie!
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
I just clicked your link and that has nothing to do with it. The polygraph has been shown to be unreliable enough as to not be admissible in court quite frequently, and to sometimes actually cause people to show as being guilty on account of their fear/stress level from being on it. A piss test is pretty much foolproof except in a few very rare circumstances.
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
Negative! A piss test is cheap and expedient. Hair sampling is more accurate. I was a defense witness in a court martial over a whiz-quiz gone awry. NFI. I have learned more about sampling (urine, blood and hair) than I ever wanted to know.
