Calif. court: Medical pot not OK at work

[Shogun]

P.S. Shogun is absolutely right that one joint of quality pot does not equal the intoxication of one ounce of alcohol. That joint will cause measurable impairment in most people. That one ounce of alcohol will not.

Do you have a source that suggests that or are you going to just toos out bullshit assumptions?


Say, what happened the last time you posted silly assumptions about pot? oh yea, I posted evidence otherwise. Care to take another lap in that pool?


Again, why don't you try comparing the amount of alcohol that reflects the intoxication found in a single joint instead of acting like one ounce of bourbon is harmless while driving? Probably, for the same reason you refuse to understand similar illogic behind using a substance 30 days ago causing a fatal accident 30 days later.

 

[Shogun]

Balony. This has nothing to do with race or gender or age or what other substances a person is or is not using. It has nothing to do with the medicinal value of any substance or illnesses associated with any substances or that one substance is less dangerous than or more dangerous than or no better or worse than another.

My argument is strictly based on public safety and the right of employers to insist on drug free employees. I have no problem with legalizing marijuana for private use so long as such persons are not likely to be a danger to themselves or others. I strongly advocate zero tolerance for marijuana (or any other substance that can cause impairment) on the job or in any setting in which drug impairment can make the person a danger to himself and/or others. If that means beer drinkers have to wait several hours while pot smokers have to wait 30 days to test negative, so be it. If the rules are that you test negative or suffer the consequences, everybody should know what the rules are.

The potheads can keep throwing out red herring after red herring, all unrelated to my argument, and it isn't going to change my mind.

PUBLIC SAFETY?


really?


after having just posted that you think most RESPONSIBLE people don't drink and drive DESPITE realy stats that I can set my alarm clock to?


ooook.


After all, M.A.D.D. sure is a read fucking herring.

 

[Shogun]

 

[nibor]

Balony. This has nothing to do with race or gender or age or what other substances a person is or is not using. It has nothing to do with the medicinal value of any substance or illnesses associated with any substances or that one substance is less dangerous than or more dangerous than or no better or worse than another.

My argument is strictly based on public safety and the right of employers to insist on drug free employees. I have no problem with legalizing marijuana for private use so long as such persons are not likely to be a danger to themselves or others. I strongly advocate zero tolerance for marijuana (or any other substance that can cause impairment) on the job or in any setting in which drug impairment can make the person a danger to himself and/or others. If that means beer drinkers have to wait several hours while pot smokers have to wait 30 days to test negative, so be it. If the rules are that you test negative or suffer the consequences, everybody should know what the rules are.

The potheads can keep throwing out red herring after red herring, all unrelated to my argument, and it isn't going to change my mind.

First off it's NOT baloney, more things have to be considered as to why it is illegal in the first place..................and then we have to consider the amounts of people on prescribed psychotrpic meds and so called pain killers that are really inundating our society bogusly and the unsafe practices that it's creating "legally" and excused.....................that's IF YOU ACTUALLY want to discuss the problems that create on the job unsafe practices and not just rail potheads because it's so fashionable to do so.............

 

[nibor]

There ya go but it extends farther.................

 

[Taomon]

Well Tao I grew up in an era of dangerous jobs, I worked in industry and around heavy machinery.........I know nothing of playing in an ass grab/ water cooler environment...........so I can't speak to that............but I also drove trucks and operated heavy equipment and any type of drug or alcohol can be extremely detrimental!!!!!!!!!

Right, and since driving under the influence is dangerous no one should be allowed to do it? So no room for recreational use?

 

[Taomon]

I agree, but only if the person is not engaged in any activity in which he or she could be a danger to others. Smoking a cigarette in the privacy of your own vehicle or office does not significantly endanger others. Having a cold beer after work or a glass of wine with dinner does not significantly endanger others. Smoking a joint of quality weed and getting behind the wheel or operating heavy machinery does.

And therein is the difference.

Right, and there are regulations against drinking and operating heavy machinary or driving, and the same would apply to smoking grass. But you did not choose to argue that point. You chose to post stats about driving a truck and smoking, which has nothing to do with smoking pot & crunching numbers at work, smoking pot and filing reports, smoking pot and working in a factory (which happens more than you realize), smoking pot and preparing food.

 

[Taomon]

But 12.5% of fatal crashes involved truck drivers using marijuana. You can't get around that.

And what about the other 87.5%?

Why are you trying to inflate the numbers about pot smokers versus drinkers and incompetence?

 

[Taomon]

P.S. Shogun is absolutely right that one joint of quality pot does not equal the intoxication of one ounce of alcohol. That joint will cause measurable impairment in most people. That one ounce of alcohol will not.

I used to smoke pot like a chimney. One joint was not enough to impaire me at work. But I was not a drinker and an ounce of alchohol fucked me up.

We can spin this any way you want. It is obvious that you are biased against smoking pot and doing anything other than sitting on a sofa. I am biased against drinking and doing anything other than sitting on a sofa.

So let the adults choose for themselves already.

 

[nibor]

Right, and since driving under the influence is dangerous no one should be allowed to do it? So no room for recreational use?

Actually I'm not for the closed mindedness of zero tolerance and knee jerk reaction, it's a form of misguided ignorance in itself.

I'm not against people who smoke pot in moderation at all and know many that do and most are very respectable upstanding people, who make that choice considering it's illegality as the bogus infringement that it is............... and I agree with them!!!!!!!!!!!

My points that brought me into this never ending cluster fuck though still go mostly unaddressed, except by shogun, by refusing to see the ultra importance of this plant to everyone concerned, we do an injustice to what's happening to us as a nation...........I WANT TO GROW IT.............. not to get you high but to revamp industry cleanly and safely and revitalize my country!

 

[jillian]

I just figured out what Fox's objection is...

she thinks anyone who uses pot is like Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

 

[Paulie]

I just figured out what Fox's objection is...

she thinks anyone who uses pot is like Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Judging by the things she's been saying, it sure does seem that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

First off it's NOT baloney, more things have to be considered as to why it is illegal in the first place..................and then we have to consider the amounts of people on prescribed psychotrpic meds and so called pain killers that are really inundating our society bogusly and the unsafe practices that it's creating "legally" and excused.....................that's IF YOU ACTUALLY want to discuss the problems that create on the job unsafe practices and not just rail potheads because it's so fashionable to do so.............

I would be happy to discuss all problems that create on the job unsafe practices, but I also believe in maintaining the integrity of a thread. In this case the thread topic is whether an employer can enforce a zero tolerance policy re marijuana when marijuana has been judged to be legal.

The topic of the thread is marijuana as related to work and a court opinion addressing that, and did not include safety on the job in general.

Now those of you who wish to discuss other things, you are certainly free to do so. But I prefer to focus the discussion on the thread topic.

If you choose to start a thread on job safety and policy in general, I would in all likelihood choose to participate.

 

[nibor]

I would be happy to discuss all problems that create on the job unsafe practices, but I also believe in maintaining the integrity of a thread. In this case the thread topic is whether an employer can enforce a zero tolerance policy re marijuana when marijuana has been judged to be legal.

The topic of the thread is marijuana and issues related to work and a court opinion addressing that, and did not include safety on the job in general.

Now those of you who wish to discuss other things, you are certainly free to do so. But I prefer to focus the discussion on the thread topic.

If you choose to start a thread on job safety and policy in general, I would in all likelihood choose to participate.

There are things that should be untolerated, without a whole lot of discussion, but with the amount of other issues that this discussion generates none are irrelevant, to achieve the whole picture of what should or should not be................

 

[Taomon]

Actually I'm not for the closed mindedness of zero tolerance and knee jerk reaction, it's a form of misguided ignorance in itself.

I'm not against people who smoke pot in moderation at all and know many that do and most are very respectable upstanding people, who make that choice considering it's illegality as the bogus infringement that it is............... and I agree with them!!!!!!!!!!!

My points that brought me into this never ending cluster fuck though still go mostly unaddressed, except by shogun, by refusing to see the ultra importance of this plant to everyone concerned, we do an injustice to what's happening to us as a nation...........I WANT TO GROW IT.............. not to get you high but to revamp industry cleanly and safely and revitalize my country!

I am with that

 

[Taomon]

I would be happy to discuss all problems that create on the job unsafe practices, but I also believe in maintaining the integrity of a thread. In this case the thread topic is whether an employer can enforce a zero tolerance policy re marijuana when marijuana has been judged to be legal.

The topic of the thread is marijuana as related to work and a court opinion addressing that, and did not include safety on the job in general.

Now those of you who wish to discuss other things, you are certainly free to do so. But I prefer to focus the discussion on the thread topic.

If you choose to start a thread on job safety and policy in general, I would in all likelihood choose to participate.

Oh oh, the thread poilice are here. Stop free form thinking and connecting dots and stay on topic or else!

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh oh, the thread poilice are here. Stop free form thinking and connecting dots and stay on topic or else!

I'm not the one who's bitching here. You guys are. I'm just telling you why I post what I post and what I think. And you guys are telling me all sorts of other reasons why I post what I post or what I think.

Gee. I wonder which one of us is probably most correct about why I post what I post and what I think?

It is a puzzlement.

However, my rule of thumb is that when you stop arguing from strength of content and start slinging direct or implied ad hominems at the other guy, the other guy can usually know that he or she won that argument.

 

[Taomon]

I'm not the one who's bitching here. You guys are. I'm just telling you why I post what I post and what I think. And you guys are telling me all sorts of other reasons why I post what I post or what I think.

Gee. I wonder which one of us is probably most correct about why I post what I post and what I think?

It is a puzzlement.

However, my rule of thumb is that when you stop arguing from strength of content and start slinging direct or implied ad hominems at the other guy, the other guy can usually know that he or she won that argument.

 

[Shogun]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijqS7w9IMYc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijqS7w9IMYc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[CharlestonChad]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijqS7w9IMYc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijqS7w9IMYc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

ahahahahahaha