T1B

There is one huge factor standing in the way of widespread legalization. An easy and reliable test to determine if someone is currently high.

As it stands now most law enforcement will take you in if they smell pot. Sure they likely will make you do a field test, but you are still going in. They can blood test you but the THC can linger in the system for up to 90 days, long after the high has worn off.

So all you pot heads need to do is create an easy reliable test that is accurate like the breath test for alcohol and you will be much closer to your dreams.

20 years tops. It will be legal from coast to coast.

Not big on current events, Lefty.

That's exactly what Washington is doing right now.

And there's no comparison between driving under the influence of alcohol and pot. Neither is a terribly responsible thing to do, but let's not lump them together.

Dinsdale wrote:And there's no comparison between driving under the influence of alcohol and pot. Neither is a terribly responsible thing to do, but let's not lump them together.

That's exactly what law enforcement will do, though - treat it as a DUI. It'll be interesting to see how the tests work. Will they measure BTC (blood THC content)? Or perhaps look for markers other than THC which could help determine how recently indulgence has occurred? Wonder if content limits will be set similar to .08 BAC, meaning it's ok to smoke a little before driving, just not too much, or if the test will be a simple positive/negative. Should be lots of fun ironing out the bugs from the initial test processes.

While there's no standard baseline, they've been blood testing suspected THC-influenced drivers here for years.

And thinking about it... this thread is kind of asinine.

What's the legal limit for driving under the influence of oxycodone? They have a number for that? How about codeine? Valium?

All of those are considerably more dangerous to operate any sort of machinery on than THC... and just as common.

Dinsdale wrote:While there's no standard baseline, they've been blood testing suspected THC-influenced drivers here for years.

How does it work? Since THC stays in the bloodstream for a month or so, does a positive test for THC translate to a DUI, or can the test determine how much THC is in the blood, how recently it got there, and how much is affecting the driver when the test is administered?

I believe it's strictly a PPM dealio.

And I think, here at least, it's got to be really high to garner an arrest.

[suri]They test for metabolites problem is it's hard to tell which metabolite does what at what ratio hence no expert will testify for the prosecution about intoxication and driving

Dinsdale wrote:And thinking about it... this thread is kind of asinine.

What's the legal limit for driving under the influence of oxycodone? They have a number for that? How about codeine? Valium?

All of those are considerably more dangerous to operate any sort of machinery on than THC... and just as common.

[suri] that's where the dare test comes in they don't test for levels of oxycodone they test for its effect on your coordination

Dinsdale wrote:I believe it's strictly a PPM dealio.

And I think, here at least, it's got to be really high to garner an arrest.

Other states, including PA, are also testing for it, with questionable results.

Wave a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos in front of their face and gauge their reaction.

Dinsdale wrote:Not big on current events, Lefty.

That's exactly what Washington is doing right now.

And there's no comparison between driving under the influence of alcohol and pot. Neither is a terribly responsible thing to do, but let's not lump them together.

Because of Washington's current events I posted this.

Many states are looking at 5 ppm or nanograms, but they are having a hard time determining if that is the correct number. Until then Smackie is correct. Cops smell pot, they are going to take you out of the car, make you walk the line, recite the alphabet backwards and then touch your nose while standing on one foot. After that you are going to jail cause they can't take the risk of sending you off only to get in an accident later. While this might not lead to a conviction you will still be sleeping it off and paying to release your car from the impound lot.

Sudden Sam wrote:I'd feel safer on a road with 300 drivers high on pot than one seriously drunk driver.

IMO, unless you're talking about someone who is over .16 or so, I think the type of driver is more important than the BAC. If you have an asshole who loves doing 20+ the limit in residential areas when sober, then he'll be doing 30+ when drunk. But a normal guy who keeps to the limit and doesn't drive like a jerk will probably be able to drive by a police barracks ripped to the gills for a year straight. At least that worked for me when I was still young and dumb enough to drive with a buzz on.

Cops smell pot, they are going to take you out of the car, make you walk the line, recite the alphabet backwards and then touch your nose while standing on one foot. After that you are going to jail cause they can't take the risk of sending you off only to get in an accident later. While this might not lead to a conviction you will still be sleeping it off and paying to release your car from the impound lot.

Let me guess, you have no problem with cops doing that.

Papa Willie wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Wave a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos in front of their face and gauge their reaction.

All drugs should be legal. The ones who are addicts or will become addicts will die.

Pot has no LD50 you fat stupid fuck.

Did you have a lard clot break in your vapid head before you typed that cause it made no sense you fat stupid redneck.

You will be lucky to live out the week you fat stupid redneck.

88 wrote: The same procedure be done with stoners on wheels.

Once more in English please.

Rack the trolls this afternoon.

"take you out of the car, make you walk the line, recite the alphabet backwards and then touch your nose while standing on one foot"

Shit, I can't do that before having one Beast Light.

Lefty -- why don't you get to the heart of the matter and tell us why you really want marijuana to remain illegal. And don't give us this disingenuous bullshit about how you're so concerned with testing procedures.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Lefty -- why don't you get to the heart of the matter and tell us why you really want marijuana to remain illegal. And don't give us this disingenuous bullshit about how you're so concerned with testing procedures.

Like trev, he hates freedom.

Here in Nebraska there are many arrests for DUI-drugs. As for testing, we bring in a DRE (drug recognition expert) to confirm suspicions in the field: Glassy eyes, red eyes, lethargy, green-color on surface of tongue, raised taste buds (all classic symptoms of recent marijuana use) Other substances, meth for instance, have their own signs of recent or residual influence. It all holds up in court. Frequent use of video cameras in the field seals the deal. This isn't hard.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Lefty -- why don't you get to the heart of the matter and tell us why you really want marijuana to remain illegal. And don't give us this disingenuous bullshit about how you're so concerned with testing procedures.

Like trev, he hates freedom.

It's because every Christmas in the college football forum he posts a cautionary tale about drinking and driving. He is Wholesome Johnny America, coming to warn us all about the effects of drugs and alcohol.

prisons = $

Screw_Michigan wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Lefty -- why don't you get to the heart of the matter and tell us why you really want marijuana to remain illegal. And don't give us this disingenuous bullshit about how you're so concerned with testing procedures.

Like trev, he hates freedom.

You sure know me = Not at all. I don't care if pot is legalized. If it gets people to stop fussing and fighting, legalize it. I really don't think it's any worse than alcohol. And no, it's not a gateway drug. If alcohol is Ok, pot should be Ok also.

trev, how are you doing on this wonderful evening?

Peachy. TY

Between Jon Stewart and Steven Col Bear, I don't know which one is more hilarious.

KC Scott wrote:I believe in two separate points raised in this thread

1. Pot should be decriminalized
2. Companies should have the right to drug screen employees and fire or refuse to hire anyone who does not pass said drug screen


There ya go

I assume you mean for actual drugs and not pot, right? Otherwise, how could you justify firing someone for using a legal substance in their free time? Would you be OK with companies screening for alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug use and firing people for using those substances?

Employment drug screenings are retarded. Employment should be based on merit, not morality. If someone sucks at their job, just fire them. Who cares why they suck? By the same token, if someone kicks ass at their job, who cares if they're shooting heroin in their free time?

H4ever wrote:As for testing, we bring in a DRE

Good choice.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Lefty -- why don't you get to the heart of the matter and tell us why you really want marijuana to remain illegal. And don't give us this disingenuous bullshit about how you're so concerned with testing procedures.

Like trev, he hates freedom.

It's because every Christmas in the college football forum he posts a cautionary tale about drinking and driving. He is Wholesome Johnny America, coming to warn us all about the effects of drugs and alcohol.

Think it has to do with his father. I personally thing drinking and driving should be an individual choice since the government has already over-regulated our lives, but then again I'm just a right-wing fringe lunatic so nevermind.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:I assume you mean for actual drugs and not pot, right? Otherwise, how could you justify firing someone for using a legal substance in their free time? Would you be OK with companies screening for alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug use and firing people for using those substances?

Some already do, Mike. I'm not exactly sure of the tolerances, but Lefty could tell you exactly how many hours a pilot must lay off the sauce before climbing into a cockpit. Military guards at the Tomb of the Unknowns swear off alcohol - for life. And many area hospitals will not hire a smoker - and yes, they screen for nicotine. Just a couple of examples off the top of my head, and I am sure that there are many others.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Employment drug screenings are retarded. Employment should be based on merit, not morality. If someone sucks at their job, just fire them. Who cares why they suck? By the same token, if someone kicks ass at their job, who cares if they're shooting heroin in their free time?

Employment is not a right, Mike, it's a privilege. if we do not agree with an company's policy, we are free to seek employment elsewhere.

BTW, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take, I'm just presenting another perspective...

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote: I assume you mean for actual drugs and not pot, right? Otherwise, how could you justify firing someone for using a legal substance in their free time? Would you be OK with companies screening for alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug use and firing people for using those substances?

Like trev, KC Scrote hates freedom, it's as simple as that.

KC Scott wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I believe in two separate points raised in this thread

1. Pot should be decriminalized
2. Companies should have the right to drug screen employees and fire or refuse to hire anyone who does not pass said drug screen


There ya go

I assume you mean for actual drugs and not pot, right? Otherwise, how could you justify firing someone for using a legal substance in their free time? Would you be OK with companies screening for alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug use and firing people for using those substances?

Employment drug screenings are retarded. Employment should be based on merit, not morality. If someone sucks at their job, just fire them. Who cares why they suck? By the same token, if someone kicks ass at their job, who cares if they're shooting heroin in their free time?

I mean drug testing for Pot. Just beacause it's legal doesn't mean a company has to hire you if you use it.
To answer your question on tobacco, alcohol & scripts - yea, if they want to test for that, then by all means they should have that right.

Would you want a stoner or drunk driving your kids school bus ordoing surgery on you?

What would change employers thinking on that? - Simple answer is Supply of qualified candidates
Freedom means freedom for employers as well

Rack.

Employers today are scared to death of being sued for laying anyone off. My department has a number of people that are on FMLA. And, if you are on FMLA, you pretty much have to commit multiple felonies to get fired, because HR is absolutely terrified of the FMLA police. A few years back, we had a layoff. A few of the guys that were laid off were decent workers. Not superstars by any stretch, but decent and head and shoulders above a few that are absolutely worthless. But those worthless PsOS were on FMLA. Their FMLA conditions had fukkall to do with work. That is the worst part. I would understand a company being under some sort of obligation to an FMLAer if their condition were related to their employment, but, we are basically just talking about fat out of shape loser O2 thieves.

BTW, in case you've been hiding under a rock the last decade or two, FMLA=family medical leave act.

KC Scott wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I believe in two separate points raised in this thread

1. Pot should be decriminalized
2. Companies should have the right to drug screen employees and fire or refuse to hire anyone who does not pass said drug screen


There ya go

I assume you mean for actual drugs and not pot, right? Otherwise, how could you justify firing someone for using a legal substance in their free time? Would you be OK with companies screening for alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug use and firing people for using those substances?

Employment drug screenings are retarded. Employment should be based on merit, not morality. If someone sucks at their job, just fire them. Who cares why they suck? By the same token, if someone kicks ass at their job, who cares if they're shooting heroin in their free time?

I mean drug testing for Pot. Just beacause it's legal doesn't mean a company has to hire you if you use it.
To answer your question on tobacco, alcohol & scripts - yea, if they want to test for that, then by all means they should have that right.

Would you want a stoner or drunk driving your kids school bus ordoing surgery on you?

What would change employers thinking on that? - Simple answer is Supply of qualified candidates
Freedom means freedom for employers as well

I guess I take issue with the "fire" part more than the "refuse to hire" part. I agree that employers have the right to hire people based on whatever criteria they want. Just be up front about it and don't arbitrarily change the rules after you've already hired someone.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:
I guess I take issue with the "fire" part more than the "refuse to hire" part. I agree that employers have the right to hire people based on whatever criteria they want. Just be up front about it and don't arbitrarily change the rules after you've already hired someone.

He / she who signs the paycheck gets to make the rules within the context of existing laws. Get over it.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Lefty -- why don't you get to the heart of the matter and tell us why you really want marijuana to remain illegal. And don't give us this disingenuous bullshit about how you're so concerned with testing procedures.

I don't give a rats ass if you want to get baked out of your mind as long as it doesn't have any outward effects on others. Get lost in the desert and let them burn, but don't make others have to deal with you when you are high.

Like trev, he hates freedom.

Fail. I don't like when you do something under the banner of freedom, but It encroaches on my freedom.

It's because every Christmas in the college football forum he posts a cautionary tale about drinking and driving. He is Wholesome Johnny America, coming to warn us all about the effects of drugs and alcohol.

Hardly, mister wholesome. Sadly I have seen what can happen.

MClub wrote:Think it has to do with his father. I personally thing drinking and driving should be an individual choice since the government has already over-regulated our lives, but then again I'm just a right-wing fringe lunatic so nevermind.

Bingo!

Until an accurate easy to administer test becomes available there is a huge problem. I enjoy beer or vodka just as much as the next guy, but I never drive after drinking. Skull, Shine, Blind Ref and MClub can all attest. I've had drinks with all of them. With OUSkull I paid over a $100 in cab fares between the Hilton in downtown OKC and O'Connell's in Norman. WIth Blind Ref, I got a second hotel room in Ann Arbor despite having a hotel room at the Westin airport. When I met MClub, I dropped my wife off at school and then she drove us home after her class and the Yankees were blowing their three games to none lead over Boston.

I don't think I am better than anyone, I just don't want to see anyone have to go thru what I have had to go thru. It flat out sucks.