yo mama Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 We could execute all of the drug dealers and there would be no drug problems and our enforcement costs would be basically nothing. There I go thinking out loud again. Executing drug dealers wouldn't fix the problem, though executing drug users might. Supply follows demand. But since there is no way recreational drug use is deserving of the death penalty it ain't never gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276928 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 We could execute all of the drug dealers and there would be no drug problems and our enforcement costs would be basically nothing. There I go thinking out loud again. Â Yeah polky, and while we're at it we can execute all prostitutes and johns, all abortionists and their patients. Because it's not your body, you belong to the state after all. Â And just remember, if you belong to them you can be tagged, weighed, measured and sold. Oh, and the herd can be culled, just like any farmer with his cattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coonazzsaintsfan Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 The treaty blocking legalization expires in 2011!!!!! It will happen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It is my understanding that right now as it sits, people can only use Josh Gordon for medicinal use. So it stands to reason that those using Josh Gordon have an illness of disease. How then can employers protect themselves from lawsuits that may arise from their employees being impaired by using Josh Gordon? You can't fire an employee from an illness can you? Yet you can't very well let your delivery guy toke up? I'd love to see it legalized for general use if it wasn't for this one sticking point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It is my understanding that right now as it sits, people can only use Josh Gordon for medicinal use. So it stands to reason that those using Josh Gordon have an illness of disease. How then can employers protect themselves from lawsuits that may arise from their employees being impaired by using Josh Gordon? You can't fire an employee from an illness can you? Yet you can't very well let your delivery guy toke up? I'd love to see it legalized for general use if it wasn't for this one sticking point. Â Fire anyone who is stoned at work, and stop making pointless arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coonazzsaintsfan Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Fire anyone who is stoned at work, and stop making pointless arguments. Â Â Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Fire anyone who is stoned at work, and stop making pointless arguments. Â How can you prove they are stoned at work? If I have worker that gets hurt right now they will get a blood test and it will tell me their BAC as well as if they have done drugs in the last 60 days. If drugs are legal, how do I know if they did them on their time and not on my time or while driving my equipment or machinery? Edited October 22, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 It is my understanding that right now as it sits, people can only use Josh Gordon for medicinal use. So it stands to reason that those using Josh Gordon have an illness of disease. How then can employers protect themselves from lawsuits that may arise from their employees being impaired by using Josh Gordon? You can't fire an employee from an illness can you? Yet you can't very well let your delivery guy toke up? I'd love to see it legalized for general use if it wasn't for this one sticking point. Â I don't see how it would be any different from other medications that can cause impairment, Vicodin for example. Isn't a company like UPS permitted to ban its drivers from taking painkillers even if it's medically necessary, on the grounds that it could open the company up to liability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I don't see how it would be any different from other medications that can cause impairment, Vicodin for example. Isn't a company like UPS permitted to ban its drivers from taking painkillers even if it's medically necessary, on the grounds that it could open the company up to liability? Â Vocodin is strictly a controlled substance, if pot is legalized will it be treated as a controlled substance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 Vocodin is strictly a controlled substance, if pot is legalized will it be treated as a controlled substance? Â Whether it's made available at pharmacies with a prescription like Vicodin or legalized for general use, I would not expect the laws about driving under the influence of it, or company policies about employees using it to be any different than those for any other intoxicating substances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I don't see how it would be any different from other medications that can cause impairment, Vicodin for example. Isn't a company like UPS permitted to ban its drivers from taking painkillers even if it's medically necessary, on the grounds that it could open the company up to liability? Â Ding ding. Â It's all about what type of job you are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Hey, don't allow people to sue me for having potheads for employees, and I'm all for allowing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Fire anyone who is stoned at work, and stop making pointless arguments. Perch has brought this issue up before and, frankly, it seems to be a pretty valid sticking point. Have we, in fact, developed a reliable test for determining whether someone is under the influence of pot? That is, besides them saying "brah" too much and having the munchies? Â As I understand his stance on the issue, his problem is not whether someone wants to get stoned on their time, but rather, unlike booze, he's powerless to determine whether or not they're stoned on his time. A very, very valid concern to be sure. The simple fact is, not unlike drunks, stoners can develop a rather skewed notion of how well they can function when high. Also, I've known plenty of people who wouldn't dream of waking up and having a drink but wouldn't think twice about a wake and bake. As someone who's employed some of these people, I can assure you that I'd be getting more of my money's worth if they treated pot the way they treated booze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Perch has brought this issue up before and, frankly, it seems to be a pretty valid sticking point. Have we, in fact, developed a reliable test for determining whether someone is under the influence of pot? That is, besides them saying "brah" too much and having the munchies? As I understand his stance on the issue, his problem is not whether someone wants to get stoned on their time, but rather, unlike booze, he's powerless to determine whether or not they're stoned on his time. A very, very valid concern to be sure. The simple fact is, not unlike drunks, stoners can develop a rather skewed notion of how well they can function when high. Also, I've known plenty of people who wouldn't dream of waking up and having a drink but wouldn't think twice about a wake and bake. As someone who's employed some of these people, I can assure you that I'd be getting more of my money's worth if they treated pot the way they treated booze.   No, none of this is really valid. If I'm given a vicodin prescription for post surgery is it suddenly legal for me to drive under the influence? Of course not. Is there a test to tell if I'm on vicodin this morning when I go into work? No? Heck, take too many Contacts for a cold and you're drunk as a skunk. ANyone concerned abouta lack of test for that?  Also, sure there's a test to tell if you're drunk on the spot. Problem is, you can't just spot test someone, you have to show cause. And I think you'd be surprised at how well alcoholics can hide their drinking.  Finally, that person who's going to get stoned and go work for perch probably already does so. It's not like people are going to become stoners across the board simply because it's legal with a prescription. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Some possible answers to Perch's question, although hardly conclusive . .  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...09182646AAlxfYG  http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/arch...e-roadways.aspx  Definitely a valid concern if it was legalized from a liability standpoint. I live in a "at will" state so anyone can be fired for any reason. If I made it clear in the hiring process that we do not hire/ condone pot usage and regularly test, then it doesnt matter WHEN they smoked up, they could be terminated. Random drug tests would allow this to be EASIER to detect than a drunk because it last so long in their system . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 No, none of this is really valid. If I'm given a vicodin prescription for post surgery is it suddenly legal for me to drive under the influence? Of course not. Is there a test to tell if I'm on vicodin this morning when I go into work? No? Heck, take too many Contacts for a cold and you're drunk as a skunk. ANyone concerned abouta lack of test for that? Also, sure there's a test to tell if you're drunk on the spot. Problem is, you can't just spot test someone, you have to show cause. And I think you'd be surprised at how well alcoholics can hide their drinking.  Finally, that person who's going to get stoned and go work for perch probably already does so. It's not like people are going to become stoners across the board simply because it's legal with a prescription. For starters, I'm certainly not among those who thinks that a bunch of people who don't already smoke pot and go to work are going to start if it becomes legal.  As for the spot test, Perch has mentioned that it is his policy at work to send a guy to be tested for BAC (on the company's dollar) if there is cause. If dude comes out clean, he's not out anything because he was on the clock the whole time. If he comes back as drunk, he's punished or fired.  That said, your bit about where does it end is strong and, quite likely, the best answer to the question. After all, if you suspect someone of being high, it's likely because they're doing a crappy job. If that's the case, you can simply discipline them for doing a crappy job regardless of the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I think it should only be allowed at work if you have a medical reason. Such as with the pain killer point I see here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I think it should only be allowed at work if you have a medical reason. Such as with the pain killer point I see here. Â Also, if you are on pain killers more than likely you are also on some kind of restricted duty. If you are having to smoke pot, then you would have to be put on restricted duty. If said restrictions keep you form doing your job then the employer should be able to fire you with out any consequence to the employer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Also, if you are on pain killers more than likely you are also on some kind of restricted duty. If you are having to smoke pot, then you would have to be put on restricted duty. If said restrictions keep you form doing your job then the employer should be able to fire you with out any consequence to the employer. Â So people should get unemployment while hurt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 How can you prove they are stoned at work? Â You're either firing someone because they are acting messed up or they aren't acting messed up. If you can't tell, it sounds like they're fine. Â As for you getting sued for having a stoned employee, how would the person suing know if you don't know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 You're either firing someone because they are acting messed up or they aren't acting messed up. If you can't tell, it sounds like they're fine. As for you getting sued for having a stoned employee, how would the person suing know if you don't know?  Profiling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 As for you getting sued for having a stoned employee, how would the person suing know if you don't know? because you know that I know that you know........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 CA isn't taxing pot currently. If it was fully legalized and taxed, we're talking billions in new revenue. Just saw a number - the retail:production cost of Josh Gordon is 15:1. Â Heck, you could tax it at 700% and still have it be a near 50% reduction in cost for users. Plus it would probably be a more consistent, higher quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Just saw a number - the retail:production cost of Josh Gordon is 15:1. Â Heck, you could tax it at 700% and still have it be a near 50% reduction in cost for users. Plus it would probably be a more consistent, higher quality. Like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.