You have also just proven that you need to make up facts to support a weak argument. Please read what took me 10 seconds to find: WebMD Health News Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash. French researchers studied all drivers involved in fatal car crashes over a two-year period and found 7% tested positive for marijuana, including nearly 3% who tested positive for a combination of marijuana and alcohol. Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents. More Pot, More Deaths In the study, published in the medical journal BMJ, researchers reviewed information on 10,748 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes and took required tests for drugs and alcohol. Twice as many drivers involved in fatal car accidents tested positive for marijuana compared with a group of other drivers. Ooops........guess who is wrong now. You have to leave the emotion out of it and go with facts. Doesn't mean you have to like them. But you end up looking silly when you ignore them.
So what do you guys think employers will do in these states? Will employers refuse to hire employees that smoke recreationally outside of work hours? There are companies that are doing this right now with cigarettes.
I don't think anyone will argue that weed does not impair a person. But it does not impair any worse than alcohol. Or sleep deprivation. Or texting. And concerning carcinogens in weed, you are wrong. LINK and besides, there are other forms of ingesting weed that are much safer, such as brownies or cakes
I'll always hire a non smoker over a smoker anytime. I think the people who smoke says a lot about themselves. Usually a pessimist additude about life and themselves. Not saying all but I'd say most. IMO And I don't want to smell them.
Hooker... Weed jacked me up way more then any drink ever has. For what its worth, i belive it would be more dangerous for drivers then booze Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
Having marijuana in your system does not equate to being high while driving. Marijuana stays in your system for weeks, or even a month or more for the habitual user. I'm not making up facts, I'm speaking from experience. Most of the MVAs I see are related to alcohol (I work in an ICU). I spoke without being clear, my apologies. I believe the national average of fatal accidents attributed to ETOH are about 30%, but I don't see those. Perhaps if I worked in the ER. So in that French study, 4% of the victims had pot and no alcohol in their system. Did they have other drugs in their system as well? Without that information you can't really draw the conclusion they are drawing, unless we're being vague and attaching meaning to potentially erroneous information. For the moment, lets assume they only had marijuana in their system, and were high while driving. 4% pot, 30% ETOH, my argument is that ETOH is more dangerous than pot, these numbers support that argument. Most of the COPD, Lung CA, Heart Surgery patients I see are or were smokers (most, not all). This is me speaking from personal experience. Any given day, I can find 25%-50% of our patient population (in the ICU) that have been smokers, and are there for causes attributed to smoking. Very few marijuana smokers, though they do come in, I've never seen it for ailments due to marijuana use. Again, my argument is that smoking is more dangerous than pot. Few will dispute this claim, and the majority of medical professionals and research scientists agree with my claim. So, in the "guess who's wrong now" column, the answer would be, "not me".
Uh yeah, that's my point. Most companies have a substance abuse policy. If they don't change their policy those states will have a lot of people risking their jobs so they can legally smoke weed. I guess there is just going to be a lot of people getting popped on their drug screenings.
That is based on just your experience. Some people can handle it better than others. No one is claiming that weed is harmless. Obviously it would still be illegal under 21, you could still be arrested for DUIs, etc.
I personally feel the "not hiring smokers" thing to be discrimination, by definition. It'll only take one strong lawsuit to reverse that ability. The only reason it's allowed is because of the wording of the current law, I would bet we see that wording adjusted. Discriminating against someone involved in legal activities, such as smoking, is the same as discriminating against them for weight, sexual orientation, etc. Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in these two states. I have a feeling a lot if other states will be soon to follow.
How harmful is all the sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup and all the processed foods we eat? It is not like Americans are living pristive lives. If you all saw how many drunk drivers are pulled over and serious physical altercations begin after people consume alcohol you might realize that alcohol is probably the most abused and least regulated drug out there.
I thought he was asking about if they failed a drug test. The legal limit being set in these states is 5 nanograms of THC per ml of blood. If you fail this limit, you fail the drug test.
I agree it is a pretty simple formula. People always assume the government has the right to regulate businesses and their hire and fire policies. Minus any egregious individual rights violation we as a society need to disinvite the govt from the workplace.
People that drive after using marijuana are nearly TWICE as likely to have a fatal crash. People that drive after smoking a cigarette just smell bad. Big difference. I will stand by the fact that smoking pot does in fact have major social implications. I bet most companies work comp carriers will implement some new regulations regarding workers that smoke pot. As in, if your company hires pot smokers, you wont have any insurance. I would not want to work around anyone that was a daily smoker. I have been around a few, and they were dullards. I most certainly will never hire one, most wont. Ofcourse the libs will claim that to be unfair. The rich business owner will probably be forced to pay a new tax to help find the potheads meaningful employment. Sounds about right for the direction we are currently headed.
Here's my hypothetical thought: More states will pass recreational marijuana use laws. During this time, anyone who might receive a drug test will not be protected against losing their job. The company will use the federal ban as justification, whether right or wrong, to fire said employee. In the off-time, in those states that allow medical marijuana patients, companies will continue to fire "patients" for using the drug. This, again, they will use the federal stance as protection. This will be a tricky situation for the 20 or so states that have wording stating they're not allowed to discriminate against someone partaking in lawful activities. Though, I would bet that the federal law will protect them, right or wrong. Eventually the federal gov't will lift the ban, whether for medicinal or recreational use. When this happens, in many states, companies will no longer have the ability to do so, as based on state laws that state you cannot discriminate against persons for any lawful activity. There will still be 30 or so states without this wording. In those states discrimination will continue until a substantial lawsuit, or public outcry changes the wording or the current laws to include the "lawful activities" wording. When that happens, companies will not be able to discriminate against those who choose to smoke pot at home. It is, however, their right and responsibility to maintain a drug free work environment. Pot, alcohol, drugs, while at work is a no-no, in my opinion.
Which was my point five pages ago so I guess legalize it then build more jails and morgues but the good news is we be able to burn one and not think about it.
