It's that time of year again...

[AFK]

Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.

I'm sure this is an accident, but 

Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/

Applies to Medical MJ. Which currently puts it in the same realm legally as prescription pills. I believe we're talking about generalized legality, which allows recreational use without a prescription. Which means you didn't answer the question. Of course.

Th

Does legalization turn marijuana into a non-impairing substance?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).

[LMNO]

Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.

I'm sure this is an accident, but 

Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/

Applies to Medical MJ. Which currently puts it in the same realm legally as prescription pills. I believe we're talking about generalized legality, which allows recreational use without a prescription. Which means you didn't answer the question. Of course.

Th

Does legalization turn marijuana into a non-impairing substance?

Again, the piss test reveals if you HAVE USED, not if you ARE impaired.

So.

[AFK]

I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).

No such test exists.  So we have to go with the technology that currently exists.  You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol.  There is no ".08" for marijuana.  It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution.  And can you blame them?  Lawsuits are expensive,

[AFK]

Here is some reading material regarding the new MMJ law in Massachusetts which may help shed some light.

I'm sure this is an accident, but 

Yes it was, http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/07/02/what-medical-marijuana-act-means-for-employers/

Applies to Medical MJ. Which currently puts it in the same realm legally as prescription pills. I believe we're talking about generalized legality, which allows recreational use without a prescription. Which means you didn't answer the question. Of course.

Th

Does legalization turn marijuana into a non-impairing substance?

Again, the piss test reveals if you HAVE USED, not if you ARE impaired.

So.

Which is the technology we have to work with currently.


So.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).

Perhaps like the response testing employed by NASA.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).

No such test exists.  So we have to go with the technology that currently exists.  You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol.  There is no ".08" for marijuana.  It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution.  And can you blame them?  Lawsuits are expensive,

I am aware that it doesn't yet exist, but it seems like a thing worth pursuing. Even if it's just a field sobriety test type thing that employers can be trained in and used to turn away people who are impaired by anything when they show up to work. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but nobody gives bus drivers a breathalizer before they start their shift.

[LMNO]

So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.

The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.

However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.

[Kai]

In Ohio, the laws are already "operating while impaired", meaning, /any/ impairment can be counted. From exhaustion to cannabis to alcohol. I don't think anything would have to be changed to account for the "new threat". These things are not hard to implement. But it was never about that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).

No such test exists.  So we have to go with the technology that currently exists.  You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol.  There is no ".08" for marijuana.  It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution.  And can you blame them?  Lawsuits are expensive,

I am aware that it doesn't yet exist, but it seems like a thing worth pursuing. Even if it's just a field sobriety test type thing that employers can be trained in and used to turn away people who are impaired by anything when they show up to work. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but nobody gives bus drivers a breathalizer before they start their shift.

The Functional Task Test doesn't exist? 

Granted, it isn't a chemical test, it's a performance test, but if it's good enough for NASA...

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).

No such test exists.  So we have to go with the technology that currently exists.  You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol.  There is no ".08" for marijuana.  It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution.  And can you blame them?  Lawsuits are expensive,

I am aware that it doesn't yet exist, but it seems like a thing worth pursuing. Even if it's just a field sobriety test type thing that employers can be trained in and used to turn away people who are impaired by anything when they show up to work. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but nobody gives bus drivers a breathalizer before they start their shift.

The Functional Task Test doesn't exist? 

Granted, it isn't a chemical test, it's a performance test, but if it's good enough for NASA...

That sounds like I thing I should go read about.

[AFK]

So, the employee will sue because there is no proof of impairment.

The link you posted said nothing about implied use at work, it was about whether there was use without a prescription.

However, if you have something similar from Colorado, I'd be interested in that, specifically in relation to recreational use.

What you aren't recognizing is that impairment can and does continue after use, thus the need for the testing in the first place.  You seem to be suggesting it should be okay to use marijuana right before coming to work, so long as they don't actually use it AT work.  If they are impaired they are impaired, and thus making their workplace less safe and prone to risk.  Employers are risk averse.


Marijuana is an impairing substance whether or not it is legal, which is why, it will still be subject to testing when it is legal, and rightly so.

[hooplala]

Remember when this shitstorm was about Nirvana?  I never thought I would ever end up trying to steer a conversation toward Nirvana.

RWHN, why the fuck do you dooooooo this?

[AFK]

I just dropped in to gloat a little.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21081289-clear-majority-favors-legal-marijuana-new-gallup-poll-shows?lite

For the first time ever in a Gallup poll, a clear majority of the country – 58 percent – say that pot should be legalized. That figure represents an increase of 10 percentage points since last year, according to Gallup. The poll surveyed 1,028 Americans by phone Oct. 3-6.

Those in favor of legalization skew young and liberal, though the biggest increase of support came among people identified as independents. Sixty-two percent of independents favored legalization in 2013, up 12 percentage points from last year, according to the poll. Sixty-five percent of Democrats favored legalization, vs. just 35 percent of Republicans.

The poll broke Americans down into five general age groups: 18 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 64, and 65 or older. The only age group not in favor of legalization was those 65 years or older – 53 percent of those polled still opposed legalization.

"Americans are increasingly recognizing that marijuana is less harmful than they've been led to believe," said Mason Tvert, a spokesperson for Marijuana Policy Project.  "I think it's time to regulate marijuana like alcohol and most Americans appear to agree. We're seeing support for ending prohibition in states across the country and efforts are being made to change state laws."

Twenty states, plus the District of Columbia, permit marijuana for medical use. Washington state and Colorado have passed legislation permitting use of the drug recreationally. Marijuana is still considered an illegal drug by the federal government and is categorized as a hallucinogen by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Gallup first started tracking the question of legalization in 1969, when just 12 percent of the country favored legal use of marijuana. That figure doubled in the 1970s, reaching 28 percent. Support rose steadily and reached 50 percent in 2011, according to Gallup research. A Gallup poll released in early August said that 38 percent of Americans have tried marijuana.

Still, there is opposition.

"I'm concerned that these people that are saying that they are favoring legalization are really not aware or knowledgeable about the marijuana that's out there today," said Carla Lowe, the founder of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana.

A poll conducted by Pew Research, released in April, said that 52 percent of the country favored legalization.

Carla Lowe, of course, is hilarious.  She's the darling of the Heritage Foundation and Take Back America.

Which is the only place the prohibitionists have any remaining support to speak of.

So good luck "marshalling voices for the big fight", RWHN.  It will be interesting to see who your "allies and bedfellows" are, this time next year.

Take it up with him.

[East Coast Hustle]

I was talking with my Aunt about testing for pot, and we came to the conclusion that some kind of test for impairment but not "do you ever use it" would be the best possible solution. Nobody wants city bus drivers high on the job (even if it would be marginally safer than being drunk).

No such test exists.  So we have to go with the technology that currently exists.  You can't test for marijuana like you can alcohol.  There is no ".08" for marijuana.  It's a lot more complicated, which means employers, naturally, are going to ere on the side of caution.  And can you blame them?  Lawsuits are expensive,

Whoops, wrong again Scooter!

OR maybe we're just smarter out here in WA than your buddies in Maine are, but we have a test that detects active THC as opposed to THC metabolites. It tells whether someone is currently impaired or not, not whether or not they've smoked in the last couple weeks.

And they even have a limit established for DUI. Amazing.