Who is for and against the issue of decriminalizing marijuana?

[Hydraboss]

Firstly, I am 100% against legalizing pot.

Secondly, my opinion means absolutely nothing.

Thirdly, I would much rather the government make a damn decision. Either it is legal or it is illegal. Decriminalizing it is stupid. "Oh, you can't have that, but we'll take your $50 fine thank you." Ridiculous nonsense. If you believe it should be legal as cigarettes are, then fine. Lobby your politician. If you think it should be banned, then put some real deterrent into the process. Get caught, and it carries the same penalties as any other crime...jail time.

Fourthly, see point #2.

[Drea]

Firstly, I am 100% against legalizing pot.

Why?

[Hydraboss]

Because I see EVERYDAY the effects that it has. Not the weekend smokers, hell my next door neighbours do that. I'm talking about all the 19 and 20 year olds that work for me (just the one location that I operate out of has over 200 labourers) that spend the majority of their paychecks on the shit, and then come to work (when they come to work!) cooked out of their skulls. I have the legal responsibility to prevent them from operating machinery etc when they're in that condition (but WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T DRUG TEST THEM). If those same workers came in drunk, I could send them home or fire them.

I have ranted extensively on this before, and have no intention of doing it here. Let's just say that one side will portray pot as dangerous and of no good use to society (yes, just like my cigarettes), and the other side will say that it is their right to smoke it, that what they do on their time is their business, and that it is no more harmful than cigarettes, booze, hang gliding, drinking coffee or playing with Lego. These two sides will NEVER agree, even though everyone knows that I'm right.

[Rue]

Because I see EVERYDAY the effects that it has. Not the weekend smokers, hell my next door neighbours do that. I'm talking about all the 19 and 20 year olds that work for me (just the one location that I operate out of has over 200 labourers) that spend the majority of their paychecks on the shit, and then come to work (when they come to work!) cooked out of their skulls. I have the legal responsibility to prevent them from operating machinery etc when they're in that condition (but WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T DRUG TEST THEM). If those same workers came in drunk, I could send them home or fire them.

I have ranted extensively on this before, and have no intention of doing it here. Let's just say that one side will portray pot as dangerous and of no good use to society (yes, just like my cigarettes), and the other side will say that it is their right to smoke it, that what they do on their time is their business, and that it is no more harmful than cigarettes, booze, hang gliding, drinking coffee or playing with Lego. These two sides will NEVER agree, even though everyone knows that I'm right.

You are right! Does it help if I say, it should be legalized but carefully controlled and taxed like booze or tobbacco>

[Black Dog]

The main important question is WHY???? Just look at what tobacco and alcohol has done to the healthcare system, do we need more substances to kill people? There's more reasons to NOT allow than to allow it.

Such as? (BTW, no one has ever died from smoking marijuana.)

Llegal trade in marijuana in Canada will not end the illegal production controlled by organized crime that ships to the US. That means that if we legalize it we end up with the worst of both worlds: all of the social problems associated with a legal substance that is harmful _and_ the social problems created a crime culture devoted to the illegal production and sale.

First: what social problems? Second: if marijuana is decriminalized or legalized, that would enable law enforcement to focus its energies on illegal operations.

So all the criminals that deal and grow weed will just take a 9 to 5 the next morning after it's legalised?

Some might. Others might just go legit (like the Bronfmans).

[Hydraboss]

Because I see EVERYDAY the effects that it has. Not the weekend smokers, hell my next door neighbours do that. I'm talking about all the 19 and 20 year olds that work for me (just the one location that I operate out of has over 200 labourers) that spend the majority of their paychecks on the shit, and then come to work (when they come to work!) cooked out of their skulls. I have the legal responsibility to prevent them from operating machinery etc when they're in that condition (but WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T DRUG TEST THEM). If those same workers came in drunk, I could send them home or fire them.

I have ranted extensively on this before, and have no intention of doing it here. Let's just say that one side will portray pot as dangerous and of no good use to society (yes, just like my cigarettes), and the other side will say that it is their right to smoke it, that what they do on their time is their business, and that it is no more harmful than cigarettes, booze, hang gliding, drinking coffee or playing with Lego. These two sides will NEVER agree, even though everyone knows that I'm right.

You are right! Does it help if I say, it should be legalized but carefully controlled and taxed like booze or tobbacco>

Rue, at this point I really couldn't care less which way Canada goes on this. All I want is a definitive answer; legal or illegal. Canada is way too wishy washy on things. "This is the law, and everyone must abide by it....unless they don't want to....or we don't feel like enforcing it." An unenforced law is not a law, it's a recommendation. Want to tax it? Okay. Don't care. My personal problems with pot is more from an employers point of view. It's illegal, but I can't do anything about it in my workplace. Give me the rules, and I'll play by them. As for me personally, don't smoke it so it doesn't matter. Hopefully, my kids will not smoke it either (or cigarettes) and the law will not affect my message to my kids: Smoking pot makes you an idiot. Anyone that disagrees with that should try mental aptitude testing while they're stoned. Friggin hilarious to watch the results on that one.

[Wilber]

This would kill the black market for the organized crime and will still address the small user to small penalties with out criminal records. But I guess the trouble is that organized crime will just move on to other chemical drugs to make the money.

Over 70% of BC Bud is exported. Decriminalizing it in Canada would have no effect on organized crime. I have mixed feelings on the subject of decriminalization but this is one argument that won't stand up as long as it it illegal in the US.

It then becomes the US's problem. Why are we so concerned about their laws? If weed were legal here and illegal in the US (which it is NOT in some states) it would have no effect on me personally at all. Unless I am stupid enough to take it across the border.

The argument that we can't legalize it because of our puritan (not so puritan, as some states have decriminalized the possession of small amounts) neighbour is simply ridiculous.

Legalize it so I can grow a few plants or (being I don't have a very green thumb) so I could simply purchase it at a government controlled liquor store.

I'm don't wish to be an apologist for the US position on marijuana but considering that 80% of our trade is cross border, our economy is hugely dependent on the US and we have about 5000 miles of it, if you depend on that trade or have to cross that border yourself, it would be very much your problem as well.

Call me a wuss but personally I am not willing to jeopardize that just so some folks can get stoned. That is what I would call ridiculous. It's their choice and they are on their own as far as I'm concerned. I would not expect you to put your standard of living in jeopardy because of lifestyle choices I make.

[Wilber]

It then becomes the US's problem. Why are we so concerned about their laws? If weed were legal here and illegal in the US (which it is NOT in some states) it would have no effect on me personally at all. Unless I am stupid enough to take it across the border.

If organized crime is rampant in Canada because of US laws, how is that not a Canadian problem?

[Drea]

Smoking pot makes you an idiot. Anyone that disagrees with that should try mental aptitude testing while they're stoned. Friggin hilarious to watch the results on that one.

Ever see someone doing a mental aptitude test while under the effects of alcohol?

I haven't, but I have witnessed some pretty insane actions by those under the influence of this legal drug.

So why is alcohol legal while marijuana remains illegal?

I'm don't wish to be an apologist for the US position on marijuana but considering that 80% of our trade is cross border, our economy is hugely dependent on the US and we have about 5000 miles of it, if you depend on that trade or have to cross that border yourself, it would be very much your problem as well.

Call me a wuss but personally I am not willing to jeopardize that just so some folks can get stoned. That is what I would call ridiculous. It's their choice and they are on their own as far as I'm concerned. I would not expect you to put your standard of living in jeopardy because of lifestyle choices I make.

Again... some US states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana -- has the US federal gov't stopped "trading" with these states? Hmmm.....

They need our resources (they don't buy them out of charity!) and so I highly doubt if they would stop importing oil or lumber or raw logs from us if we legalize this harmless herb.

Again - why would the US have a problem? The problem is not with the USA - the problem exists only in the minds of those Canadians who cower at the face of the elephant next door.

[Wilber]

I'm don't wish to be an apologist for the US position on marijuana but considering that 80% of our trade is cross border, our economy is hugely dependent on the US and we have about 5000 miles of it, if you depend on that trade or have to cross that border yourself, it would be very much your problem as well.

Call me a wuss but personally I am not willing to jeopardize that just so some folks can get stoned. That is what I would call ridiculous. It's their choice and they are on their own as far as I'm concerned. I would not expect you to put your standard of living in jeopardy because of lifestyle choices I make.

Again... some US states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana -- has the US federal gov't stopped "trading" with these states? Hmmm.....

They need our resources (they don't buy them out of charity!) and so I highly doubt if they would stop importing oil or lumber or raw logs from us if we legalize this harmless herb.

Again - why would the US have a problem? The problem is not with the USA - the problem exists only in the minds of those Canadians who cower at the face of the elephant next door.

I'll say it one more time. I am not about to risk my standard of living, that of my family or fellow Canadians, just so you can get stoned. I am not about to risk a trade war with the US even if they need our resources because we are not going to stop exporting them anyway. There are a lot of Canadian manufacturing and high tech companies that rely on the US market to survive more than they need us. I don't think there are many of them would want to put their business in jeopardy, just so you can get stoned. Call it cowering in the face of the elephant if you want but those who spit in the face of an elephant are just plain stupid.

[Drea]

I'll say it one more time. I am not about to risk my standard of living, that of my family or fellow Canadians, just so you can get stoned. I am not about to risk a trade war with the US even if they need our resources because we are not going to stop exporting them anyway. There are a lot of Canadian manufacturing and high tech companies that rely on the US market to survive more than they need us. I don't think there are many of them would want to put their business in jeopardy, just so you can get stoned. Call it cowering in the face of the elephant if you want but those who spit in the face of an elephant are just plain stupid.

and I will say it one more time too....

... some US states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana -- has the US federal gov't stopped "trading" with these states? Hmmm.....

It's marijuana for pete sake, not crystal meth!

[Black Dog]

Well, if the liberalization of Canadian marijuana laws causes a economic backlash from the states, perhaps we can balance it out with the money from the sudden influx of Americans coming north to take advantage of our sane appraoch to soft drugs like cannabis.

[gc1765]

I'll say it one more time. I am not about to risk my standard of living, that of my family or fellow Canadians, just so you can get stoned. I am not about to risk a trade war with the US even if they need our resources because we are not going to stop exporting them anyway. There are a lot of Canadian manufacturing and high tech companies that rely on the US market to survive more than they need us. I don't think there are many of them would want to put their business in jeopardy, just so you can get stoned. Call it cowering in the face of the elephant if you want but those who spit in the face of an elephant are just plain stupid.

I could just as easily turn the argument around...why should I risk going to jail, being fined, ending up with a criminal record etc. just because you are afraid that the U.S. will stop trading with us?

Also, where would you draw the line doing what the U.S. wants? Are you going to let them dictate what our laws should be just so they'll trade with us? At what point would you say no?

It's been said before, but I might as well say it again. The U.S. doesn't trade with us because they are so nice and want to support our economy, they trade with us because they need our products. It doesn't matter who will suffer worse from an end to trade, we will both suffer. Would you throw away a hundred dollars if it meant that your enemy would loose two hundred dollars?

[Hydraboss]

"So why is alcohol legal while marijuana remains illegal?/"

This is not an exact answer, but I'll give you this: Alcohol (currently legal) can be controlled in that it can be tested for by methods that detect current impairment. When the test arrives that can test for current impairment from cannabis (currently illegal), AND I AM ALLOWED TO TEST FOR IT, I will have less problem with the legalization of it. Notice I did not say decriminalization.

(rolls spliff)

Another problem with weed is that it can be "enhanced" quite easily. This makes sure you keep going back to the same dealer, cause Johnny got good weed. (cough) This is not the case with alcohol. Now if you think that the government can grow purer crops and market them successfully, fine. But not until it is legal. (Got any Doritos?)

[Black Dog]

Hydra:

in what way are you being prevented from implementing drug testing?

Another problem with weed is that it can be "enhanced" quite easily

In what way?

This makes sure you keep going back to the same dealer, cause Johnny got good weed. (cough)

Isn't that just the free market in action? The business that offers its customers the best product will be he most successful.

This is not the case with alcohol.

No with booze you have to constantly increase the amount you consume to get the same effect. The same applies to pot, to a degree. However, I'm less worried about someone who has to smoke three bowls instead of one than I am someone who has to drink a two-four instead of a six pack.

[Hydraboss]

BD, the drug testing nightmare is well documented through the psuedo-government Human Rights Circus. The two-second tour? I cannot test for drugs unless I have "reasonable cause", and that is a hell of a lot harder to prove than most may think. Even if I do test you and you come up positive for THC, or anything else for that matter, I cannot fire you because I cannot prove "current impairment" (you know, the 28 day rule). Even if I could prove "current impairment", I cannot fire you because the Human Rights Circus makes me responsible for "duty to accomodate" because you choose to do drugs. With alcohol, I can skid your ass for being drunk at work, unless (heaven forbid!) you state that you have a dependancy problem. Then I'm right back to the "duty to accomodate" BS.

Now, if you show up to work stoned, operate one of my 10,000lb capacity loaders with a 3000lb drill collar in the forks, suddenly get that "far away look" in your eyes and *crash*, you kill someone, guess what? I am guilty of "failing to ensure the safety of workers" because I allowed you to operate that machinery while impaired. Same situation applies to alcohol, but it's a hell of a lot easier to detect.

In general, I don't give a damn what you do on your own time. But when it affects MY time (at work), then I have a problem. But dope smokers have rights!!! As I have clearly said, if the government makes it legal, I will play along. It is the indecision that drives me nuts.

As for your second question, people will go to the dealer with the best weed (Read: most effective). If the dealer is lacing, then that throws out the argument about "soft drugs". THC content does not vary greatly in naturally grown supply (but I have a feeling you already knew that). If the weed is laced for performance, are we then allowing legalization of the not-so-soft-drugs as well?

"No with booze you have to constantly increase the amount you consume to get the same effect. The same applies to pot, to a degree. However, I'm less worried about someone who has to smoke three bowls instead of one than I am someone who has to drink a two-four instead of a six pack."

Why is that? Do you actually believe that (in my scenario) any worker is safer when impaired by weed than by alcohol? I know that every pot head I know says that that is true, but I probably know more people who would swear on a stack of bibles that they can drive fine (or even better) after a six pack. So who's right? I don't care. Don't drive and don't work. No one has the right to endanger another persons life.

Smoking pot is not a right. Smoking cigarettes is not a right. Booze is not a right. They're just legal. If the government wanted to commit political suicide, they could outlaw all three. They are not charter rights and therefore all would take is a swing through the House and a quick stop at the Senate. Nobody has ever been hurt or killed because they didn't smoke pot. Now, I will caveat that by accepting the fact that cancer patients find relief with weed, but then morphine accomplishes the same thing.

Let me ask you this: How come I can't dance on an airplane? Why can't I walk naked through the House of Commons? It's not hurting anyone. Why can't I yell "paki" at an east indian or "squarehead" at a German (I'm part German by the way)? There is no physical harm in any of these, but I cannot do them without fear of consequence. You can't smoke pot because it's illegal. I can't yell "pig" at a cop. Want both to be allowed? What else should we allow? Let's see....things that I want to be legal....how about camping in the middle of the 401? I wouldn't be hurting anyone just because I set my pup tent up on the pavement. Sure, it may endanger others, but if I am persecuted for it I'll just scream and whine to the Human Rights Circus and then the government will have a "duty to accomodate" me.

p.s. - I still get drunk on the same amount of beer as I used to 15 years ago.

[Hydraboss]

I just remembered that I said I wasn't going to rant. Oops. Sorry all.

[Black Dog]

Hydra, I was just curious about the drug testing thing.

As for your second question, people will go to the dealer with the best weed (Read: most effective). If the dealer is lacing, then that throws out the argument about "soft drugs". THC content does not vary greatly in naturally grown supply (but I have a feeling you already knew that). If the weed is laced for performance, are we then allowing legalization of the not-so-soft-drugs as well?

Quality of weed depends on more than THC content. Most weed isn't laced and a dealer who's lacing his ditchweed with more expensive drugs and selling it at weed prices likely won't stay in business long. Anyway, if weed was legalized, expect it to be regulated as well.

Why is that? Do you actually believe that (in my scenario) any worker is safer when impaired by weed than by alcohol? I know that every pot head I know says that that is true, but I probably know more people who would swear on a stack of bibles that they can drive fine (or even better) after a six pack. So who's right? I don't care. Don't drive and don't work. No one has the right to endanger another persons life.

Smoking pot is not a right. Smoking cigarettes is not a right. Booze is not a right. They're just legal. If the government wanted to commit political suicide, they could outlaw all three. They are not charter rights and therefore all would take is a swing through the House and a quick stop at the Senate. Nobody has ever been hurt or killed because they didn't smoke pot. Now, I will caveat that by accepting the fact that cancer patients find relief with weed, but then morphine accomplishes the same thing.

Let me ask you this: How come I can't dance on an airplane? Why can't I walk naked through the House of Commons? It's not hurting anyone. Why can't I yell "paki" at an east indian or "squarehead" at a German (I'm part German by the way)? There is no physical harm in any of these, but I cannot do them without fear of consequence. You can't smoke pot because it's illegal. I can't yell "pig" at a cop. Want both to be allowed? What else should we allow? Let's see....things that I want to be legal....how about camping in the middle of the 401? I wouldn't be hurting anyone just because I set my pup tent up on the pavement. Sure, it may endanger others, but if I am persecuted for it I'll just scream and whine to the Human Rights Circus and then the government will have a "duty to accomodate" me.

Here's the thing: smoking pot doesn't endanger anyone. Enagaging in certain behaviours while impaired might, which is why doing so should be illegal under any circumstance (kind alike how, you know, booze is legal, but drunk driving is not). The rest isn't an argument one way or another.

[Hydraboss]

BD, the problem is that while you say smoking pot doesn't endanger anyone, neither does free-basing. Too much weed will make you do stupid shit (I know, trust me), too much crack will f**k you up, too much Wild Turkey is no better. The argument is always "pot isn't addictive", "pot isn't dangerous", "pot doesn't hurt anyone". Bullshit.

I've spent years dealing with young workers (admittedly, this is the demographic) that are smoking waaaayyyy too much pot, and I will tell you first hand that the above arguments are not true. As with anything, there are always individuals that can handle it. You should see me drink beer...it's truly astounding. But where is the line between what is good for individuals and what is good for society as a whole. It is illegal to work drunk (don't get too picky here) and it is illegal to work stoned. All I am asking for is the ability to disallow these workers if they are. Not possible at this time for dope smokers.

[gc1765]

BD, the drug testing nightmare is well documented through the psuedo-government Human Rights Circus. The two-second tour? I cannot test for drugs unless I have "reasonable cause", and that is a hell of a lot harder to prove than most may think. Even if I do test you and you come up positive for THC, or anything else for that matter, I cannot fire you because I cannot prove "current impairment" (you know, the 28 day rule). Even if I could prove "current impairment", I cannot fire you because the Human Rights Circus makes me responsible for "duty to accomodate" because you choose to do drugs. With alcohol, I can skid your ass for being drunk at work, unless (heaven forbid!) you state that you have a dependancy problem. Then I'm right back to the "duty to accomodate" BS.

Now, if you show up to work stoned, operate one of my 10,000lb capacity loaders with a 3000lb drill collar in the forks, suddenly get that "far away look" in your eyes and *crash*, you kill someone, guess what? I am guilty of "failing to ensure the safety of workers" because I allowed you to operate that machinery while impaired. Same situation applies to alcohol, but it's a hell of a lot easier to detect.

Maybe your anger is misdirected. The problem is not the fact that people are smoking pot, but that they are showing up to work high and that you can't fire them. I'd rather see the labour laws changed to allow firing people who are impaired at work rather than making it illegal altogether. Besides, making it legal won't necessarily mean more people will smoke it at work. The people who will only start smoking it if it's legal (and have avoided it since it's illegal) are usually responsible enough not to show up to work high.

In general, I don't give a damn what you do on your own time. But when it affects MY time (at work), then I have a problem.

I think you are agreeing with me here. Allow people to smoke pot on their own time, punish those who show up to work high.

As for your second question, people will go to the dealer with the best weed (Read: most effective). If the dealer is lacing, then that throws out the argument about "soft drugs". THC content does not vary greatly in naturally grown supply (but I have a feeling you already knew that). If the weed is laced for performance, are we then allowing legalization of the not-so-soft-drugs as well?

This is an excellent argument in favour of legalization. If it is legal and regulated by the government (like alcohol) it will not be laced.

Smoking pot is not a right. Smoking cigarettes is not a right. Booze is not a right. They're just legal. If the government wanted to commit political suicide, they could outlaw all three. They are not charter rights and therefore all would take is a swing through the House and a quick stop at the Senate.

It is my personal belief that everyone has the right to freedom, unless they cause harm to others. Putting someone in jail violates their right to freedom (unless they cause harm), so smoking pot should be a right.

Nobody has ever been hurt or killed because they didn't smoke pot. Now, I will caveat that by accepting the fact that cancer patients find relief with weed, but then morphine accomplishes the same thing.

Marijuana has a lot more medicinal purposes than that. People have been harmed by not smoking weed....and by the way morphine is much more addictive than pot.

Let me ask you this: How come I can't dance on an airplane? Why can't I walk naked through the House of Commons? It's not hurting anyone. Why can't I yell "paki" at an east indian or "squarehead" at a German (I'm part German by the way)? There is no physical harm in any of these, but I cannot do them without fear of consequence. You can't smoke pot because it's illegal. I can't yell "pig" at a cop. Want both to be allowed? What else should we allow? Let's see....things that I want to be legal....how about camping in the middle of the 401? I wouldn't be hurting anyone just because I set my pup tent up on the pavement. Sure, it may endanger others, but if I am persecuted for it I'll just scream and whine to the Human Rights Circus and then the government will have a "duty to accomodate" me.

People should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Camping in the middle of the 401 does cause 'harm' to others because they won't be able to drive on that road. That means they are being inconvenienced, especially since they pay for that road through taxes.

[BubberMiley]

In general, I don't give a damn what you do on your own time. But when it affects MY time (at work), then I have a problem.

If your employees' incompetence is the issue, fire them for their incompetence. If they showed up for work all dozy from lack of sleep and tried to operate heavy machinery, you wouldn't have to prove they stayed up too late to fire them for being negligent in their job.

And I think the idea of weed being "laced" with other drugs is a naive urban legend. Given that you buy that one, I'm not going to "trust you" that people do really stupid things because they're high. They're way too passive and paranoid to become rowdy loogans.

[Wilber]

I could just as easily turn the argument around...why should I risk going to jail, being fined, ending up with a criminal record etc. just because you are afraid that the U.S. will stop trading with us?

Because you choose to do so. No one is forcing you.

[Hydraboss]

gc;

"Maybe your anger is misdirected. The problem is not the fact that people are smoking pot, but that they are showing up to work high and that you can't fire them. I'd rather see the labour laws changed to allow firing people who are impaired at work rather than making it illegal altogether. Besides, making it legal won't necessarily mean more people will smoke it at work. The people who will only start smoking it if it's legal (and have avoided it since it's illegal) are usually responsible enough not to show up to work high."

So here it is. I just went outside to have a smoke, so I asked eight guys that were standing there about pot. Six openly admitted to smoking it. When I asked whether they would smoke it at work if it were legal, seven said they would, and one said he would smoke it "whenever the hell I feel like it". I then asked why they don't smoke it at work right now. One guy actually grinned. The other five (of the current smokers) said they don't because "the shits illegal". So what does that tell you about "legalization = increased use?" As for labour laws changing, I have already stated that I would play by the rules when the rules allow me to test workers, and fire them if they're stoned. Current technology does not have the capacity to prove "current impairment" and the Human Rights Circus won't allow this testing anyway.

"I think you are agreeing with me here. Allow people to smoke pot on their own time, punish those who show up to work high."

See my point above.

"This is an excellent argument in favour of legalization. If it is legal and regulated by the government (like alcohol) it will not be laced."

Again, I do not disagree. My problem is availability and the false pretense that smoking pot is harmless.

"It is my personal belief that everyone has the right to freedom, unless they cause harm to others. Putting someone in jail violates their right to freedom (unless they cause harm), so smoking pot should be a right."

There is no way I can legitimately argue against your personal beliefs.

"Marijuana has a lot more medicinal purposes than that. People have been harmed by not smoking weed....and by the way morphine is much more addictive than pot."

I do not claim to know every medicinal use for weed, I was simply pointing out a well accepted one. As for addiction, tell a long time pot smoker that you're taking away his stash and see what happens. (And I am speaking from intimate experience here) Pot smokers react to their weed the way alcoholics react to their booze. I just know this comment is going to start shit.

"People should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Camping in the middle of the 401 does cause 'harm' to others because they won't be able to drive on that road. That means they are being inconvenienced, especially since they pay for that road through taxes."

So if I inconvenience someone, that's considered harm. What about the people who are inconvenienced by pot smokers, ie. other employees having to work harder because the guy who's cooked works about half as fast (and no, "half" is not a scientifically proven statistic)? Are those good employees being "harmed"? As for taxes, I handle all the WCB claims for the corporation, and if you want to talk about taxes and stress on the health care system (which we all pay for), you should first see the dollars spent to heal people hurt at work due to inattention. And yes, I can equate a portion of these numbers directly to pot smoking.

Bubber;

"If your employees' incompetence is the issue, fire them for their incompetence. If they showed up for work all dozy from lack of sleep and tried to operate heavy machinery, you wouldn't have to prove they stayed up too late to fire them for being negligent in their job."

Yes, I would have to prove the reasons for their incompetence. As an employer, you cannot just fire someone because they suffer from a lack of sleep. The governing bodies want a root cause (read: where did I screw up as an employer that caused the worker to be in that condition and why did I not notice it immediately). You can look this up on the HRC federal site, the provincial HRC sites, the provincial HRDC sites, and in the National Labour Code. I can give them warnings and send them home, but if I take any action against them, all they have to do is say "I have a problem" and I'm basically stuck with them for life.

As for the lacing issue, it is not an urban legend. The guys here smoking it are lacing it themselves. If there is enough of a market, the dealers will pick it up. One local guy already has (I get this from one of the guys that I have put up in a motel for out of province workers I bring in.) How is anyone going to regulate that? Are we (who?) going to test every joint these guys roll?

Let me be clear: I personally don't want pot legalized because I have seen the effects, and I don't like them (personal opinion). I professionally don't want pot legalized because I have seen the effects, and I have no legal control over them. It not only puts my ass over the fire, but I have a duty to protect all employees, not just the ones who smoke weed. Workers who show up stoned on weed are not violent, granted. The only thing they would attack is a Coffee Crisp. They are, however, very inattentive and this poses severe risk to everyone on site. That is not fair to others that are here to make a paycheque.

[Drea]

. The only thing they would attack is a Coffee Crisp.

-- that's too funny!

They are, however, very inattentive and this poses severe risk to everyone on site. That is not fair to others that are here to make a paycheque.

No employer would put up with workers drinking on the job either. One of my coworkers, if he's had a liquid lunch with one of his clients comes back to work all glassy-eyed and chatty (and he avoids the boss like the plague LOL).

I can't imagine trying to do my job under the influence of weed or alcohol.

Smelling pot on an employee would be enough to a.) send them home or b.) fire their butt.

No one randomly tests for alcohol on the job so lack of "testing ability" is a poor argument.

If a guy showed up at work and you knew for certain he'd had a few beers, would you whip out the breathalizer? No, because chances are you don't have one.

So how does one tell a person has had a few beer without the official breathalizer or blood test? One doesn't. One simply goes on the fact that they smelled it or that the employee is acting "strange".

[Hydraboss]

. The only thing they would attack is a Coffee Crisp.

-- that's too funny!

They are, however, very inattentive and this poses severe risk to everyone on site. That is not fair to others that are here to make a paycheque.

No employer would put up with workers drinking on the job either. One of my coworkers, if he's had a liquid lunch with one of his clients comes back to work all glassy-eyed and chatty.

I can't imagine trying to do my job under the influence of weed or alcohol.

Smelling pot on an employee would be enough to a.) send them home or b.) fire their butt.

No one randomly tests for alcohol on the job so lack of "testing ability" is a poor argument.

If a guy showed up at work and you knew for certain he'd had a few beers, would you whip out the breathalizer? No, because chances are you don't have one.

So how does one tell a person has had a few beer without the official breathalizer or blood test? One doesn't. One simply goes on the fact that they smelled it or that the employee is acting "strange".

Sorry about getting so far into the testing aspect...

Drea, no one randomly tests for alcohol - true. If I have a guy that smells of booze, he is driven to our contracted testing lab ten minutes away; no exceptions. This constitutes reasonable cause and is legal. Positive results over 0.04 (meaning bad) allow me to take disciplinary action because the testing proves that he is "drunk" at that moment in time. For the record, I have suspended and terminated employees for being under the influence of alcohol.

However, while smelling pot on a worker also constitutes reasonable cause, a positive test for THC does not prove current impairment. I can take no action against a worker because I cannot definitively prove he is stoned at that moment. Because I cannot prove that he didn't smoke it last week, I can't suspend or fire him (as per Canadian Human Rights Circus decisions.)

Would it matter if I showed up to work baked if I worked in an office? Probably not, other than the paperwork and data entry errors that I would be guilty of. These people don't concern me as much. But what happens when they go to drive home? What about the people I have working here in safety sensitive positions that can potentially kill someone due to inattention?