Who is for and against the issue of decriminalizing marijuana?

[Black Dog]

BD, the problem is that while you say smoking pot doesn't endanger anyone, neither does free-basing.

Richard Pryor would disagree.

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.

My science (most recent studies have found that even long-term pot use has little or no substantial, systematic effect on the neurocognitive functioning of users) is powerless before your anecdotes.

Has it occurred to you that the same young 'uns who are smoking "way too much pot" are also probably drinking way too much and taking god knows what else?

As fo rthe work place safety issue, if someone's pot habits are affecting their job performance, then the job performance alone should be adequate grounds for discipline. IOW, if someone can't do the job (because they are stoned or because they are incompotent) you should be able to cut them loose).

[Hydraboss]

"My science (most recent studies have found that even long-term pot use has little or no substantial, systematic effect on the neurocognitive functioning of users) is powerless before your anecdotes."

What can I say...my anecdotes can beat up your science. Neurocognitive functioning perhaps. What about neuromotive pupil reactions and neuromotor functions? Both are required to be unobstructed to work in this industry. The brain is willing, but the body is unable.

"Has it occurred to you that the same young 'uns who are smoking "way too much pot" are also probably drinking way too much and taking god knows what else?"

Amazingly enough, not very many of these guys drink. I've asked them about it and they find it too expensive. (?) Our company did have a really bad run with guys doing meth in the motel. Law or no law, we got rid of those guys (of course, it took one of them stealing a company truck before we made a move).

"As fo rthe work place safety issue, if someone's pot habits are affecting their job performance, then the job performance alone should be adequate grounds for discipline. IOW, if someone can't do the job (because they are stoned or because they are incompotent) you should be able to cut them loose)."

If the performance were not tied to drug use, your answer would be correct. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The moment drugs are introduced into the equation by either side, it is unjustifiable termination. While it makes absolutely no sense to me, it is the way it is dealt with by the HRC and the labour board.

Here's a hint for anyone who is freakin' useless at their job. If you think you may get skidded, go smoke a joint before they call you in the office to fire your ass. Before they actually tell you goodbye, look at them and confide that you have a dependancy problem. Shazam! The employer is screwed unless they can prove undue hardship, which is very nearly impossible for any company that is of any size. I've had it happen to me. I sent the guy for a test, and sure enough he tested positive. I had to pay for his "rehab" and then reassign him to a non-safety sensitive position. Couldn't fire him, even though I don't believe that drugs were his problem. Stupidity was his problem.

I think I may exchange our current safety awards for gummy bears. Maybe then I'll have something these guys want.

Sucks to be me.

[Riverwind]

My science (most recent studies have found that even long-term pot use has little or no substantial, systematic effect on the neurocognitive functioning of users) is powerless before your anecdotes.

I question the wisdom making pot illegal but arguing that pot is harmless is simply ridiculous in a world where virtually every substance that we put into our bodies is harmful in large enough quantities. I am sure pot activists have cooked up a few studies that suggest pot is harmless but these studies should be taken as seriously as a study on global warming commissioned by Exxon.

[Riverwind]

I had to pay for his "rehab" and then reassign him to a non-safety sensitive position. Couldn't fire him, even though I don't believe that drugs were his problem. Stupidity was his problem.

My understanding is it is supposed to be a two strikes and you are out system. i.e. the first time someone screws up they must be given an opportunity to clean up. However, if they screw up again then they can be shoved out the door.

[Black Dog]

What can I say...my anecdotes can beat up your science. Neurocognitive functioning perhaps. What about neuromotive pupil reactions and neuromotor functions? Both are required to be unobstructed to work in this industry. The brain is willing, but the body is unable.

If they are high at the time, then their motor skills will be impaired. But there's no evidence showing even long-term use degrades motor skills or any other functions.

[Hydraboss]

I had to pay for his "rehab" and then reassign him to a non-safety sensitive position. Couldn't fire him, even though I don't believe that drugs were his problem. Stupidity was his problem.

My understanding is it is supposed to be a two strikes and you are out system. i.e. the first time someone screws up they must be given an opportunity to clean up. However, if they screw up again then they can be shoved out the door.

Not necessarily. If you are placed in rehab and "pass", I can put you back in your original safety sensitive position. If you continue to use, I may have to reassign you to a non-safety sensitive position. This depends entirely on the situation of the individual company (undue hardship). Anytime a worker is let go and has admitted to a dependancy problem, there are usually extenuating circumstances. While this is not an absolute, it is common.

The rules change completely if the workplace is union. Some collective bargaining agreements surpass the legislation and are binding because the employer accepted the agreement. The only thing a CBA cannot do is reduce the legislation (ie. agree to ignore a law).

My concern with regards to drugs and the workplace is that if pot is legalized but labour law does not change to accomodate the legalization, it's going to be a free-for-all. Here comes the obligatory question:

If your child was killed by a worker who was drunk or stoned, who would you blame? Only the worker? Or would you be wondering aloud in front of the news cameras how the employer could possibly let someone who is impaired operate his equipment?

Legal or illegal, pot doesn't find it's way into my lungs. Nobody is going to force me to smoke it. I accept that. All I ask is that they change the system to allow me to protect people from the stupid ones (the ones who are stoned at work or driving or flying). I just don't want someone who's stoned eating my fries at the drivethru before I get them.

[Hydraboss]

What can I say...my anecdotes can beat up your science. Neurocognitive functioning perhaps. What about neuromotive pupil reactions and neuromotor functions? Both are required to be unobstructed to work in this industry. The brain is willing, but the body is unable.

If they are high at the time, then their motor skills will be impaired. But there's no evidence showing even long-term use degrades motor skills or any other functions.

This is exactly what I am getting at. If they are high, they will be impaired. But I still can't do anything about it due to the current testing science available, and bad motor skills in my industry can kill people.

[GostHacked]

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?

If they are lacing it themsevles then that is the idiotic part. From personal experience, weed alone is fine and I can still be coherant and awake. Mix it with booze, and or other drugs, then you start treading dangerous waters. And it is all about self control , when and were to do it. I smoke on a daily basis. But I don't smoke before work or when I am driving. It does not affect my work. What do I do? I work in a call center dealing with idoits who cannot understand technology. You may be interested to know that allot of people in the IT industry smoke.

I also used to work in a grocery store, and had to operate forklifts. Even when I was not smoking the night before and operating the machines the next day, If I was tired due to lack of sleep for whatever reason other than pot, the risks are really the same. My boss would ask me to get the forklift to do a few things. If I was tired I would tell him I would get it in a short time (so I can move around and wake up) or I would ask him to get someone else to do it. That is employee resposibility. If your employees are not doing that, you have a valid concern and need to either start the process of fireing (suspension w/o pay ect) If you feel that safety at work is being compromised you have a duty as an employerr to STOP it and make things safe for ALL employees. If they are hungover do to booze or drugs, or lack of sleep in general YOU as the employer must take action.

[gc1765]

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 thought you said they already smoke pot at work? I think they will only admit to it if it's legal.

Maybe I should rephrase my point...would you be satisfied if the labour laws were changed to allow you to fire someone more easily, whether it be for lack of sleep, marijuana use or general incompetence, but still make pot legal?

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

Smoking pot is relatively harmless (compared to say alcohol), smoking any additives is probably not harmless. If it were legalized these additives would not be an issue, so legalizing pot actually makes it safer.

I do not claim to know every medicinal use for weed, I was simply pointing out a well accepted one

You said that not smoking pot has never harmed anyone, except cancer patients needing relief which you say they could get from morphine anyways. I was simply pointing out that people have in fact been harmed by not smoking pot, since it has medicinal uses that morphine can not replace.

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.

Marijuana has not been shown to be physically addictive, whereas alcohol has. Marijuana is addictive in the same way that shopping is addictive, but neither are physically addictive.

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.

Well in that example, it is your choice whether you want to work for the company that also employs stoners. No one is forcing you to work there. If you feel you are doing too much work because someone else isn't pulling their weight, you can ask for a raise, ask that the person be fired, or simply quit. That is much different from the scenario of camping out on the 401, since you are forced to pay taxes and therefore you are paying for the 401.

P.S. You could just as easily argue that nobody should be allowed to stay awake for more than 12 hours in a day, since tiredness would also result in less productivity and therefore more work for you.

[BubberMiley]

What about the people I have working here in safety sensitive positions that can potentially kill someone due to inattention?

I don't believe that decriminalization would increase demand anyway: I'll continue to smoke pot even though it's illegal; you'd not want to smoke it even if it were. I suspect more kids try it because it's a widely available black-market product than would try it if it were just another legal drug, so ultimately yours is a human-rights-gone-too-far argument and not one opposed to decriminalization per se.

Though I still don't believe that if someone performs at an incompetent level, no matter what the root cause, you can't remove them from the job for that reason.

[Riverwind]

Though I still don't believe that if someone performs at an incompetent level, no matter what the root cause, you can't remove them from the job for that reason.

You have obviously never worked in a union environment - protecting incompetent workers under the guise of "seniority" is one of the raisons d'etre for unions.

[BubberMiley]

My cousin was fired from Canada Post for not delivering the mail. He was incompetent and, even with one of the more powerful unions in the country representing him, he was still turfed because there was no defence for the fact that he just wasn't doing the job he was paid to do.

Again, these are not decriminalization issues anyway; these are union/human rights issues that have nothing to do with a guy being a criminal because he can't sit through a formulaic CSI episode unless he has a buzz on.

[Hydraboss]

What about the people I have working here in safety sensitive positions that can potentially kill someone due to inattention?

I don't believe that decriminalization would increase demand anyway: I'll continue to smoke pot even though it's illegal; you'd not want to smoke it even if it were. I suspect more kids try it because it's a widely available black-market product than would try it if it were just another legal drug, so ultimately yours is a human-rights-gone-too-far argument and not one opposed to decriminalization per se.

Though I still don't believe that if someone performs at an incompetent level, no matter what the root cause, you can't remove them from the job for that reason.

I am 100% opposed to decriminalization because it is stupid. To me, it makes about as much sense as decriminalizing murder. "You killed your cousin; that'll be $8500 please." Sound ridiculous? It should. And no, I am not equating the two. Simply pointing out the stupidity. It should either be legal or illegal.

My little nearly-scientific poll (sans the science) this morning proved to me what I suspected. These workers would openly smoke it if it were legal. And I suspect more people that have never tried it would as well. The human rights issue is every bit as stupid, but on another front. People will always succeed in finding a way to blame their screwups on someone or something else. The Human Rights Circus should be absolutely abolished once and for all.

If you don't believe that someone can be protected without reason for their own incompetence, please search the HRC sites (provincially and federally) for litigation and decisions. The moment dependancy is brought into the situation, the employer is powerless. I have been in front of the HR Circus several times, and I have learned to just sign the Non-Competition Agreement and be done with it.

gc,

If I posted that smoking at work is rampant, I apologize for misleading you. I meant to indicate that there are a pile of people coming to work stoned, and smoking it on lunch, etc off site. They do not openly smoke it on company property, but they told me this morning that they would if it were legal. And yes, I could easily work for any other company in my industry (and a few others), but I accepted my position to protect people and drugs are one area where the "government and associates" have tied my hands. I could leave and someone would eventually replace me, but he or she would run headlong into the same problems. I have stated several times before, and I will state it again: If they allow for reasonable ability for employers to address the situation, I will (under protest) play along.

And perhaps legalizing it would make it safer, but to me that is the same as making bullets that only maim you instead of killing you.

If pot has properties that can provide further benefit to certain people, I am not aware of them. But I have never proclaimed to be a herbologist, so I will concede the point to you.

As for mental vs physical addiction, the same can be said for alcohol. Alcoholics are psychologically addicted as the body does not actually need the ingredients (as in nicotine).

PPS - there is already legislation coming down that addresses the sleep issue (fatigue management). If you look under the National Safety Code (Transportation), the new regulations coming into effect January 1, 2007 dictate that any driver of a vehicle with a GVWR of 4500kg or over is limited to 14 hours on duty time per 24 hours. Please don't make any more ps's of this nature, or the Gods of Regulation will make my life even tougher.

[gc1765]

If I posted that smoking at work is rampant, I apologize for misleading you. I meant to indicate that there are a pile of people coming to work stoned, and smoking it on lunch, etc off site. They do not openly smoke it on company property, but they told me this morning that they would if it were legal.

Well since you did the survey, I'll take your word for it. It just seems strange to me that someone would smoke pot outside of work, despite being illegal, yet avoid smoking it at work because it is illegal. I guess I'm comparing it with alcohol, which is legal yet the majority of people who drink don't do so at work. And those that do should be fired (though like you mentioned, that might not be as easy as it sounds).

As for mental vs physical addiction, the same can be said for alcohol. Alcoholics are psychologically addicted as the body does not actually need the ingredients (as in nicotine).

Well, I've never gone through alcohol withdrawl myself, so I can't speak from personal experience...but here's what I found on wikipedia about alcohol withdrawl

There are several distinct but not mutually exclusive alcohol withdrawal syndromes caused by alcohol withdrawal:

* Tremulousness - "the shakes"

* Activation syndrome - characterized by tremulousness, agitation, rapid heart beat and high blood pressure.

* Seizures - acute grand mal seizures can occur in alcohol withdrawal in patients who have no history of seizure or any structural brain disease.

* Hallucinations - usually visual or tactile in alcoholics

* Delirium tremens - can be severe and often fatal.

Unlike withdrawal from opioids such as heroin, which can be unpleasant but never fatal (Lowinson), alcohol withdrawal can kill (by uncontrolled convulsions or delirium tremens) if it is not properly managed. The pharmacological management of alcohol withdrawal is based on the fact that alcohol, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines have remarkably similar effects on the brain and can be substituted for each other. Since benzodiazepines are the safest of the three classes of drugs, alcohol consumption is terminated and a long-acting benzodiazepine is substituted to block the alcohol withdrawal syndrome. The benzodiazepine dosage is then tapered slowly over a period of days or weeks.

Link

[GostHacked]

Hydraboss

Same kind of rhetoric when prohobition was in place.

Actually I am for legalizing ALL forms of drugs. Let us have the choice and freedom to choose. Not all would. If weed was legal you may find an increase over the short term, but in the long run only a small percentage of first time users will use it long term and responsibly. Again it all comes down to self control and what your priorities are.

I also use weed for a semi-theraputic reason as well (non-prescribed btw). I am what they call 'bi-polar' aka manic depressive. I have been on medication to treat it, and I hated it. Dealing with some of the side affects were worse than just dealing with the depression. Being manic depressive, your mind can go in bursts and just spins endlessly. Sleep was very hard at time, no sleep and feeling burnt out, to 20 hour marathon sleeps and still feeling burnt out. My brain would just NOT STOP. Weed helps me do that. Not only has it had a short term affect, the long term is, now I CAN shut down when I need to. A joint helps yes, but now I can just vent a bit and all is well. It has helped me. I am calmer, actually more aware of my surroundings.

I have a couple friends that suffer from migranes. Thet smoke as well. I asked them how does it help if at all. They said it does help as good or better than what is on the market from the pharma companies. The migrane never really goes away, but they say it is easier to deal with and allows them do actually do normal things. Sometimes I smoke a joint when I have a really killer headache and it just goes away. No need for asprin (a.s.a which I am allergic too) or tylenol.

I personaly think that weed can help alot of people in both of these situations and alot more. It is a natural pain reliver and will have fewer negative side affects than most precription drugs out there. Got a heart condition? Alot of those drugs are not gonna help you at all. Pot may be right for you. So this is from my personal experience with the drug. I like it, I will continue to use it, but I will use it responsibly. My job give me the oppourtunity to actually afford to smoke. So why jeprodize that? People, plain and simple need to exert self control and not let it get in the way of their daily lives.

And I must agree with you it sucks from an employers POV. Also I hate unions, I hsve seen people abuse the system and get rewarded for it. Makes me very mad.

[BubberMiley]

My little nearly-scientific poll (sans the science) this morning proved to me what I suspected. These workers would openly smoke it if it were legal.

I would assume (and support) that it would still be illegal to operate heavy machinery while incapable of operating heavy machinery.

[Figleaf]

;;

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf