Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today's conservatives are all authoritarian followers. They would fit in perfect in north Korea...
Yes, many conservatives running for office just talk about lowering or eliminating taxes for wealthy. They seem to believe any people they don't need for their personal slaves should be in prison. That seems to be the platform for social conservatives.
I like Gary Johnson for president as he's more fiscally conservative than Mitt Romney, but more socially liberal than Barack Obama.
His VP retired judge Jim Gray has internet town hall tonight Wed 9pm EDT, 6 pm PDT. He's from judges against the drug war & will have Rob Kampia from Marijuana Policy Project as guest. Most know about the stuff that will be discussed or prefer not to know, but if you're curious watch/listen. Thanks!
P.S. The internet town hall will likely remain available at GaryJohnson2012.com or youtube.com
Could you please explain your logic behind your support for drug tests for employees who work for their money, but not for welfare recipients. It just makes no sense to me.
Well, in my opinion, its not. Private employer drug testing is a joke, it tests for one thing, marijuana.
Cocaine, meth, heroine, etc, are all out of the system within a day or a week. Because THC is fat soluable, it can show up in drug screens for months after the last use. Some people take as much as three or four months.
Now, don't get this confused, what they are testing for isn't THC, its the residue that is left over in the fat. It is a cannabanoid, but it is not the THC that gives people the "high" they feel when using it. Its essentially like drinking a coke, and then taking a urine screen two months later, to see if you drank a coke. You aren't under the influenece anymore, whats the difference?
But, those are PRIVATE employers, and free to do what they would like I guess. The state shouldn't be testing for drugs for welfare, mainly beacuse it wastes money. Just like it wastes money for private employers to drug screen.
Well, in my opinion, its not. Private employer drug testing is a joke, it tests for one thing, marijuana.
Cocaine, meth, heroine, etc, are all out of the system within a day or a week. Because THC is fat soluable, it can show up in drug screens for months after the last use. Some people take as much as three or four months.
Now, don't get this confused, what they are testing for isn't THC, its the residue that is left over in the fat. It is a cannabanoid, but it is not the THC that gives people the "high" they feel when using it. Its essentially like drinking a coke, and then taking a urine screen two months later, to see if you drank a coke. You aren't under the influenece anymore, whats the difference?
This is the problem. You very well might be under the influence still. There is no good way to measure that. Since people don't read past posts I'll note that I argued against welfare testing. That said I get tested at work randomly and I'm absolutely fine with that until there is a way to determine influence.
Where I work I absolutely do not want any co-workers under the influence. But most have said it's absolutely up to private employers if they want to do it and pay for it.
This is the problem. You very well might be under the influence still. There is no good way to measure that. Since people don't read past posts I'll note that I argued against welfare testing. That said I get tested at work randomly and I'm absolutely fine with that until there is a way to determine influence.
Where I work I absolutely do not want any co-workers under the influence. But most have said it's absolutely up to private employers if they want to do it and pay for it.
No, there is a perfect way to measure it, a field sobriety test.
Ask any officers, google it, FST's are very effective determining intoxicated levels of the body. Actually, they are usually more accurate then breathalyzers.
Your coworkers, if they smoked a the night before, is not anymore likely to cause you a problem then someone who got 8 hours of sleep is.
No, there is a perfect way to measure it, a field sobriety test.
Ask any officers, google it, FST's are very effective determining intoxicated levels of the body. Actually, they are usually more accurate then breathalyzers.
Your coworkers, if they smoked a the night before, is not anymore likely to cause you a problem then someone who got 8 hours of sleep is.
Breathalyzers? Field sobriety tests?
No, you have no clue. There have been no FST that are designed to determine drug consumption. Alcohol yes. Have charges ever been made off them? Yes, but a company can't afford to take every case to court and try to argue their point when only a small portion of the test applies to pot and even that part could be caused by other causes.
I was not complaining about someone who smoked the night before. I care less. Until there is a valid, replicable, accepted test for influence under pot, employee's will be tested and I'm good with that.
As long as YOU pay for the drug tests, have at it. Don't use my taxes for a test that is unneeded. Didn't one state already try it, Fla maybe, and they found the tests cost way more than they'd ever save.
Besides, I am not convinced that a drug addict should be kicked to the side of the road. We're a big country, I think we can help those needing help inspite of their condition. The only test should be, "What would Jesus do?"
I totally agree with your last part. Drug use should be treated as a rehab issue, and not a criminal issue, especially if no crime has been committed. There is always that opportunity in which that person will seek help. We can't save everyone, and for those who don't want help.... well what can you do? Nevertheless, I still feel it should be more of a social issue, instead of recycling them through the criminal justice system, further screwing up their life and creating a vicious cycle. Now if you committ a violent crime, then that is something else all together. It's always funny to watch the hypocritical "so-called" Christians act all high and mighty, but mention someone using drugs, and their response is "they should be killed!" I'm Christian, and I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't be too happy with the their line of thinking! And before someone tries to flame me, I'm not talking about ALL Christians. We both know the types that I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Well, in my opinion, its not. Private employer drug testing is a joke, it tests for one thing, marijuana.
Cocaine, meth, heroine, etc, are all out of the system within a day or a week. Because THC is fat soluable, it can show up in drug screens for months after the last use. Some people take as much as three or four months.
Now, don't get this confused, what they are testing for isn't THC, its the residue that is left over in the fat. It is a cannabanoid, but it is not the THC that gives people the "high" they feel when using it. Its essentially like drinking a coke, and then taking a urine screen two months later, to see if you drank a coke. You aren't under the influenece anymore, whats the difference?
But, those are PRIVATE employers, and free to do what they would like I guess. The state shouldn't be testing for drugs for welfare, mainly beacuse it wastes money. Just like it wastes money for private employers to drug screen.
It's always the pot smokers that get caught, which is a big reason why drug testing is absolutely flawed. You can drink yourself s****y the night before, and no issue. You can do coke, meth or heroin, on Friday, and pass a wizz test on Tuesday! Those substances are a heck of a lot more toxic than marijuana! It doesn't make sense!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
No, there is a perfect way to measure it, a field sobriety test.
Ask any officers, google it, FST's are very effective determining intoxicated levels of the body. Actually, they are usually more accurate then breathalyzers.
Your coworkers, if they smoked a the night before, is not anymore likely to cause you a problem then someone who got 8 hours of sleep is.
Exactly! Try going to work the next day with a hang over after a night of drinking. I guarantee you you're not going to be anywhere near as productive. And again, any officer who is any good at his job can determine if you're intoxicated or not. Hell, they train for that!
It's always the pot smokers that get caught, which is a big reason why drug testing is absolutely flawed. You can drink yourself s****y the night before, and no issue. You can do coke, meth or heroin, on Friday, and pass a wizz test on Tuesday! Those substances are a heck of a lot more toxic than marijuana! It doesn't make sense!
You need to get someone to develop a test that will determine current influence level with pot. Until then employers have no other option than test as they do.
Quote:
Exactly! Try going to work the next day with a hang over after a night of drinking. I guarantee you you're not going to be anywhere near as productive. And again, any officer who is any good at his job can determine if you're intoxicated or not. Hell, they train for that!
It's not going to hold up in court for pot. An employer can not afford constantly going to court.
No, you have no clue. There have been no FST that are designed to determine drug consumption. Alcohol yes. Have charges ever been made off them? Yes, but a company can't afford to take every case to court and try to argue their point when only a small portion of the test applies to pot and even that part could be caused by other causes.
I was not complaining about someone who smoked the night before. I care less. Until there is a valid, replicable, accepted test for influence under pot, employee's will be tested and I'm good with that.
"In a vigorous effort to convict the accused, the prosecutor will have the arresting officer testify about and demonstrate all of the ways that the accused didn’t perform the tests as he or she was instructed. The prosecutor will then argue that the accused displayed mental and/or physical impairment when he or she could not mentally or physically follow the simple instructions that were provided at the beginning of the FSTs."
You need to get someone to develop a test that will determine current influence level with pot. Until then employers have no other option than test as they do.
It's not going to hold up in court for pot. An employer can not afford constantly going to court.
But do you not understand the lunacy here? In comparison to the other substances including alcohol, pot is small potatoes! I'm sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree here, and why I think drug testing is a joke, and flawed. If I smoke the night before, it has no effect on my performance the next day, given that the effects from smoking generally wear off within 1-3 hours.
"In a vigorous effort to convict the accused, the prosecutor will have the arresting officer testify about and demonstrate all of the ways that the accused didn’t perform the tests as he or she was instructed. The prosecutor will then argue that the accused displayed mental and/or physical impairment when he or she could not mentally or physically follow the simple instructions that were provided at the beginning of the FSTs."
there are three that the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration have classified as “standard,” which means that there are standard approaches for their administration and evaluation. These three FSTs include the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, which is an eye test, the one-leg stand and the walk and turn test. The main problem with these (as well as the non-standardized tests that are frequently used, such as the finger-to-nose, finger count and the hand-pat tests) as they relate to a driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) investigation is that they were designed to test a driver impaired by alcohol, not drugs. Studies have been conducted that reveal that individuals who have used marijuana have shown impaired abilities when it comes to maintaining balance, however, illness, fatigue and nerves can also contribute to this phenomenon.
Then read on, other factors can cause the one aspect that applies to drug use. I covered all of this already. Do you not bother to read what you link to or what others post? It would appear not and I have no idea why people such as yourself even bother positing anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm Christian, and I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't be too happy with the their line of thinking!
Those substances are a heck of a lot more toxic than marijuana! It doesn't make sense!
Try going to work the next day with a hang over after a night of drinking. I guarantee you you're not going to be anywhere near as productive. And again, any officer who is any good at his job can determine if you're intoxicated or not. Hell, they train for that!
