Sandy Banks Gets Paranoid BEFORE Smoking Pot
I don't smoke pot, so I didn't know the law on pot. I learned about it today while reading the LA Times letters section: a letter from Robert Constant in Cebu City, Philippines. But, if I were writing a column on my experience with medical marijuana, I sure as hell would familiarize myself with federal drug laws before I came off looking like an ass in print, like Sandy Banks ended up doing in her LA Times column on buying doctor-prescribed pot to relieve the pain of her seriously arthritic hands. Banks writes:
This new doctor told me marijuana could help. He recommended I not smoke it. Bad for the lungs. Better to use it with a vaporizer. Or ingest it, infused in tea or baked in brownies....I left with a red vial of sweet-smelling Yumbolt, at $55 for an eighth of an ounce. I carried it home in the trunk of my car, convinced that every cop I passed could tell I was transporting marijuana.
At home, I couldn't get the bottle open. My fingers weren't strong enough to pop the top. Which is just as well.
I'm not going to smoke it. The feds don't recognize California's medical marijuana law. The DEA has been raiding dispensaries here; I don't want federal agents knocking on my door.
So, on Friday, I brought the bottle into my office and my editor watched me flush it down the toilet.
The experience left me with so much to think about, it's best I'm clear-headed while I work through it.
Robert Constant, in a letter to the editor, writes:
(Banks) concern is misplaced. There is no federal law that prohibits using marijuana. The law prohibits possession. Therefore, Banks already violated the federal law and admits it in writing.She would have been better off smoking her dope. It likely would have given her just enough paranoia to stop her from exposing herself to the very knock on the door she is so worried about.
I don't get it. How do you write a column for a major daily about a law on the books without actually taking a look at that law...and keep your job? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Here -- for those who are interested -- our ridiculous drug laws.
Here's more on the vaporizer, which a pot using friend of mine swears by, by Reason's Jacob Sullum, a guy whose newspaper and magazine writing generally involves actual reporting.
When people talk about why newspapers are failing, and why people don't trust the media, part of the reason, I believe, is these fat cat older "reporters" who are used to just spewing whatever they please without ever picking up the phone, tapping into a search engine, or displaying the slightest bit of curiosity.
Smoking dope fucks people up. Please, kids... Don't smoke dope.
Thanks
Crid at May 1, 2008 3:51 AM
Sorry, Crid, too late. I smoked a whole buncha weed when I was young and foolish. Warped my emotions and my sense of personal responsibility, it did. But after I quit acting like an ass (although sometimes I still do act like an ass, but it's not due to smoking anything!), smoking and drinking my life away, I have to say, I feel so much better about myself, my life, and everything in it. It was almost like a phase I had to go through. I will admit, here and now, that sometimes I still will have a toke or 2, but nowhere near as much as I used to, when I'm at a concert, or something. But I won't buy it or carry it like I used to. It's just not worth the risks anymore.
Flynne at May 1, 2008 5:39 AM
Never got into the the green stuff, just not my kind of fun. Tried it a few times in HS and college. I had a two roommates that smoked a hell of a lot, every night. Chronic munchies from all the hot boxing did little for my waist.
One did very little with his life and sort of just hung out, mooched all of his green from the other roommate. The other was a very successful and financially savvy engineer. He'd work his ass off then come home and bake with the most intense shit you can get. He killed off his student loans with in 4 years.
I don't think it's the pot that makes someone a burn out I think being a waste of space makes one gravitate to pot.
As far as the law, oh come on just legalize the damn thing and get it over with. Tax it make, it illegal to drive while smoking and move on.
vlad at May 1, 2008 6:52 AM
Crid,
I am a goner, A chronic smoker as they say. I like the best stuff preferably in large quantities. The paranoia sets in when I start to see the bottom of my jar.
Vlad,
I guess I am a cross. Initially I was more like room mate number one, although I was not a mooch. Now I am like room mate number two.
Personally, our national drug laws make about as much since as our drug policies. (Or at least our marijuana policies). The stocks are made up of fibers and woody parts. The woody parts make paper that lasts five times as long as paper made form wood pulp. It requires no dioxins in its manufacture. To add insult to injury, the Federal government has concluded that one acre of pot will produce as much paper as five acres of trees.
The fiber has been spun into fine linen. Also it has been spun into durable products. The word canvas comes form the word cannabis since that was what it was made from. The original Levies were made from pot, remember the old commercial showing how two mule teams couldn’t rip the jeans? Try that with cotton jeans.
The seeds are the second highest plant protein know to man. The first highest source is the soy bean.
No one has ever overdosed. There are no known long term side effects. Folks don’t smoke it and then beat up their wife. Try to say that about a six pack.
I could go on and on. Yet our national policy is to eradicate the plant from the face of the earth. How much money do you think we have poured down this gar hole? We prosecute 60,000 folks a year for pot in this country. STUPID
rusty wilson at May 1, 2008 7:26 AM
I know many perfectly 'successful' people who unwind with some dope every now and again. I also know people who are constantly high and don't get much accomplished. One of them has a state job, but let's not get into that. In the second category, a guy at a bar the other night practically begged me to go back to his place to smoke some pot and watch a Zeppelin DVD. Did he actually think that offer was in any way enticing?
Mary at May 1, 2008 7:28 AM
Mary,
Hummm, Sounds pretty good to me. (as long as it is a buddy thing and we are just smokeing some pot and watch a Zeppelin DVD)
But hey at least the guy knows up front that you are not his type of female. I would never date a straight woman. Well OK I did once, but it was a pain.
rusty wilson at May 1, 2008 7:45 AM
Marijuana is the best pain reliever available because it has few side effects and is not physically addictive. Too bad those qualities aren't attractive to pharmaceutical companies
kg at May 1, 2008 7:53 AM
I was sitting on the commuter rail a few months back chatting with high school friends after a long day at work. We were reminiscing and laughing about the days gone by and discussing how it's surprising what you find out as you get older - like how many adults smoke up.
The suit sitting in the seat next to ours cut in "sorry to be eavesdropping but I wanted to say that *everyone* smokes. You don't even realize...All the people I know smoke on a semi-regular basis. You gotta..." he told us he was a stock broker. His clothing, shoes and briefcase were expensive looking - clearly not a bum. We laughed and said "there's hope for us yet!" even though we all signed forms agreeing to random testing and are FAR TOO SCARED to mess with that. So we remain pretty straight edge. Pussies that we are.
Gretchen at May 1, 2008 8:19 AM
Ha Rusty, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a buddy thing, in which case, sounds good to me, too. I'm not objecting to the pot smoking, but the approach to picking up ladies. Maybe it's just me, but there's something about watching a Zeppelin DVD with a guy who can't walk straight that doesn't seem very sexy.
Mary at May 1, 2008 8:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/05/01/sandy_banks_get.html#comment-1543661">comment from GretchenI know plenty of people who are pot smokers. One friend of mine, probably the most brilliant person I've ever met, uses the vaporizer. He doesn't seem to be suffering cognitively from smoking pot, nor does an old boyfriend of mine who toked every night when he came home from his day in the med-sci trenches, inventing something that has probably improved and saved a lot of people's lives.
Amy Alkon at May 1, 2008 8:37 AM
IF her hands hurt so much, maybe Sandy should stop typing. On the other hand, maybe she'd be less boring if she were stoned.
KateCoe at May 1, 2008 8:42 AM
"Too bad those qualities aren't attractive to pharmaceutical companies" Oh there you would be quite mistaken, look up Nabilone and Marinol medical grade TCH pills.
I'd probably try it more often but a buddy moved in with us who as a LTC and if they find pot in the house and any firearms, ammo, or even shell casings we are all going in for 20+ years. I will however en devour to try it more often outside thew house.
"Folks don’t smoke it and then beat up their wife." On the stuff my roommate had forget hitting anyone try finding your hand and not laughing your ass off at it.
vlad at May 1, 2008 9:10 AM
Folks don't smoke it and beat up their wife? I'm glad you're that naive, Mary. Wish I was. While I think it should be as legal as booze, like booze, it can be a factor in beating a wife (take it from someone who left a pot-smoking asshole for that very reason) in the same way booze can. If an asshole does have some psychiatric problems, it does tend to worsen them. No, it doesn't cause someone to beat their wife (or husband or child) in and of itself just because they smoke but it does addle the brain and make them stop filtering stupid behavior the same as booze does. But I will say that shouldn't be a factor in legality any more than it is for booze since booze/pot, no booze/pot, the stupid/fucked up is gonna come out sooner or later.
anon at May 1, 2008 9:25 AM
Ummm Mary didn't say that.
Mary at May 1, 2008 9:34 AM
"Folks don't smoke it and beat up their wife? I'm glad you're that naive, Mary. Wish I was." Wrong person for starters. Second I have not met a single person or a single study that pot has been found to cause aggression, in fact just the oposite. Now this does not mean that a pot head can't also be violent just means that they will be much less violent. There is one not often noted exception to this general principle. If someone is inherently paranoid a small portion of people can have too much of it and become really paranoid. Regardless when a pot head is stoned the chances of them becoming violent are greatly reduced. In your case (anon) the person was just a violent asshole and pot was circumstantial. If he's on of those very few people that pot might make violent and they keep smoking pot then they are ok with the violence, thus they are violent.
Also if they kept getting their stuff from the same dealer it could have just been laced with Angel Dust or something else to keep you high and awake. Then yes they could easily become violent.
vlad at May 1, 2008 9:44 AM
I have to agree with vlad here. I used to be a heavy smoker/partier. During all those years hanging out with young, testosterone laden lads -- when there was only THC to be had, there was never a single fight. Introduce any other drug or booze and there was bound to be some sort of fight.
My ex was mellow on pot. Add alochol and the natural asshole came out. Probably how I started to realize how much I disliked him the older we got and the less pot we smoked.
I'd guess in anon's case, it was an excuse or the pot was laced. Or she found the rare exception to the rule.
moreta at May 1, 2008 10:03 AM
Forgive me for stating the ridiculously obvious, but shouldn't alchohol and tobacco be somewhere on the government's list?
I wonder if Hillary could get Crown Royal smuggled into prison...
Re Hillary, check out this funny vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTAfGuLA-0&feature=related
DaveG at May 1, 2008 10:33 AM
Not that I would advocate it as treatment for anyone else - but NOTHING has had a greater nor longer lasting impact on allieviating my depression than pot. Not therapy, not pharmacueticals.
Roughly every six months I start to feel like I'm going into the bad place again. A nice evening of pot smoking later and everything is right with the world and the sun will come out tomorrow - and that lasts for six whole months. I don't know how it works, I don't care, but it does.
And as for side effects: Demolished packages of oreos and a remarked rise in the output of my creative writing (no corresponding rise in quality though - oh well)
Elle at May 1, 2008 11:21 AM
Smoking weed kicks fucking ass!
Living in Oregon and having knees that are nigh on shot and chronic back pain (thanks roofing!) I am actually eligible for getting medical marijuana. I have an appointment in three weeks to get the card. The notion that there is anything to worry about from the feds is absurd. Even assuming that they would have any interest in fucking with people who possess or even grow a little, in accordance with their state laws, they just can't afford to do it.
What really gets me about this idiot reporter, is that she actually bought some weed, presumably on her papers dime - then instead of smoking (or vaporizing) it and writing about the experience, she flushes it. Were I her editor, I would have been throwing a bloody big fit about the waste. Then to add insult to injury she fucking writes about this non-event.
Smoking weed kicks fucking ass!
Crid -
Smoking weed does not fuck people up, excepting the period right after they smoke. Being an addict does.
I seem to recall that you are rather keen on Carl Sagan (if I am mixing you up with someone else, apologies), I am too. Carl Sagan was a stoner.
Aldous Huxley, high on any reasonable list of great American authors was also a toker. Of course he was also pretty big on LSD and mescaline in the late forties, early fifties.
Back in my not so glorious days of being a marijuana "facilitator" (sounds better than dope dealer) I used to supply two MSU proffs, one of whom was the head of his department.
An old friend of the family who has built and subsequently rebuilt his rental properties empire four times (divorce is a right whore sometimes), making very good money and being a very successful business man, has smoked pot daily for longer than I have been alive. It could be argued that weed fucked him up in the wife department, but doesn't change the fact that he has been incredibly successful over the course of his career.
My old roofing boss back in Michigan built his business in the days when he smoked every day - often when he was working and/or bidding jobs. He hasn't advertised in twenty some years, depending on referrals to keep him busy enough to make a very, very comfortable living. It is only since MI's economy has sunk that business has fallen off. But he's ready to retire anyways.
I have also worked for a lot of people who are very successful (I am not all that affordable) who also regularly smoke pot.
I will end this with myself, though mine is a success story still in the making. I have smoked pot for years. Back when I was still in MI I was a daily smoker and managed to run two to three roofing crews, bid jobs, keep up on side jobs and work for my landlord. Nowadays I may not be as regular with my toking as I used to be, but I still smoke. I have managed to build a business that after seven months here, I was able to stop advertising. Since that point, I have put up ads on three occasions, taking on about six new clients who were not referrals.
As I am taking my weekend yesterday and today, I am stoned right now.
Smoking weed kicks fucking ass!
DuWayne at May 1, 2008 11:22 AM
Not to get TOO snotty, but why didn't she do a little journalistic investigation before purchasing?
I found the California law on pot in ten seconds via Google:
"Possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor under California Health and Safety Code Section 11357. Possession of one ounce (28.5 gms) or less is punishable by a maximum $100 fine. "
The cops take your eighth and give you a ticket, not a waterboarding session.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 1, 2008 11:29 AM
Gog -
California law isn't even relevant, excepting that by Cali statute she was totally legal for it. I know the laws very from state to state (of those with legal medi marijuana), but here in OR, I can (or will be allowed in a couple weeks) grow up to 6 mature plants and eighteen seedlings. I will also be allowed to possess up to 24 ounces of dried, smokable weed.
Indeed, I am getting the card mainly because one of my friends with AIDS recently lost his caregiver (person growing him weed) so I am going to pick up the slack, as I actually qualify for the card. I'll be growing enough for him, myself and a couple others, in his home. Given the sharply limited amount of toking I do, this is more of a favor to a friend than necessity.
DuWayne at May 1, 2008 1:12 PM
By and by Crid, I could also make the same argument you are, about alcohol. And there is plenty more evidence out there to support the assertion that alcohol will fuck up your life than there is that weed will.
DuWayne at May 1, 2008 1:41 PM
Oh, and;
Smoking weed kicks fucking ass!
DuWayne at May 1, 2008 1:44 PM
"California law isn't even relevant, excepting that by Cali statute she was totally legal for it."
She lives in California, so obviously California law is relevant.
Incidentally, if the law isn't relevant, how can you say she's been designated as "legal for it"?
Unless you're referring to her fear over Federal law, in which case she could simply have bought some pot, avoided the medical system, and simply worried about the $100 fine instead.
Personally, I quit smoking pot years ago. It was screwing with my reasoning ability. YMMV.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 1, 2008 2:24 PM
Hmm. All these wonderful stories are about yourselves. That's not very comprehensive.
Yes, the law takes a twisted path to anything approaching "reasonable", and in many cases will not get there. I find that a majority of people do not know what any law actually says, and they do not know what "crime" and "tort" mean. This does not keep them from running on and on about the subject.
I must ask, as I have before: what consumer protections do you expect after legalization? What mechanism do you expect to have for establishing THC availability to the average consumer? How do these measures compare with existing market features?
If you wanna play, you gotta pay. You just won't be paying some thug, the reincarnation of Capone, and giggling about it.
Radwaste at May 1, 2008 2:27 PM
I must ask, as I have before: what consumer protections do you expect after legalization? What mechanism do you expect to have for establishing THC availability to the average consumer? How do these measures compare with existing market features?
The cannabis clubs in California are hashing these things out right now (pun intended). As I understand it, they offer an array of different choices of strains of pot, preparations (i.e., smokable, edible) and potencies at varying price points. The market seems to be already establishing how these things work. Perhaps the coffee shops in Amsterdam might offer some pointers, too.
If you wanna play, you gotta pay. You just won't be paying some thug, the reincarnation of Capone, and giggling about it.
There is a significant demand for pot that isn't very sensitive to legal penalties; it's a hugely lucrative crop that also has a large number of practical uses. Sounds like a winning move to me to take the thuggery out of this particular commerce.
justin case at May 1, 2008 2:38 PM
Gog -
ncidentally, if the law isn't relevant, how can you say she's been designated as "legal for it"?
I should have clarified that the statute your citing isn't relevant to her because she bought it in accordance with Cali laws regarding medical marijuana.
DuWayne at May 1, 2008 2:44 PM
Radwaste -
I must ask, as I have before: what consumer protections do you expect after legalization? What mechanism do you expect to have for establishing THC availability to the average consumer? How do these measures compare with existing market features?
Nothing that we don't already have in place for the market sales of alcoholic beverages.
And most anything would be preferable to the current market, as the current market offers no consumer protections whatsoever.
You just won't be paying some thug, the reincarnation of Capone, and giggling about it.
First, I never giggled about where it was coming from, though that is more relevant to my very occasional use of cocaine when I was younger. But you know, I would be much happier knowing that rather than going to support terrorism or organized crime, the tax would be supporting say, substance abuse intervention, legitimate drug education, education in general or a whole host of things that would be better than giving it to criminals and thugs.
I love how you try to make it sound like legalization would come at some huge fucking cost to society. Like the status quo isn't already reaping huge social cost. Like we don't already have mechanisms in place to deal with all the concerns you seem to have. Like legalization wouldn't free up billions, upon billions of dollars that we spend directly on the war on drugs.
Please, by all means explain just where the fuck the cost comes into it. Seriously. Explain to me how instead of spending billions of our tax dollars annually, bringing in massive tax revenue off the legal sales of currently illicit drugs will somehow cost us more. Explain to me how not locking up non-violent drug users with hardened, violent criminals is going to cost society. Explain how creating a paradigm where non-violent, non-criminal drug users can buy their drugs without having to get them from hardened criminals is going to cost society.
DuWayne at May 1, 2008 2:59 PM
"I love how you try to make it sound like legalization would come at some huge fucking cost to society."
Just so you don't have to invent my position for me, I'll be more to the point: it's not all happy time if and when pot is legalized - and you might want to think about what "legalized" means. It's not just "it's not illegal anymore, yay!". You might not have noticed this, but you don't get to sell anything for a living without being subject to regulation. Grow a plant at home, fine. Sell to your neighbors? Nope. Can't do that.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there is not just one, but at least four Federal agencies involved in the regulation of alcohol and tobacco, the products most often cited as a great success, on the product level alone: BATF, IRS, Interstate Commerce Commission and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. The cannabis clubs Justin mentions are probably aware of this.
Alcohol and tobacco are often fallaciously cited as a model of how marijuana should be treated, but that's not quite right: they both cost huge amounts of money to regulate and are unquestionably a factor in the loss of thousands of lives per year.
-----
I suppose you are outraged, as I am, that while a multibillion-dollar lawsuit was levied against tobacco companies for causing the premature deaths of tens of thousands of people, the states who actually subsidized tobacco production and permitted and regulated its distribution were allowed to stand clear of the suit, even as they had been told for decades by their own health departments what tobacco was really doing. The State will be interested in revenue first, not consumer protection, because the funding has to be there before they can spend money on care.
Phillip Morris says today in their ads, "There is no such thing as a safe cigarette." Who says there is such a thing as a safe joint? Who will sign the hold-harmless agreement to exempt the states from the responsibility of certifying the ingredients of your THC dosage method? Do you really think that legalization means "free"?
I hope not. Imagine for a minute that you're going to open a store selling THC, and you'll see. You'd better not make a peep about Big Tobacco or Big Pharma again. (Hmmm. Why doesn't anybody talk about Big Alcohol?)
Radwaste at May 1, 2008 11:23 PM
"You'd better not make a peep about Big Tobacco or Big Pharma again." Well big tabacco got in hot water for HIDING the fact that cigarettes caused cancer. Modern smokers can't sue them cause it says it right on the box. Put the same warning on pot, most of the legal liability goes away. Big pharma is the same thing, they get in deep shit when they start hiding stuff. There are many drugs out there that have shit loads of warnings and they rarely get sued. Now if people start keeling over at your clinical trials and you hide it, big mistake and your in deep shit.
"Sell to your neighbors? Nope. Can't do that." Well actually yes you can. The only thing the feds care about as far as sales is safety and taxes. The only reason they publicly give two shits about safety is because saying you don't care means you won't get reelected. If you sell the occasional bag once it's legal the feds really don't care. Now if your making 6 figs on the sales they have every right to care. You make profit in a system set up by the feds you owe them their due. You pay your taxes on the stuff and there are no problems with the feds. Unless you live on a state border and the stuff you sell is legal the feds rarely get involved.
vlad at May 2, 2008 5:29 AM
vlad, please note my earlier line about selling for a living. You've just expanded on that a bit. You may build a gun and distill your own alcohol with the right permits. What do you think you have to do to make and sell homemade aspirin? Right. To do that legally, you have to show your controls.
Hey, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers et al already have the mechanism for putting this in Walgreens. You'll get a patch so you don't ruin your lungs. (Does that idea repel anybody? Is inhaling important to you?)
Then, we'll only have to have a standard for impairment for pilots, nuclear, chemical and manufacturing plant operators, police, military and other "critical" jobs; OSHA requires that an employer produce a workplace free of unidentified risks, with legal penalties. Hmm. Another complication. Read that as "expense".
Boy, what a downer complying with established laws is!
Radwaste at May 2, 2008 7:52 AM
(Does that idea repel anybody? Is inhaling important to you?)
I much prefer bong hits to tokes off a joint but in a pinch (or at a concert) I'll toke from a joint. I also like it in tea, and/or brownies. In fact, I used to make pot tea when I had menstrual cramps. It made me feel so much better! o_O
Flynne at May 2, 2008 8:00 AM
"Boy, what a downer complying with established laws is!" Right I get the sarcasm but I'm not sure how it applies to pot. You don't need a urine test to see if you co-worker is drunk. I'm not sure why pot is illegal while other stuff isn't. Why not legalize it and tax it, I'm not understanding your argument against that?
vlad at May 2, 2008 8:18 AM
Stoners, remember this:
SHARKS. They're the WOLVES of the SEA.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 2, 2008 1:29 PM
Happy Weed Day! Today the largest demonstration for the decriminalization of weed is being held in Toronto (as well as all over the world).
Anything going on down in the US?
Chrissy at May 3, 2008 6:13 AM
Not today, Chrissy. our "national weed day" is April 20, or 4-20, which, I believe (and Duwayne or vlad, correct me if I'm wrong, please), is police code for marijuana. California, I'm thinking. Not sure.
Flynne at May 3, 2008 8:38 AM
"Why not legalize it and tax it, I'm not understanding your argument against that?"
OK, I'll clarify some more. I've said before that "legalize" doesn't just mean you don't go to jail for having weed. Did you get that part? Also, after at least (5 - I forgot the FDA_ Federal agencies have a say-so, you're still not done in setting up marketing, with taxation and consumer protections.
Right now, any employer of a critical employee can test for THC, and if they find it, that employee is transferred or gone, depending on the situation. The employer - and OSHA, by coincidence - is fully supported also by the idea that if the employee in a critical position thinks so little of the law and the terms of employment, there is no indication that s/he will take, oh, the nuclear criticality calculations seriously when moving fissile materials (I picked something we really do at work.) You can name any other proceduralized task with serious consequences to mistake.
If legalized, testing for THC will become a matter for "special" law, in which professions are spelled out for which usage is still illegal, or an impairment standard will be necessary. This is what you have for alcohol intoxication. Got a standard for THC?
You know, it's tough to think about critical mistakes killing people, or groups of people, when you're not in the habit of doing so, but I have the background: my workplace literally makes the rest of the industrial world look like A Nightmare on Elm Street. It's clear that for every fatality, many injuries occur; for every injury, hundreds of "near misses" occur, and for every "near miss", thousands of unsafe acts occur.
Tobacco and alcohol already figure in these millions of unsafe acts. So you want to add THC. OK. Think. You want to enable the nationwide marketing of a currently controlled substance which affects the consumer immediately upon use. Again, that means a lot more actual work than a cheery, "Dude! This Rawwks!"
Yes, there are already prescription drugs available which have more serious effects. These are not only non-recreational, the mechanisms are already in place for their identification at the workplace and by EMTs, and their misuse is a felony. Please do not attempt a "two wrongs" fallacy in that manner. It's bad enough that people try to use alcohol and tobacco as supporting legalization. They're both public health disasters. Satan - if he existed - would claim them as his own idea.
Radwaste at May 3, 2008 5:08 PM
Radwaste -
I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to this until now. I was going to the other night, but the most recent shooting in my neighborhood (last one two weeks ago, same basic place) happened less than thirty feet away from me, when I was on my way to meet my family at the light rail platform. Had it happened six minutes later, my family would have been coming across that corner. On top of that, I was the first person to actually get to and help the women who got shot (in the leg, no likely permanent damage - but the bullet severed an artery), so I was a bit of a bloody mess. To say I am a bit shaken would be a huge understatement.
Right now, any employer of a critical employee can test for THC, and if they find it, that employee is transferred or gone, depending on the situation.
And right now, any employer can also require that employees abstain from the use of alcohol, even on the employees own time. The only big problem with enforcing that is that alcohol doesn't maintain a measurable (read, testable) presence in the body.
You seem to want to pretend that THC and other drugs aren't already public health issues. The thing is that they are and there are mechanisms in place for dealing with them. In a lot of cases those mechanisms would probably be a lot more effective if the drugs were legal.
DuWayne at May 4, 2008 10:49 AM
"You seem to want to pretend that THC and other drugs aren't already public health issues. The thing is that they are and there are mechanisms in place for dealing with them. In a lot of cases those mechanisms would probably be a lot more effective if the drugs were legal."
Wow. I am so sorry I did not see this, because you have taken yet another step to invent my position for me. Also, you have not noticed that there are no mechanisms for determining the degree of impairment for many popular drugs, despite my posts. I can assure you that most companies depend on the law in their employee contracts.
But thank you for admitting their public health problems.
Radwaste at February 15, 2015 1:54 PM
Leave a comment