[split] First time drug experience
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2014, 08:57 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 08:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 06:33 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Are you being intentionally obtuse? When did I say that I only did one method (blood vs urine).

Blood, urine and hair is tested.

It would be in your employment contract and frankly, irresponsible of you to put the entire business at risk because you don't want to reassigned.

I have a duty to everyone else around them when they are operating heavy machinery. How incredibly selfish of you to put my business at risk (like you fucking own the place and the liability insurance payment comes outta your pocket) just because you don't wanna get reassigned. That's rather prick-ish of you.

Based on what you were saying, by the time this guy turned himself in, and got drug tested, he would have been no longer "high" but the drug still in his system. The business owners were sued.

Even if he wasn't high, the fact that the drug was in his system is enough to provide for a proponderence of evidence that I was negligent. Especially since I would have te drug tests before his use of the machine.

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1366608#bmb=1

* preponderance

You seem to miss the point. There is no drug present in the blood or urine after a few hours and none in the hair for about 10 hours. The point is that someone will test positive without any active drug, therefore not under the influence.

You are punishing someone on a moral basis for what they do on their own time, not for something that affects their performance on the job. If they are not actually high, then you are doing them an injustice.

Okay, chas...now you are just pissing me off. I'm not "punishing" them. It's in their contract. They signed it. They understood it. They agreed to it.

Further, I'm protecting my asset. My business. My lawyers were very clear on this manner of what I would be negligent for.

I could really give a shit if you agree with how I run my business. But I guess that's why I'm the boss of my own company, and not you.

My employees are free to resign if they don't like my policies (and New York State law, OSHA requirements, etc)

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 09:23 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 08:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Okay, chas...now you are just pissing me off. I'm not "punishing" them. It's in their contract. They signed it. They understood it. They agreed to it.

Further, I'm protecting my asset. My business. My lawyers were very clear on this manner of what I would be negligent for.

I could really give a shit if you agree with how I run my business. But I guess that's why I'm the boss of my own company, and not you.

My employees are free to resign if they don't like my policies (and New York State law, OSHA requirements, etc)

Do you piss, blood and hair test your own samples Cathy? Just asking in the interest of full disclosure to your employees and shit.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 09:26 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 01:30 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm not running in any circles, Stark. How is my differing opinion bothering you so damn much? Are you my employee? Did I infringe on your right to grow, R&D, or otherwise supply the reefer? I don't like habitual drug use. I think its stupid.

Cathy, you are being a prig and your position is not evidence-based, it is derived from from stereotypes and factoids.

Certainly if a person's cognition is impaired--for whatever reason--they shouldn't operate a vehicle, an overhead crane or heavy machinery. This policy should apply just as much to prescription, OTC medication and even fatigue as it does to recreational drug use. I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with that.

The problem with your position is that you are deeming some drugs "good" and some drugs "bad" not on the basis of any evidence but purely because of historical accident and cultural prejudice. Someone that consumes one-half of a bottle of wine after work might be a connoisseur but someone that vaporises some cannabis after work--for much the same reasons as the wine drinker--is a "pothead". Alcohol is a psychoactive drugs as is tobacco, just because their use is culturally integrated doesn't alter the pharmacological truth.

Because THC is fat-soluble the cannabis user will have systemic traces of THC the next day but will not be be impaired in any way and you would terminate their employment. The wine drinker--because ethanol is water soluble--will have no trace of alcohol so will keep their job. If the wine drinker was instead an opiate user (e.g. morphine has a biological half-life of ~3 hours) their job would also be safe.

That is a fundamentally unfair situation and if you can't see that then there may be something wrong with your moral cognition.

Aside from this you shouldn't be demonising cannabis--my view is that no substance should be demonised--because it can be used responsibly and it has exciting therapeutic potential. This is yet another topic where your are ill-informed and where your opinion extends well beyond your knowledge.

Consider this a crash-course in cannabis pharmacology.

There are two main pharmacologically active compounds in cannabis: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC is responsible for the euphoric effects of cannabis, i.e. the "high". In the hands of organised crime the market became supplied with mainly high THC:CBD strains, i.e. "skunk", sativa-dominant cannabis hybrids. The problem with these "unbalanced" strains is that THC is pro-inflammatory and can induce psychosis whereas CBD is anti-inflammatory and is anti-psychotic. Thus those strains with a balanced THC:CBD content prevented THC-induced psychosis.[1] In the process of pursuing a more "potent" cannabis plant, organised crime created the problem of THC-induced psychosis and by doing so tainted the reputation of cannabis.

CBD and other cannabinoids (e.g. SR141716) show promise for the treatment of psychoses, including schizophrenia[2][3] which is difficult to treat with the current range of anti-psychotic drugs. Removing cannabis cultivation and sale from organised crime and putting it in the hands of people like Stark--that understand the pharmacology and can advise at the point of sale (and that actually give a shit)--will help to reduce the use of the high THC:CBD strains which not only can induce psychosis but also produce a cognition-impairing stupor.

In addition to being unjust, your attitude stifles cannabis research and can deter people that could benefit from cannabis from trying it. You are contributing to the stigmatisation of cannabis and the associated moral panic fuels the opposition to Colorado's progressive law reform.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chippy's post
25-02-2014, 09:28 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
Chas, I do see your point as testing does not evaluate a persons "state of mind" at the time of testing. But I have to ask out of curiosity, how would an accurate determination be made that is void of subjectivity and guesswork, when it comes to a persons chance of being "under the influence"? Current testing is all there is to go on and is explained to employees, so it does unfortunately mean stay away from drugs altogether to work here. Might be a bit unfair, but it does assess risk, which is enough for employers to make a call.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 09:29 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 08:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Okay, chas...now you are just pissing me off. I'm not "punishing" them. It's in their contract. They signed it. They understood it. They agreed to it.

It is in their contract because you put it there, its presence isn't an argument for its merit.

The contractual conditions you are imposing on your employees are unfair and not based in evidence, they are based on your ignorance of pharmacology.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chippy's post
25-02-2014, 09:41 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 09:29 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 08:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Okay, chas...now you are just pissing me off. I'm not "punishing" them. It's in their contract. They signed it. They understood it. They agreed to it.

It is in their contract because you put it there, its presence isn't an argument for its merit.

The contractual conditions you are imposing on your employees are unfair and not based in evidence, they are based on your ignorance of pharmacology.

I would say bump bump for the chippy, but cathys'd gotta deal with OSHA and shit.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
25-02-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 06:51 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 06:44 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Wrong again, as usual. And you are the one being obtuse. You make huge and stereotypical generalities, and then when you are called on them you run around claiming you didn't say what you said and didn't mean what you clearly meant. And of course anyone who calls you on it is "angry".

It's like fucking DreckSack hacked your account or something..

No actually. You are deliberately mischaracterising what I'm saying in this irrational and unjustified hissy fit because I don't associate with drug addicts.

FFS.
Not at all. Anyone can read through this thread and see for themselves that precisely the opposite is true. You are only telling on yourself.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 10:06 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 09:29 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 08:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Okay, chas...now you are just pissing me off. I'm not "punishing" them. It's in their contract. They signed it. They understood it. They agreed to it.

It is in their contract because you put it there, its presence isn't an argument for its merit.

The contractual conditions you are imposing on your employees are unfair and not based in evidence, they are based on your ignorance of pharmacology.


and she put it there because she was legally required to put it there by the OSHA or something.
Although i do not see it(the presence of obligatory drugtests in the contract and the legal requirement of that presence) as fair,what can she do? Remove it ind risk losing her [whatever you call the thing you need to own a buisness]

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 10:08 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
Double post

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 10:37 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 10:06 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 09:29 PM)Chippy Wrote:  It is in their contract because you put it there, its presence isn't an argument for its merit.

The contractual conditions you are imposing on your employees are unfair and not based in evidence, they are based on your ignorance of pharmacology.


and she put it there because she was legally required to put it there by the OSHA or something.
Although i do not see it(the presence of obligatory drugtests in the contract and the legal requirement of that presence) as fair,what can she do? Remove it ind risk losing her [whatever you call the thing you need to own a buisness]

So it is mandatory that employers drug test their employees in the USA?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: