[split] First time drug experience
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2014, 10:43 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 10:37 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 10:06 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  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?

mandatory for employees using heavy machinery if i recall the article correctly

KC IS A LIAR!!!! HE PROMISED ME VANILLA CAKES AND GAVE ME STRAWBERRY CAKE Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 11:23 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2014 11:56 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 08:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 08:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  * 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.


BULLSHIT. It's not *THEIR* contract. YOU and your asshole LIEyers wrote it.

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

Yes, it's YOUR contract. Quit fucking lying to yourself, because you are fooling NO ONE.

Quote: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)

And no one gives a shit how you run your fucking company. Its irrelevant to this discussion of your batshit reefer-madness attitude toward cannabis use.

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, 11:30 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 09:26 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(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.

I agree completely with Chippy here, but again I will point out that this bullshit you are droning on about your company with is just a fucking red herring -- You only brought out all the OSHA/etc. shit after you were called on your hysterical reefer-madness ranting about anyone and everyone who uses cannabis being "potheads" and "losers".

I have no argument whatsoever with your obligation to comply with current OSHA drug regs. But that isn't what your shit is about. Whoever else bites onto your red herring, that's their own problem. You aren't spouting bullshit because of OSHA requirements. You are spouting bullshit because you hate people you call "potheads" and, by virtue of their use of cannabis, "losers"-- which includes your fucking pothead loser grandmother, whether you like it or not.

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, 11:33 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 09:28 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  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.

The problem with current testing is that it has been skewed by 70 years of "reefer madness". There are tests that will indicate how much THC is ACTIVE in the bloodstream, but there is NO research that can correlate those levels with actual impairment. They can't even get that shit straight with alcohol.

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, 11:38 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 11:30 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I agree completely with Chippy here

that's new

KC IS A LIAR!!!! HE PROMISED ME VANILLA CAKES AND GAVE ME STRAWBERRY CAKE Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Lightvader's post
25-02-2014, 11:38 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 01:07 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
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 agree completely. But again I would stress that it's not THEIR contract, but YOUR contract that they were FORCED to sign in order to gain employment and be able to make a living for themselves.

I find your claim that it's "THEIR" contract to be un-FUCKING-believably arrogant. They wouldn't sign it if they didn't HAVE to, to make a living. You are a piece of fucking work.

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, 11:41 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 09:41 PM)GirlyMan 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.

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

Yes, she does, but all this OSHA bullshit is just a red herring she threw in after she got her ass kicked all over the place for all the batshit reefer-madness bullshit she was spouting. Read through the thread again, and you will see.

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, 11:44 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]

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with the bullshit she was spouting at the start of this discussion. If you want to chase after the red herring, go ahead and let her make a fool of you.

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, 11:54 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 12:28 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 10:37 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 10:06 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  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?

No. But apparently Cathy runs some sort of "heavy equipment" company, and they do fall under OSHA ((US Gov't) Office of Safety and Health Administration) requirements, which currently includes random drug testing of employees (especially/specifically those who run heavy equipment).

Which is one issue, but if you look back through this thread and the one it split off of, Cathy only threw out the red-herring issue of her company and OSHA requirements after everyone jacked her up over the shit she was spouting about anyone and everyone (except, apparently, her drug-addled grandmother) who uses cannabis being "potheads" and "losers".

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, 11:57 PM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(25-02-2014 11:38 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 11:30 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I agree completely with Chippy here

that's new

....You were trying to make some kind of point...?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: