Marijuana (5 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

dude. if i was paying $10,000.00 per hour, i would expect a better response. nerd.

 

[Tapxe]

dude. if i was paying $10,000.00 per hour, i would expect a better response. nerd.

Pfffft even a hack like Giuliani gets 20K. SC500 is actually short for SuperchuckCharge500k.

 

[superchuck500]

Pfffft even a hack like Giuliani gets 20K. SC500 is actually short for SuperchuckCharge500k.

I only accept Doge Coin.

 

[Tapxe]

I only accept Doge Coin.

 

[TXSAINTFAN]

It’s not uncommon for people to “doctor shop” and have multiple scripts simultaneously from different doctors who have no idea.

Here in OK there's a state registry that all pain scripts are tracked on to try and keep that in check.

You can't refill a pain script without another Dr visit as well.

It's crazy how liberal our medical marijuana laws are here though.

And I haven't heard of a meth lab exploding in a bit. That sudafed monitoring must be working.

 

[buzd]

Pfffft even a hack like Giuliani gets 20K. SC500 is actually short for SuperchuckCharge500k.

He bills 20K. He gets nothing.

 

[2009ring]

None of this legalization shirt is going to matter much unless they also make it illegal for employers to test for it.

 

[superchuck500]

None of this legalization shirt is going to matter much unless they also make it illegal for employers to test for it.

They'll never do that, at least not for recreational. The key there is in the testing - science needs to come up with a way to provide a more precise test for when the user actually consumed the marijuana.

But I think it's an overstatement to say it won't matter unless they did. I'm not sure what percentage of employers test for weed but it's nowhere near 100% and when you take out the ones that only do a pre-employment screen, I think the number goes down quite a bit from there.

Another thing that is evolving is what an employer does with a positive test. If the result came from a random or scheduled screen, and not an incident, and the employee is otherwise in good standing and indicated that the marijuana use was legal (by state law) and off-duty, there's no reason why that employee has to be disciplined. Of course, the employee's job matters - someone doing skilled tasks in a dangerous environment (e.g. operating construction equipment) likely brings a different analysis than the IT guy.

 

[2009ring]

They'll never do that, at least not for recreational. The key there is in the testing - science needs to come up with a way to provide a more precise test for when the user actually consumed the marijuana.

But I think it's an overstatement to say it won't matter unless they did. I'm not sure what percentage of employers test for weed but it's nowhere near 100% and when you take out the ones that only do a pre-employment screen, I think the number goes down quite a bit from there.

Another thing that is evolving is what an employer does with a positive test. If the result came from a random or scheduled screen, and not an incident, and the employee is otherwise in good standing and indicated that the marijuana use was legal (by state law) and off-duty, there's no reason why that employee has to be disciplined. Of course, the employee's job matters - someone doing skilled tasks in a dangerous environment (e.g. operating construction equipment) likely brings a different analysis than the IT guy.

I see you're point and I pretty much agree with you. My understanding, at least with my California based company, is that unless you show up to work looking / acting high, they can't test you once you work for them. With regard to pre-employment screening, agreed that a CDL driver has a way different outlook than the local grocery store worker. I agree that the "when" is a good point that bears fleshing out with testing. Just because at some point in the last 6 weeks I may have been exposed to THC, whether on occasion of second hand smoke or my own daily use it doesn't give the real story.

Also I do think that if you have a medical card, it's off limits for the employer or prospective employer no matter what. I wouldn't give way on that stance.

 

[Tapxe]

The employer testing likely will hinge more on their ability to hire and retain workers than anything else. I've read that there's a severe lack of computer experts in some government positions as the better talented coders and hackers can not only make more money, but also smoke elsewhere.

When the workers revolt take skills elsewhere to the point that business profits are impacted is the only scenario I can see making much difference right now. There are the obvious already stated exceptions tho.

 

[buzd]

 

[buzd]

 

[St. Widge]

They'll never do that, at least not for recreational. The key there is in the testing - science needs to come up with a way to provide a more precise test for when the user actually consumed the marijuana.

But I think it's an overstatement to say it won't matter unless they did. I'm not sure what percentage of employers test for weed but it's nowhere near 100% and when you take out the ones that only do a pre-employment screen, I think the number goes down quite a bit from there.

Another thing that is evolving is what an employer does with a positive test. If the result came from a random or scheduled screen, and not an incident, and the employee is otherwise in good standing and indicated that the marijuana use was legal (by state law) and off-duty, there's no reason why that employee has to be disciplined. Of course, the employee's job matters - someone doing skilled tasks in a dangerous environment (e.g. operating construction equipment) likely brings a different analysis than the IT guy.

I actually think lawyering would be less stressful, more ethical, and more professional if all lawyers were required to be stoned.

 

[zeetes]

I actually think lawyering would be less stressful, more ethical, and more professional if all lawyers were required to be stoned.

yes.

 

[buzd]

I actually think lawyering would be less stressful, more ethical, and more professional if all lawyers were required to be stoned.

Most things, actually.