Marijuana Legalization Bill Approved By Committee

cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3212631
But then smoking in your home wouldn't be legal if you have children.....
As would smoking tobacco...
Good god.... I don't wanna live in those cities if that goes live O.O
I don't smoke BTW.... it's THEM I would be afraid of.
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3212604
To get a "contact high" I agree...but just being in a room with someone smoking it places it in my system.....
Just being in a 20 by 20 room where one joint is smoked will place THC in your system enough to show up on a drug screen.
Curious to see some documentation on that. Everything that I've ever read says that you would need to be in a cloudy, completely smoke filled room for hours for your body to absorb enough into your system to fail a test.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2999292?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
 
cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
Have a higher threshold for positives.....
And be more selective of who you let in your car 2 hours before work.....
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3212644
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2999292?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
Not disputing the results of that test, but being in a small, enclosed car (with no windows open, which is implied) with other occupants all smoking for 30 minutes straight? Seems like the test was set up with conditions that would guarantee it to give the results they wanted. I would think that if you were in an actual room, with a normal height ceiling, since smoke rises, that the results would be markedly different.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3212720
Not disputing the results of that test, but being in a small, enclosed car (with no windows open, which is implied) with other occupants all smoking for 30 minutes straight? Seems like the test was set up with conditions that would guarantee it to give the results they wanted. I would think that if you were in an actual room, with a normal height ceiling, since smoke rises, that the results would be markedly different.

If I remember5 right this test was also done back in the 70's. Just saying I feel more should be looked into before it just becomes legal....There are many implications to this that need looked at and studied..some good some bad.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Some more food for thought.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...edical/ch4.htm
Due to large human variability, no realistic limit of cannabinoid
levels in blood has been set which can be related to an undesirable
level of intoxication. Tolerance also develops to many of the effects
of cannabis. Hence, a given dose consumed by a naive individual may
produce greater impairment on a task than the same dose consumed by a
chronic heavy user. THC may also be active in the nervous system long
after it is no longer detectable in the blood, so there may be
long-term subtle effects of cannabis on the cognitive functioning of
chronic users even in the unintoxicated state. To date, there is no
consistently demonstrated correlation between blood levels of THC and
its effect on human mind and performance. Thus, no practical method
has been developed as a forensic tool for determining levels of
intoxication based on detectable cannabinoids. A consensus conference
of forensic toxicologists has concluded that blood concentrations of
THC which cause impairment have not been sufficiently established to
provide a basis for legal testimony in cases concerning driving a
motor vehicle while under the influence of cannabis (Consensus Report,
1985).
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3212731
.[/b] A consensus conference
of forensic toxicologists has concluded that blood concentrations of
THC which cause impairment have not been sufficiently established to
provide a basis for legal testimony in cases concerning driving a
motor vehicle while under the influence of cannabis (Consensus Report,
1985).
Given that, I'd love to know how a company can legally fire someone for having THC in their blood when there is absolutely no way to measure when that person smoked it.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3212743
Given that, I'd love to know how a company can legally fire someone for having THC in their blood when there is absolutely no way to measure when that person smoked it.
It isn't the smoking action they are being fired for, but the action of potentially working while under the influence...basically a loophole. If you point a gun at someone not knowing it is loaded and accidentally kill them, you can still be tried for manslaughter....whether you meant to kill them or not. Similar outlook applies. whether you meant to be "high" or not, you are still high.
also some companies will let you go if you are found breaking the law...this would apply.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/3212592
Then running MJ should be removed from the drug screening process.
That is the one problem with MJ. It is about impossible to discern between an active user and someone with a contact high. I personally would never higher a user because most I've ever known had horrible work ethics, how do you know the difference?
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3212775
It isn't the smoking action they are being fired for, but the action of potentially working while under the influence...basically a loophole.
True, but without being able to tell definitively how long ago you smoked, since it stays in your system for up to a month, I still dont see how they can do it.
Not that arent a myriad of ways to pass a piss test as long as you know a few days ahead of time that its happening...
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3212788
That is the one problem with MJ. It is about impossible to discern between an active user and someone with a contact high. I personally would never higher a user because most I've ever known had horrible work ethics, how do you know the difference?
A thorough interview should give you a good idea of a person's work ethic, whether they are a smoker or not.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3212635
Curious to see some documentation on that. Everything that I've ever read says that you would need to be in a cloudy, completely smoke filled room for hours for your body to absorb enough into your system to fail a test.
I was at a deep purple concert at the long beach arena in 84 and me and my cousin both got baked off the smoke in the air but the concave roof did tend to force the air up to the cheap seats.
Great concert by the way
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3212796
I was at a deep purple concert at the long beach arena in 84 and me and my cousin both got baked off the smoke in the air but the concave roof did tend to force the air up to the cheap seats.
Great concert by the way

LOL, would have loved to see them back in the day.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3212792
A thorough interview should give you a good idea of a person's work ethic, whether they are a smoker or not.
The majority of the users I knew were through work, I even hired a couple, or at least sat in on the interview and didn't see it coming. Worked with a lot of drunks too, If I owned a company I would have mandatory random testing for both during the probationary period at least.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Marijuana isn't that bad for you in comparison to other (harder) drugs. The problem lies in the fact that marijuana is the gateway drug. With increased availability, kids and adults are going to get into drugs more, keep trying to get a better high, and will start experimenting more. This drug is a gateway to other, terrible things. I don't care about people ruining their own lives; I care about people indirectly/directly affecting the lives of others. IE driving under the influence or influencing my family members and kids (future) to ruin their lives. It's a problem.
By the way,
Originally Posted by Deadly_Legend
http:///forum/post/3208352
personally if its natural it should be legal, and i agree with you, but i highly doubt they will ever legalize coke or heroin. Id like to see shrooms legalized, but i doubt that will ever happen either...But i cant wait for the day marijuana is legalized nation wide...
The problem with this is all the terrible substance companies will put into the product. Killing is natural. Hey, let's make that legal while we're at it.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3208470
Is there an option C?
This made me laugh and proved a valid point.
 
soviettaco

soviettaco

Active Member
They should just legalize it, even though I can't stand most users of it. If they legalize it I think it will become less popular. What do you guys think?
Btw I know a lot of you are cigar smokers (like me) but are any of you pipe smokers? No not that type of pipe
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3209081
So you legalize marijuana....do you really believe this will decrease illegal drug trafficking convictions and prison populations?
By definition, yes, it will. Decreasing the number of illegal drugs will decrease the number of people in prison for selling them.
Besides, I say keep orgainized crime where it belongs. With the tobacco companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top