RE off topic but important

[Guest guest]

Gene,

I agree with you concerning the drug laws. In addition the property crime rate

would probably drop 50%. But until there is a test to show how much THC is in

the system, as there is for alcohol, marihuana will not be legalized. And I do

not think the rest of the drug laws will change until Marihuana falls.

Ralph , LP

wegandy1938@... wrote:

The war on drugs can never be won. Drugs have been a part of society's

recreation for thousands of years.

People will always use substances that make them feel good at the moment.

There's no way to stop it.

Sin laws never work. Prostitution has flourished since the beginning of

time, and no matter how many vice cops are assigned to control it, it is never

controlled.

Alcohol was outlawed during Prohibition, which resulted in the most

devastating growth of organized crime in our country's history up until that

time.

Finally we say that it didn't work and repealed it.

Now we have drug cartels with vastly more power and influence than the Mafia

ever had.

The only thing that works is to take the profit out of drugs. When there is

no profit to be made, the drug cartels will switch to something else.

Our problem is that we have built a substrate of law enforcement officers who

depend upon the drug trade for their very existence. God forbid that they

would ever eradicate the drug traffic because they would instantly be out of

work. There is a symbiotic relationship between the drug traffickers and the

drug enforcers. And too often, there is crossover.

We do a fairly good job of brainwashing our law enforcement officers to

believe that they're essential to the survival of our society. They are true

believers, as are their dogs. Yet, ask any one of them who has an ounce of

honesty and enough experience to have seen how things go from year to year, and

they will tell you that we're not only not winning the war, but we're making it

worse.

Very few LE people will agree with this. They love their jobs, which are

exciting and give them power.

People lust for power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts

absolutely.

If we took a fraction of the money we spend on drug enforcers, dogs,

vehicles, planes, radar, and all the other toys that drug enforcement uses and

applied

it to education, beginning at the preschool level, we might make a

difference. That's where it has to start. Fear is not a deterrent for drug use,

any

more than it is for homicide.

No market for your drugs? No profits.

The countries that have decriminalized drug usage are always blasted by our

right-wing fanatics who will never, ever, admit the truth, because if they did

it would totally and completely undermine their credibility and demolish the

sand upon which their houses are built. They thrive on lies. Some of them

actually believe what they spout, but others are less honest.

Many of us want simple answers to complex questions. They don't exist.

In fact, we have the most people in prisons for minor drug use/possession of

any country in the world. We spend more money on incarceration of these

folks than any other country in the world. We spend the most money on drug

interdiction. And yet, drugs are just as available now as they were 40 years

ago.

We are a nation of fools. We ignore facts. We glory in the embrace of

fictions that make us feel good. We spout our redneck philosophies while

violating them personally all the time. Our politicians pound their chests and

spout lies and we say, " Yessir, Whatever you say, Sir. "

We are a nation of hypocrites. Let's get tough on DWI offenders, but when I

get stopped for DWI, Lord let me have one of those mean lawyers who can fix

it.

Same with drugs.

Most of us rednecks hate to be confronted with facts. We believe what we

believe and don't frigging confuse us with the truth. And so we condemn drug

users, but drug users are US. We use ETOH to excess, and we justify it

because it is " the drug of choice. " We eagerly condemn marihuana users as being

dopeheads in spite of all research that has shown much less danger from its use

than ETOH. All while we're sucking on a joint.

We smoke cigarettes and use snuff and chewing tobacco when all the studies

say it is a devastating habit. We justify it because it, like ETOH, is legal.

But we have selected which bad drugs are going to be legal and which are

not. And we have done that because the booze and tobacco lobbies have bought

votes in Congress to continue the status quo.

Before 1937, marihuana was sold freely in this country. It was sold in drug

stores as a remedy for lots of things, and there was no regulation of it.

But the liquor lobby, after Prohibition, seized upon marihuana as a threat to

its existence and lobbied Congress to do away with it as a legal drug. Many

bribes took place, and finally marihuana was criminalized. There was no

scientific basis for that then, and there is no scientific basis for it now.

The continued criminalization of marihuana is supported by the liquor lobby

together with the right wing religious fanatics who think that anything that

makes people happy is bad. But they excuse ETOH, because it is, after all,

legal.

There are some drugs that do affect society in a negative way, and

methamphetamines are guilty. We must eradicate the production of meth. But we

cannot

do that while we are spending our time chasing marihuana growers and sellers.

Some of you will blast me for what I have said, saying that I am making

distinctions that are unwarranted, and so forth. Well, show me the evidence.

Show me the studies on marihuana that prove that it is as detrimental as ETOH,

and I'll think about them. Neither of these substances are exactly great

for you, but which is worse? Look at the social cost of ETOH and nicotine vs.

marihuana. The differences are astronomical.

How many bad wrecks have you worked that were caused by ETOH vs. marihuana?

Be honest, now.

Look the facts before you reply. You may be surprised. Of course, if

you're one of those " don't confuse me with the facts " people, then there's no

hope

for you, and please don't worry me with your reply.

So we believe what we want to believe.

The " drug war " was lost many years ago, and the only folks it benefits are

the cops. We need a totally new and different approach, which would take the

profit out of drug sales, put enforcement money into education and treatment,

and get a handle on who is addicted and how to handle their addictions. Unless

we do that, we'll just spend more and more money making the drug dealers

richer and richer.

We confiscate tons of smuggled drugs and incarcerate the " mules, " but we

never get to the drug lords, and we never will.

Flame on. I don't care.

Gene Gandy.

> As long as the drug lords make kazillions of dollars and the governments is

> only spending billions, guess who is going to win the war.

>

>

> Lee

>

> Re: Re: RE off topic but important

>

> The Corby case is an egregious example of governmental excess. However,

> ask

> why that government has its policies. You'll find that we are behind it.

>

> The anti-drug industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and if drugs were

> suddenly declared legal, it would collapse, along with the jobs of a zillion

>

> cops who spend their days playing games that do nothing to solve the

> problems of

> society.

>

> Our drug enforcement policy has been a failure for decades, but we refuse to

>

> recognize it. We delude ourselves that we're making a difference, but

> we're

> not. Every single illicit drug is more available today than ever before.

>

> Our prisons are bursting at the seams with folks put there for minor drug

> offenses. We have more people in prison than any other country in the free

> world.

> (We don't really know about China or North Korea.) And our " drug

> problem "

> is no better today than it was in 1940.

>

> We're a nation that refuses to recognize truth. We experimented with

> Prohibition in the 1930's and it led to the largest expansion of organized

> crime in

> our history at the time, while nobody who wanted to drink was deprived of

> booze.

>

> We finally realized the stupidity of that policy. But we never have

> recognized the stupidity of our drug policy. For one thing, we constantly

> delude

> ourselves about the impact on society of what we call " drugs. " Well, my

> friends, ETOH is the second worst drug, after nicotine. The social costs

> of both

> of those drugs far outdistance the costs of all the heroin, marijuana, and

> the

> other drugs that are abused.

>

> The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth. It's the

> most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit its

> production and use. But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't work.

>

> GG.

>

>

>

> E.(Gene) Gandy

> POB 1651

> Albany, TX 76430

> wegandy1938@...

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ralph,

That's a valid point. I don't know much about the toxicology tests

available for cannabis. Anybody know about the tests and how they work?

Gene

> Gene,

>

>

> I agree with you concerning the drug laws.  In addition the property crime

> rate would probably drop 50%.  But until there is a test to show how much THC

> is in the system, as there is for alcohol, marihuana will not be legalized. 

> And I do not think the rest of the drug laws will change until Marihuana

> falls.

>

>

>

> Ralph , LP

>

> wegandy1938@... wrote:

> The war on drugs can never be won. Drugs have been a part of society's

> recreation for thousands of years.

>

> People will always use substances that make them feel good at the moment.

> There's no way to stop it.

>

> Sin laws never work. Prostitution has flourished since the beginning of

> time, and no matter how many vice cops are assigned to control it, it is

> never

> controlled.

>

> Alcohol was outlawed during Prohibition, which resulted in the most

> devastating growth of organized crime in our country's history up until that

> time.

> Finally we say that it didn't work and repealed it.

>

> Now we have drug cartels with vastly more power and influence than the Mafia

> ever had.

>

> The only thing that works is to take the profit out of drugs. When there is

> no profit to be made, the drug cartels will switch to something else.

>

> Our problem is that we have built a substrate of law enforcement officers

> who

> depend upon the drug trade for their very existence. God forbid that they

> would ever eradicate the drug traffic because they would instantly be out of

> work. There is a symbiotic relationship between the drug traffickers and the

> drug enforcers. And too often, there is crossover.

>

> We do a fairly good job of brainwashing our law enforcement officers to

> believe that they're essential to the survival of our society. They are true

> believers, as are their dogs. Yet, ask any one of them who has an ounce of

> honesty and enough experience to have seen how things go from year to year,

> and

> they will tell you that we're not only not winning the war, but we're making

> it

> worse.

>

> Very few LE people will agree with this. They love their jobs, which are

> exciting and give them power.

> People lust for power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts

> absolutely.

>

> If we took a fraction of the money we spend on drug enforcers, dogs,

> vehicles, planes, radar, and all the other toys that drug enforcement uses

> and applied

> it to education, beginning at the preschool level, we might make a

> difference. That's where it has to start. Fear is not a deterrent for drug

> use, any

> more than it is for homicide.

>

> No market for your drugs? No profits.

>

> The countries that have decriminalized drug usage are always blasted by our

> right-wing fanatics who will never, ever, admit the truth, because if they

> did

> it would totally and completely undermine their credibility and demolish the

> sand upon which their houses are built. They thrive on lies. Some of them

> actually believe what they spout, but others are less honest.

>

> Many of us want simple answers to complex questions. They don't exist.

>

> In fact, we have the most people in prisons for minor drug use/possession of

> any country in the world. We spend more money on incarceration of these

> folks than any other country in the world. We spend the most money on drug

> interdiction. And yet, drugs are just as available now as they were 40 years

> ago.

>

>

> We are a nation of fools. We ignore facts. We glory in the embrace of

> fictions that make us feel good. We spout our redneck philosophies while

> violating them personally all the time. Our politicians pound their chests

> and

> spout lies and we say, " Yessir, Whatever you say, Sir. "

>

> We are a nation of hypocrites. Let's get tough on DWI offenders, but when I

> get stopped for DWI, Lord let me have one of those mean lawyers who can fix

> it.

>

> Same with drugs.

>

> Most of us rednecks hate to be confronted with facts. We believe what we

> believe and don't frigging confuse us with the truth. And so we condemn drug

> users, but drug users are US. We use ETOH to excess, and we justify it

> because it is " the drug of choice. " We eagerly condemn marihuana users as

> being

> dopeheads in spite of all research that has shown much less danger from its

> use

> than ETOH. All while we're sucking on a joint.

>

> We smoke cigarettes and use snuff and chewing tobacco when all the studies

> say it is a devastating habit. We justify it because it, like ETOH, is

> legal.

> But we have selected which bad drugs are going to be legal and which are

> not. And we have done that because the booze and tobacco lobbies have bought

> votes in Congress to continue the status quo.

>

> Before 1937, marihuana was sold freely in this country. It was sold in drug

> stores as a remedy for lots of things, and there was no regulation of it.

> But the liquor lobby, after Prohibition, seized upon marihuana as a threat

> to

> its existence and lobbied Congress to do away with it as a legal drug. Many

> bribes took place, and finally marihuana was criminalized. There was no

> scientific basis for that then, and there is no scientific basis for it now.

>

> The continued criminalization of marihuana is supported by the liquor lobby

> together with the right wing religious fanatics who think that anything that

> makes people happy is bad. But they excuse ETOH, because it is, after all,

> legal.

>

> There are some drugs that do affect society in a negative way, and

> methamphetamines are guilty. We must eradicate the production of meth. But

> we cannot

> do that while we are spending our time chasing marihuana growers and

> sellers.

>

> Some of you will blast me for what I have said, saying that I am making

> distinctions that are unwarranted, and so forth. Well, show me the evidence.

> Show me the studies on marihuana that prove that it is as detrimental as

> ETOH,

> and I'll think about them. Neither of these substances are exactly great

> for you, but which is worse? Look at the social cost of ETOH and nicotine

> vs.

> marihuana. The differences are astronomical.

>

> How many bad wrecks have you worked that were caused by ETOH vs. marihuana?

> Be honest, now.

>

> Look the facts before you reply. You may be surprised. Of course, if

> you're one of those " don't confuse me with the facts " people, then there's

> no hope

> for you, and please don't worry me with your reply.

>

> So we believe what we want to believe.

>

> The " drug war " was lost many years ago, and the only folks it benefits are

> the cops. We need a totally new and different approach, which would take the

> profit out of drug sales, put enforcement money into education and

> treatment,

> and get a handle on who is addicted and how to handle their addictions.

> Unless

> we do that, we'll just spend more and more money making the drug dealers

> richer and richer.

>

> We confiscate tons of smuggled drugs and incarcerate the " mules, " but we

> never get to the drug lords, and we never will.

>

> Flame on. I don't care.

>

> Gene Gandy.

>

>

>

>

>

> > As long as the drug lords make kazillions of dollars and the governments

> is

> > only spending billions, guess who is going to win the war.

> >

> >

> > Lee

> >

> > Re: Re: RE off topic but important

> >

> > The Corby case is an egregious example of governmental excess.   However,

> > ask

> > why that government has its policies.   You'll find that we are behind it.

> >

> > The anti-drug industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and if drugs

> were

> > suddenly declared legal, it would collapse, along with the jobs of a

> zillion

> >

> > cops who spend their days playing games that do nothing to solve the

> > problems of

> > society.

> >

> > Our drug enforcement policy has been a failure for decades, but we refuse

> to

> >

> > recognize it.   We delude ourselves that we're making a difference, but

> > we're

> > not.   Every single illicit drug is more available today than ever before.

> >

> > Our prisons are bursting at the seams with folks put there for minor drug

> > offenses.   We have more people in prison than any other country in the

> free

> > world.

> >   (We don't really know about China or North Korea.)   And our " drug

> > problem "

> > is no better today than it was in 1940. 

> >

> > We're a nation that refuses to recognize truth.   We experimented with

> > Prohibition in the 1930's and it led to the largest expansion of organized

> > crime in

> > our history at the time, while nobody who wanted to drink was deprived of

> > booze.

> >

> > We finally realized the stupidity of that policy.   But we never have

> > recognized the stupidity of our drug policy.   For one thing, we

> constantly

> > delude

> > ourselves about the impact on society of what we call " drugs. "    Well, my

> > friends, ETOH is the second worst drug, after nicotine.   The social costs

> > of both

> > of those drugs far outdistance the costs of all the heroin, marijuana, and

> > the

> > other drugs that are abused.

> >

> > The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth.   It's the

> > most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit its

> > production and use.   But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't work. 

> >

> > GG.

> >

> >

> >

> > E.(Gene) Gandy

> > POB 1651

> > Albany, TX 76430

> > wegandy1938@...

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Here here....it it isn't tested for than we cannot say that more

traffic accidents are caused by ETOH than THC....

Dudley

Re: Re: RE off topic but important

> >

> > The Corby case is an egregious example of governmental excess.

However,

> > ask

> > why that government has its policies. You'll find that we are

behind it.

> >

> > The anti-drug industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and if

drugs

> were

> > suddenly declared legal, it would collapse, along with the jobs of

a

> zillion

> >

> > cops who spend their days playing games that do nothing to solve the

> > problems of

> > society.

> >

> > Our drug enforcement policy has been a failure for decades, but we

refuse

> to

> >

> > recognize it. We delude ourselves that we're making a difference,

but

> > we're

> > not. Every single illicit drug is more available today than ever

before.

> >

> > Our prisons are bursting at the seams with folks put there for

minor drug

> > offenses. We have more people in prison than any other country in

the

> free

> > world.

> > (We don't really know about China or North Korea.) And our " drug

> > problem "

> > is no better today than it was in 1940.

> >

> > We're a nation that refuses to recognize truth. We experimented

with

> > Prohibition in the 1930's and it led to the largest expansion of

organized

> > crime in

> > our history at the time, while nobody who wanted to drink was

deprived of

> > booze.

> >

> > We finally realized the stupidity of that policy. But we never

have

> > recognized the stupidity of our drug policy. For one thing, we

> constantly

> > delude

> > ourselves about the impact on society of what we call " drugs. "

Well, my

> > friends, ETOH is the second worst drug, after nicotine. The

social costs

> > of both

> > of those drugs far outdistance the costs of all the heroin,

marijuana, and

> > the

> > other drugs that are abused.

> >

> > The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth.

It's the

> > most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit

its

> > production and use. But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't

work.

> >

> > GG.

> >

> >

> >

> > E.(Gene) Gandy

> > POB 1651

> > Albany, TX 76430

> > wegandy1938@...

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

The problems with testing as far as I can tell involve inability to agree

upon levels of THC that constitute intoxication.

While it is true that the tests will give a positive result for days and

perhaps weeks after use, laboratory tests can determine the number of ng/ml.

But

there has not been sufficient research to determine the levels that will

constitute intoxication.

One of the reasons for this is that folks have not perceived marijuana use as

being a significant factor in MVCs, whereas, ETOH definitely is.

We could decide that ANY level constitutes driving under the influence, but

the science does not support that since, depending upon the test used, the last

use could have been 90 days before. So the driver who tests positive is not

necessarily impaired.

And OF COURSE we can say that more vehicle collisions are caused by ETOH than

THC. We can say anything we want to based upon human experience and

observation. Not EVERY fact of life needs to be proven by scientific evidence.

One of the instructions commonly given jurors is that they should use their

everyday experience and common sense in reaching a verdict. Common sense seems

to have no place in American life according to the views of some. Maybe

there's more to common sense than we give credit for.

GG

> Here here....it it isn't tested for than we cannot say that more

> traffic accidents are caused by ETOH than THC....

>

> Dudley

>

> Re: Re: RE off topic but important

> > >

> > > The Corby case is an egregious example of governmental excess.  

> However,

> > > ask

> > > why that government has its policies.   You'll find that we are

> behind it.

> > >

> > > The anti-drug industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and if

> drugs

> > were

> > > suddenly declared legal, it would collapse, along with the jobs of

> a

> > zillion

> > >

> > > cops who spend their days playing games that do nothing to solve the

> > > problems of

> > > society.

> > >

> > > Our drug enforcement policy has been a failure for decades, but we

> refuse

> > to

> > >

> > > recognize it.   We delude ourselves that we're making a difference,

> but

> > > we're

> > > not.   Every single illicit drug is more available today than ever

> before.

> > >

> > > Our prisons are bursting at the seams with folks put there for

> minor drug

> > > offenses.   We have more people in prison than any other country in

> the

> > free

> > > world.

> > >   (We don't really know about China or North Korea.)   And our " drug

> > > problem "

> > > is no better today than it was in 1940.

> > >

> > > We're a nation that refuses to recognize truth.   We experimented

> with

> > > Prohibition in the 1930's and it led to the largest expansion of

> organized

> > > crime in

> > > our history at the time, while nobody who wanted to drink was

> deprived of

> > > booze.

> > >

> > > We finally realized the stupidity of that policy.   But we never

> have

> > > recognized the stupidity of our drug policy.   For one thing, we

> > constantly

> > > delude

> > > ourselves about the impact on society of what we call " drugs. "   

> Well, my

> > > friends, ETOH is the second worst drug, after nicotine.   The

> social costs

> > > of both

> > > of those drugs far outdistance the costs of all the heroin,

> marijuana, and

> > > the

> > > other drugs that are abused.

> > >

> > > The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth.  

> It's the

> > > most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit

> its

> > > production and use.   But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't

> work.

> > >

> > > GG.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > E.(Gene) Gandy

> > > POB 1651

> > > Albany, TX 76430

> > > wegandy1938@...

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I agree Gene...but the reason I try to state facts and evidence is because I

have seen, on numerous occaisions, you verbally castrate folks who make

statements based upon their experience and education because they had no

scientific facts to back them up...a recent discussion about the use of Morphine

for ACS comes to mind.

So, yes we can use judgement and personal experience (because we don't have the

proof or evidence for everything that we encounter in our lives nor (I hope)

will we ever) but WE ALL ( i.e. me too) have to properly allow everyone to

choose between evidence and anecdote.

Dudley

PS: I still believe we do not know how potentially bad THC is a factor in MVA's

because it is not routinely tested for...and as you pointed out....what is

impaired?

Re: Re: RE off topic but important

> >

> > The Corby case is an egregious example of governmental excess.

However,

> > ask

> > why that government has its policies. You'll find that we are

behind it.

> >

> > The anti-drug industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and if

drugs

> were

> > suddenly declared legal, it would collapse, along with the jobs of

a

> zillion

> >

> > cops who spend their days playing games that do nothing to solve the

> > problems of

> > society.

> >

> > Our drug enforcement policy has been a failure for decades, but we

refuse

> to

> >

> > recognize it. We delude ourselves that we're making a difference,

but

> > we're

> > not. Every single illicit drug is more available today than ever

before.

> >

> > Our prisons are bursting at the seams with folks put there for

minor drug

> > offenses. We have more people in prison than any other country in

the

> free

> > world.

> > (We don't really know about China or North Korea.) And our " drug

> > problem "

> > is no better today than it was in 1940.

> >

> > We're a nation that refuses to recognize truth. We experimented

with

> > Prohibition in the 1930's and it led to the largest expansion of

organized

> > crime in

> > our history at the time, while nobody who wanted to drink was

deprived of

> > booze.

> >

> > We finally realized the stupidity of that policy. But we never

have

> > recognized the stupidity of our drug policy. For one thing, we

> constantly

> > delude

> > ourselves about the impact on society of what we call " drugs. "

Well, my

> > friends, ETOH is the second worst drug, after nicotine. The

social costs

> > of both

> > of those drugs far outdistance the costs of all the heroin,

marijuana, and

> > the

> > other drugs that are abused.

> >

> > The only drug that should be looked at for prohibition is meth.

It's the

> > most devastating drug around, and I would think about ways to limit

its

> > production and use. But enforcement hasn't worked, and it won't

work.

> >

> > GG.

> >

> >

> >

> > E.(Gene) Gandy

> > POB 1651

> > Albany, TX 76430

> > wegandy1938@...

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

With regards to this:

I've asked around using the following scenario and received varying responses.

I'd like yours, Gene, as a lawyer (as if I had to ask) and as a supervisor. To

my supervisors who monitor this list, this is ONLY hypothetical. (I promise!)

Say for the sake of discussion that I travel to a foreign land where the use of

cannabis is legal and I partake of the hippie lettuce.

I return home and, several weeks later, I am involved in some incident on duty

where I am required to provide a urine sample, and the test shows positive for

Marihuana. Per HR policy, I am terminated for violating Jack Rabbit EMS's

Substance Abuse policy.

Does the mere presence of Marihuana define me as impaired? Does it matter that

I used the Marihuana legally?

Again, boss, this is only hypothetical- the recent trip to Jamaica is

coincidental.

Randell

wegandy1938@... wrote:

the science does not support that since, depending upon the test used, the last

use could have been 90 days before. So the driver who tests positive is not

necessarily impaired.

[Guest guest]

Randell,

The answer is that it depends entirely upon your company's policies and

procedures as written and enforced.

Since there's no test that determines the level of THC that causes

impairment, most policies define any positive test as being evidence of use.

That's a

flawed policy, because there are also studies that show that passive

inhalation can also produce positive test results.

So use and impairment are two different things. You are not being fired for

impairment, but for use. It matters not that the use is legal where it was

done.

Some employers are now prohibiting tobacco use in all forms, and of course

tobacco is legal in several forms. So long as you sign the proper agreements

when you're hired, you can be fired for testing positive for nicotine if that's

the policy you agreed to.

Tests can give false positives, and anyone who tests positive should demand a

retest.

A good employer will have at least a one strike policy. It is exceedingly

harsh to fire someone who only tests positive one time. But in Texas, since

it is an " employment at will " state, your employer can make any rule that does

not discriminate upon constitutionally and statutorily based factors.

If you are involved in an accident at a time when you are not impaired but

there is THC in your tissues, and THC can remain in adipose tissue and hair

for eons, immediately demand a spectrometry test that will measure the ng/ml

level. Even though there is no widely accepted rule about levels that

constitute impairment, there are studies that do differentiate between minuscule

amounts and large amounts. There are studies that track blood levels based

upon

time since ingestion or inhalation.

If you were to have an accident days after returning from The Land of Puff,

and you suspect you would test positive, by all means use every way you can

think of to document your actual performance at the time of the accident. This

would include obtaining detailed statements from your partners and anybody else

who had been with you that day and could testify that you had not used MJ,

that you were not impaired, and so forth. This would be done in anticipation

of defense of a lawsuit.

Many employers do not have well defined and well written policies. You can

sometimes attack an employment policy if you can show that the rules were

changed without notice to the employee, or that a notice was given in such a way

that the employee cannot be shown to have known about it.

A recent case from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that when

an employer sent an email to all employees announcing a significant change in

employment rules, the change could not be enforced against an employee who

maintained that he never saw the email.

And if you have a prescription for Marinol, of course that should be

disclosed before you're tested.

Employment law is exceedingly complex, and when you have a dispute with an

employer where you think you have been treated unfairly, I recommend that you

consult a specialist in employment law. There are MANY twists, turns, and

exceptions, depending upon the facts of the situation.

Gene G.

> With regards to this:

>

> I've asked around using the following scenario and received varying

> responses.  I'd like yours, Gene, as a lawyer (as if I had to ask) and as a

> supervisor.  To my supervisors who monitor this list, this is ONLY

hypothetical. (I

> promise!)

>

> Say for the sake of discussion that I travel to a foreign land where the use

> of cannabis is legal and I partake of the hippie lettuce.

>

> I return home and, several weeks later, I am involved in some incident on

> duty where I am required to provide a urine sample, and the test shows

positive

> for Marihuana.  Per HR policy, I am terminated for violating Jack Rabbit

> EMS's Substance Abuse policy.

>

> Does the mere presence of Marihuana define me as impaired?  Does it matter

> that I used the Marihuana legally?

>

> Again, boss, this is only hypothetical- the recent trip to Jamaica is

> coincidental.

>

> Randell

>

> wegandy1938@... wrote:

>

> the science does not support that since, depending upon the test used, the

> last

> use could have been 90 days before.   So the driver who tests positive is

> not

> necessarily impaired.  

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Randell,

Check your policy...but I doubt that impaired is what your policy says...if it

says anything it would probably be the " presence of illegal drugs "

Dudley

Re: Re: RE off topic but important

With regards to this:

I've asked around using the following scenario and received varying responses.

I'd like yours, Gene, as a lawyer (as if I had to ask) and as a supervisor. To

my supervisors who monitor this list, this is ONLY hypothetical. (I promise!)

Say for the sake of discussion that I travel to a foreign land where the use of

cannabis is legal and I partake of the hippie lettuce.

I return home and, several weeks later, I am involved in some incident on duty

where I am required to provide a urine sample, and the test shows positive for

Marihuana. Per HR policy, I am terminated for violating Jack Rabbit EMS's

Substance Abuse policy.

Does the mere presence of Marihuana define me as impaired? Does it matter that

I used the Marihuana legally?

Again, boss, this is only hypothetical- the recent trip to Jamaica is

coincidental.

Randell

wegandy1938@... wrote:

the science does not support that since, depending upon the test used, the last

use could have been 90 days before. So the driver who tests positive is not

necessarily impaired.

[Guest guest]

When in France 5 years ago, I developed a sore throat. I went to a

pharmacy, spoke with a pharmacist, and was given a packet of

solutricine - essentially tetracaine lozenges.

That's illegal over the counter in the US, but it was wholly legal in France.

Who's to say what was legal when?

Mike

> Randell,

>

> Check your policy...but I doubt that impaired is what your policy says...if it

says anything it would probably be the " presence of illegal drugs "

>

> Dudley

>

> Re: Re: RE off topic but important

>

>

> With regards to this:

>

> I've asked around using the following scenario and received varying responses.

> I'd like yours, Gene, as a lawyer (as if I had to ask) and as a supervisor.

To

> my supervisors who monitor this list, this is ONLY hypothetical. (I promise!)

>

> Say for the sake of discussion that I travel to a foreign land where the use

of

> cannabis is legal and I partake of the hippie lettuce.

>

> I return home and, several weeks later, I am involved in some incident on duty

> where I am required to provide a urine sample, and the test shows positive for

> Marihuana. Per HR policy, I am terminated for violating Jack Rabbit EMS's

> Substance Abuse policy.

>

> Does the mere presence of Marihuana define me as impaired? Does it matter

that

> I used the Marihuana legally?

>

> Again, boss, this is only hypothetical- the recent trip to Jamaica is

> coincidental.

>

> Randell

>

> wegandy1938@... wrote:

>

> the science does not support that since, depending upon the test used, the

last

> use could have been 90 days before. So the driver who tests positive is not

> necessarily impaired.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dudley,

It seems to me that you have a reasonable and humane policy. I see a

difference between a positive cocaine hit and a THC hit, in that cocaine leaves

the

system very rapidly, whereas MJ does not. So the liklihood of getting

caught for cocaine use at a party in Jamaica is practically nil.

I wouldn't want an employee on cocaine. However, depending upon how good an

employee s/he had been, I might want to consider a medical leave and another

chance following treatment.

I read somewhere that Vicodin is the most abused drug in the medical

profession.

I'm equally concerned about the physicians and nurses who might be working on

me if I have to go to the ER. During my law career, I came into contact

with far more physicians and nurses who were addicts than EMT folks. That

says

nothing other than that was my experience and observation, but I do know that

there are dentists and docs and pharmacists and nurses running around and

working high, probably even as I write this. It is a problem not confined to

EMS.

Gene

> Gene,

>

> We need to stop meeting like this...but I do have one question

> regarding this post...

>

> Our organization has many ways of handling an issue like this...as long

> as we are told about it BEFORE the urine comes back.  Randall tells me

> on the way to the urine contractor what has just happened...then we

> will be doing more testing to verify that his story is correct....if

> Randall tells me on the way that he has been doing cocaine every day

> for the last 6 months...even then we may have another means of handling

> the issue as long as Randall is willing to cooperate and get

> treatment...

>

> BUT, after we pee in a cup and it comes back positive for illegal (or

> legal w/o a script) meds...I'm sorry but we are done.  I will go to bat

> for any employee that has cleared our probation...as long as they allow

> me to.

>

> I cannot imagine any company having a one-strike policy for illegal

> drugs such as cocaine or heroine or marijuana if the employee was not

> responsible enough to own up to the issue prior to his deposit.

>

> My employee pops positive for cocaine without pre-alerting me, I don't

> see it being exceedinly harsh to fire him/her.  I do see it being

> extremely difficult to insure him/her however.

>

> Dudley

>

> Re: Re: RE off topic but important

>

>   Randell,

>

> The answer is that it depends entirely upon your company's policies and

> procedures as written and enforced.

>

> Since there's no test that determines the level of THC that causes

> impairment, most policies define any positive test as being evidence of

> use.

> That's a

> flawed policy, because there are also studies that show that passive

> inhalation can also produce positive test results.

>

> So use and impairment are two different things.   You are not being

> fired for

> impairment, but for use.   It matters not that the use is legal where

> it was

> done.

>

> Some employers are now prohibiting tobacco use in all forms, and of

> course

> tobacco is legal in several forms.   So long as you sign the proper

> agreements

> when you're hired, you can be fired for testing positive for nicotine

> if that's

> the policy you agreed to.

>

> Tests can give false positives, and anyone who tests positive should

> demand a

> retest.

>

> A good employer will have at least a one strike policy.   It is

> exceedingly

> harsh to fire someone who only tests positive one time.   But in Texas,

> since

> it is an " employment at will " state, your employer can make any rule

> that does

> not discriminate upon constitutionally and statutorily based factors.

>

> If you are involved in an accident at a time when you are not impaired

> but

> there is THC in your   tissues, and THC can remain in adipose tissue

> and hair

> for eons, immediately demand a spectrometry test that will measure the

> ng/ml

> level.   Even though there is no widely accepted rule about levels that

> constitute impairment, there are studies that do differentiate between

> minuscule

>

> amounts and large amounts.   There are studies that track blood levels

> based

> upon

> time since ingestion or inhalation.

>

> If you were to have an accident days after returning from The Land of

> Puff,

> and you suspect you would test positive, by all means use every way you

> can

> think of to document your actual performance at the time of the

> accident.  This

> would include obtaining detailed statements from your partners and

> anybody else

> who had been with you that day and could testify that you had not used

> MJ,

> that you were not impaired, and so forth.   This would be done in

> anticipation

> of defense of a lawsuit.

>

> Many employers do not have well defined and well written policies.  

> You can

> sometimes attack an employment policy if you can show that the rules

> were

> changed without notice to the employee, or that a notice was given in

> such a way

>

> that the employee cannot be shown to have known about it.

>

> A recent case from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found

> that when

> an employer sent an email to all employees announcing a significant

> change in

> employment rules, the change could not be enforced against an employee

> who

> maintained that he never saw the email.

>

> And if you have a prescription for Marinol, of course that should be

> disclosed before you're tested.

>

> Employment law is exceedingly complex, and when you have a dispute with

> an

> employer where you think you have been treated unfairly, I recommend

> that you

> consult a specialist in employment law.   There are MANY twists, turns,

> and

> exceptions, depending upon the facts of the situation.

>

> Gene G.

>

>

>

>

>

> > With regards to this:

> >

> > I've asked around using the following scenario and received varying

> > responses.  I'd like yours, Gene, as a lawyer (as if I had to ask)

> and as a

> > supervisor.  To my supervisors who monitor this list, this is ONLY

> hypothetical. (I

> > promise!)

> >

> > Say for the sake of discussion that I travel to a foreign land where

> the use

> > of cannabis is legal and I partake of the hippie lettuce.

> >

> > I return home and, several weeks later, I am involved in some

> incident on

> > duty where I am required to provide a urine sample, and the test

> shows

> positive

> > for Marihuana.  Per HR policy, I am terminated for violating Jack

> Rabbit

> > EMS's Substance Abuse policy.

> >

> > Does the mere presence of Marihuana define me as impaired?  Does it

> matter

> > that I used the Marihuana legally?

> >

> > Again, boss, this is only hypothetical- the recent trip to Jamaica is

> > coincidental.

> >

> > Randell

> >

> > wegandy1938@... wrote:

> >

> > the science does not support that since, depending upon the test

> used, the

> > last

> > use could have been 90 days before.   So the driver who tests

> positive is

> > not

> > necessarily impaired.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Gene,

We need to stop meeting like this...but I do have one question

regarding this post...

Our organization has many ways of handling an issue like this...as long

as we are told about it BEFORE the urine comes back. Randall tells me

on the way to the urine contractor what has just happened...then we

will be doing more testing to verify that his story is correct....if

Randall tells me on the way that he has been doing cocaine every day

for the last 6 months...even then we may have another means of handling

the issue as long as Randall is willing to cooperate and get

treatment...

BUT, after we pee in a cup and it comes back positive for illegal (or

legal w/o a script) meds...I'm sorry but we are done. I will go to bat

for any employee that has cleared our probation...as long as they allow

me to.

I cannot imagine any company having a one-strike policy for illegal

drugs such as cocaine or heroine or marijuana if the employee was not

responsible enough to own up to the issue prior to his deposit.

My employee pops positive for cocaine without pre-alerting me, I don't

see it being exceedinly harsh to fire him/her. I do see it being

extremely difficult to insure him/her however.

Dudley

Re: Re: RE off topic but important

Randell,

The answer is that it depends entirely upon your company's policies and

procedures as written and enforced.

Since there's no test that determines the level of THC that causes

impairment, most policies define any positive test as being evidence of

use.

That's a

flawed policy, because there are also studies that show that passive

inhalation can also produce positive test results.

So use and impairment are two different things. You are not being

fired for

impairment, but for use. It matters not that the use is legal where

it was

done.

Some employers are now prohibiting tobacco use in all forms, and of

course

tobacco is legal in several forms. So long as you sign the proper

agreements

when you're hired, you can be fired for testing positive for nicotine

if that's

the policy you agreed to.

Tests can give false positives, and anyone who tests positive should

demand a

retest.

A good employer will have at least a one strike policy. It is

exceedingly

harsh to fire someone who only tests positive one time. But in Texas,

since

it is an " employment at will " state, your employer can make any rule

that does

not discriminate upon constitutionally and statutorily based factors.

If you are involved in an accident at a time when you are not impaired

but

there is THC in your tissues, and THC can remain in adipose tissue

and hair

for eons, immediately demand a spectrometry test that will measure the

ng/ml

level. Even though there is no widely accepted rule about levels that

constitute impairment, there are studies that do differentiate between

minuscule

amounts and large amounts. There are studies that track blood levels

based

upon

time since ingestion or inhalation.

If you were to have an accident days after returning from The Land of

Puff,

and you suspect you would test positive, by all means use every way you

can

think of to document your actual performance at the time of the

accident. This

would include obtaining detailed statements from your partners and

anybody else

who had been with you that day and could testify that you had not used

MJ,

that you were not impaired, and so forth. This would be done in

anticipation

of defense of a lawsuit.

Many employers do not have well defined and well written policies.

You can

sometimes attack an employment policy if you can show that the rules

were

changed without notice to the employee, or that a notice was given in

such a way

that the employee cannot be shown to have known about it.

A recent case from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found

that when

an employer sent an email to all employees announcing a significant

change in

employment rules, the change could not be enforced against an employee

who

maintained that he never saw the email.

And if you have a prescription for Marinol, of course that should be

disclosed before you're tested.

Employment law is exceedingly complex, and when you have a dispute with

an

employer where you think you have been treated unfairly, I recommend

that you

consult a specialist in employment law. There are MANY twists, turns,

and

exceptions, depending upon the facts of the situation.

Gene G.

> With regards to this:

>

> I've asked around using the following scenario and received varying

> responses. I'd like yours, Gene, as a lawyer (as if I had to ask)

and as a

> supervisor. To my supervisors who monitor this list, this is ONLY

hypothetical. (I

> promise!)

>

> Say for the sake of discussion that I travel to a foreign land where

the use

> of cannabis is legal and I partake of the hippie lettuce.

>

> I return home and, several weeks later, I am involved in some

incident on

> duty where I am required to provide a urine sample, and the test

shows

positive

> for Marihuana. Per HR policy, I am terminated for violating Jack

Rabbit

> EMS's Substance Abuse policy.

>

> Does the mere presence of Marihuana define me as impaired? Does it

matter

> that I used the Marihuana legally?

>

> Again, boss, this is only hypothetical- the recent trip to Jamaica is

> coincidental.

>

> Randell

>

> wegandy1938@... wrote:

>

> the science does not support that since, depending upon the test

used, the

> last

> use could have been 90 days before. So the driver who tests

positive is

> not

> necessarily impaired.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dudley, I had to laugh the other night when reviewing a run report and the

patients city was listed as " Churtes " and I recognized a street name (being

a Buff alumni). Had to laugh at the phonetic of Schertz.

Chambers, LP

[Guest guest]

Dudley, I had to laugh the other night when reviewing a run report and

the

patients city was listed as " Churtes " and I recognized a street name (being

a Buff alumni). Had to laugh at the phonetic of Schertz.

Chambers, LP

PS this was taken directly from the hospital face sheet, so definitely not

the fault of our medic.

[Guest guest]

Tell me about it...when I got here 4 years ago...City ordered new

nametags....took 10 days of wearing them before an employees daughter

caught the mispelling on the nametags.....shirts, shertz, sherts, etc,

etc etc

Dudley

Re: Re: RE off topic but important

Dudley, I had to laugh the other night when reviewing a run report

and the

patients city was listed as " Churtes " and I recognized a street name

(being

a Buff alumni). Had to laugh at the phonetic of Schertz.

Chambers, LP