• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

I believe that marijuana should be legal (discussion)

I am fully aware the test exists. The issue I have is one can have smoked last night. Said person goes into work, and is booted because he is a known marijuana user and he had some bloodshot eyes (which happened to be a result of not enough sleep), so there is "reason to believe" he was recently using. He can go get a test, but levels will be positive, so he is screwed. Hell, he may even lose his job over it.

That is one theoretical example, I am sure we can come up with more. If MJ is legalized, workers will be more open about their use. Without a more accurate test, employers can potentially unjustly discriminate here, and the workers will have little to no legal protection.

nlsme said:
Sure they can, they don't NEED a reason. Unless it is a union job. At-Will employement is a legal term. It litterally means they can fire you WITHOUT cause. Just like you can quit without reason.
Click to expand...

If they tell me "you are fired because you are blazed" I am pretty sure I can take legal action. If I can;t go that far, I can sure give their name hell in the local/national paper. Most companies aren;t going to want this...
 
lordofthereef said:
I am fully aware the test exists. The issue I have is one can have smoked last night. Said person goes into work, and is booted because he is a known marijuana user and he had some bloodshot eyes (which happened to be a result of not enough sleep), so there is "reason to believe" he was recently using. He can go get a test, but levels will be positive, so he is screwed. Hell, he may even lose his job over it.

That is one theoretical example, I am sure we can come up with more. If MJ is legalized, workers will be more open about their use. Without a more accurate test, employers can potentially unjustly discriminate here, and the workers will have little to no legal protection.
Click to expand...
"elapsed time since use, and extent or duration of use."
 
AFAIK, and I could be wrong (I have been before), the test isn't quite accurate enough to necessarily distinguish a heavy user from one that used recently. That is to say, I may be a heavy user but have not smoked at all over 12 hours time. I am not under the influence but it still shows up as such in said test. This is how I have seen it explained. From a chemical and metabolic standpoint (and I am a vetmed student, not to throw my weight around, but I have some deeper level of understanding here) this makes perfect sense.
 
"elapsed time since use, and extent or duration of use." Sounds like you are wrong. It pretty clearly can distinguish how long it has been since you used, and how much you used. BTW, my wife is a Nurse Practitioner(not to throw my weight around, but my reading comprehension skills, gives me a deeper level of understanding here)....
 
I would like evidence that the test gives an accurate representation of when you last used. I am almost certain that you are given numbers such as "within the last 8 hours" and not numbers representing the last hour of time. This is generally how most drug tests work.

EDIT: I see how my statement was misconstrued. I meant not to imply that my level of understanding was deeper than, say yours, but deeper than perhaps the general public. Let's lighten the mood here. No reason for either of us to be on the offensive. :)
 
Elapsed time since use=how long since you used. Extent or duration of use=a little or blitzed out of your mind. What more do you want?
 
I am not sure how accurate this is, my workplace blocks many "drug related" sites based on the topics they discuss, but I found the following:

Delta-9-THC concentration usually drops below 5 ng/mL within 3-4 hours post dose. Frequent users may have longer detection times.
Click to expand...
From: Drug Testing Information

nlsme said:
Elapsed time since use=how long since you used. Extent or duration of use=a little or blitzed out of your mind. What more do you want?
Click to expand...

I am aware how you are defining these terms. What I am saying is that these numbers give a vague timeline (in my example 4-5 hours, "maybe more"). I am simply asking how accurate these tests are. Stating "elapsed time since use" does not define a level of accuracy.
 
"Drug testing is extremely accurate and reliable when all aspects of the testing process are done properly."

From your link.....
 
When they define accuracy as a 4-5 hour window, and then state that the effects of the marijuana generally wear off over a 2-5 hour period of time, is that accurate enough for what we are talking about? Currently, all that needs to be proven is that you did, in fact, use at some point. For criteria such as that, hell yeah that is a high level of accuracy.
 
An alcohol testing gives you a know percentage in your blood that is effecting your mental ability at an given time. The values we have are what is currently in your system and there is a legal definition for being inebriated. Let the government provide a similar legal, testable, definition for marijuana and you would have me very pleased. If this can be done with what current tests we have I would be even more pleased, But it needs to be defined.
 
Yet, one person can blow .06, while being completely innebriated. While another person can blow a .10, and still pass a field test.
 
nlsme said:
Yet, one person can blow .06, while being completely innebriated. While another person can blow a .10, and still pass a field test.
Click to expand...

And either can request a far more accurate blood test. FWIW, I am the guy that would blow .6 and be drunk off my arse, so I know how that is (I get happy from a single beer). I still strongly feel that there needs to be some sort of guideline though. Without one it will be 100% officer's/employer's discretion. If you are comfortable with that, this is perfectly fine. I am simply saying that I am not.
 
It would'nt be 100% someone elses discretion. There is a test. An employer has the right to set their own guidelines, and I am pretty sure, upon legalization, there would be some standard with regards to driving. I think we have established that there is a test.
 
yes, there has been a test for some time. The question is, will a driver have to be outside the five hour window of using? Based on how current tests are (which test whether you use 4-5 hours ago) compounded with the fact that it is know "one is under the effects" for 2-5 hours post use, there seem to be two options. The fastest, and easiest, is a zero tolerance. That is, you must test as having used more than 5 hours ago. The other option, which MAY require a more accurate/sophisticated test, would have government defined acceptable levels, at any given time (much like BAC). I would prefer the latter rather than the prior, but this of course lengthens the timeline of legalization.
 
Again, from your link...

Blood testing, on the other hand may provide more suitable information about whether or not an individual is "under the influence"
 
The best test for recent marijuana use is as follows:
1. place a snickers, cheetos, and ice cream on a table in front of the suspected toker.
2. If he grabs all three he is high, only grabbing one constitutes as a pass.
 
Aggie12 said:
The best test for recent marijuana use is as follows:
1. place a snickers, cheetos, and ice cream on a table in front of the suspected toker.
2. If he grabs all three he is high, only grabbing one constitutes as a pass.
Click to expand...

what if he's just a fatass? ;)
 
nlsme said:
Yet, one person can blow .06, while being completely innebriated. While another person can blow a .10, and still pass a field test.
Click to expand...

And a blood test tells the tale and removes all doubt.

Regardless of how capable you think you are; indeed you might be, a simple blood test tells the police if you are over the legal limit.

Accurate on the fly tests will be developed. I know this because as soon as the crap is legalized, there will be a need for a test because police, government groups, employers, insurance companies, and other groups will all want a way to judge usage.
 
Bob Maxey said:
And a blood test tells the tale and removes all doubt.

Regardless of how capable you think you are; indeed you might be, a simple blood test tells the police if you are over the legal limit.
Click to expand...
The point of that post was that, one person can be "over" the legal limit, and still be able to function, while another person can be "under" the legal limit, and not be able to.

Bob Maxey said:
Accurate on the fly tests will be developed. I know this because as soon as the crap is legalized, there will be a need for a test because police, government groups, employers, insurance companies, and other groups will all want a way to judge usage.
Click to expand...
There already are accurate on the fly tests for the "crap".
 
nlsme said:
The point of that post was that, one person can be "over" the legal limit, and still be able to function, while another person can be "under" the legal limit, and not be able to.
Click to expand...

It does not matter. The law does not take into account how well someone deals with alcohol. We have set limits and a blood test settles the matter.
 
That is my point, the law is nothing but a number. It doesn't take into account ones ability to actually function.
 
nlsme said:
That is my point, the law is nothing but a number. It doesn't take into account ones ability to actually function.
Click to expand...

The number is not arbitrary, most likely.

Long experience, lab testing, actual testing with drunk people, insurance actuarial data... on and on, set the numbers where they are. Each state is likely different, so there is some variance, I'd imaging.

Does not matter. Because not everyone can drive as well as you can while drunk and because some can likely drive better than you can while drunk, the numbers are the only valid thing to go on. The limit is what it is.
 
nlsme said:
Again, from your link...

Blood testing, on the other hand may provide more suitable information about whether or not an individual is "under the influence"
Click to expand...

"May", for me, is not good enough. If we (as a nation) are to write legal policy, "may" will certainly not be good enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom