I am not an AA member, and am not in any way advocating that theirs is the only way. I used them in my post because it was the first thing that came to mind. My court card question was mere curiosity. I'd seen it done and was curious as to why.

Sorry for the derail and the headache. Pass that thing please. :fastdraq:

Brandy's headache remedy:

3 Advil, 2 Tylenol Sinus, half a pot of coffee, a hot bath, an icepack on my forehead, tigerbalm to the temples, eat something with lots of protein in it, scoop the kittylitter box.

I figure if I do all of those things pretty much at once that I've covered my basis and solved whatever it is that caused the headache to begin with.

Hi. I'm being offtopic.

No caffiene? Oh, no....

:bolt:

[FONT="Century Gothic"]
Early brain studies demonstrated a consistent hereditary relationship between male children and their father’s. concerning alcoholism incidence. But I don’t know if current research has shed any light on this and also the early work just did not focus on women alcoholics. Kind of the same thing as has been true in many medical research areas in which men were the focus (i.e., early heart disease research). Lots of factors of male privilege and stereotypical assumptions about women are behind this. The woman alcoholic was pretty much disregarded for decades. And not studied until women began to enter colleges, professions and the workforce at large in greater numbers. Now, in relationship to breast cancer (in women) and prostate cancer and even testicular cancer in men, the research was skewed in the other direction. Interesting to think about this as historically men seek medical attention less than women and this has some pretty stereotypic gender role assumptions behind it.


This could be very different today (I’m just no longer up with this literature). Also, the advances in MRI imaging and brain studies could have yielded new data. Maybe someone here knows more about current heredity research and alcoholism or other types of addictions that isn’t influenced in the same ways. There could possibly be research today that takes into consideration transgendered and intergendered people and addiction from a heredity perspective. I wonder..... this could throw a whole new set of variables in the mix!

My mind just works this way.... seems there are ever evolving ways to look at things.[/FONT]

Legalize Marijuana!!! think of the generated tax revenue that will cushion the tax payer!!!

not that i smoke it or partake but, with its' prooven medicinal qualities, it can not be any worse than alcohol... however, many have lost their jobs over the use of it.

my view is simple
if workers are forced to into [the humiliation of] random drug tests in order to work (and pay taxes), then career social system abusers ought to be randomly drug tested in order to collect our taxes every month...

*please note* i said career social system abusers!!!

I like your style Toughy. Nothing beats a fatty for a headache. Now where'd I put that roach clip?? :D

What is more humane??
 

What is more humane people?? Letting the cartels control whats available on the street or a country that takes responsibility for a systemic and societal problem that is not going away no mater what we do??


Legalization of all drugs may work if we strictly enforce the points below and allow them the opportunity to systemically work there way into our society.The demand for drugs will always exist. Fear based laws and restrictions only allow the cartels the opportunity to put the drugs on our street. People, those drugs will be finding the way on the street no matter what!!!! We as a country have been fighting the war on drugs since Nixon and it has only cost lives and money. Being in the hospitality industry there is one thing I have learned. If an employee is gonna do drugs on the job it doesn't matter if they are legal or not...he/she is gonna do drugs. If a person is so depressed or distressed that they turn to heroin then they are gonna find it and do it weather it is legal or not.

People have been choosing drugs for self medication purposes, in some form or fashion, since time began. It is inherent in almost every culture on this earth. Why not make them legal so we can control the product???


Permit private companies to compete for licenses to cultivate, harvest, manufacture, package and peddle drugs.

Create regulation agencies (sorry libertarians and paleo-conservatives).

Sanitation, potency and purity. Standards people!! Set em and enforce em!!

In no way shape form or fashion can anything be advertised.

Taxes, fees and fines need to be imposed. Drug-abuse prevention and treatment programs can be paid from this and cover admin costs from regulation.

Just like the alcoholic-beverage-control agencies keep bars and liquor stores in check, the same can be dome with drugs. Understand there will always be a negative element to the drug world weather they are legal or not. Such reforms would in no way excuse drug users who commit crimes.

I used to teach the alcohol classes to be able to serve alcohol in TN, I could start a new career teaching drug classes.

*beam*

Great points. Actually breast cancer research was primarily done on men for years. I think it was around 1989 or so that a huge push was made to do more research on women, cause gee, ya know.. we have breasts.

Now that we actually have cases of men getting types of breast cancer of course we need to do more work with their bodies.

[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT="Century Gothic"][COLOR="Navy"]It seems (need to look at the actual language) that the proposed decriminalization and taxation of pot in CA proposition could begin movement toward this kind of model for other substances in CA and nationwide. Just have to see how it plays out, if it passes (looks like it will... well, if mega-bucks religious neo-cons don't grab hold with campaigns to defeat it).

It is hard for a lot of people (including myself, sometimes) to let go of long standing beliefs about drug use and certain kinds of drugs, but, these beliefs have certainly not done much to really deal with this whole issue effectively. The entanglements with crimes related to drugs really gets in the way with changing attitudes. Or to have effective and equally accessible treatment available to people.

I think you should write the legislation! Wouldn't it be great to have short, clear, direct language instead of the mega-loophole compositions most legislation ends up being! Also, what has been done in the past and still exists, isn't working.

My positition is that there is no law, no war, no defense against addiction outside of education.

My postition is pro regulation, not because it will be an addiction deterrent. But because it would provide better resources for the addictions that will happen, no matter how they are accessed.


My positition is that laws criminalizing chemicals compounds, not prevents, the complicated problems of addictions.

My position is that the war on drugs does nothing to prevent addiction, and has only profitted the wrong people.

My postition is that ESPECIALLY for our community, education is vital, alternative social outlets that are NOT chemically centered are essential, and that our members suffer harsher consequences in our current legal system when caught.

Is that more clear?

Thanks Miss Pearls. I do get what you are saying. I don't see addiction(s) ever going away. Legal or not folks are still going to do illegal things to get drugs. Percocet is legal and how many folks sell their scripts on the street? Know what I mean?

I guess legalizing it all does remove it more from the hands of "dealers" and puts it back into the hands of the government. It will also make the "outlaws" just find new illegal drugs. I think a huge part of the whole drug lure is IN it's illegality. Part of the "gangster" ( outlaw/ rebel/ moonshiner/ anti-authority) mindset.

I guess my biggest thing is seeing access to helpful medicinal drugs more readily available and not necessarily the narcotics, etc.

I'm not remembering that breast cancer research was done in men first.........shrug...........who has a link for this? Cancer research should not always be gender neutral. There are cancers that are not gender neutral.

Narcotics.......poppy based pharmaceutical drugs in the morphine family.........have huge medicinal value.

I'm a self proclaimed outlaw and proud of it. I never have done any drug because of the thrill of doing something illegal.....and none of my friends did it for some bogus crap like that.............

My granddaddy was a moonshiner (and the sheriff)........he didn't make moonshine for some thrill of breaking the law...he was the law.....he did it cuz he liked moonshine and liked the money he made from selling it..........

Romanticizing why folks use is not useful.

I think it is a red herring to suggest pot or any other drug should be legal based on medicinal value. I'm not a fan of the 'legalize pot because it's medicinal' club. Legalize pot because it's stupid to have it illegal. It grows everywhere and I mean everywhere in the world.

I think drug testing for employment is bullshit. I don't care if the clerk at the local grocery store is stoned or not.......who gives a shit as long as they can pass the product across the bar code machine. Drug testing that finds THC present says nothing about my ability to function at the time I pissed in the cup. It just says I smoked pot sometime in the last 2-3 days or month or was in a room full of folks smoking the night before. General employment drug screens only say positive or negative. You can test positive for pot for years after you last smoked some........THC is fat soluble (is stored in fat) chemical and if you start losing weight you can test positive even if you haven't smoked pot for months.

Anyone with half a brain can figure out the half-life of the their prescribed or illegal drug of choice..........it's all out there on the net. Pre-emploment drug testing is kind of like you have to take off your shoes and are limited to only 3 oz containers of liquids and toothpaste and they must be in a quart baggie ....and then there was you can have up to 3 books of matches but NO lighters.........ignorant bullshit that gives you a false sense of security. And if you have a prescription then it's all good.

I have mixed feelings. I think most drugs should be legal, but I would hesitate at really damaging drugs like meth and coke and heroine, etc. Drugs where the minute you get addicted, you may very easily do permanent damage to your health and brain.

Still, I'd rather see people placed in treatment than in prison.

I do not think that drug use is a victimless crime - when it comes to serious drugs. When a person is seriously addicted to something that keeps them from living, wanting to live, thinking relatively clearly, working, parenting, etc., I really feel like that's a crime that affects everybody in that person's life and also people that person doesn't even know - like those who end up paying the hospital bills. At the same time, most of that can be said of alcohol too, and that idea puts me right back on the fence.

I guess I'd go for legalizing the safer drugs and decriminalizing the rest. If use of some drug leads to driving while intoxicated or the commission of other crimes either due to lack of judgment or a need to feed the addiction with cash, then those crimes should most definitely be punished.

legalize
 

this is strictly my thoughts on the subject.

the netherlands have long ago given up on doing the drug battle. figuring out that they can not stop people from doing drugs if they so desire. you can sit in a cafe and order a joint of weed as an after dinner treat. you can also buy at shops as in california.

it is interesting to note that they dont have large issues with a lot of other drugs. they do have some problems with addicts but they treat their addicts as humans with problems, not bait for a long jail term. they give their addicts their drugs and clean equipment to use them.they also offer treatment to anyone wanting treatment, not a jail sentence. reason? so they dont go killing, maiming and stealing from people and causing huge grief. this also lowers the aids transmission.

there is a percentage of people destine to be addicts, no way around it.these people are humans and the cost of treatment is much lower then throwing people in jail. they feel that it is the christian thing to do and i agree with their train of thought.

what I do or someone else does in the privacy of their home is not the concern of the law. if i drive down the road and I am high , then the law has a right to do something then, just as they do if i am drunk.

we have laws in place to protect the safety of others. use them to control just as we do with alcohol.

there is a very high percentage of people walking around everyday taking prescibed or over the counter drugs which can be just as dangerous as many non legal drugs. little is done about that other then a warning on the label.

more violence is done in the name of illegal then there would be if they were legal. just look at the border issues and the deaths involved in the illegal trade. people getting tainted drugs and dying etc.

legalize it, regulate it and spend some money on drug treatment.

wolf

I think pot functions for many people as an anti-anxiety and anti-depressant med (that works better in many cases than anti-anxiety and anti-depressant meds). I would say maybe a third of the people I know (hey, I'm from Austin) are regular smokers, and most of them are pretty high-functioning (no pun intended) - even the wake-n-bakers. I knew a physics major at UT (which has a very difficult physics program) who made straight A's while smoking pot on a daily basis. I know another person who struggles with anorexia, and pot's the only thing that allows him to eat. Another friend of mine has fibromyalgia, and pot is one of the only things that helps her handle the pain. It probably helps many many people in this country endure dead-end miserable jobs. For some people, pot really is the only or best-working medicine available for them.

I may have figured out (a couple years ago) that it's not for me, but my experience with others is that most people who do use pot are more accepting, more understanding, warmer, calmer, less judgmental and more able to deal than people who don't - and that's something I can appreciate.

I think people's reactions to it vary, but there are many people you meet a day who are on mind- and mood-altering drugs. Some are legal and some aren't. Legal anti-depressant and anti-anxiety drugs are just one category of drugs that affect all sorts of brain function and are still perfectly legal. .

My problem is that rich folks do not get busted for drugs although they use them all the time. Criminalization of drugs puts poor people in jail. That has huge social consequences. Occasionally some well off person will accidentally get caught holding and get arrested, but poor people get arrested all the time for having drugs on them. That means time in jail and fewer opportunities for work in the future.

i am an addict. i believe that it is genetic. i think that environment plays a part. i have also seen lots and lots of people benefit in a hundred ways from twelve step. i don't think 12-step is the only way, but i have seen it work.

Re drug use itself, i don't find it charming or appealing. i guess that's because i grew up with an alcoholic mother. Countries that have decriminalized still have problems, i agree. BUT they are not contributing to the class polarization of their society by incarcerating the poor over and again, helping to fuck them up and make them less employable. For god's sake, how stupid is that?

I will not , not have I ever worked for a place which drugs tests. I find it incredibly invasive.

The state makes us drug test our truck drivers to get their licenses, so I no longer drive the big trucks...I am getting too old and mostly have too much to do otherwise now anyway. I just liked to drive then because it was fun. :)

But giving urine or blood samples to get a job? Not for me.

When I was drug tested for work, there was an initial test upon hiring and then random testing with names being generated by a computer. Sort of like a lottery.

The test was non-invasive using a cotton swab type thing that you kept in your mouth for three or so minutes and was then shipped off to be tested for whatever agent they were looking for.

Did I need a drug test to run a meat department? I doubt it. Even though I worked with knives and a bandsaw, which would probably put me in a higher liability bracket for insurance purposes, I doubt a cashier would face the same liability, however, they are directly handling money and customers and could potentially affect business. Still... not all that great a reason to be tested.

Surgeons, train conductors, pilots.. em.. yeah, I kinda want to know they are without hallucinogenics in their system. Folks with guns ( cops/ soldiers) again.. test their ass.

Can I decide who should get tested and who not? Nope. Because there will always be someone saying, well if I have to then joe blow has to. I think part of it is for insurance purposes and part is just plain old safety.

I don't really care if the kid who works for us sometimes gets high. I do care when he gets high before coming over and wastes four hours doing something that would otherwise take him a half hour. I do also care when he smashes a finger or cuts himself or lets my dog wander off because of carelessness that accompanies the "high".

I guess I may not be getting a good grip on how a lot of folks see legalization. Are you saying make it legal in the "over 21 OTC sales" sort of way, or in the "go to doctor and get a script sort of way? Like, you can go pick up a dime of meth( not sure if meth is in dimes or what, sorry) or a rock of crack at Walmarts drug section when you pick up your tylenol, milk and big screen tv?

I think that there are certain jobs that MUST require drug testing. I am not a fan of any invasive procedures, but I also work for the aviation industry and I can tell you firsthand that not only do I not want the flight crew on ANY drug, I don't want any of the ground personnel, mechanics or anyone remotely involved with the aircraft or flight on them, prescribed or illegal.

Yesterday I was so affected by a report that I read on an airline mechanic that died while at work. I am not saying drugs were involved, but it clearly shows how any lapse in judgmental/concentration can have devastating effects.

I agree with you, I also have mixed feelings. And I am totally against criminalizing it like it is now. It is business, just like jailing illegal/legal immigrants is.

I give a shit too.

I think you bring a very important point to this conversation when you talk about the dangers of prescribed drugs. This is something that needs to be looked at also.


I think it is great to take them as anti-anxiety drugs, as long as you don't take either prescribed or illegal ones during the course of your job, more so if your job requires that you handle people's lives. If you need them to perform any of those jobs then you need to change careers, this is of course my personal opinion.

I know all about Austin being laid back and all, and I can totally get behind students at UT or other Universities doing this, as long as they are not involved in any medical research, safety research, etc.


You are so right, like in most cases, minorities are the ones who get incarcerated and punish for this. We need to provide counseling and rehab, not jail beds.

I totally get it, I wouldn't want to have to go through one. I have had to take them in the past for pre-employment screening, and that did not make any sense. My job did not warrant such a test. I believe that it was done for insurance purposed like Jess mentioned, and that irritates me. I understand the premise and logic behind it, but it irritates me nonetheless.

I think there are legitimate reasons to have one done, as I mentioned in a previous post.

I also think that like you, Apocalisptic, we get to choose if we want to go through that or not.


Jess, I agree with most of what you said here.

And as far as your last paragraph, I think that although we have spoken about legalization, no one has clearly stated how that would work, so I understand you not getting it a grip on that yet. We have all kind of tossed ideas/opinions around. You bring up a very good point.

That would be a very good topic to focus on, how do we see this legalization if it were to happen?

Let me be more clear.

I do not think one should go to work impaired, but I do not think what one does in one's off time is anyone's business.

There has to be a line, and for me testing what I do after hours or on vacation is not OK.

We have the right to privacy.

Invasive for me is a test at all, not how it is administered.

ps. also, some of the stereotypes of how smoking pot affects people are just not true.

You have some good points, but Europe and other countries have been treating their people better for eons now. Think of how members of our community are treated there versus here. What works for them won't work for us until WE change, not just our policies.

I agree that not all folks who smoke pot are dopes, lazy, etc. It's been my personal experience that most of those that I have come into contact with, and knew they were smokers, did fit many if not all of the stereotypes of pot smokers. I'm sure that I've come into contact with hundreds of thousands of people throughout my professional career that did smoke or do harder drugs and didn't know it. But since I don't know it, or them, my personal reference is skewed towards those I do know.

On a side note, there was a blurb on the news last night about a mother giving her 9 year old son pot. Apparently, it helps him cope with the anxiety and pain of being autistic. I'm all for medicinal use. It's the recreational use I have a difficult time with but when you look at all the other things we do to medicate ourselves (overeating, prescription drug abuse, etc), I think pot is at the bottom of our list of concerns.


I mentioned stereotypes above but you are right, it affects each person differently. I forget what movie it was but Woody Harrelson was in it and his character said that pot made him "try to take his pants off over his head".

*grin*

Although it's rare, I have seen folks become violent on it. A lot of people see stereotypes as a purely negative thing, but they exist simply because there are certain patterns of behavior that have been noticed with a particular type or person or whatnot. Stereotypes themselves are not bad. It's all in the usage and intent.

I agree that your time should be your own but your time off the clock ends the second before you clock in. Not everyone is going to use their common sense and say, "Hey, I go to work in an hour. I shouldn't have this drink." Or joint. Or pill. Or whatever. Because that shit doesn't exit your system immediately. It's in there for hours or days, depending on the substance.

I so agree, some people are idiots, take advantage and ruin things for everyone.

and having worked in hotels, I feel your pain!

Again we agree...great minds and all... :)

Then why not just fire them for the work they do is Sub Par? Or at least begin the process of write ups, counseling, documentation of "does not meet expectations"

We are at a time when jobs are hard to find. There are replacements. Give them a chance to improve, and if they dont, find the replacements?

I know nothing is ever that simple. But it just seems to me that you can focus on what is within your circle of influence, and be happier, instead of what is out of your circle, and be resentful.

Gemme, you have a PM, per your request.

To the thread, I apologize for the derail.

Back on topic:


I have worked in the kind of jobs you just dont want to see an employee impaired with. And yet, I have seen things happen poorly, because of impairment from drugs we DO accept.

Ive seen patients get neglected due to nurses taking excessive smoke breaks.

Ive seen patients get unnecessarily poked repetitively by IV nurses who have had so much coffee their hands shake to much to get the needle in right.

Ive seen patients get snapped at because the nurse was tired from a sugar crash, or they are jonesing for the next cigg, or they have not had thier cup of coffee yet.

We certainly dont test for caffiene, nicotine, or even A1c levels for surgical doctors. But who wants a doc to be impatient with THEM during surgery, just because they need a cigg, or even a twinkie?

In my experience with these more mild responses is that the result was targeted - limits were put on breaks, education increased on patient right to be treated with dignity, ext and that this treated the problem the substance was causing, wich CAN be fixable. When the drug is socially acceptable, the problems are treated differently. The focus becomes the job performance, not the substance.

It just makes sense to me that less accepted drugs could be delt with in the same way.

I agree. Some folks get "wasted" some just catch enough of a "high" to take the edge off. Like alcohol, tolerance and intent upon use varies.

Wow, what a great post and with it, points.

I haven't read the thread, but just saw this first post, so please forgive me if I am repeating things already pointed out, but recently CPS here in TX decided that it would start testing a certain set of caseworkers because we are essentially deemed a child placing agency, because we do license foster homes, so law requires drug testing for those workers.

This is problematic to me not because I advocate for drug usage in the workplace, and certainly not when one is responsible, as a caseworker is, for making decisions impacting lives, as well as driving around children, parents, and other caseworkers in cars on a daily basis, but because we, as an agency, who drug test clients on an hour by hour basis, know quite well that drug tests are often flawed and do not catch dysfunctional and harmful usage unless it is really truly chronic (which would be evident without the drug test), except of course when it comes to marijuana. Marijuana, even slight usage, harmless usage, I would say, shows up regardless and for quite awhile, and so the test doesn't, in my opinion, really help any agency address what might be quite bigger issues with impairment than just "illegal" drug use, and really doesn't help identify the more severe types of illegal drug use, say cocaine use (because it leaves the system rather fast, and so coke users can beat drug tests pretty easy, same goes for other drugs of this sort).

I would also like to add that drug tests are so fallible because of the things you mentioned above that might impair worker functioning, and things that are perfectly legal. And I'd also like to throw in to that mix the legal prescribed treatments of painkillers, anxiety meds, and certain psychotropics. There are folks, who under doctor's orders, take a great deal of impairing "drugs" and so are much more likely than the occasional pot smoker to wreck a car (with a kid in it), and are also much more likely to be impaired in the other job responsibilities they have. Also, such issues like functional alcoholism, as even just a hangover can impact one's day. Caseworkers, too, are also very likely to be on the job after a 14 hour day and very little sleep, and add to that further (because it's so common an equation) to be working under those conditions when they are sick. So many get so swamped and are quite dedicated, so they head out in cars (more than 60% of the job is travel, transporting kids) on cold and cough medicines, and with all the symptoms, even severe, of cold, flu, etc (CPS management often has to "force" people to take sick days, believe it or not).

I actually would rather trust the rested and organized caseworker who tokes a bit here and there on weekends and in the privacy of their non-work realms, than the over anxious, freaked out, constantly stressed, never rested caseworker who is making life decisions every day, and, well, has the great potential to fuck up an awful lot, truly damaging people's lives. But the drug test will indicate marijuana more so than it will ever detect impairment that may seem functional on the surface but truly is impairment and thus brings with that a risk of harm in performing the job, and as such, in positions like casework or nursing, can possibly greatly harm other people.