Cannabis News

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
I specifically said while off the clock, not at work. I don't think anybody should be high at work unless being high is the job.
I generally agreed with your post but have a problem with how this is stated. One does not have to be "high" to have cannabis affect the job. At what point would an employer have the right to test? (If ever.)

It is clear a certain segment of the population who use cannabis have a problem with it. Not going to argue percentages, but some. Should an employer have the right to mitigate the damage to his business by firing cannabis users?

From a study I posted in the driving while high section, there is some evidence that cannabis users may have the drug effect their driving even when they haven't recently used. If it is found that cannabis use DOES affect driving even when the use is not recent, should an employer have the right to mitigate the chance of driving liability on his business caused by cannabis users?

We could go on, but, it seems like even a person who is not high at the time at work could still be less good at work because of cannabis use. Does an employer or potential employer have the right to act on that potential?

I've known guys who won't hire a worker unless he has a mortgage. It has nothing to do with the job but their "logic" is that, once a guy HAS to go to work to keep his house, he goes to work regularly. In their minds, a mortgage does not go away if the guy has a bad day and wants to yell at his boss. You could say the same for rent in my mind, yet, their logic differs. Is that their right?

Personally, I'd like everyone to be taken on face value. If they can do the work it really doesn't matter if they got a degree, had a mortgage or smoked a doobie. (Well, I guess if they smoked...) If an employer feels a person is doing the job, everyone should be happy without any testing. (Some jobs have some legally mandated testing and we're not talking about those.) If the guy is no longer doing the job, fire them; no matter if it is because of being stupid, ugly, smelly or being a drug user. No testing needed!

It's when we want to protect a person's job and prevent free firing for any, or no, reason where the schema of testing comes up. Sure, most states are "at will" where the boss can fire...at will. Yet, there are costs to unsupported firing. There are the hard to quantify costs of a churning workforce as well as increases in unemployment insurance. (Other insurance like worker's compensation also seem to be a lot higher when the workforce moves a lot.)

If we had a choice of testing or of only being fired for cause, what would be the best choice?
 
Last edited:

Planck

believes in Dog
I generally agreed with your post but have a problem with how this is stated. One does not have to be "high" to have cannabis affect the job. At what point would an employer have the right to test? (If ever.)

We would have to define "high" and "affect the job". Do you have peer reviewed papers that conclude or support your assertion? At what point would or should
a LEO have the right to administer a drug test. I am not sure I'd agree an employer alone should ever be allowed to drug test. Either one does their job satisfactorily or they do not. If not satisfactory does it or should it matter to the employer what the reason is?

It is clear a certain segment of the population who use cannabis have a problem with it. Not going to argue percentages, but some. Should an employer have the right to mitigate the damage to his business by firing cannabis users?

Clearly individuals have problems with many things, drugs among them. Should employers have the right to DNA samples to screen for problem? Is there legit data (evidence) that off hour cannabis use damages businesses. WHat sort of damage and what sort of business. Should all "employees" be held to the same testing standards?

From a study I posted in the driving while high section, there is some evidence that cannabis users may have the drug effect their driving even when they haven't recently used. If it is found that cannabis use DOES affect driving even when the use is not recent, should an employer have the right to mitigate the chance of driving liability on his business caused by cannabis users?

I have not read this study yet, not following that thread.
I won't answer a vague hypothetical "If it is found that cannabis use DOES affect driving even when the use is not recent"

Personally, I'd like everyone to be taken on face value. If they can do the work it really doesn't matter if they got a degree, had a mortgage or smoked a doobie. (Well, I guess if they smoked...) If an employer feels a person is doing the job, everyone should be happy without any testing. (Some jobs have some legally mandated testing and we're not talking about those.) If the guy is no longer doing the job, fire them; no matter if it is because of being stupid, ugly, smelly or being a drug user. No testing needed!

That is in line with my thoughts and practices.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
We would have to define "high" and "affect the job". Do you have peer reviewed papers that conclude or support your assertion? At what point would or should
a LEO have the right to administer a drug test. I am not sure I'd agree an employer alone should ever be allowed to drug test. Either one does their job satisfactorily or they do not. If not satisfactory does it or should it matter to the employer what the reason is?
A LEO only has a "right" to test when a court orders it. He has some power to seize evidence when he has probable cause to believe a crime is being or has been committed. When the seizure involves things like bodily fluids, many states might require consent or a court order. Even in states that do not require such an order, the officer can not use force that would shock the conscience to collect the sample.

Clearly individuals have problems with many things, drugs among them. Should employers have the right to DNA samples to screen for problem? Is there legit data (evidence) that off hour cannabis use damages businesses. WHat sort of damage and what sort of business. Should all "employees" be held to the same testing standards?
DNA is a much more difficult issue. As with cannabis use, the answer will be political. There will be clear benefits to the employer at some point to know employee's DNA results. Yet, Gattaca. Lady or the tiger? Freedom or security?
 

rnartian

Earthling flora is... fascinating.

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Well, Paltrow, through her company Goop, is selling a candle that smells of Gwyenth's Hoo Haw. It's called “This Smells Like My Vagina.” It's only $75
 
Last edited:

C No Ego

Well-Known Member
Can cannabis alone cure cancer? We asked oncologist Dr. Donald Abrams
Can cannabis alone cure cancer?

The short answer is no. There are as yet no major studies that offer conclusive proof that cannabis alone can cure cancer.

The long answer is more complex.
a few = 1974 - antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1159836
2016 - anti cancer mechanisms of cannabinoids - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791144/
2019 - modulation of the endocannabinoid system as an potential anti cancer strategy https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2019.00430/full
Endocannabinoid system is humans cancer defense system https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Endocanna...ancer+defense+system&t=ffcm&atb=v165-1&ia=web
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Some Old Folks Rock.... and stay off my lawn
Seniors, it’s okay that you still love cannabis

When people think of cannabis consumers, the first image that usually comes to mind is someone in their early 20’s—that fun time in life. But today’s older adults are the people who created the foundational cannabis subculture for the industry that exists today. And some of them never stopped toking!

 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Trump Budget Proposes Ending State Medical Marijuana Protections And Blocking DC From Legalizing

President Trump proposed ending an existing policy that protects state medical marijuana programs from Justice Department interference as part of his fiscal year 2021 budget plan released on Monday.

The rider, which has been renewed in appropriations legislation every year since 2014, stipulates the the Justice Department can’t use its funds to prevent states or territories “from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Cans suck the THC buzz out of pot drinks.

Scientists have determined that liners inside aluminum cans can cause cannabis drinks to lose their potency. That means by the time a pot drink is put in a can, shipped, stored in a warehouse, displayed in a store, and finally consumed, the buzz promised on the label may have diminished or disappeared.

===============================================================================

Amsterdam looks to bar foreign visitors from buying cannabis

The mayor of Amsterdam has sought to win political backing for her cleanup of the overcrowded red-light district by revealing that a third of foreign tourists and nearly half of Britons would be less likely to visit the city again if they were barred from buying cannabis in the coffee shops.
 
Last edited:

Magic9

Plant Enthusiast
LA County DA To Dismiss Nearly 66K Marijuana Convictions

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA) – In a sweeping move, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey announced that her office has asked the court to dismiss nearly 66,000 marijuana convictions going back decades.

In a news conference Thursday morning, Lacey called it the largest such undertaking in state history.

“We believe it is the largest effort in California to wipe out old criminal convictions in a single court motion,” Lacey said.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
And those $75 Smells Like My Vagina candles sold completely out within minutes of being released on the website :rofl:

I'm guessing the Vagina Candle's sales are split between people who genuinely wanted to smell Gwyneth Paltrow's, er, um..... essence.... and those looking for a gag gift. I'm also guessing that the majority or the sales were for gag gifts. When I say "gag gift" I don't mean someone who gave it to someone expecting they'd gag, choke or throw up in their own mouth. What I'm trying to say is .... I don't think most people bought the candle for it's intended purpose to supply light while wafting the smell of ..... Paltrow's essential oils.

It's like the Trump Toilet Paper I was given as a gag gift where each sheet has a picture of Trump smiling and the tag line is "Wipe the smile off Trump's face". I have no plans to use said toilet paper and I'm sure the gift giver didn't expect I would.
 

C No Ego

Well-Known Member
I'm guessing the Vagina Candle's sales are split between people who genuinely wanted to smell Gwyneth Paltrow's, er, um..... essence.... and those looking for a gag gift. I'm also guessing that the majority or the sales were for gag gifts. When I say "gag gift" I don't mean someone who gave it to someone expecting they'd gag, choke or throw up in their own mouth. What I'm trying to say is .... I don't think most people bought the candle for it's intended purpose to supply light while wafting the smell of ..... Paltrow's essential oils.

It's like the Trump Toilet Paper I was given as a gag gift where each sheet has a picture of Trump smiling and the tag line is "Wipe the smile off Trump's face". I have no plans to use said toilet paper and I'm sure the gift giver didn't expect I would.
I'm not sure I'd be into Roasted Vagina or Smoked vagina or even Burning Vagina, though that last one :D
a Lit Up Vag seems OK
 
Top Bottom