As long as they're not high/drunk when they're working, what's the issue?
Who cares if they smoke pot when not working. We don't need high/impaired people on the road.
Edit for clarifying: maybe a $200 fine is good point for starting, go up to $500 with repeating. I also think many smoker drop cigarette butts and we need greater fine for that if it will stop.
Jogging in the park and inhaling pot constantly is getting really annoying. I know a number of families that moved to the burbs, and one of the reasons they voiced is the sharp increase is pot smell/smoke in the kids' playgrounds.
We should aalso inflict "consequence" on the SUV drivers who clog the roads in the town I live in; I have medically-compromised lungs, so the stink of diesel fumes isn't just an annoyance for me.
Let's also punish people who use wood-fired stoves in built-up areas. I live in a smoke-controlled zone, but for some reason builders are allowed to install these stoves in new-build homes, provided the model of stove meets certain standards. Well, that's cool; if the stove itself is safe, it must be the owner, operating it incorrectly. So let's give them some consequence too.
These offences aren't much like smoking a ciggie, which last about 7 minutes; the amount of fumes produced by a ICE per minute is much greater than that produced by a smoker, and the ICE generally runs for much longer than 7 minutes. Wood-fired stoves are normally run continuously for several hours, and not for heat; they are used to generate a nostalgic and aesthetic effect. If that harms others, or even if it just creates a bad smell, let's be harsh.
I'm also keen to impose "harsh consequence" on dog owners who allow their dog to deposit smelly stuff at my front gate, and who then fail to pick up that shit and take it away with them. This is a particular problem if you get a 3-week cold snap; 3 weeks-worth of dogshit all thaws at the same time, and the smell of dogshit coming out of deep-freeze pervades entire neighbourhoods. And of course, pot-smoke doesn't contain toxoplasmosis.
Do you fart in public? Should your butt be plugged in public too?
It is antisocial behaviour, has a health impact and needs to have a consequence.
“If a delivery associate is impaired at work and tests positive post-accident or due to reasonable suspicion, that person would no longer be permitted to perform services for Amazon,” she said.
If you were under the impression that Amazon & other companies are actually screening for cannabis use, you should realize that in any legal state they basically did everything they could to make sure their employees would not test positive. It's extremely hard to find people that would work minimum wage and are completely weed/drug free - especially if you need young, physically fit workers. Having higher turnover because you have to fire people after a while because of a drug test just means you have less experienced drivers.
It's funny that, as the article points out, school bus driver jobs would outbid Amazon since that means that schools are having the same issue but really have no choice when it comes to drug testing and are generally more restrictive.
To get the contract you must be the lowest bidder. In order to do that you need to pay drivers as little as possible. Raising wages means losing money.
I do not smoke anything as a personal preference and do not enjoy when second-hand smoke and smell affects me but I support legalization for the simple reason that criminalization of marijuana and stigmatization of pot smokers is much much worse.
This is an extension of prison labor.
Work in prisons is often not optional, and if it is the inmate may not earn "good behavior" time if they choose not to work. It also averages something like $0.60/hour across the country.
I don't think $17/hour & mandatory sobriety are anything close to prison labor, but I will grant you that it isn't consistent or fair to fire someone that tests positive for marijuana if they weren't high at the time of the accident. Is there a way to test if someone is currently high on weed vs. has simply had some recently?
It's not a labor shortage, it's just a correction in the price of labor
I mean, sure, Amazon can raise their wages to compete, and then we run out of... school bus drivers? I'm not sure that's any better.
At a point, you either need to increase the labor pool (by pulling people out of unemployment, retirement, etc) or seriously automate the profession, and we're just not there with delivery services right now.
Also, any shortage is entirely self inflicted from offering poor wages.
False, at least where I am.
I learned to drive school bus, and they drug tested my class before we were allowed to test, and every month, there were random drug tests.
I quit after 1.5 days because of the stress and the constant push to get kids to school on time over safety.
Yeah! All the millennials who can't buy a home are just self-inflected by not bidding high enough! Government policy certainly didn't' contribute to either!
Based on their 2020 profits, they can pay more. $20B in profits, 170,000 deliverers worldwide. They could take 10% of that and pay those folks an average of about $10,000 more/year.
They have the money, so if their business suffers at all as a result of too few drivers, then it's absolutely self-inflicted.
Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants, concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the many states where weed use remains illegal. […]
“If one of my drivers crashes and kills someone and tests positive for marijuana, that’s my problem, not Amazon’s,” said one
Amazon is just looking out for Number One and to hell with their so-called “partners.” This isn’t anything new.
If I were an ADA prosecuting such a case, I’d charge Amazon as a co-conspirator.
The drug testing requirement for delivery drivers isn’t necessarily a moral imperative from management. It’s a condition of their insurance requirements. The article touches on this:
> Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants, concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the many states where weed use remains illegal.
No tech job has ever even mentioned it.
Specifically, if it's known that these jobs test for Marijuana use, you're cutting off the portion of the applicant pool that knows this but still uses anyway, which stochastically reduces the likelihood that a candidate will eg show up to work intoxicated (fwiw, I'm a big fan of marijiana: I use it regularly, am a commensurately lighter drinker relative to my peers, and I'm pretty sure I'm making the right choice in terms of health and responsibility)
Like I said, it's an arbitrary bar and a path-dependent one, and a counterfactual equilibrium in which alcohol or another intoxicant was tested for would work just as well. But it's not irrational for employers to use it in certain labor market conditions. There are analogues in other labor markets, like requiring a college degree to be a firefighter; the false positive rate only really starts to matter if you start finding it difficult to find qualified applicants.
Tech jobs, by contrast, already have plenty of bars that their employees need to clear. In this context, any candidates swept up in blunt drug tests are likely to be false positives, and the use of the bar is a net negative for the employer.
Pot is radioactive for many employers because insurance discounts and employment regulations are stuck in the "Refer Madness" era (Refer Madness was a propaganda film about the dangers of pot). So, employers face two surprises: increasing liability, workers comp and other insurance AND potentially, "hi we're from a government agency and under regulation XYZ 202 sub paragraph 293888 you need to drug test and immediately fire those that flunk or we will fine you. Have a happy day!"
Do you mean to imply or assume that 50-somethings are unfamiliar with marijuana? It was already common for Baby Boomers, who are older than that.
What happens is that open-minded, pot-smoking 20-somethings think 50-somethings are close-minded and ignorant. Then 30 years later many of those 20-somethings are the exact same as their predecessors. Instead of dismissing the older generation, the 20-somethings might consider how they will avoid that fate.
Reading between the lines, the exec is trying to hire more workers for their factory, and wants to know if they can stop testing for marijuana so they'll be able to hire more workers. To which the poster, who has recurring experience with this issue, must (unfortunately) recommend against it because of the reasons they enumerate.
Or maybe it was just a close-minded, ignorant ageist comment. Better to assume positive intent though.
the drunk driver runs the red light, and the stoner keeps waiting for the stop sign to turn green!
The drunk driver will tell you that they're basically sober, and will be shocked when everyone can tell from their behavior that they're drunk.
The stoned driver will tell you how stoned they are, and will be concerned that everyone else on the street can tell from their behavior.
(These are, of course, broad generalizations. There will be exceptions.)
Anybody else think they meant 420% ?
For delivery drivers, it's a terrible idea. Driving large vehicles around people's neighborhoods while high is dangerous. It's a negative externality Amazon is recklessly putting onto the public.
Cue mental gymnastics of potheads claiming they actually drive better while stoned.
You lost me with that hyperbole. I fail to see how you can equate voluntarily working for a company earning at least minimum wage and other benefits, as "prison labor".
But I stay away from the hard shit, like alcohol.
Hippie speedball.
Maybe they've just bought in to someone elses' worldview. But I don't think so.
Edit: Regulate as in drug testing for past use in an employment context, like what the story is talking about.
Yes we do. And it's a cash cow for the government so we're unlikely to stop anytime soon.
My main guess for that special treatment is merely that tobacco and alcohol were global when we started taking care about global health issues, so we left them, but banned any newcomer
And I don't know if companies do it but I know that monitoring Gamma GT levels of suspected alcoholics is a thing. It is a problem for those who have naturally elevated levels btw.
What is unfortunate is that we don't have a good test for cannabis-related impairment. It is quite reliable for alcohol BAC is easy to test and correlates with impairment, but for cannabis, you don't really know if a person is completely stoned or if he has sobered up.
But yeah, cannabis use is less tolerated than alcohol use, cultural reasons I guess. Plus, it is really difficult to control alcohol since pretty much anyone can turn staple food into alcohol at home.
Alcohol is one of the most highly regulated substances on the planet.
Also, no puritanism here, just facts about how people can use pot and remain completely in control (again, worth pointing out that someone can fail a pot drug test if they smoked it weeks ago)
But I have worked with many frequent users who smoked daily, and their job. They didn't mind doing terrible jobs.
I'm suprised people arn't talking about habitual pot smokers vs. occasional. If used to smoking--it's no big deal.
Same with alcohol. An alcoholic can drive perfectly well at .08, or a bit higher. An occasional drinker probally shouldn't be drinking and driving.
I heard TX takes into account tolerance when prosecuting DUI's.
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is though, as I don't think anyone is suggesting that these drivers will actually be high while driving. Rather, they are people that use marijuana recreationally and would test positive for THC, disqualifying them from many jobs (despite the fact that urine THC levels do not corelate with how "high" someone is).
It's easy to get distracted and then focus on that distraction while high. That's not conducive to safe driving. We don't want people mindlessly blowing through an intersection because they were fixating on how the wind was making the tarp on the truck in front of them flutter.
It is very comparable to being drunk. Some people can in fact handle it, many cannot and severely overestimate their abilities.
The only good thing was it was at 3AM so there was no one around on a normally busy street to get wiped out.
And your whole attitude of irrational justification of it says you’re probably not capable of making a rational judgement about whether or not you should drive.
Could be better informed by numbers here. But hard to say because there aren't reliable tests for "high right now", and maybe not for "tired" either.
https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/public-policy/artic...
some of the highest performers I have ever worked with, and pot was a daily for them.
Maybe the question has a different outcome if you're measuring a stadium full of Designers with Adobe Illustrator open, trying to brainstorm how a logo looks?
I know this is unpopular on internet news sites but I assure you that your social reputation isn’t that great if you smoke the stuff generally and that’s not going to change because of the propensity of people to be unreliable or dicks. The only thing that’s faulty is your perception of it.
Thus if it's determined that people need a certain reaction time to drive safely, that could be one thing tested.
Clearly setting the levels and the particular capabilities might well be contentious, but by aligning the test(s) with what's needed for the task it's fairer and in certain ways more robust: for instance, you could be under the threshold for alcohol/cannabis but if you combine that with legal medicines that cause drowsiness or simply happen to be extremely sleep deprived, you might pass a traditional test but the combined effects would lead one to fail a capability test.
It also helps in other ways too, such as fairly treating older people - you might be a sharp 75 year old and yet come up against some age limit. This let's you continue so long as you maintain the capabilities. Then if things start to change it's clear and takes some of the awkwardness out of the discussion about whether one is still fit for a job.
Of course the risk is that people are pseudoscientific or arbitrary in setting the capabilities to a level that doesn't align. We've all seen the unrealistic hiring prerequisites that managers ask for if left to decide (must have ten years experience of XYZ!) In the wrong hands these could be used unfairly (eg setting totally unrealistic levels precisely to screen out groups they don't want).
from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mari...
I wonder how much marijuana actually contributes to crashes. I think people can certainly get too high to drive, but unlike alcohol which lowers inhibitions, being 'too high' could even increase inhibitions somewhat (more anxiety, paranoia), so I'd expect people too high to drive are much less likely to get behind the wheel than drunk people. I certainly buy that 0.1% BAC + marijuana is probably worse than 0.1% BAC alone, but I'm curious what a just legal limit would be in comparison to 0.08% BAC regulations. What BTHCC produces equivalent impairment to 0.08% BAC, and how does that interact with THC tolerance?
Are people who consume thc multiple times per day worse drivers than people who never consume thc, when both groups are sober? I'd imagine there is a tolerance effect where stoned frequent-users are better drivers than stoned infrequent-users.
Would be interesting to try to make a cabinet arcade-style driving game that would accurately predict actual-road driving ability. Could even be used as a tool to demonstrate the dangers of drunk driving by putting it into bars and letting people try when above the legal limit (definitely some dangers of giving people good scores when they perform well while drunk though...)
BAC is a well understood thing to measure, but marijuana testing seems pretty unreliable to me. I’ve read conflicting reports about how strongly TCH found on a saliva swap correlates to actual intoxication, and I don’t believe there’s been much scientific investigation done to determine what levels of intoxication are safe for what activities. As the primary customers of these products are law enforcement, and private sector “rules enforcement”, I’ll remain skeptical of them until somebody manages to convince me otherwise.
You'd better be careful, more than 4 Marijuanas is overdose territory.
So in my completely anecdotal opinion, weed bad, alcohol worse were driving is concerned.
There are long term pot smokers whose intake is very large but whose tolerance has risen such that when they consume they're quite functional. They are usually easy to spot though...
Your comment wouldn't even get points on Reddit, it might get a "lol" on twitter
Is that equivalent to disposable income? What percentage of people in the US are left with $24 (or less) disposable after 40 hours minimum wage?
I had a friend who was left with NZD20 to spend on themselves after a full week of work (after food, shared rent, power, and other true expenses; non-smoker with zero savings of any kind).
So, yes: Some people have no disposable income at all. Some live in debt. Sometimes they have no choice, sometimes it's poor planning. None of that is the equivalent of forced labor, Or longer imprisonment if the prisoner chooses not to work.
To be clear though, I haven't done a thorough examination of my own opinion on the ethics of prison labor, wages, etc. I'm not stating an opinion on that one way or another. I'm just saying that it is not a valid target of comparison against Amazon's wages in this case.
It's like the difference between a commuter on bike here in the Netherlands (more than 30% of all trips) vs the handful of cyclists in spandex with some fragile unsafe bike wanking about how light their bike is.
One is a cult, where it becomes part of someone's identity, one is just person trying to get to work.
We should have the discipline to realize that the people carrying the flag of anything are the least likely to be true representatives of the thing.
I’m also willing to bet that Cheech & Chong et al. are manifestations of a similarly forced meme, with many industries funding the various ”lazy brainless stoners”.
The exact same pattern can be found from nicotine vapes (the entire ”vape nation” annoyance meme was definitely a graft), and probably a lot of other things.
The point seems to be to control people socially by associating their habits with annoying qualities and fictional negative outcomes, superficially supported by anecdotes represented as scientific truth.
What other examples are there? Am I one of these people in ways I don't even realize?
I would love to be eating a meal with someone who says this, and then have a really fantastic conversation spring from it: Does this help me feel out my own blind-spots better? Is this always bad? Is this always true?
Great statement, well articulated. Thanks!
Like everything, being responsible goes a long way. There are responsible marijuana users and irresponsible ones. Blaming it on the weed is really the lazy part of "pothead" culture.
A comment that’s just “I think I remember ________” is about as low quality as it gets — especially when it turns out to be wrong.
I know low quality comments. I’ve contributed hundreds of them myself. Check my comment history if you don’t believe me!
Edit: clarified my actual quit story.
Busses even roll every so often and while the kids are banged up a bit, fatalities are incredibly rare.
We'll be free once our basic necessities are taken care of unconditionally. That means food, housing... Everything needed for a life with dignity. Until then, we are slaves to the current economic system whether we want to or not. We are not in a position where we can say "no, I don't want to do this anymore" without serious consequences.
I'll have to ask the guy next time I see him if he feels like "it's voluntary", because someone on the internet said "well, actually, they choose this!"
The contractor/gig economy is absolutely gross, and the vast majority of people are turning a blind eye because it's just so nice "for the consumer"
The consumer is actually more important than the human. Are you seriously going to tell me you don't understand what's wrong here?
But GP was talking about "any shortage", not just amazon's shortage. For the sake of argument I'll let that slide. I'm sure millennials can pay more. It just would involve uncomfortable sacrifices, and most people don't think that's not worth the trade-off for going from renting to owning. Likewise, amazon would like more delivery drivers, but isn't desperate enough to actually raise wages and/or improve working conditions.
>Based on their 2020 profits, they can pay more. $20B in profits, 170,000 deliverers worldwide. They could take 10% of that and pay those folks an average of about $10,000 more/year.
You forgot to include the cost of capital.
And followed it by arguing they could just raise wages, which makes it clear the "any" is within the context of at least talking about employers, and quite likely specifically talking about Amazon
You're being obtuse.
> Likewise, amazon would like more delivery drivers, but isn't desperate enough to actually raise wages and/or improve working conditions.
In other words, they've made a choice.
>In other words, they've made a choice.
Did you skip the rest of the comment about how millennials can pay more, but choose not to?
No, that's why I included the stipulation "if their business suffers at all as a result of too few drivers"
Sure, they're not going to pay drivers more if those increased costs exceed the losses they'd suffer from a delivery shortage.
Especially over the damn zoom time video since they don’t show up for work.
Age discrimination almost certainly goes one way in these cases. That's if you're above 40, and looking to join an early stage start-up, you'll find you're often not a culture fit.
Everyone was promoted it as harmless. It’s not. I’m seeing lives wrecked.
And yes I know alcohol is bad. But I see less long term damage from that as most people seem to grow out of alcoholism I have know. Cannabis not so much - it becomes the primary thing they live for and around. All conversation ends up on it.
Is cannabis legal where you live? Criminality causes stress and paranoia.
Are you living in a heavily Christian environment? Asking because in heavily religious environments, schizophrenia with religious illusions often occurs as a result of internal conflict between sin-programming and self-perception.
Is cannabis socially accepted or are people forced to choose between cannabis and other people? Social exclusion has in some studies been ranked more stressful than getting raped, so some sort of social PTSD can be expected to develop in these kind of environments to those who get excluded.
As for other points I’m an atheist with zero religious values at all. I have used it myself as well. And I’m in a country in a city where no one gives a crap. I’m about as unbiased as you can get.
As for sins, I’m a pretty big fan of them as whole.
The issue here is with the perception that it is harmless which it is definitely not.
Well, there's me.
And of course, there's all the people I know who haven't ever used cannabis (I take it you meant me to exclude them).
On the other hand, my experience is that many people with bipolar find it improves their mood.
If you have psychiatric difficulties, then it's not a good idea to mess with drugs that are in any way psychedelic. If you have problems with hypertension, it's not a good idea to mess with caffeine or cocaine.
You're hyper vigilant, looking everywhere, your reactions are delayed a little such as that of an 60 year old person, and you're definitely listening to speed "limit" as the maximum, and not as the average.
You are slower to process inputs, you are less likely to consider threats or obstacles as dangerous, to an extent your ability to judge distances is hindered, you are much more easily distracted (highway hypnosis, for example, becomes a huge problem - especially with blinking lights and whatnot), your ability to focus is oftentimes next to zero, causing you to be distracted often by music or other passengers in the car.
Plus, driving slowly in and of itself is a hazard - the "speed rule" exists for a reason. If everyone is going 30 mph over the speed limit on a busy highway, you are more likely to cause an accident by going the posted speed limit than if you were to go the same speed as the rest of the traffic - even though it's technically illegal.
So please, do not use marijuana and drive. Stay at home and watch Money Heist and postmates a McFlurry from McDonalds or something.
That narrative just doesn’t hold up.
Opium, heroin and cocaine were pretty much global when we started taking care about global health issues.
Not consumed by everyone all around the world, for sure, but readily available and consumed nearly everywhere.
Heck, heroin was considered a magical cough syrup safer than morphine at one point. It took nearly 30 years for it to be banned in the US [1][2]
Compared to tobacco and alcohol, it certainly is a young one, but cannabis and hallucinogenic mushrooms hardly qualify as newcomers.
[1]: https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medicine-magazine/from-c...
[2]: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bu...
How is coffee different from tobacco? How is nutmeg or saffron different from drugs? How about artificial flavonoid—xanthine concoctions such as Red Bull?
The difference in effect on health is severe, for one? There’s room for more nuance than ”both of these are psychoactive substances”.
In my country, 'energy drinks' cannot be sold to anyone under 20 (same as alcohol and tobacco) for exactly this reason.
But...the irrational part of me still had anxiety about it.
And we were trained about how to evacuate the kids, which we were supposed to do only in two cases: stuck on railroad tracks and fire. And only those two cases because...being on the bus was safer, just as you said.
What's the difference between having to work or else you starve, and having to hunt/gather or else you starve?
So how is this "correct"?
Why is downtime relevant here? We're talking about whether it's voluntary or not. Also, does that mean prison labor isn't prison labor if they're sufficient "downtime"?
>People are being worked to death, and it's reflected in the deteriorating mental health that's prevalent.
Okay, the working conditions are bad, I never denied that. But you know what's worse? Being a prehistoric hunter-gatherer. I'm going to go on a limb and say that hunting woolly mammoths is orders of magnitude more dangerous. If that's the metric we're using then their "extension of prison labor"-ness is off the charts compared to amazon.
>I'll have to ask the guy next time I see him if he feels like "it's voluntary", because someone on the internet said "well, actually, they choose this!"
I'll reiterate my question from the prior comment: are hunter-gatherers' hunting activities "voluntary"? If not, does that mean what they're doing is an "extension of prison labor"?
>Are you seriously going to tell me you don't understand what's wrong here?
I acknowledge the unfavorable working conditions that they're under, but I disagree with the characterization that it's an "extension of prison labor". Comparing it to that might provide shock value for how bad their working conditions are, but it's a disservice to the actual prison labor population because it trivializes their issues.
My reply above made that clear, so again you're being obtuse.
Are there tests that indicate past use of alcohol or just the ones I'm aware of where the measurement drops swiftly as alcohol is processed?
Same for marijuana; is there an objective(ish) test that indicates current intoxication or only the tests that show use within about a month?
It's one of the most-highly taxed. Not quite the same as being banned nearly everywhere, with many countries having mandatory death sentences.
I assume you know what the parent comment meant when talking about “data”.
Don’t get me wrong - no one should drive while impaired, period. But offering anecdotes in lieu of data is generally not helpful.
- the possibility of psychosis or schizophrenia in people 16-35 (https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/resources/Cannabis...)
- the same risk that inhaling any combustible has
- overeating
- cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-con...)
For some people the benefits outweigh the risks, especially when practiced in moderation.
And the last I heard, oxygen was "combustible". Inhaling a combustible isn't a health risk; inhaling combustion products might be. But many pot smokers use a vape, set to well-below the combustion temperature for their chosen herb.
Yeah, certainly. I'm not a doctor, but weed makes people eat. Hence it's been used to help folks with eating disorders.
Source: https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/how-to-stop-munchie...
Vapes have issues too, which include exposure to heavy metals. By combustibles I mean anything you burn. Again, not a doctor and not a medical scientist so I may be using the wrong words but most people who use weed know these things. Most notably, anything that is smoked will incur a small but sharp rise in blood pressure. If you wear a heart monitor (or wrist watch with one) it's fairly trivial to detect.
Source: https://www.leafly.com/news/health/california-cannabis-labs-...
I also believe such a paradigm shift would largely eradicate domestic violence.
It's also hard to be productive drinking but pot can have the opposite effect.
It's a new one on me that coffee contains nicotine, the principal addictive agent in tobacco.
The public is largely noninformed about the constituents of coffee and tobacco smoke. Only nicotine and caffeine are ever mentioned, and even scientific articles routinely confuse the effects of pure nicotine and tobacco smoke, and those of pure caffeine and coffee. It is a collective illusion.
I never claimed that coffee contains nicotine: rather, what coffee and tobacco have in common are these Harmala alkaloids, the most abundant of which act as so-called monoamine oxidase inhibitors in humans.
However, some rather unexpected things do contain nicotine: tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants and green peppers.
There is almost never an "overage" because there is a driver assigned per route, but they also have a bunch of sub drivers who get paid to show up, wait, and maybe take a route whose driver didn't show up, but if not, they go home after getting paid for an hour of waiting.
That's the gist, but it's a bit more complicated than that; in the school district where I live, bus drivers who were assigned routes actually had two or three per day: one for an elementary school, one for a middle school, and one for a high school. Yes, they are that short-staffed. In fact, all of the buses are advertising paid training because they need drivers that bad.
When I quit on my second day because of the stress about being pushed to get kids to school on time rather than safely, and also feeling like I needed more training to be safe, the head of the transportation department desperately tried to get me to stay.
tl;dr: they have bus drivers on standby who get paid to wait in case routes need to be filled. And they are so understaffed that overages never happen and drivers handle 2 or 3 routes.
No, nobody is an exception. You are not superhuman.
Please stop normalizing this. This narrative makes it harder to change the minds of dissenters and legitimize legalization for those people that actually benefit from it.
The people who have a problem with it aren't going to be able to stop legalization.
You shouldn't do it, I agree.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2021/06/21/crash-rate...
Where did I even allude to this? In fact I implied the exact opposite in my last sentence.
https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/urine-drug-screening-mi...
”Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have also been shown to interact with UDS immunoassays. Both ibuprofen and naproxen have been documented to cause false-positive barbiturate4 and cannabinoid1-4 levels. In addition, ibuprofen can cause a false-positive PCP level.1-2,4”
What's the point?
Then someone said I was wrong because people don't actually mix drugs like that, and I contradicted them based on personal knowledge of it happening.
Then you asked me why it matters, perhaps not realizing that I had already said it does not, further up the thread. Now you're saying it's not worth mentioning. I agree, which is why I made my original comment way up the thread, so this has become a bit circular.
(I'm kidding, thanks for clarifying)
I did get a hypotension episode a few years ago, as a result of starting a new strain a bit over-enthusiastically. But even coffee can cause palpitations, if you drink too much just because you like drinking coffee.
My understanding is that certain high-THC strains are much more likely to give rise to psychological problems than other strains. I'm not aware that CBD as such can result in psychological problems.
Ah, the good ol’ skunk scarecrow.
People have been making various grades of hashish for millennia, with THC content many times that of dry flower — you’d think someone would have noticed if it was more likely to produce psychological issues?
Yet, there is no high-THC hash scare — it’s almost if someone wanted you to avoid good quality cannabis and be content consuming whatever ditch weed global criminal organisations produce.
Hashish is generally made with high-CBD strains (which is partly why hash tends to mong you out more than weed).
It seems there is evidence that CBD moderates the trippy effects of THC, and reduces the propensity of the product to trigger psychotic states in suceptible individuals.
BTW: in my experience, modern weed strains are beaten in terms of hit-per-gram only by the rarest, highest-grade black hash.
You have definitely met pot smokers who have, and do live perfectly normal lives because their baseline is better. You probably have no idea who they are.
There are various types of hashish; the traditional Moroccan screened variety is almost certainly all cultivated indica, but Himalayan charas is almost certainly all landrace sativa.
Let us just say you are somehow different. That could be possible, and I do not want to question your experience. So great! You are not impaired.
That is simply not helpful or viable from a policy point of view.
When we regulate, we need legal tests and policy applicable to people in a very broad sense, or what we get is a mess that does us no real good.
I have known exceptions to the rule myself. People who can perform having had booze, pot, other drugs.
Always hard to tell whether their baseline, sober capability is exceptional enough to present normally with drugs on board, or their response to the drug is simply different.
Fair? I think so.
And those people can manage their use, function and pass tests too. Cannabis users cannot and that is a problem we have no easy answers to right now.
Sadly, being the exception to the rule really does us all no good when it comes to policy.
Fact is, barring very few people, using THC impairs that user.
Benadryl does the same thing, and in my State people can get a DUI on Benadryl. Sadly, they can also get one being a little too tired and having failed a THC test because they hit a binger last weekend too.
This is all a difficult problem to solve.
It should deffo be off Schedule 1
However, even a full federal legalization would leave us with the testing dilemma I described above. That might be one reason it is still on schedule.
But, say Feds went full legal. Workers comp would still be a big issue because they cannot determine fault, and best case would charge employers accordingly, meaning most would continue their harsh policy, leaving us right where this discussion started.
Opiates, booze, other things flush out and are testable in ways cannabis just is not. And that is a major league policy problem.
Not to mention that THC's psychoactive effects can be completely blocked by sufficient amounts of CBD and probably other compounds. You can try it yourself. Get CBD drops, ingest 100mg and try getting high. Even the most potent sativa will not work as you might expect.