Biden pardons thousands convicted of marijuana charges on federal lands and in Washington
President Joe Biden is pardoning thousands of people who were convicted of use and simple possession of marijuana on federal lands and in the District of Columbia.
You're viewing a single thread.
Cool. Now stop allowing companies with federal contracts to do drug testing for cannabis unless they also test for alcohol.
Also stop requiring marijuana be tested for security clearances for your own employees.
You had me at stop testing for cannabis.
I get what you're saying, but if you are, for instance, a heavy machinery operator, it is worth making sure you are not using substances that could potentially impair your judgment. Those people usually are tested for alcohol, which is why I find it acceptable.
I think the primary difference here is that Marijuana tests detect thc going back months and months while alcohol is a much shorter duration. When those people are tested for alcohol, is that to stop them from being actually drunk on the job or to actually forbid them from drinking at any point while they're employed?
That is true and it is a problem. As I said to @aelwero, I wonder if there is a way to test whether or not you've used it recently enough to impair your ability to operate heavy machinery? I am a heavy user of cannabis myself because I use it to treat a nerve condition and I would never operate heavy machinery or drive a car while under the influence, but plenty of people are happy to drive a car while high, so I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to work that metal press while high. I don't know what the answer here is.
A better test. Before the breathalyzer a suspected drunk would have to get a urine test at the police station, or a blood test in an ED. Whoever cracks the THC test will be rich.
Yeah the UK police do a test that can tell if the THC in your blood is still active, it still over measures a bit but can tell the difference between someone smoking a bit the night before and having had one before work in the morning or in the lunch break.
I'm guessing that won't make it to the U.S. cops any time soon. Not when they have arrest quotas to make.
I wonder if there is a way to test whether or not you’ve used it recently enough to impair your ability to operate heavy machinery?
Blood tests would be positive during any impairment and a few hours afterwards.
In order of how long it would take to pass a given test after use, it goes blood, saliva, sweat, urine, hair.
Most workplace testing does use swabs these days. I personally haven't seen any workplace testing for a decade tbh, but I'm sure it's still out there.
They only test for alcohol after a reportable incident. Nobody cares if you drink on your own time. Source; I have been through OSHA 30 training. They do screen for MJ though, which is bullshit since it's legal in so many states now. IBEW, UA and a few other powerful trade unions are currently leaning on the feds to end the screening requirements in states where it's legal, so we may see real progress relatively sooner than people think, unless Trump wins.
IBEW, UA and a few other powerful trade unions are currently leaning on the feds to end the screening requirements in states where it’s legal
That is really great to hear. Thanks. I truly wish them luck!
This could, conceivably, be the hold up at federal level tbh. We have no current means by which we can objectively test for active impairment caused by THC...
Testing for alcohol is rare, and incident specific, because it's a measure of actual impairment. You aren't tested for alcohol to see if you've had a beer in the last 30 days, you're being tested to see if it's dangerous for you to be operating a vehicle, provide healthcare, carry a gun...
The basic principle behind alcohol testing is to determine actual impairment. The premise is that an agency is protecting others from dangers inherent in your being impaired.
The basic principle of drug testing is that the same danger from impairment is prevented by preventing impairment, but the premise is that any use is illegal. It's a "just in case" premise vs an actual matter of being presently impaired.
That fundamental difference is hugely notable in the case of DUI. How exactly do you mitigate the risk of DUI with THC? The current arguments in favor of legalization trend towards "it doesn't impair people as much", but that's a total cop out that doesn't address the issue, exactly the same way prohibition is.
We seriously need a solution to that, and I suspect it could very well be the "mystery cause" of federal legislators on the liberal side dragging their feet. They don't want to open the floodgates and make it unprosecutable to get in your car impaired, because even with an easy means to prosecute that if alcohol is the cause, it's still a huge issue... How bad will it be if it's effectively undetectable?
You want cops deciding based on how well you perform the little monkey dance? I fucking don't. I can't dance for shit perfectly sober...
That does make sense. I wonder if we can figure out a way to test if people are currently under the influence of THC rather than having possibly done it days before?
It sucks here in Indiana- if you have more than a nanogram THC in your system and you get in a serious auto accident, it counts as an OWI. I use medically, so I'm basically fucked if I ever get in a serious accident. Thankfully, I'm a good driver who has never been in more than a very low-speed fender bender when I was at fault and I wait until I'm not high anymore before I drive, but it really scares me. I refuse to drive at night unless it's a real emergency because I'm really scared of getting into a serious accident because my vision is impaired.
If you have more than a nanogram THC in your system and you get in a serious auto accident, it counts as an OWI.
That is entirely unenforceable if gets descheduled... It's questionable as is, but there's a vague implication that there's a federal violation involved despite the obvious.
How do they prosecute someone for impairment they can't prove though? There exists a shadow of a doubt, inherently... It's a complete non-starter...
It's already been done.
It wasn't even cannabis. It was synthetic Delta-9 THC, which is legal in this state.
Honestly I've been saying this for years. I'm okay with legalization, but we don't have a test that isn't subjective to determine if someone is currently impaired. That would be a really good thing to have in place beforehand
I feel like if you have gone through with getting a prescription, at least you've shown good faith. But if you're going to shoot someone down for following through with the legal system it's kind of creating excuses to discriminate not on the basis of merit, but by imagined nonconformity, and that is really not the true point of either policy or law and order.
