All I know is if I had to take a pee test with someone watching? You can be sure I'd "forget" how to aim and at least get the person watchings leg
That is a totally appropriate target for your anger.
Plus is probably going to net you some additional, justified shit anyway, such as reporting to the company that you aggressively disrupted the test, which is as disqualifying as a flat out failure anyway. If you don't just end up in jail, because I'm pretty sure whatever poor nurse you decided you be a worthless shitbag to isn't just going to take it either.
The one time I had to take a drug test with somebody watching (and the faucets were taped to make sure you didn't use the sink to dilute it - I guess they really took it seriously) stood behind me facing the door. Because no, she didn't want to be doing that either, but that's what the rules for the test said.
especially when some jobs will actually require people to watch you pee.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Right, because it was never about safety or job performance, but about discriminating against groups who might be the type to use drugs.
Ehhhhh, I'd say people who use drugs are, on average, riskier than those who don't. Insurance companies generally don't discount for things that don't have a material financial impact. Actuaries don't care about that stuff, just what the math tells you.
especially when some jobs will actually require people to watch you pee.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Right, because it was never about safety or job performance, but about discriminating against groups who might be the type to use drugs.
Ehhhhh, I'd say people who use drugs are, on average, riskier than those who don't. Insurance companies generally don't discount for things that don't have a material financial impact. Actuaries don't care about that stuff, just what the math tells you.
Are people who use alcohol under the drugs definition of this? because if not , ....
especially when some jobs will actually require people to watch you pee.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Right, because it was never about safety or job performance, but about discriminating against groups who might be the type to use drugs.
Ehhhhh, I'd say people who use drugs are, on average, riskier than those who don't. Insurance companies generally don't discount for things that don't have a material financial impact. Actuaries don't care about that stuff, just what the math tells you.
Are people who use alcohol under the drugs definition of this? because if not , ....
Or legally prescribed pain medication?
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
especially when some jobs will actually require people to watch you pee.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Right, because it was never about safety or job performance, but about discriminating against groups who might be the type to use drugs.
Ehhhhh, I'd say people who use drugs are, on average, riskier than those who don't. Insurance companies generally don't discount for things that don't have a material financial impact. Actuaries don't care about that stuff, just what the math tells you.
It's never been about risk! How many of those federal government jobs mentioned on the last page have nothing to do with heavy machinery or heart surgery? How necessary is it to come up with reasons to fire someone beyond their actual job performance?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Then they'll start drawing blood- a drug screen ain't as cheap as a urinalysis but it's a lot more sensitive, it detects which class of drug is used, and the testee can't beat it. Like, good luck putting fake veins in your arm.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Then they'll start drawing blood- a drug screen ain't as cheap as a urinalysis but it's a lot more sensitive, it detects which class of drug is used, and the testee can't beat it. Like, good luck putting fake veins in your arm.
One of the "benefits" to peeing in a cup or clipping a bit of hair is that they are non-invasive (medically speaking). I imagine that moving to needing to get a needle in your arm to even apply to a job will change that equation. That's especially true when you realize that the entire drug testing industry is basically a scam industry - low paid, poorly trained workers who collect samples and send them to poorly maintained labs.
The entire industry is a mess of poor standards, sloppy results, and false positives. I can't imagine that adding "handles needles and blood" to the mix will go well. Plus, that means they'll have to start adhering to actual medical standards in terms of waste management, as well as having trained medical staff on hand to deal with any emergencies that can occur when drawing blood.
The industry could improve standards, but that would increase the cost of services. One of the reasons drug testing has become so ubiquitous is that it is done on the cheap. Make it expensive, and you'll see a lot of industries suddenly realizing that they don't care THAT much if the dude manning the grill smokes up on the weekends.
All I know is if I had to take a pee test with someone watching? You can be sure I'd "forget" how to aim and at least get the person watchings leg
The person watching you is probably just about as happy to be there as you are.
Yeah nobody volunteers for meat gazing duty. It's no fun on either side.
I'm hoping that California going recreational...provided we don't elect Trump and Clinton doesn't shit the bed on this issue...may finally be the push we need to get the "drug free workplace" provisions revisited. Right now there are a lot of people prohibited for no apparent reason, other than inertia.
A guy working at a desk for a contractor (or even a direct government employee) poses no safety risk of he smokes on his free time. And it shouldn't even be an issue for security clearances, at least not provided he lives in a state where he can walk into a licensed, taxed retail store and buy.
mcdermott on
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Then they'll start drawing blood- a drug screen ain't as cheap as a urinalysis but it's a lot more sensitive, it detects which class of drug is used, and the testee can't beat it. Like, good luck putting fake veins in your arm.
One of the reasons drug testing has become so ubiquitous is that it is done on the cheap. Make it expensive, and you'll see a lot of industries suddenly realizing that they don't care THAT much if the dude manning the grill smokes up on the weekends.
Agreed, and I think switching would help in the industries that -do- require their employees to be 100% drug-free. With McDonalds if someone's addicted to heroin it's going to show sooner or later drug test or no.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Then they'll start drawing blood- a drug screen ain't as cheap as a urinalysis but it's a lot more sensitive, it detects which class of drug is used, and the testee can't beat it. Like, good luck putting fake veins in your arm.
That narrows the timeframe, but still can't determine if someone was high on the job, which is the best justification for workplace drug testing. Especially for marijuana. Weed can stay in your blood for up to 10 days after use. You might as well not do blood tests either.
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Then they'll start drawing blood- a drug screen ain't as cheap as a urinalysis but it's a lot more sensitive, it detects which class of drug is used, and the testee can't beat it. Like, good luck putting fake veins in your arm.
I was going to say that that would surely violate some rights, but I forgot about at-will employment.
Though anti-medical religious folk exist, so it'd probably come down to the Supreme Court.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
That narrows the timeframe, but still can't determine if someone was high on the job, which is the best justification for workplace drug testing. Especially for marijuana. Weed can stay in your blood for up to 10 days after use. You might as well not do blood tests either.
I'm not exactly sure of the half-lives for the drug metabolites being tested for but the testing panel we use in the hospital lab didn't catch things too far out. Although that's probably a case of testing bias because everyone being tested was currently bouncing off the walls down in the ER.
I was going to say that that would surely violate some rights, but I forgot about at-will employment.
It'd probably be in your contract as a condition of employment, just like the urinalysis stuff.
Though anti-medical religious folk exist, so it'd probably come down to the Supreme Court.
Interestingly enough Jehovah's Witnesses do allow blood tests. Blood can't go into them (they interpret the "no eating blood" command of Deuteronomy to involve blood transfusions) but it can come out of them.
edit- this is all off topic, though. Are there any new "medical" marijuana referendums or legalization efforts in November?
Captain Marcus on
0
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
I guess Arizona is passing around a petition to allow recreational use so it will probably make the 2016 ballot.
especially when some jobs will actually require people to watch you pee.
The whole idea of a uninalysis really is stupid in most cases, because it can't determine exactly when you used whatever substances they're testing for.
Right, because it was never about safety or job performance, but about discriminating against groups who might be the type to use drugs.
Ehhhhh, I'd say people who use drugs are, on average, riskier than those who don't. Insurance companies generally don't discount for things that don't have a material financial impact. Actuaries don't care about that stuff, just what the math tells you.
It's never been about risk! How many of those federal government jobs mentioned on the last page have nothing to do with heavy machinery or heart surgery? How necessary is it to come up with reasons to fire someone beyond their actual job performance?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
I was specifically referring to the companies that do it for insurance discounts in places like manufacturing and construction. I would say in other areas, you're right that there are alternative motives for drug testing.
edibles are not available for purchase for recreational users in oregon right now (medical users can)
they will become available on june 2 (yay) but I guess they've set the max dose per serving at 5mg and people are mad that it is so low
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Fuck I love that it's legal in Oregon now. Every store does sales and you can still get an 8th for about $40, and so much variety! I also love how you can pick the kind of weed you want for what ails you.
Fuck I love that it's legal in Oregon now. Every store does sales and you can still get an 8th for about $40, and so much variety! I also love how you can pick the kind of weed you want for what ails you.
that'll go down, too
it was like that in the beginning in WA but nowadays it's half that
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Fuck I love that it's legal in Oregon now. Every store does sales and you can still get an 8th for about $40, and so much variety! I also love how you can pick the kind of weed you want for what ails you.
that'll go down, too
it was like that in the beginning in WA but nowadays it's half that
True enough, depending on the strain and the sale I've seen em as low as $30, but that is rare still.
Fuck I love that it's legal in Oregon now. Every store does sales and you can still get an 8th for about $40, and so much variety! I also love how you can pick the kind of weed you want for what ails you.
that'll go down, too
it was like that in the beginning in WA but nowadays it's half that
This is actually the part I'm dreading about full legalization in Canada, what I pay for weed is gonna go WAY WAY up.
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I found out my "neighbor" (actually 3 miles away) grows her own and she offered to sell me some and I hemmed and hawed because I didn't want to tell her I'd rather just buy from a legal shop where I know what I'm getting.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Congress Votes To Permit Military Veterans Access To Medical Cannabis
Thursday, 26 May 2016
Congress Votes To Permit Military Veterans Access To Medical Cannabis
Washington, DC: Members of the US House and Senate have voted to expand military veterans' access to medicinal cannabis in states that allow it.
House members voted 233 to 189 last week in favor of the Veterans Equal Access Amendment. The amendment, offered by Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) to the Fiscal Year 2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, prohibits the federal government from sanctioning V.A. physicians who wish to recommend cannabis therapy to their patients.
Under the provision, military veterans who reside in states with active medical marijuana programs would be able to obtain a recommendation from their V.A. physician rather than having to seek out a private doctor. Presently, V.A. physicians are forbidden from providing the paperwork necessary for veterans to access medical cannabis in states that permit its therapeutic use.
House members defeated a similar amendment last year by a vote of 213 to 210.
Members of the US Senate had already approved similar language in their version of the reauthorization bill.
The House and Senate versions of FY 2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations now await a concurrence vote prior to being sent to the President.
edibles are not available for purchase for recreational users in oregon right now (medical users can)
they will become available on june 2 (yay) but I guess they've set the max dose per serving at 5mg and people are mad that it is so low
That is really, really low. Even as someone with no tolerance, I think 10 mg felt like a good place to start when I was in CO last year.
God help actual enthusiasts or patients who would be looking at 10+ servings to get their desired effect.
You're only supposed to buy one per day, too
There is no way to track this however
Sounds like a good measure for "tourists please don't overdose on edibles and end up in our emergency rooms; (white) residents we will look the other way"
That narrows the timeframe, but still can't determine if someone was high on the job, which is the best justification for workplace drug testing. Especially for marijuana. Weed can stay in your blood for up to 10 days after use. You might as well not do blood tests either.
I'm not exactly sure of the half-lives for the drug metabolites being tested for but the testing panel we use in the hospital lab didn't catch things too far out. Although that's probably a case of testing bias because everyone being tested was currently bouncing off the walls down in the ER.
I was going to say that that would surely violate some rights, but I forgot about at-will employment.
It'd probably be in your contract as a condition of employment, just like the urinalysis stuff.
Though anti-medical religious folk exist, so it'd probably come down to the Supreme Court.
Interestingly enough Jehovah's Witnesses do allow blood tests. Blood can't go into them (they interpret the "no eating blood" command of Deuteronomy to involve blood transfusions) but it can come out of them.
edit- this is all off topic, though. Are there any new "medical" marijuana referendums or legalization efforts in November?
Massachusetts
I'm not sure where they are in the process, but I believe that recreational marijuana was in the process of being put on the 2016 ballot.
Congress Votes To Permit Military Veterans Access To Medical Cannabis
Thursday, 26 May 2016
Congress Votes To Permit Military Veterans Access To Medical Cannabis
Washington, DC: Members of the US House and Senate have voted to expand military veterans' access to medicinal cannabis in states that allow it.
House members voted 233 to 189 last week in favor of the Veterans Equal Access Amendment. The amendment, offered by Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) to the Fiscal Year 2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, prohibits the federal government from sanctioning V.A. physicians who wish to recommend cannabis therapy to their patients.
Under the provision, military veterans who reside in states with active medical marijuana programs would be able to obtain a recommendation from their V.A. physician rather than having to seek out a private doctor. Presently, V.A. physicians are forbidden from providing the paperwork necessary for veterans to access medical cannabis in states that permit its therapeutic use.
House members defeated a similar amendment last year by a vote of 213 to 210.
Members of the US Senate had already approved similar language in their version of the reauthorization bill.
The House and Senate versions of FY 2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations now await a concurrence vote prior to being sent to the President.
Once again I'm reminded that I need to get out of Georgia.
This still seems like it would leave room for VA physicians to treat medical marijuana users as drug seekers though.
Medical cannabis =/= medical marijuana. You don't smoke medical cannabis, it's purified and has a standardized dose, and is formulated not to get you high
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
edibles are not available for purchase for recreational users in oregon right now (medical users can)
they will become available on june 2 (yay) but I guess they've set the max dose per serving at 5mg and people are mad that it is so low
That is really, really low. Even as someone with no tolerance, I think 10 mg felt like a good place to start when I was in CO last year.
God help actual enthusiasts or patients who would be looking at 10+ servings to get their desired effect.
You're only supposed to buy one per day, too
There is no way to track this however
Sounds like a good measure for "tourists please don't overdose on edibles and end up in our emergency rooms; (white) residents we will look the other way"
edibles are not available for purchase for recreational users in oregon right now (medical users can)
they will become available on june 2 (yay) but I guess they've set the max dose per serving at 5mg and people are mad that it is so low
That is really, really low. Even as someone with no tolerance, I think 10 mg felt like a good place to start when I was in CO last year.
God help actual enthusiasts or patients who would be looking at 10+ servings to get their desired effect.
You're only supposed to buy one per day, too
There is no way to track this however
Sounds like a good measure for "tourists please don't overdose on edibles and end up in our emergency rooms; (white) residents we will look the other way"
How would you even end up in an emergency room due to THC? https://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=90Pxx1Qz-hw
?
Exactly. Imagine the kind of person who has never tried cannabis before and then goes to do so as a tourist.
So I'm going to bet that the initiative doesn't actually make the ballot in Massachusetts. Because we passed a deadline for the legislature in freaking may that meant we needed 10,000+ more signatures by June 22 to actually get the initiative to the ballot, and I can't find a god Damned word on where to go to sign this new petition.
Sleep on
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Does Massachusetts have medical marijuana, or are they skipping that and going straight to party time?
As someone who knows nothing about marijuana other than that it's probably harmless, what's the point of edibles? Wouldn't it make more sense to just eat something normal, and take however much drug would be in an edible on the side?
As someone who knows nothing about marijuana other than that it's probably harmless, what's the point of edibles? Wouldn't it make more sense to just eat something normal, and take however much drug would be in an edible on the side?
It's a totally different effect. It's a low intensity slow-burn that lasts for hours compared to the quick drop off in effect you get from smoking after a few minutes.
The problem comes when you have taken too high a dose via edibles, so the slow burn that lasts for hours stops being fun real quick.
Posts
The person watching you is probably just about as happy to be there as you are.
That is a totally appropriate target for your anger.
Plus is probably going to net you some additional, justified shit anyway, such as reporting to the company that you aggressively disrupted the test, which is as disqualifying as a flat out failure anyway. If you don't just end up in jail, because I'm pretty sure whatever poor nurse you decided you be a worthless shitbag to isn't just going to take it either.
The one time I had to take a drug test with somebody watching (and the faucets were taped to make sure you didn't use the sink to dilute it - I guess they really took it seriously) stood behind me facing the door. Because no, she didn't want to be doing that either, but that's what the rules for the test said.
Just you know, if I happen to sneeze midstream and "accidentally" launch a bit on a shoe or pantleg.
(Also, like 100% am mostly just joking around, sheesh forum, what up)
A better gag would be to do some research on what types of vitamins / supplements could be consumed to turn your urine a unique color for the test.
MWO: Adamski
Ehhhhh, I'd say people who use drugs are, on average, riskier than those who don't. Insurance companies generally don't discount for things that don't have a material financial impact. Actuaries don't care about that stuff, just what the math tells you.
Are people who use alcohol under the drugs definition of this? because if not , ....
Or legally prescribed pain medication?
It's never been about risk! How many of those federal government jobs mentioned on the last page have nothing to do with heavy machinery or heart surgery? How necessary is it to come up with reasons to fire someone beyond their actual job performance?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/
One of the "benefits" to peeing in a cup or clipping a bit of hair is that they are non-invasive (medically speaking). I imagine that moving to needing to get a needle in your arm to even apply to a job will change that equation. That's especially true when you realize that the entire drug testing industry is basically a scam industry - low paid, poorly trained workers who collect samples and send them to poorly maintained labs.
The entire industry is a mess of poor standards, sloppy results, and false positives. I can't imagine that adding "handles needles and blood" to the mix will go well. Plus, that means they'll have to start adhering to actual medical standards in terms of waste management, as well as having trained medical staff on hand to deal with any emergencies that can occur when drawing blood.
The industry could improve standards, but that would increase the cost of services. One of the reasons drug testing has become so ubiquitous is that it is done on the cheap. Make it expensive, and you'll see a lot of industries suddenly realizing that they don't care THAT much if the dude manning the grill smokes up on the weekends.
Yeah nobody volunteers for meat gazing duty. It's no fun on either side.
I'm hoping that California going recreational...provided we don't elect Trump and Clinton doesn't shit the bed on this issue...may finally be the push we need to get the "drug free workplace" provisions revisited. Right now there are a lot of people prohibited for no apparent reason, other than inertia.
A guy working at a desk for a contractor (or even a direct government employee) poses no safety risk of he smokes on his free time. And it shouldn't even be an issue for security clearances, at least not provided he lives in a state where he can walk into a licensed, taxed retail store and buy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Schneeberger
That is terrifying. Why the heck was he only given six years?
That narrows the timeframe, but still can't determine if someone was high on the job, which is the best justification for workplace drug testing. Especially for marijuana. Weed can stay in your blood for up to 10 days after use. You might as well not do blood tests either.
I was going to say that that would surely violate some rights, but I forgot about at-will employment.
Though anti-medical religious folk exist, so it'd probably come down to the Supreme Court.
It'd probably be in your contract as a condition of employment, just like the urinalysis stuff.
Interestingly enough Jehovah's Witnesses do allow blood tests. Blood can't go into them (they interpret the "no eating blood" command of Deuteronomy to involve blood transfusions) but it can come out of them.
edit- this is all off topic, though. Are there any new "medical" marijuana referendums or legalization efforts in November?
I was specifically referring to the companies that do it for insurance discounts in places like manufacturing and construction. I would say in other areas, you're right that there are alternative motives for drug testing.
they will become available on june 2 (yay) but I guess they've set the max dose per serving at 5mg and people are mad that it is so low
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
that'll go down, too
it was like that in the beginning in WA but nowadays it's half that
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
True enough, depending on the strain and the sale I've seen em as low as $30, but that is rare still.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
This is actually the part I'm dreading about full legalization in Canada, what I pay for weed is gonna go WAY WAY up.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Once again I'm reminded that I need to get out of Georgia.
This still seems like it would leave room for VA physicians to treat medical marijuana users as drug seekers though.
That is really, really low. Even as someone with no tolerance, I think 10 mg felt like a good place to start when I was in CO last year.
God help actual enthusiasts or patients who would be looking at 10+ servings to get their desired effect.
You're only supposed to buy one per day, too
There is no way to track this however
What's a "serving?"
A candy bar? a donut? a piece of candy?
I host a podcast about movies.
In Washington it's 10 mg.
For reference, there are losenges about the size of an M&M that contain 5 mg. 3-4 of those will put me on my ass and I'm a big dude.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Sounds like a good measure for "tourists please don't overdose on edibles and end up in our emergency rooms; (white) residents we will look the other way"
Massachusetts
I'm not sure where they are in the process, but I believe that recreational marijuana was in the process of being put on the 2016 ballot.
Medical cannabis =/= medical marijuana. You don't smoke medical cannabis, it's purified and has a standardized dose, and is formulated not to get you high
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
?
Exactly. Imagine the kind of person who has never tried cannabis before and then goes to do so as a tourist.
It's a totally different effect. It's a low intensity slow-burn that lasts for hours compared to the quick drop off in effect you get from smoking after a few minutes.
The problem comes when you have taken too high a dose via edibles, so the slow burn that lasts for hours stops being fun real quick.