Your probably right there. I don't dispute that. I'm curious about the dispensaries. Are there any in the 'hood? How do these affect pricing/sales in lower income areas if they exist there? Seems like they would be competing against the corner crew....who probably wouldn't appreciate the competition.
Not sure if this has been covered but, weed stays in your system for a while and can alter behavior for a while even when you are not high. What will be the law with regard to an employers ability to drug screen for weed? I mean, if I am an employer and your results are positive, how can I prove you were high at work if you claim you were not? Won't this open the door for people to be high all the time? And if I can still screen for weed, it basically means you can never smoke even during vacation because if somehow you are screened the next week and it is still in your system you could be fired.
Its really not a huge problem at all. In high school people drove around stoned ALL the time. There was absolutely no correlation between being high and getting in wrecks. There is just as much as a chance you will get in a wreck sober than high. When your high you become more aware that you are driving under the influence of something, therefore you concentrate more. When your sober its more unconscious. Thats what at least i feel happens when you drive blazed.
If weed is legalized, it probably wouldn't be legal to test for it. Its like testing for alcohol. Even if it wasn't, many employers would drop the mar1juana part if such a thing happened.
I would ask for data to back this up...but according to JLEW all you need is personal experience..so i'll just take your word for it
It is not like alcohol because employers can breath test you and if you have any amount make you go home. Alcohol can get out of your system in one night, and certainly a day and a night. Weed takes much much longer.
Yeah but if they legalized it they wouldn't test for it. Im pretty sure it would be illegal to do so anyway, but if it was, it would bring up questions with what if it was used medicinally? The employers would certainly just cut the mar1juana part of the test if it was legalized.
Yeah well like 70% of the kids at my high school smoked (I went to school in austin). Thats a pretty big test group, and it was clear that there was no correlation between being high and getting in wrecks. Its not official data or anything but its definitely what happened.
I'm not saying it isnt true...but if there isnt testing and such how do we know it doesnt impair you in some way. i mean if pot were legal, would you recommend people toke up before they drive since it will make them focus more? btw....i am for legalizing...i just think some tests/data would need to be done before we start allowing people to drive around while high.
And everyday there are lots of people that drive drunk and get to their destination without getting in a wreck. Does that mean there is a low correlation? There's no correlation because you cannot determine at the scene of an accident if the driver is stoned.
Don't drink and drive. Don't smoke pot and drive. Don't take prescription meds and drive. Don't snort coke and drive. Don't shoot meth and drive. Don't drop acid and drive. Don't eat mushrooms and drive. The list goes on and on. Moral of the story....DON'T DRIVE IMPAIRED regardless of the the cause.
The difference is that the dispensaries can call the cops if they are being threatened or attacked where a drug dealer cannot. I would rather have a store being run under law than thugs on street corners providing drugs to anyone who has the money.
If you actually believe this, you need to go home, take your entire music collection, and burn it because, well, I'll let Bill Hicks handle this one... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J10w3FuCwfQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J10w3FuCwfQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Not true. Metabolites stay in your system for up to 72 days, but these are not active chemicals, they are not altering behavior or causing a person to be impaired. Same as now. Employers are allowed to screen for alcohol metabolites, but generally don't care about the results since it is legal. No, there are blood tests available that will measure the level of THC in the bloodstream, allowing the employer to measure impairment. If all you are doing for screening is urinalysis, then you are right. If you are testing for impairment on the job, you can ask for a blood test which will actually measure the level of active THC in the bloodstream. Most places will not test for pot unless there are safety issues to consider, in which case they have a testing program for alcohol as well. They can use this existing program to test for mar1juana impairment if they choose to.
Driving impaired is driving impaired and I would fully support extending the existing DUI laws to cover mar1juana. You may feel like you are being more careful, and you may only be driving four miles per hour (obligatory Bill Hicks reference), but your reaction times are slowed and your perceptions are altered. Driving impaired is wrong and should be prosecuted, no matter the impairment.
