Legalization Of The "Devil's Weed"

But it sure can act as a precursor

I don't think anybody should drive any vehicle impaired or under the influence of any substances.

That being said, I don't understand the issue here. I can clock out Friday evening, go home and pound 6 pack after 6 pack until Sunday evening and return to work Monday morning with no issue. If I smoke a joint then my career is over.

What's the difference?

Banks, you always come up with thought provoking viewpoints.

So I’m asking this out of curiosity. If a driver got alcohol drunk on Sunday night, went to drive Monday morning and was required to do a random **** test, would the alcohol show up? And what would be the consequences?

Alcohol is not a part of a urinalysis.

I also agree. There is no difference. Both are extremely irresponsible in my opinion. But that’s just me. Drivers showing up smelling like liquor or drivers showing up stoned. It’s the same thing. Issue is alcohol doesn’t stay in your system long. Weed does.

They need a test that can determine how long since you used. That would maybe solve it. I am for legalization and responsible recreational use. But not for truck drivers just yet.

That being said, I don't understand the issue here. I can clock out Friday evening, go home and pound 6 pack after 6 pack until Sunday evening and return to work Monday morning with no issue. If I smoke a joint then my career is over.

What's the difference?

There exist urine and blood tests as well as hair for "past" alcohol use.

Ethyl glucuronide and I think a few others.

If marijuana is federally legalized and licensed/taxed like the states do I'd ideally like to see an acute test developed that can test for active intoxication. Barring that I'd like to see alcohol equally demonized and have any use banned by the DOT. Good for the goose, good for the gander. Either no one has fun when off work or everyone can.

We’ve had this discussion where I work ad nauseum. Obviously those who use want to believe that legalization will change the landscape. The truth is, as far as work related issues, nothing will change. What you have to understand is that DOT testing and regulations are the MINIMUM hurdle. How many companies test above that level for pre-hire and post incident, by using hair follicle and other methods? Most? All? And why do they do that- because their insurance carriers require it. And do the insurance carriers care about “fair” testing for “level of impairment”? Not one damn bit. Because if you drive with any detectable level of a substance known to cause impairment, and cause or even get caught in an accident or serious incident, some attorney will grab hold of that and make someone - the insurance carrier - pay. So it’s simple really - if you chose to put yourself in the position of being a liability, you will be invited to work somewhere else. Assuming somewhere else will still hire you. And sure, someone could spend millions researching and validating “impairment level”, but whose paying for that? The insurance industry? Lol - no. Why would they? They already have a standard of performance - zero. So legal or not, there won’t be an “acceptable” level any time soon.

Gregg

If weed becomes legal nationwide, I strongly believe a test is necessary to see if one is "stoned" etc while driving. If thats possible. If someone is off for a few days and smokes a joint then he should not lose his job (if made legal). One can get $&@$faced drunk on Sat then return to driving on Monday w no repercussions. So if made legal there should be no difference. In closing, driving an 80k vehicle under the influence of either one, also speed, etc is a big no no!

The decision won't be made by politicians. Like all hiring decisions it will be made by the companies who insure the trucks. Not gonna happen:

IIHS found that the number of injury and fatal crashes in California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington rose considerably in the months following the relaxation of marijuana laws. In those states combined, there was a six percent increase in injury crashes and a four percent increase in fatal crash rates compared to other Western states where recreational marijuana use was illegal during the study period.

I also think there is another factor in this issue that I’m shocked most people in this industry are unaware of. While testing and “acceptable” levels are well known, and often a legal “slam dunk” many states (maybe all) have provisions for conviction based entirely on the arresting officer’s testimony of his judgement of level of impairment. Why? Because there are numerous circumstances where testing cannot be performed, ranging from circumstances to equipment and others. So this means there are two things you need to know: First, just because you “passed” a blood alcohol test, or weren’t tested for something else in your system, doesn’t mean you will get a walk. And second, if you are arrested and NOT blood tested you need to do it yourself, as soon as you possibly can. Otherwise you have nothing to refute the officers testimony.

Gregg

Bumping this... it’s basically the only thing that carries any weight in this discussion. If you want to operate a CMV , accept the zero tolerance policy most every company has.

Call it what ever name you prefer Matthew... it’s reality.

The decision won't be made by politicians. Like all hiring decisions it will be made by the companies who insure the trucks. Not gonna happen:

IIHS found that the number of injury and fatal crashes in California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington rose considerably in the months following the relaxation of marijuana laws. In those states combined, there was a six percent increase in injury crashes and a four percent increase in fatal crash rates compared to other Western states where recreational marijuana use was illegal during the study period.

The only thing that could stop private companies doing whatever testing they want is legislation and as much as I think blanket testing for legal substances that may have been used months ago is BS of the highest order I also am not willing to give government that power over private enterprise.

Bumping this... it’s basically the only thing that carries any weight in this discussion. If you want to operate a CMV , accept the zero tolerance policy most every company has.

Call it what ever name you prefer Matthew... it’s reality.

The decision won't be made by politicians. Like all hiring decisions it will be made by the companies who insure the trucks. Not gonna happen:

IIHS found that the number of injury and fatal crashes in California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington rose considerably in the months following the relaxation of marijuana laws. In those states combined, there was a six percent increase in injury crashes and a four percent increase in fatal crash rates compared to other Western states where recreational marijuana use was illegal during the study period.

Can’t measure it so ban it. How hard is that?

Today’s weed is not your Mom’s.

Https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-votes-decriminalize-marijuana

And so it continues. I was sitting back reflecting on where we were in the 70s versus now. What a massive change in political and societal attitudes towards marijuana.

I wonder where this is going to end up in regards to safety sensitive positions, the DOT and some other entities that are concerned about impaired workers. There isn't a way to determine "impairment" yet with THC in the same way you would with alcohol. Just subjective testing. I think it is going to be interesting watching what evolves as we discuss and legislate this issue as a society.

I can't see it being any more harmful than alcohol. In some cases, probably much less harmful depending on the circumstances surrounding the usage. However, we have our current laws and those who choose not to follow them place themselves at risk for sanction. Still on the fence about usage in safety sensitive positions because of the determination of impairment issue and the lack of hard data showing what happens after......for example.......a workday after casual usage the previous evening. We are pretty clear on the effects of alcohol both short and long term.

Your thoughts?