Marijuana discussion

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
A/V Subscriber
Sep 14, 2010
6,661
5,403
743
Gondor
http://www.marijuana.com/news/drug-test/detection-time/

"In rare occurrences, secondhand marijuana smoke can cause you to fail your drug test. It is possible that secondhand marijuana smoke will raise someone to the 50 ng/mL level. However, extreme secondhand exposure is required. For instance, being in a closed car full of pot smokers for several hours might cause someone to test positive in a drug test the very next day. Non-smokers are safe in a ventilated area such as an average living room or garage where partygoers are smoking pot."
The exception being if you were in the Choom Gang back in the 70s.
 

POPOKE

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Feb 7, 2007
3,772
3,141
1,743
South Carolina
Companies test for legal substances right now. Google poppyseed muffins causing false positive on employment drug screens. It will hold up perfectly against a lawsuit if it is known that it is a condition of your employment and you agree to it when hired. If I own a pharmacy or am a director of pharmacy (and I have been) I don't want any pot heads working for me, period, whether legal or not. They would be a liability on many fronts.

Do you honestly think companies test for poppy seeds? Did I misunderstand that statement?

I think the problem with this argument is that you assume any one who smokes pot, is a pot head. If pot were legal, do you not think that the there might a population of working, responsible adults that would recreationally use it just like they do alcohol? Would you not want to hire the person who enjoys the occassional happy hour beer? Would you not want to hire the person who enjoys a six pack on Sundays while watching football? Are those persons a liablitly?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
62,021
45,747
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Do you honestly think companies test for poppy seeds? Did I misunderstand that statement?
Yes, you misread it. They do not test for poppyseeds, poppyseed muffins cause false positives when urine testing for opiates.

I think the problem with this argument is that you assume any one who smokes pot, is a pot head.
Where did I say that? I said I wouldn't want potheads working in my pharmacy, they would be a liability. Urine screening is one way to keep them out. If they can't lay off the weed long enough to pass the pre-employment urine screen then they are likely enough a pothead that I don't want them in my pharmacy.

If pot were legal, do you not think that the there might a population of working, responsible adults that would recreationally use it just like they do alcohol?
Sure. But again, if they couldn't lay off of it long enough to pass the screen then I'll pass on hiring them.

Would you not want to hire the person who enjoys the occassional happy hour beer? Would you not want to hire the person who enjoys a six pack on Sundays while watching football? Are those persons a liablitly?
It is doggone near impossible to know who is a true occasional, social drinker before hiring people. But if there were a reliable test for alcoholism you can bet your butt I'd use it before hiring someone to work in the pharmacy where they would be a liability.

There are a growing number of companies that are refusing to hire smokers and obese people because they increase insurance costs. It isn't a stretch to think that some companies might not want to hire drinkers, either.
 

POPOKE

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Feb 7, 2007
3,772
3,141
1,743
South Carolina
Yes, you misread it. They do not test for poppyseeds, poppyseed muffins cause false positives when urine testing for opiates.

I obviously knew about poppy seeds, I thought you meant that companies tested for them for some reason. I didn't understand what you were saying, I think I get it now though.


Where did I say that? I said I wouldn't want potheads working in my pharmacy said:
You know it takes a casual marijuana user 4-6 days to get weed out of their system, right? The general public thinks it takes up to 30 days, but I've been to numerous work trainings that offer evidence based practices that prove that just isn't true. Habitual , overweight, daily users it can take up to 30 days. I wouldn't say a person going to happy hour and having a few beers, or if it was legal, smoking a few joints is an alcoholic or a pot head. I would like to think most educated persons would know to lay off the stuff when they're applying for important job changing careers. But I agree, if someone can't lay off the stuff just to get a job, then it would be on them.

It is doggone near impossible to know who is a true occasional said:
I guess that's my point, that it's basically impossible to tell who is an alcoholic pre-employment. And if someone is an occassional marijuana user, you'll not likely to realize this either. You might catch them on a pre-employment drug screen, but the population I'm talking about (the non "pot head") would likely be able to lay off until they found a job.

My question to you is, would you be totally against hiring an occassional user of marijuana?

*and sorry I messed up the quotes, I'm in a hurry at work and don't have time to mess with it*
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,538
15,899
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
http://www.marijuana.com/news/drug-test/detection-time/

"In rare occurrences, secondhand marijuana smoke can cause you to fail your drug test. It is possible that secondhand marijuana smoke will raise someone to the 50 ng/mL level. However, extreme secondhand exposure is required. For instance, being in a closed car full of pot smokers for several hours might cause someone to test positive in a drug test the very next day. Non-smokers are safe in a ventilated area such as an average living room or garage where partygoers are smoking pot."
I have no standing to debate the effects of 2nd hand mj smoke, but I wonder if any of our resident health experts can explain the apparent dichotomy between 2nd hand mj smoke and 2nd hand cigarette smoke. Seriously curious about this now that it has been raised.
 
Feb 7, 2011
72
26
568
I have no standing to debate the effects of 2nd hand mj smoke, but I wonder if any of our resident health experts can explain the apparent dichotomy between 2nd hand mj smoke and 2nd hand cigarette smoke. Seriously curious about this now that it has been raised.
I am not certain what your specific question is. Traces of chemicals of tobacco smoke can be detected in urine samples of non-smokers who are exposed to tobacco smoke.
It took large numbers of nonsmoking subjects who had spent years with smokers to gather the staistics to prove causation of second hand smoke to lung cancer.

The THC in marijuana might offset some of the negative effect of the increased tar and carcinogens in marijuana. I saw a small study that indicated that some of the tumor growth factors were less in a lab model with the use of the THC. That is a long way from a double blind research study.

The nonsmoker breathing in chemicals from either product is established. The effects of second hand marijuana smoke over a long period of time to me is a reasonable question. I ran a brief search on medline and I could not find any information on the matter. I would be a lttle surprised if there is any research on that specific question.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,538
15,899
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
I am not certain what your specific question is. Traces of chemicals of tobacco smoke can be detected in urine samples of non-smokers who are exposed to tobacco smoke.
It took large numbers of nonsmoking subjects who had spent years with smokers to gather the staistics to prove causation of second hand smoke to lung cancer.

The THC in marijuana might offset some of the negative effect of the increased tar and carcinogens in marijuana. I saw a small study that indicated that some of the tumor growth factors were less in a lab model with the use of the THC. That is a long way from a double blind research study.

The nonsmoker breathing in chemicals from either product is established. The effects of second hand marijuana smoke over a long period of time to me is a reasonable question. I ran a brief search on medline and I could not find any information on the matter. I would be a lttle surprised if there is any research on that specific question.
Well without knowing what my question was you did a danged good job of answering it. I was trying to see if the effects of 2nd hand mj smoke had been studied for an extended period of time. The reason for the question was that with all the uproar over 2nd hand smoke I was unable to understand why, if (has been stated here) mj contains material levels of known carcinogens, that is not a stronger position of the anti-legalization crowd.

Thanks for answering.
 

State

Russian Bot
A/V Subscriber
Mar 15, 2007
13,581
7,967
1,743
Working on the Railroad
I think one of the reasons we can safely legalize marijuana is all the current smoking laws. It would fall under the same laws and for the most part you wouldn't have to be around it if you didn't want to be.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,068
2,029
743
Where else but Stillwater

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
25,947
15,108
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
The ACLU is going to represent the KKK in its bid to join Georgia's highway clean up program.

The adopt a highway project in Georgia turned down the KKK's bid to adopt a stretch of highway and put up a sign saying that it was supported by the KKK.