Biden's America

[Scarlet]

8 hours ago, suh_fan93 said:

I always laugh when it doesn't take long to tell another Republican online social media troll account.

 

lolz

 

 

Yep, here it is

 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

5 hours ago, Scarlet said:

Yep, here it is

 

 

What's more important, the livelihood of American citizens - slaughtered to the point of being unrecognizable - or being elected?

 

The answer for Republicans is, and always has been, easy.

[suh_fan93]

7 hours ago, Scarlet said:

Yep, here it is

 

 

 

Yeah I was actually talking about certain social media links that have been posted here where it doesn't take long to quickly find that it may as well be Breitbart News or worse as the source.  I don't expect anything less there though.  

 

On a different note that memo doesn't surprise me a bit.  Deflect, deflect, defect.

[BigRedBuster]

WTF??

 

Im all for legalizing pot. But I don’t support this. 
 

 

[Archy1221]

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

WTF??

 

Im all for legalizing pot. But I don’t support this. 
 

 

You mind if I ask why?   If a product is legal, why can’t your employee use it on their own time.   I assume you don’t care if they drink outside of work.  

[BigRedBuster]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You mind if I ask why?   If a product is legal, why can’t your employee use it on their own time.   I assume you don’t care if they drink outside of work.  

In college, I worked at a cold storage warehouse by the airport in Lincoln. Lots of forklifts driving all over the facility.  I was almost crippled by someone who was found to be impaired while driving a forklift.

 

I am now in charge of a company where lots of employees are using equipment that can be dangerous if used while impaired.  I take safety for everyone very seriously.  I don't care if someone has a day off and drinks or smokes pot.  However, we still do drug tests when hiring and random drug tests while employed.  We have set the level of pot high enough that if they smoked pot the day before, no problem.  However, if they smoked right before they came to work or at work (yes, we have found this) it's a problem.  If someone can't stop smoking pot long enough to come apply for a job, I don't want them in my facility with the chance they are impaired and endangering themselves and others around them.

 

I know the article says this:

 

Quote

 

Employers won't be considered in violation of the legislation if they are acting under federal guidelines, or if an employee consumed marijuana at work or while performing work-related duties.

The bill also prohibits the "possession, storage, delivery, transfer, display, transportation, sale, purchase, or growing of cannabis at the employee's place of employment," it says.

 

 

But, I should be able to decide what I accept based on what I'm asking an employee to do while at work.  If someone can't stop long enough to apply, they are more likely to, at some point, show up impaired.

[Archy1221]

18 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

We have set the level of pot high enough that if they smoked pot the day before, no problem

That answers my question.   Thank you.  Sounds like if a safety accident occurred, you would test them for alcohol or drugs which seems appropriate to me given the job.  I understand the need for safety in your line of business.  

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

That answers my question.   Thank you.  Sounds like if a safety accident occurred, you would test them for alcohol or drugs which seems appropriate to me given the job.  I understand the need for safety in your line of business.  

Yes,  all accidents require drug tests for anyone involved.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

WTF??

 

Im all for legalizing pot. But I don’t support this. 
 

 

 

 

I don’t aupport banning it.

 

But I also think requiring marijuana drug tests is (usually) stupid. 

[knapplc]

It's a tough question. Obviously you don't want someone high at work, even in an office setting. But THC is detectable in your system weeks after you get high, so if you test positive it could have been from a while ago. Unless something's changed I don't think they have a test that says you're high right now.

 

So some people would come up with that ban above, knowing those tests aren't detecting immediate use. 

 

Unfortunately, there's that kind of person who would abuse that freedom and come to work high. So what if they test positive at that point, so they'll light up. And then you have safety incidents. 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

It's a tough question. Obviously you don't want someone high at work, even in an office setting. But THC is detectable in your system weeks after you get high, so if you test positive it could have been from a while ago. Unless something's changed I don't think they have a test that says you're high right now.

 

So some people would come up with that ban above, knowing those tests aren't detecting immediate use. 

 

Unfortunately, there's that kind of person who would abuse that freedom and come to work high. So what if they test positive at that point, so they'll light up. And then you have safety incidents. 

 

 

That's why we have set the level of THC high enough to account for the person who got high over the weekend and comes to work Monday morning unimpaired.  

 

We also use a mouth swab that detects if someone has smoked in the last X number of hours.  I don't remember how many hours that is.  But, it basically would tell us if they have used it recently enough that they would still be impaired.  

 

I just feel that there are WAY too many situations that a law like this typically can't come close to accounting for and it should be left up to the individual business to decide.

[BigRedBuster]

27 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t aupport banning it.

 

But I also think requiring marijuana drug tests is (usually) stupid. 

I disagree.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's why we have set the level of THC high enough to account for the person who got high over the weekend and comes to work Monday morning unimpaired.  

 

We also use a mouth swab that detects if someone has smoked in the last X number of hours.  I don't remember how many hours that is.  But, it basically would tell us if they have used it recently enough that they would still be impaired.  

 

I just feel that there are WAY too many situations that a law like this typically can't come close to accounting for and it should be left up to the individual business to decide.

 

I did knot know tests were that accurate now. Cool. 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I did knot know tests were that accurate now. Cool. 

Yeah, the mouth swab will tell you that but it doesn't tell the level of THC.  That's why we still do the urine tests along with it.

[teachercd]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

It's a tough question. Obviously you don't want someone high at work, even in an office setting. But THC is detectable in your system weeks after you get high, so if you test positive it could have been from a while ago. Unless something's changed I don't think they have a test that says you're high right now.

 

So some people would come up with that ban above, knowing those tests aren't detecting immediate use. 

 

Unfortunately, there's that kind of person who would abuse that freedom and come to work high. So what if they test positive at that point, so they'll light up. And then you have safety incidents. 

 

 

I mean...when they are sitting at their office blasting some Phish or Dead or Floyd and eating a bunch of chips or using doordash to get some Taco Bell...

 

Oh and don't forgot getting really deep and philosophical about such topics as:  Penguins mating for life, The Matrix and if Dark side of the moon and Wizard of OZ really sync up.