Althouse: "The bill simply establishes a medical cannabis patient's right to work."

January 31, 2011

"The bill simply establishes a medical cannabis patient's right to work."

"It astounds me that there would be any controversy around it."

46 comments:

knox said...: Tobacco = bad, bad, bad

Cannabis = good; 1/31/11, 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Used to smoke, but I haven't in years. Can't afford it. Don't have anybody to smoke with.

Watched a great show on Discovery, Got Lotsa Pot
, about Steve Lamb, a world class pot smuggler. He had a hell of a lot of fun.

It's time to stop putting people in jail for smoking or selling pot. What an absurdity.

And smoking pot, at least moderately, does not distort your judgment or perception in the way that alcohol does.

Time to end the prohibition.; 1/31/11, 8:02 AM
PaulV said...: WSJ reporter says city with lower unemployment rate has won 16 of last 20 Super Bowls, making Pack 4-1 favorites. Smoke one if you have one.; 1/31/11, 8:03 AM
PaulV said...: Some say Loughter's heavy pot use led to his mental problem. WTF; 1/31/11, 8:05 AM
John Thacker said...: Shoutingthomas:

I completely agree with making pot 100% legal. However, I strongly oppose the bill mentioned in the linked article, so I don't see how your comment is relevant.

Indeed, to the extent that people push bills like the one mentioned, it makes me feel less secure in my support for ending prohibition.; 1/31/11, 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Because it's not as intense as alcohol doesn't mean that it doesn't also impair your senses.

There are many jobs that require your workmate to be in control or you could be injured or killed. My own high wire act on top of Manhattans tallest buildings notwithstanding.

If you're impaired, stay home. Is that really so hard to understand?; 1/31/11, 8:12 AM
Fen said...: Some say Loughter's heavy pot use led to his mental problem. WTF

Agreed. I know serveral potheads. They're full of rage when they're out of weed.

does not distort your judgment or perception in the way that alcohol does.

Yes it does. Your reaction time is severely limited. And it distances your perception of consequences for your actions.

OTOH, I never saw the need for a female viagra with weed still out there.; 1/31/11, 8:12 AM
Anonymous said...: I completely agree with making pot 100% legal. However, I strongly oppose the bill mentioned in the linked article, so I don't see how your comment is relevant.

Well, the way that it's relevant is that I don't think that pot distorts the moderate user's judgment or perception in the way that alcohol does, so I don't think the moderate user presents any danger for the employer.

We probably don't need any more laws. People certainly shouldn't be smoking on the job. However, I understand that, for people who really are medical users who need a powerful dose of THC, edible pot cookies and candies are available in CA.

There's probably a way for serious medical users to be discreet about their use of pot. Eating these edible doses of THC is probably the answer.; 1/31/11, 8:14 AM
Fen said...: Tobacco = bad, bad, bad

Whats funny is that the State can't ban smokes because so much tax revenue depends on it.; 1/31/11, 8:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes it does. Your reaction time is severely limited. And it distances your perception of consequences for your actions.

As somebody who smoked pot for years and has since quit, I say bullshit.; 1/31/11, 8:15 AM
Fen said...: As somebody who smoked pot for years and has since quit, I say bullshit.

And as somebody who smoked pot for years and still does, I say bullshit on your bullshit.; 1/31/11, 8:16 AM
Fen said...: which reminds me... brb; 1/31/11, 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: I say bullshit on your bullshit.

What is bullshit squared?; 1/31/11, 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Bullshit on bullshit wins!; 1/31/11, 8:18 AM
G Joubert said...: It's not as simple as they seem to want to believe. As we know, states can pass all these laws they want until the cows come home, but it doesn't change marijuana's proscribed status under federal law,as a schedule I drug under the controlled substances act in particular (i.e., "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States").

Meanwhile, employers have a duty under another federal law, OSHA, to provide a safe work place, and could easily be held in violation of OSHA if an accident occured and the worker(s) involved tested positive for marijuana, state law medical marijuana card or not.

Congress is the legislative body who can change this, not state legislatures. Assuming you want to change it.; 1/31/11, 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Bullshit on bullshit wins!

Hold on, Fen. If you're still smoking pot, and as you say, your reaction time is severely limited and you are less conscious of the consequences of your actions...

Then, your comment is necessarily suspect because of your slow reaction time and inability to understand the consequences.

So, I claim dog puke on your bullshit on my bullshit.; 1/31/11, 8:21 AM
Fen said...: If you're still smoking pot, and as you say, your reaction time is severely limited and you are less conscious of the consequences of your actions...

Not yet. Like I said, hold on a sec while I reload.; 1/31/11, 8:23 AM
KCFleming said...: " "It astounds me that there would be any controversy around it."

Astounds?
Well, maybe not *astounds*....

"Leno's bill would exempt from protection workers such as doctors, nurses, school bus drivers and heavy equipment operators who hold so-called safety sensitive jobs."

If there were no problem with it, so much that it would astound one to believe otherwise, why exempt from this firing ban so-called 'sensitive' jobs?

Does marijuana use have some kind of effect on people that it might interfere with their work?; 1/31/11, 8:24 AM
Fen said...: the worker(s) involved tested positive for marijuana, state law medical marijuana card or not.

One of the reasons I'm against legalization. If you're pulled over and tested, how do they know if it was that morning or an hour ago? Last time I checked, the tech wasn't advanced enough to determine you were *currently* under the influence. Has that changed?; 1/31/11, 8:25 AM
TMink said...: I think it is important that people not operate heavy or dangerous equipment while they are intoxicated. Certainly the neurological workings and subjective effects of marijuana and alcohol are quite different, but smoking enough pot leaves you distracted.

What we need is a test to see if someone is baked right now rather than the current tests that show if the person has used in the last couple of weeks.

I support legalization. I do not support being stoned at work.

Trey; 1/31/11, 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Here's Steve Lamb's website. His life story almost persuaded me to become an international pot smuggler.

The guy buried $2.8 million in hundred dollar bills in his mom's backyard.

Now, you'd think that once you had $2.8 million in hard cash, you might want to throw in the towel, go out of business and live on the proceeds.

But, Lamb couldn't stop. He was living the life of a modern day pirate, and he was hooked on the thrills.; 1/31/11, 8:31 AM
Larry J said...: Meanwhile, employers have a duty under another federal law, OSHA, to provide a safe work place, and could easily be held in violation of OSHA if an accident occured and the worker(s) involved tested positive for marijuana, state law medical marijuana card or not.

Also, there are a lot of us who depend on maintaining a security clearance to keep our jobs. Pot use is incompatible with maintaining a clearance and no state law is going to change that.; 1/31/11, 8:37 AM
garage mahal said...: I'm hungry.; 1/31/11, 8:39 AM
AllenS said...: RAJI!!

I thought you were in Ft. Worth. Tell Aaron I said hi.; 1/31/11, 8:41 AM
Hagar said...: I do not want any potheads on a construction site if it can be avoided. Not for their safety, nor for mine or yours.; 1/31/11, 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: I do not want any potheads on a construction site if it can be avoided. Not for their safety, nor for mine or yours.

Then, I'd advise you to remain sequestered in your house.

Musicians commonly work on construction sites. One of the favorite "day jobs" of musicians.

And musicians are very likely to smoke pot.

So, don't leave your house.; 1/31/11, 8:47 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Did you get into the team picture, garage?; 1/31/11, 8:57 AM
garage mahal said...: @Maguro
Yes. And please, it's garaji.; 1/31/11, 9:08 AM
MadisonMan said...: What is bullshit squared?

Chuck Schumer?; 1/31/11, 9:30 AM
Michael said...: I don't know anything about labor law, but I wonder if a patient on heavy prescription muscle relaxers or pain killers can be prevented from working. Like operating heavy machinery or making securities trades for clients.; 1/31/11, 9:33 AM
John henry said...: Fen and Not New Yorker

Any data on pot impairing abilities?

There must be some studies, no?

On the other hand, there are at least 2 studies by the USDOT and 1 by the Aussie equivalent that I have seen.

They gave a bunch of people calibrated amounts of pot and tested driving reaction times. They found that pot usage actually improved them slightly.

So if there is something showing the opposite, I would be interested.

John Henry; 1/31/11, 9:34 AM
KCFleming said...: John, if that's true, why exempt anyone from the proposed law?; 1/31/11, 9:46 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/31/11, 10:05 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Easy peasy.

Just find some other legal reason NOT to hire the pot smoker: who is smoking pot because they are supposedly very very SICK.

Medical marijuana is for people who are (or who are at least claiming to be) sick and sick with cronic debilitating conditions.Find another candidate for the job who will be just as qualified and select that person.

Why would you want to hire an already ill person who will be putting stress upon your "mandatory" group health plan and who will probably require all kinds of special snowflake treatments? Find someone else.

Or better yet, sub contract out the position, slap them with a 1099 and let that person worry about the liability issues of being a pot head, job performance and their own medical costs.

VW: COMIC exactly what our clowns of lawmakers are.; 1/31/11, 10:07 AM
Unknown said...: The object of smoking marijuana is to get high.

The object of taking a drink isn't necessarily to get drunk.

And, in regard to the people here proclaiming their habitual pot smoking, while I've agreed with them occasionally, I have to say it tends to explain the general tenor of their comments.

John said...

Fen and Not New Yorker

Any data on pot impairing abilities?

There must be some studies, no?

On the other hand, there are at least 2 studies by the USDOT and 1 by the Aussie equivalent that I have seen.

They gave a bunch of people calibrated amounts of pot and tested driving reaction times. They found that pot usage actually improved them slightly.

And what were the political orientations of the administrations when these studies were done?

PS According to The Blonde, marijuana is a much worse health hazard than booze or tobacco.; 1/31/11, 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: The object of smoking marijuana is to get high.

The object of taking a drink isn't necessarily to get drunk.

Huh?

I'm an EMS. In our training, we are told that we must wait 2 to 6 hours before going on duty after taking a single drink.

A single drink makes you high.

The health hazards of ingesting any substance by smoking cannot be denied. But, my limited medical training suggests that tobacco smoking is particularly devastating because the lungs have receptors that literally seek out and cling to the carcinogenic elements of tobacco smoke.; 1/31/11, 10:31 AM
Calypso Facto said...: I'm pretty open to the idea of legalizing pot, but if employers will still be on the hook for OSHA violations and liability claims, then they must maintain the right to choose what constitutes performance impairment and risk.; 1/31/11, 10:38 AM
Unknown said...: shoutingthomas said...

The object of smoking marijuana is to get high.

The object of taking a drink isn't necessarily to get drunk.

Huh?

I'm an EMS. In our training, we are told that we must wait 2 to 6 hours before going on duty after taking a single drink.

A single drink makes you high.

Correction - the ingestion of one drink has a physiological effect, one mitigated by what type of drink - wine, beer, hard liquor, cocktail, as well as the size of the serving.

You can have a glass of wine with dinner or a shot of whiskey or glass of beer afterwards and you can still drive home without being arrested.

I doubt Ann and Meade, as an example, have one of their specialty beers with lunch with the sole object of getting plastered.; 1/31/11, 11:11 AM
TMink said...: Well, there is high and there is baked just like there is getting tight and getting drunk. But even when I ahve a glass of wine to go with dinner, I feel the effects.

Trey; 1/31/11, 12:06 PM
Lyssa said...: Edutcher said: And, in regard to the people here proclaiming their habitual pot smoking, while I've agreed with them occasionally, I have to say it tends to explain the general tenor of their comments.

I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't think of a diplomatic enough way to say it. Nicely put.

(I'm sympathetic to the idea of legalization, and possibly even to this law, but I won't pretend that I haven't seen more than enough evidence that it is nasty stuff.)

- Lyssa; 1/31/11, 1:14 PM
Lyssa said...: Hey, is anyone else having a problem with Open ID? I haven't been able to use it for a few days (Luckily I have my back up Google account, but I've always preferred the open ID); 1/31/11, 1:15 PM
jr565 said...: I know that when I went out for a recent job, they gave me a drug test. If I had tested postive for pot smoking I would not have been hired. I also know that there are many "doctors" who simply set up shop to give people medical marijuana for their "pain" despite the fact that college kids take bus trips to these clinics to get pot for their "glaucoma". It's a total joke.
So why should someone who dubioiusly needs pot be allowed to work while others who simply smoke it and don't lie about the need can't get that same job?

And since when do you have a "right" to work? you work, if someone hires you.; 1/31/11, 2:24 PM
Megaera said...: Hard for me to believce that Ann, a lawyer, does not understand that the purpose of this bill is to make it impossible for any employer to refuse to hire someone despite known drug use -- provided he has a magic card -- and make it impossible to fire him for known drug use, ditto. Even union contracts usually allow drug use to be considered a basis for some form of disciplinary action, up to and eventually including termination, but this law will make it impossible since every pot smoker will have a magic Rx, and a refusal to hire or attempt to fire will be met with immediate protracted, expensive litigation. (As someone pointed out, cannabin has a certain persistance in the system, and a test can't detect if you smoked last night or this morning, just before coming to work. Or even at work, during lunch hour.) This is what you get with state intervention ("medical" marijuana} -- the state engaging in forcing behaviors to back itself up. Another nail in the coffin of California employment numbers, I suspect.

Like Thomas, I'm in EMS, and we have rules about alcohol consumption before duty; drug use, if detected (as in a tox screen if your unit is in an MVC) is an automatic out(firing offensive for paid personnel), and grounds for decertification. Some much for one medical aspect. But you know what? The heavy equipment exclusion is pretty much useless, because anyone who drives any vehicle in a work-related activity is just as dangerous as a crane operator, or that guy on a D-9 Cat, probably more so, because statistically there are going to be lots, lots more of them, and they're a lot more likely to be someone you're going to meet coming down the road some day. And employers, believe me, understand now that if they can't even make a legitimate attempt to filter these people out in the pre-hiring process any more, well, they just won't hire anyone, because if they get sued for their employee's causing multiple deaths and dismemberment, holding up that law as a magic shield isn't going to work for them. They'll be liable in the millions of dollars.; 1/31/11, 3:05 PM
Methadras said...: If this kind of legislation is passed, then what will be the precedent that is set for other medications that employers may exempt for employment. Furthermore, is there really a right to work in California? It's an at will state, so how do those two things jibe.

wv = doppess = lol; 1/31/11, 3:05 PM
Phil 314 said...: No other "medicine" is smoked.; 1/31/11, 3:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Useful information ..I am very happy to read this article..thanks for giving us this useful information. Fantastic walk-through. I appreciate this post.
bondage and discipline video; 9/15/11, 6:32 AM