I wish people would stop equating cannabis (the correct term) with alcohol. For me and my combat vet friends, it's our medicine, usually a replacement for the serotonin zombie bullshit the VA tries to give us. Of course if the job position is one of, say, operating heavy machinery, etc, drug use should at least be disclosed, but in states that are legal, cbd strains and smaller controlled doses in edibles etc mean I bet there are a lot of people who are high at work and you just don't have a clue. Its just not the same as showing up drunk. Do you immediately fire the guy who takes his adderal?
Too bad I live in a state that doesn't recognize the medical benefit yet, so I forgoe for legal reasons, but some of my buddies in the same state are literally risking jail and worse just to use their medicine.
Its not an employers business whatsoever unless relevant to the particular job. Also, people need yo stop signing employee agreements and whatever paper HR shoves in their face. Last place I was at I signed one document, and just threw away the drug testing paper. Without those papers signed many employees have no recourse on the subject at all anyway. Of course, many people are so far entangled in one form or another they let their employee walk all over them. People ought to be more willing to walk out the door in at will states, and need to be more specific about trigger conditions in contract work.
I agree with you, cannabis seems to help a lot of people, and nearly anything that reduces rates of opioid abuse is a good thing.
But, man, am I tired of smelling it everywhere. If cannabis users are going to be so inconsiderate about stinking up common spaces, it's going to be difficult to support legalizing it for recreational use.
If they use a proper vaporizer or an edible or any number of other techniques, the smell isn't a problem.
Only uneducated idiots actually smoke the stuff anymore. There are so much better delivery mechanisms nowadays which are much less harsh on your throat and lungs, it's not even funny.
Source: I used to live in Denver, and I knew a lot of friends and co-workers who used vaporizers and never had a problem with smell.
I'm not big fan of the smell either, especially in public spaces, but I'm much more affected personally by the perfumes people wear, both men and women. Some of those will give me splitting headaches that last for hours, even days, after just a few minutes of exposure.
It took me years to figure out that was causing me to feel so awful. I spent my younger years getting sick in school, in church, in shopping malls and when visiting relatives.
I've gotten good at avoiding it now, but I don't whine and complain about it to everyone who uses that stuff. I just remove myself from their presence.
I've also noticed that many of those who complain the loudest about the smell of herb or tobacco are those that reek the most of those nasty toxic perfumes so if you've drenched yourself in that crap before you walk by me and decide to complain about herb smoke be prepared to have me unload on your toxic smelly self because I will not hesitate.
And marijuana use is expected to jump significantly over the next few years in North America.
They don't tell who exactly expects that, nor what the chances are such expectation will hold true (nor whether it will in the long run, over the course of decades). At first sight it makes sense, but does it really? I couldn't find any large scale studies, but searching the internet seems to indicate the outcome can go both ways. There's enough articles to be found saying there's actually a decline in use after legalization (e.g. in Portugal and California). Likewise for the opposite. Conclusion to me: you can expect what you want, but without a proper scientific approach to evaluating it you just don't know for sure.
The article makes a lot of assumptions, I feel that it's intellectually lazy.
What if an employee is under the influence of marijuana? Well gosh, if your employee constantly comes to work drunk, you probably fire them. The article tries to point out that it's harder to test for cannabis intoxication than alcohol intoxication, but few businesses are going to administer a test anyways. They will just fire you if you are inebriated. So why would it be any different? The question is never posed.
And then, the assumption that randomly drug testing employees is somehow normal or OK pops up, with some hand waving about how some companies are shirking their presumed responsibility towards this. In a lot of countries, you're not even allowed to do employee drug testing unless the work is dangerous. I wonder how they are coping?
The article tries to paint a picture of some big complicated problem, but it smells like bullshit to me. HR departments already have ways of dealing with these problems, and the legalization of the substance has little to nothing to do with it.
There is a slight uptick in usage in WA however, remember that before legalisation there was near zero data and it was largely self-reported. Now, in regulated markets we have actual sales data to track.
Volumes have been increasing in WA since 2014 but seem to be near a plateau from my point of view.
Edibles, oils and pre-rolled make the product much more accessible and anecdotally I see more folks, even in BigCo comfortable talking about and even using reefer
Portugal didn't legalize, only decriminalize. While it's safer to use than before, it's still a black market, not something you can buy on the corner store.
I think as something becomes less taboo (i.e. decriminalization) it'll become more popular in general. Younger generations won't have the same feelings of hesitation to try it, and it's use will be more casual.
I'm no expert but I feel that use is indeed on the rise.
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
"It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of [marijuana] for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy."
I worked at a call center. We had an hour for lunch. I had it timed down to a science. I could drive home, even in severe winter conditions, get up to my apartment, and queue up an episode of American Dad on Netflix. I had exactly the amount of run time of that episode at home for lunch, and I would smoke at least two bowls from my water pipe. If the morning had been especially hectic with angry customers, I'd hit it harder.
I'd walk back in to work with 10 minutes to spare. Sit down, catch up on emails I'd seen but ignored in the morning, and get situated back at my desk. Because it was a call center, and it was better to be 10 minutes early back from my lunch instead of 30 seconds late. I would then field my best calls of the day, and my metrics would prove this. I got the best response rates, the best feedbacks, and generally just felt the best about those calls. There was no anxiety, just two people on a phone call, and getting some tech support.
Was I driving while impaired on the way back to work? Yeah, and that shit is bad news, I'm not defending that. But given the stress and rigors of the call center, it's what I did to cope. This was before I took my mental illness seriously as an illness, and sought professional help with a doctor. Just me self medicating at home on my lunch break. But the raw data of my performance numbers don't lie, when I was blazed out of my fucking head, I was the best man or woman on the floor, period.
My manager loved me. But she didn't know every time we'd have our monthly face-to-face performance meetings, I was blazed out of my head then too. Why? She always booked them after my lunch break. My actual goal in those meetings was to see how much of her time I could waste, because they were only scheduled for a half an hour, and they want you on the phones producing all the rest of your metrics non-stop. But if I could get her talking and keep talking about work stuff, that meant more time I wasn't sitting under the barrel of the phones.
I don't know that I have a point to any of this. Just anecdotal evidence to throw on the pile from my own personal experience. But I only feel compelled to bring it up because that job was such a numbers and performance driven affair, and my data backs me up on this. I had actual proof in the numbers, beyond just the assumption that I was doing better because I felt better because I was high.
If you did this every day, there is little to no issue with you driving. Regular users get a tolerance, even my grandma will drive while high if she has a proper tolerance and its only a bowl or two.
They were strict when I first came to help them about not smoking and driving, which I of course respected.
However once Grandma was smoking daily she realized its really a non-issue. Even for her. She's 66 btw.
As long as you have a tolerance. That is the key here.
If you do not:
then you shouldn't drive until you have a shower, some snacks and a light nap.
I'm talking North Dakota weather. Three inches of ice on the roads, but fuck it they plowed, and that's the weather of the city and nobody gives a fuck and no businesses are closing. Not like Dallas where a quarter of an inch of just slushy snow could shut down the entire Metroplex, I'm talking harsh Winter.
I know about tolerance. From my personal experience I actually very much enjoy actively smoking a blunt while I'm driving down the highway or interstate. But it's still impairment. I am still not of my regular faculties while driving. Even if my regular faculties are wrecked with anxiety and more likely to get me in to an accident. Regardless, if, for whatever reason, anything should so happen and I wreck, it automatically becomes my fault. No ifs ands or buts about it in the face of the current law. And I can't readily defend against that, I think that's the right call.
Honestly I think the smartest thing you can do as a company when it comes to weed is.. nothing. It's just not the employers business what people do in their free time. There's no upside to getting involved with that kind of issue. If you have an employee showing up high or something that's an issue with their professionalism.
You have to be aware that many companies have field operations that require (in the US) very large insurance plans. A stipulation of many of these plans are that all employees must refrain from certain drugs. It is in these cases that what goes on outside of work can creep into the scope of the company. If you are getting high on the weekend and have an unrelated plane accident on Monday, the company's insurance might be able to claim breach of contract and not cover the accident.
My company has a policy of drug testing but I don't know anyone that has been tested. A couple of my coworkers that have been with the company longer than I have, grow or have grown weed and talk about it at work. Around 4/20 one of my managers said he doesn't care if we smoke weed. But, there's still doubt. Personally I enjoy weed better than alcohol and they're both a matter of going down the street and showing my ID to get. I bought an ounce to keep in my fridge right now but I haven't been using it much because of the doubt surrounding drug testing and whether it is acceptable. I find other ways to deal with stress (kava is my go to atm), but I wish I could feel more comfortable with using weed. I don't think it's the best thing long term but my mind is in overdrive 90% of the time and it helps me actually slow down and feel things. I miss it.
Most companies that I've known to actually follow through with their "random" drug tests of their employees will only do so if there is liability at stake. For example, my best friend works as a Project Manager for a construction company. Even he will get tested sometimes when coming back from a vacation or Christmas break. We used to partake in the herb together but they were effective in getting him to give it up.
However, in the world of software, I'd never even consider applying to a company that bans drug use. It's none of their business what I do after work and there's practically no liability at stake for a large majority of the work that I do. I'd be insulted if asked to take a test, and I'd quit on the spot.
I don't even use weed (or any other drugs), and I wouldn't work anywhere that required me to be drug tested. I expect to be treated like an adult. Likewise, I'm not going to produce a note from a doctor if I'm taking sick leave.
I have a few friends who work as project managers and engineers on railways (two for a metro system, one for the long-distance trains).
They're all subject to random drug tests, under the same policy as the train drivers. I think it's done to be fair to all staff, whether their current work is in a potentially dangerous position or not.
I always see those kinds of policies like a "Get out of Jail" card for the employer. They have a policy of testing on their books, so if taken to court they can point to their policy. They never enforce testing, because they know it would destroy their workforce. Yet they still have the option of selectively and "randomly" selecting a bad employee for a drug test, and if they fail they have a free pass to fire them and not pay unemployment.
I work for a tribal community college and they do random drug testing about 4 times a year and have done all staff ones in the past two years. Part of it was a safety issues (teaching how to drive a semi is not a drug helpful experience), and some government & organization grants require a drug free workplace.
Its a straight up escort you out of the building firing offense with your appeal being a blood test at the local clinic. Showing up to work drunk is also a firing offense for comparison.
It just depends on where you work, and people need to understand what situation they are in.
First time I've heard of kava but the way you describe "overdrive" is exactly why I continue to use marijuana to slow down after work. Would you mind expanding on how you use kava and how it's effects compare to weed?
I drink 2-4 bags of the Yogi brand Kava tea they sell at most grocery stores. There's also a Kava bar in town where I've had the "real" Kava, but I didn't find that I noticed much more of an effect and some of the extracts upset my stomach. What I notice is that my stress dissipates and I slide into one calm train of thought. Tension leaves my body. I can read or watch a movie without feeling like I should be doing something else. It doesn't have any stimulating psychoactive or physical effects, but it's good if you want to shed the coat you carried home from work.
I'm not the person you're replying to (and I've never tried kava) but Erowid is usually a good resource for things like this: https://erowid.org/plants/kava/
I talked to one company which was required to have drug tests and a drug policy for their security clearances. Allegedly, the drug tests were multiple choice, and the drug policy was "share, and share alike"
Anyone know if the tests look for THC, or all cannabinoids, or what?
I ask because a high CBD strain may be better for you, it's very relaxing without many of the other psychological effects, and typically the strains have very little/next to no THC.
But I guess the possibility of a test failure would still be lurking.... there are also pure CBD capsules and tinctures. Just a thought.
I have been checking out CBD oil but I haven't found a great source for it. From what I've gathered, you can't buy it from recreational shops, even if they carry it for medical patients, because it doesn't have THC, but you can buy high ratios of CBD to THC strains/extracts. It's the same predicament for the testing, though it may clear out of my system faster. It's something I'm definitely planning on trying.
In Canada, lawsuits have indicated that being impaired at work isn't necessarily a firing offence. If being sober is a job requirement, you can get fired for not meeting those requirements. But if you're drunk in a call center.. you might not need to be sober to do the job.
A skinny kid is looking at a few weeks for the joint they smoked to leave their system. An overweight person is looking at roughly 30 days. Obesity takes you in to ??? mark mode, as many as 90 days is plausible from what I've seen. That's just casual use, habitual users skew the math wildly. Why? THC metabolizes in to your fat cells, and sticks around.
Alcohol? Since it's typically just a urine test, you can expect the traces to be gone within hours. If they're doing a liver enzymes test, they can detect alcoholism or heavy alcohol use in a wider window, but it still doesn't compare to the time weed stays in you.
Further, alcohol abuse can generally be explained away because it's accepted by society. As long as you're not obviously drunk when talking with them about it, you can get a pass. Weed is the devil's herb, cause of all manner of calamity and reefer-madness, don't'cha'kno. There's no explaining testing positive for marijuana away.
No one talks about the benefit of being high while working in a creative job. Forward thinking companies should offer it the same way beer on Fridays is offered (only where legal of course)
I worked in the games industry for a stint. Five out of every four people smoked weed. Because for every person who didn't, there was that one guy who REALLY did.
How the fuck else are you supposed to make games about slaying dragons and defending extra-terrestrial Earth colonies from fungal-based zombie invasions? Somebody's gotta be high to come up with that somewhere in the development pipeline.
And for that matter. You know that scene at the end of Big Hero 6 where he goes through the portal? And the surreal bleeding colors of the infinite void?
I know -- KNOW -- whoever worked on the Environment Art for that scene has done mushrooms, LSD, or both. Because that's the only way you truly know what that sensation looks like, IMHO. And the way they were able to capture it in 3D animation was spectacular. Big Hero 6 is just Pixar showing off art ability, if you ask me, since it was a licensed IP and they didn't have to work too hard on characters and plot.
There's a startup, Hirebotics, that's working to replace druggies with robots. Hirebotics provides the robots, which are Universal Robots from Denmark, programs them, monitors them, and bills by the hour, like workers. The Washington Post reports on a plant that's gradually replacing employees with these robots on a 1 for 1 basis.[1] The reliable employees are kept. The marginal ones, well...
This is really overblown. People who use alcohol but have never touched cannabis likely assume that it makes you drunk like booze. Stoned people have a lower baseline stress level. When you are in a state of decreased stress you can think more clearly and effectively than someone who's mind is clouded with stress. None if these papers want to touch the toxic effect stress has at the workplace, stress does far more damage than any drug.
"Stoned people have a lower baseline stress level."
That really varies widely, depending on how much of which kind of cannabis you use, how you use it, and the individual that uses it.
It's possible to have a very stressful experience if one takes too much or uses cannabis that's too strong. Some people can have panic attacks, effectively "bad trips", or even psychotic breakdowns (if they're prone to schizophrenia.. and you might never really know if you are until you have one).
Many people do in fact get stress relief from using cannabis, but that effect is by no means guaranteed. You might wind up stressing out, and even freaking out, instead.
Hopefully, when people use cannabis at work, they'll be doing so in moderation, but that's not guaranteed either -- some people do all sorts of irresponsible or ill-advised things.
I'm in a position where I sit behind a keyboard and answer the telephone all day. Nonetheless, I pretty much have the raw power to destroy someone's life financially even at such a low rank in the organization. That we don't have widespread drug testing but do have a problem with rehiring staff who were discharged for misconduct says quite a bit about the organization too.
Really it gets down to all drugs tests should only be carried out after a failure of an initial impairment test. That then covers both sides of the issue as fairly as possible.
The issue gets even more interesting when you factor in working from home.
Is it wrong to smoke weed while "on the clock" in your panties on the couch? Perhaps if it compromises the deliverable but if the employee is productive, efficient, and timely - should it matter if they are st0ned or not?
I feel like this might have been touched on previously. Companies ordering stay at home employees to get drug tested. If I can't work high in my underwear at home then that would severely crimp my ability to work.
I guess everyone is different. There's no way I could work like that, I always have to dress like I would show up in an office and go somewhere (anywhere really, even a park) other than where I live.
Too bad I live in a state that doesn't recognize the medical benefit yet, so I forgoe for legal reasons, but some of my buddies in the same state are literally risking jail and worse just to use their medicine.
Its not an employers business whatsoever unless relevant to the particular job. Also, people need yo stop signing employee agreements and whatever paper HR shoves in their face. Last place I was at I signed one document, and just threw away the drug testing paper. Without those papers signed many employees have no recourse on the subject at all anyway. Of course, many people are so far entangled in one form or another they let their employee walk all over them. People ought to be more willing to walk out the door in at will states, and need to be more specific about trigger conditions in contract work.