politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Cool. Now stop allowing companies with federal contracts to do drug testing for cannabis unless they also test for alcohol.
You had me at stop testing for cannabis.
I get what you're saying, but if you are, for instance, a heavy machinery operator, it is worth making sure you are not using substances that could potentially impair your judgment. Those people usually are tested for alcohol, which is why I find it acceptable.
I think the primary difference here is that Marijuana tests detect thc going back months and months while alcohol is a much shorter duration. When those people are tested for alcohol, is that to stop them from being actually drunk on the job or to actually forbid them from drinking at any point while they're employed?
That is true and it is a problem. As I said to @aelwero, I wonder if there is a way to test whether or not you've used it recently enough to impair your ability to operate heavy machinery? I am a heavy user of cannabis myself because I use it to treat a nerve condition and I would never operate heavy machinery or drive a car while under the influence, but plenty of people are happy to drive a car while high, so I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to work that metal press while high. I don't know what the answer here is.
A better test. Before the breathalyzer a suspected drunk would have to get a urine test at the police station, or a blood test in an ED. Whoever cracks the THC test will be rich.
Yeah the UK police do a test that can tell if the THC in your blood is still active, it still over measures a bit but can tell the difference between someone smoking a bit the night before and having had one before work in the morning or in the lunch break.
I'm guessing that won't make it to the U.S. cops any time soon. Not when they have arrest quotas to make.
Blood tests would be positive during any impairment and a few hours afterwards.
In order of how long it would take to pass a given test after use, it goes blood, saliva, sweat, urine, hair.
Most workplace testing does use swabs these days. I personally haven't seen any workplace testing for a decade tbh, but I'm sure it's still out there.
They only test for alcohol after a reportable incident. Nobody cares if you drink on your own time. Source; I have been through OSHA 30 training. They do screen for MJ though, which is bullshit since it's legal in so many states now. IBEW, UA and a few other powerful trade unions are currently leaning on the feds to end the screening requirements in states where it's legal, so we may see real progress relatively sooner than people think, unless Trump wins.
That is really great to hear. Thanks. I truly wish them luck!
This could, conceivably, be the hold up at federal level tbh. We have no current means by which we can objectively test for active impairment caused by THC...
Testing for alcohol is rare, and incident specific, because it's a measure of actual impairment. You aren't tested for alcohol to see if you've had a beer in the last 30 days, you're being tested to see if it's dangerous for you to be operating a vehicle, provide healthcare, carry a gun...
The basic principle behind alcohol testing is to determine actual impairment. The premise is that an agency is protecting others from dangers inherent in your being impaired.
The basic principle of drug testing is that the same danger from impairment is prevented by preventing impairment, but the premise is that any use is illegal. It's a "just in case" premise vs an actual matter of being presently impaired.
That fundamental difference is hugely notable in the case of DUI. How exactly do you mitigate the risk of DUI with THC? The current arguments in favor of legalization trend towards "it doesn't impair people as much", but that's a total cop out that doesn't address the issue, exactly the same way prohibition is.
We seriously need a solution to that, and I suspect it could very well be the "mystery cause" of federal legislators on the liberal side dragging their feet. They don't want to open the floodgates and make it unprosecutable to get in your car impaired, because even with an easy means to prosecute that if alcohol is the cause, it's still a huge issue... How bad will it be if it's effectively undetectable?
You want cops deciding based on how well you perform the little monkey dance? I fucking don't. I can't dance for shit perfectly sober...
That does make sense. I wonder if we can figure out a way to test if people are currently under the influence of THC rather than having possibly done it days before?
It sucks here in Indiana- if you have more than a nanogram THC in your system and you get in a serious auto accident, it counts as an OWI. I use medically, so I'm basically fucked if I ever get in a serious accident. Thankfully, I'm a good driver who has never been in more than a very low-speed fender bender when I was at fault and I wait until I'm not high anymore before I drive, but it really scares me. I refuse to drive at night unless it's a real emergency because I'm really scared of getting into a serious accident because my vision is impaired.
That is entirely unenforceable if gets descheduled... It's questionable as is, but there's a vague implication that there's a federal violation involved despite the obvious.
How do they prosecute someone for impairment they can't prove though? There exists a shadow of a doubt, inherently... It's a complete non-starter...
It's already been done.
https://www.wane.com/top-stories/courts-driver-charged-with-being-on-thc-in-southwest-crash-that-killed-73-year-old/
It wasn't even cannabis. It was synthetic Delta-9 THC, which is legal in this state.
Honestly I've been saying this for years. I'm okay with legalization, but we don't have a test that isn't subjective to determine if someone is currently impaired. That would be a really good thing to have in place beforehand
I feel like if you have gone through with getting a prescription, at least you've shown good faith. But if you're going to shoot someone down for following through with the legal system it's kind of creating excuses to discriminate not on the basis of merit, but by imagined nonconformity, and that is really not the true point of either policy or law and order.