Poll results/ discussion, coments

I don't think 21 pepole is a very accurate poll to say that 75% of our industry is in favor of any topic.

So what is the point of all of this? I've now invested my time into reading three threads and I don't really understand your angle Dave. Are you worried about driver availability or liability or??

Not sure why we can't just let people do what they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else - I am NOT advocating for stoned driving.

"Don't hurt people, don't take people's stuff" is a much easier and free-er mantra to live by than micro managing people's lives and making criminals out of otherwise harmless people.

Steven I worry about both of those issues. There are those who say that we won't be affected by this, but I disagree. More accidents means more insurance claims, therefore higher premiums. Spend some time googling crash Data in states that have legalized it, and see the results, that come up. Keep in mind that legalization means just that, so you would no longer be able to fail a driver in a pre employment drug test, for THC. As a result there would only be roadside testing, most likely after a accident occurs.

The Basis that that regulation hinges on, is that phrase SCHEDULE ONE CONTROLED SUBSTANCE. The FDA rescheduled marijuana back in June, so that it's no longer a schedule one substance. The world health organization is also following in that direction. Perhaps you did not realize that.

The information is out there on internet somewhere, I have found it in the past. The FDA filled the paperwork so they could give GW pharmaceuticals the green light to start producing and distributing a drug called Epidiolex, that I believe was used to treat seizures, which right there takes it off the schedule one list. You may want to look up the definition of a Scedule one drug, and you'll see how that fits together. The current DOT regulations are based on marijuana being illegal at the federal level, but that all changes with legalization at the federal level. Once legalized it gives class protections to consumers as a group. Some of you may recall back when health insurance started to get real expensive, there were large corporations refusing employment to tobacco users, well they got hauled into court and sued for descrimination, because tobbaco is legal to use. So based on that, We can get a idea how this will play out. The focus will no longer be weather or not you use drugs, but weather or not you were using them behind the wheel, just like alcohol.

Legal scholars have debated on the topic, and generally agreed that since the drug epidiolex is produced from the canabnoids extracted from the marijuana plant, the plant by defacto is no longer a schedule one drug. Essentially the DEA was forced by the FDA, to go along with this kicking and screaming. I am not a lawyer and can only point to the news articles that covered it. Let's say that you are correct though, do you agree that if the courts or the government determine that by defacto, the plant itself is no longer a schedule one drug, there is a problem with the current DOT regulation being enforceable?

Legalize it, but make sure to legalize hemp production as well. This will help the AG industry with an abundent crop that will be more cost effective to grow and harvest. The farmers should be pushing for the legalization of growing hemp for commercial production.

Hemp Seeds
Hemp Stalk
Hemp Oil

Many commercial products will be made from such. The crap you smoke will be done in greenhouse environments, why should just the smokers get all the benefits? Hemp is easy to grow, harvest and will be extremely profitable. As far as the potheads, I have never seen a pothead get violent when they are high, I can not say the same thing about a drunk.

www.avvolaw.com>Legal advice>employment advice. If we look at the replies from the lawyers when the question is posed can a employer refuse to hire you over a failed drug test, the attorneys will agree with you Jeff. However they will also point out that this is becuase it's still a crime under federal law to use marijuana, even though it may be legal in your state. So what happens when the government legalizes it at the federal level, and it's no longer a crime?

as per federal law...if you go to the governement website , any person can be denied employment or terminated at any time for any or no reason at all , other than race or color. i have been through it and have dealt with in the past , having a company where i had employees.... i can deny you employment without reason or i can simply say...well...i just did not like the color of your shirt or your haircut and there is nothing that can be done. You can however sue , in civil court , but the chances of winning are slim. as far as drug testing and the use there of, when you are tested for drugs pre employment you are also usually tested for alcohol, its legal for use too isn't it ? but if it is detected then guess what...no job. also as a business owner you have the right to set your own policy ...i worked for a company once that banned the use of energy drinks...red bul and such , during work hours ,,,they had it so tight that if they saw a empty red bull can in your car they retained the right to terminate of they chose because it was on thier property. so....in essence. the argument or discussion over the legalization of pot or anything else is pretty much mute as . it is up to each company to set thier own policies regarding the use or level of detection while under thier dispatch or on thier clock.

yeah umm.thats pretty weak dave , its a medical marijuana litigation..... your doctor can prescribe you any opioids or narcotics and you can still drive or work under his or her supervision. unless otherwise medically stated . look at how many people are out there right now driving trucks operating cranes and other machinary etc. under the influence of medically prescribed drugs. so.....kind of a dead argument if you ask me.....

Okay Dave, here is the part that you do not get I looked the case up, and it clearly states that the marijuana was medically prescribed by a doctor whereas medical marijuana is legally prescribed by doctors in certain cases. I am not sure if you have ever worked a job that did drug testing and random drug testing it but I have in the oil field as well as we were subject to being tested by any company that showed up on the job site. When they came out to do randoms some of the questions that they ask work have you chewed any gum in the last hour because certain chewing gums will make you test positive for alcohol. Also they would ask us are you now taking any medically doctor prescribed drugs for pain or treatment for high blood pressure cholesterol things like that. They would also asked us if we had eaten certain foods to hear there are two or three different foods out there that will make you test positive for opioids. So therefore if anyone was taking any medically prescribed drugs that were prescribed by a licensed practicing physician then they would simply ask for the bottle so they could write down the prescription on there as well as the doctor if they needed any notes or anything else. So your little case there where they found in favor of the employee is the employee disclose that yes they were using medical marijuana that was prescribed at by a practicing physician so when they decided to terminate on those grounds then yes it was discrimination. Now have they decided to terminate for a different reason then there would be nothing they could have done but they disclosed that they discriminated against the employee after the employee had informed them that they were in fact taking medical marijuana under the direction of a doctor. But what you have done Dave is you have gone and you have searched and searched until you found an article or a court case that fit your narrative there are also other court cases out there that have gone the opposite direction that will fit other narrative but that's what people do just like the fake news they go out and they find things that fit their narrative to support falsely their claims so in essence we could both just continue to go back and forth siding narratives that support claims but if you go and you read the laws as they are written the actual laws not court cases but the actual laws. Then and only then will you see what the true facts are as the laws are written