Home > Forum > Poll Results/ Discussion, Coments

Poll results/ discussion, coments

Oct 21, 2018 at 11:53 AM CST
- 3
How many of you were suprised by the results? At the time of this post, there are 9 in favor, and 12 opposed, meaning that 75% of the industry is in favor. How many of you thought the support numbers would be so high, from people who work inside our industry? How many of you think that safety groups and treatment facilities would find this data to be alarming? What would members of a jury think, when some lawyers pointed to that data?
Replied on Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 06:19 PM CST
+ 1
I don't think 21 pepole is a very accurate poll to say that 75% of our industry is in favor of any topic.
Replied on Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 07:54 PM CST
- 2
I hit the wrong key before, it should have read 45%, still a high percentage though. I understand what your saying, but in any situation where you poll folks, you never get 100% of a group to participate, so you can only go by those who responded. However these percentages seem to coincide with polls taken from the general public, folks outside of the industry. I believe the last poll I was able to find on the internet, showed 53% of Americans favored legalization. Clearly there is a lot of stigma tied to this topic, since folks would not give their opinion openly, but were comfortable in participating in a poll that was anonymous. What we know for sure is that there was enough support for Canada to legalize it on a national level, and while the USA has not taken it to the federal level, it appears to be moving in that same direction. At this point the sigma poses a sizable risk, since no carrier wants to face a Jury stacked with supporters from the war on drugs, especially one that's self insured.
Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:18 AM CST
+ 2
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.
Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:39 AM CST
+ 1 - 1
drunk is gonna drink...a dope head is gonna dope....a conspiracy thoerist is gonna conspire...a tin foil hat guy is gonna....and so on and so on and so on and so on and..........
Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:07 AM CST
+ 1 - 1
Originally Posted by: STEVEN PRESTON
Quote: "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.
Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:33 AM CST
+ 2
Originally Posted by: DAVE WINTERS
Quote: "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. "

I'm not completely privy on pre employment rules (especially for drivers since I don't employ any) but wouldn't it still be a requirement for a CDL, much like the alcohol requirements that we see? Alcohol is legal after all, and I can actually legally drink more and drive my own personaly vehicle than any professional driver (CDL Carrying) in the country. Now I like to think I'm a pretty decent driver, but I certainly won't claim to be better than those of you Class A holders who run OTR for a living, but somehow I'm safer in my personal vehicle at a higher BAC..... There may be a world where pot is legal, but you still have to pass the drug test to be employed, I don't personally see why not. I imagine currently that if you fail the test for Alcohol you can probably be denied employment. Heck, I know people that have been denied apartments because they smoke cigarettes. I imagine this would come down to "employer discretion" as well as the DOT not removing the requirements - and lets not forget the insurance companies. How have our friends in CO, CA, OR, and the others dealt with this issue?

Also causation does not necessarily mean correlation - just because Colorado has seen accident rates increase doesn't necessarily mean that it's directly because of people driving stoned. A LOT of people have moved out there in the last few years, and a lot more are doing tourist activities out there than before all of this started. It may be that there are more accidents because of people smoking pot, or it's possible that there are just more people driving and that the roads aren't built for the traffic volumes that they are seeing now.

I don't pretend to have the answers, but I also don't think we should make assumptions that legalization is for sure a bad thing. If we do see a driver shortage, then rates and driver pay would have to go up to lure more talent and if you always put a 5% profit on your services.... 5% of $3/mile is more than 5% of $2/mile in cold hard cash at the end of the day. Sounds like a good deal all around.


Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:45 PM CST
+ 2
Originally Posted by: DAVE WINTERS
Quote: "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. "

Without addressing the broader question of road safety and crash statistics overall in states which have legalized marijuana, I do have to disagree with your comment stating " You would no longer be able to fail a driver in a pre employment drug test for THC." This is wholly innacurate. Legalization of marijuana for either medical or recreational use has ZERO bearing on those who are subject to DOT Pre-employment, Random or Post Accident drug testing.

PER THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION:
"We want to make it perfectly clear that the state initiatives will have no bearing on the Department of Transportations regulated drug testing program. The Department of Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulation - 49 CFR Part 40 - does not authorize the use of Schedule I drugs, including Marijuana, for any reason.
Therefore, Medical Review Officers (MRO's) will NOT verify a drug test as negative based upon learning that the employee used "recreational marijuana" when states have passed "recreational marijuana" initiatives.
We also firmly reiterate than an MRO will not verify a drug test negative based upon information that a physician recommended that the employee use "medical marijuana" when states have passed "medical marijuana" initiatives.
it is imporant to note that marijuana remains a drug listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances act. it remains unacceptable for any safety-sensitive employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation's Drug testing regulations to use marijuana". (December 3, 2012)

Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:56 PM CST
- 1
as a recreational user of perfectly legal alcohol , i am held to a certain standard of use concerning said legal substance , so....why oh why would the use of marijuana be any different. geez....i swear some people have nothing better to do than dream up and try to phrophetize ignorant conspiracy theories , first elds were going to completely destroy and dismantle the trucking industry then it was the ata and now marijuana....I can only wonder what it will be next.....

Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 01:12 PM CST
- 1
Originally Posted by: MARSHA WALTERS
Quote: " Without addressing the broader question of road safety and crash statistics overall in states which have legalized marijuana, I do have to disagree with your comment stating " You would no longer be able to fail a driver in a pre employment drug test for THC." This is wholly innacurate. Legalization of marijuana for either medical or recreational use has ZERO bearing on those who are subject to DOT Pre-employment, Random or Post Accident drug testing. PER THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: "We want to make it perfectly clear that the state initiatives will have no bearing on the Department of Transportations regulated drug testing program. The Department of Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulation - 49 CFR Part 40 - does not authorize the use of Schedule I drugs, including Marijuana, for any reason. Therefore, Medical Review Officers (MRO's) will NOT verify a drug test as negative based upon learning that the employee used "recreational marijuana" when states have passed "recreational marijuana" initiatives. We also firmly reiterate than an MRO will not verify a drug test negative based upon information that a physician recommended that the employee use "medical marijuana" when states have passed "medical marijuana" initiatives. it is imporant to note that marijuana remains a drug listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances act. it remains unacceptable for any safety-sensitive employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation's Drug testing regulations to use marijuana". (December 3, 2012) "

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.
Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 01:48 PM CST
+ 1
Originally Posted by: DAVE WINTERS
Quote: "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. "

I do not think this is accurate - I do welcome any information you can provide to me on this as all of my research shows that marijuana has not yet been reclassified and is still considered a schedule I drug. Just last week the Trump administration (FDA) was seeking public comment regarding changing the classification for marijuana, although it seems possible, even likely that it could be reclassified in the future, I believe at this particular time it is still a Schedule I drug and therefore not acceptable for use by those subject to Dot regulation drug testing.


Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:05 PM CST
- 2
Originally Posted by: MARSHA WALTERS
Quote: "I do not think this is accurate - I do welcome any information you can provide to me on this as all of my research shows that marijuana has not yet been reclassified and is still considered a schedule I drug. Just last week the Trump administration (FDA) was seeking public comment regarding changing the classification for marijuana, although it seems possible, even likely that it could be reclassified in the future, I believe at this particular time it is still a Schedule I drug and therefore not acceptable for use by those subject to Dot regulation drug testing. "

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.
Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:42 PM CST
+ 2
Originally Posted by: DAVE WINTERS
Quote: "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. "

You are correct that the DEA made a scheduling change decision for GW Pharm. regarding its epilepsy drug Epidiolex, (which has CBD Oil derived from marijuana) by changing the classification to Schedule V - the least restrictive of the DEA drug classifications. This change in classification applies ONLY to Epidiolex, it does not apply to recreational/medical marijuana or even to other pharmacuetical applications of CBD oil currently being researched. There has not yet been any change to the Schedule I classification of marijuana. Not in June or anytime since then, per your previous comment. I suppose the point I was trying to make earlier was that under current federal regulations, truck drivers subject to Federal Drug testing cannot partake in recreational or medical marijuana usage - PERIOD. Until the day that the DEA changes the Schedule I classification that will continue to be the way it is regardless of which states legalize it. I do think that it will be a very slippery slope as far as trying to figure out the impact on our industry if it is reclassified and no longer prohibted for commercial truck drivers. A driver goes off duty for the weekend and has a few drinks on Friday or Saturday night he can be at work Monday perfectly legal to drive and pass an alcohol test - how do you determine the same for a marijuana user when the THC stays in the system for weeks?
Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 06:02 PM CST
- 2
Originally Posted by: MARSHA WALTERS
Quote: " You are correct that the DEA made a scheduling change decision for GW Pharm. regarding its epilepsy drug Epidiolex, (which has CBD Oil derived from marijuana) by changing the classification to Schedule V - the least restrictive of the DEA drug classifications. This change in classification applies ONLY to Epidiolex, it does not apply to recreational/medical marijuana or even to other pharmacuetical applications of CBD oil currently being researched. There has not yet been any change to the Schedule I classification of marijuana. Not in June or anytime since then, per your previous comment. I suppose the point I was trying to make earlier was that under current federal regulations, truck drivers subject to Federal Drug testing cannot partake in recreational or medical marijuana usage - PERIOD. Until the day that the DEA changes the Schedule I classification that will continue to be the way it is regardless of which states legalize it. I do think that it will be a very slippery slope as far as trying to figure out the impact on our industry if it is reclassified and no longer prohibted for commercial truck drivers. A driver goes off duty for the weekend and has a few drinks on Friday or Saturday night he can be at work Monday perfectly legal to drive and pass an alcohol test - how do you determine the same for a marijuana user when the THC stays in the system for weeks? "

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?
Replied on Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:56 PM CST
- 1
Originally Posted by: MARSHA WALTERS
Quote: " You are correct that the DEA made a scheduling change decision for GW Pharm. regarding its epilepsy drug Epidiolex, (which has CBD Oil derived from marijuana) by changing the classification to Schedule V - the least restrictive of the DEA drug classifications. This change in classification applies ONLY to Epidiolex, it does not apply to recreational/medical marijuana or even to other pharmacuetical applications of CBD oil currently being researched. There has not yet been any change to the Schedule I classification of marijuana. Not in June or anytime since then, per your previous comment. I suppose the point I was trying to make earlier was that under current federal regulations, truck drivers subject to Federal Drug testing cannot partake in recreational or medical marijuana usage - PERIOD. Until the day that the DEA changes the Schedule I classification that will continue to be the way it is regardless of which states legalize it. I do think that it will be a very slippery slope as far as trying to figure out the impact on our industry if it is reclassified and no longer prohibted for commercial truck drivers. A driver goes off duty for the weekend and has a few drinks on Friday or Saturday night he can be at work Monday perfectly legal to drive and pass an alcohol test - how do you determine the same for a marijuana user when the THC stays in the system for weeks? "

Thank you Marsha for acknowledging the slippery slope, My goal here was to get folks looking hard at what legalization really looks like.
Replied on Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:33 AM CST
+ 2
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.
Replied on Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:39 AM CST
+ 1
Originally Posted by: DAVE WINTERS
Quote: "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? "

Here in Nevada ..it is legal..many employers require a p ee test for employment..so if you want to work at a better job..they don't want you high...and then there is that pesky workmans comp..where you get hurt on the job..and many places require a post accident test..you show up possitive..workers comp will walk away from paying for you..so one shouldn't get all excited about legalizing mirajuna...your employer and their insurance providers won't allow it..
Replied on Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:09 PM CST
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?
Replied on Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:14 PM CST
Originally Posted by: DAVE WINTERS
Quote: "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? "

Correction it should have read www.avvo.com>Legal Advice>Employment>Advice
Replied on Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:28 PM CST
+ 1
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.
Replied on Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:16 PM CST
Originally Posted by: KEVIN SINGLETARY
Quote: "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."

Google Noffsinger VS Bride Brook, and you will see where a federal Judge ruled in favor of the employee and against the employer on this matter. I believe the courts rulling overides your opinion kevin.
Replied on Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:10 PM CST
+ 1 - 1
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.....
Replied on Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 08:24 PM CST
+ 1 - 1
If the question is can a employer dicriminate against you for failing a drug test, then the answer is no based on this court ruling, a federal mandate to drug test a employee who worked in a safety sensitive position was trumped here by a prescription for marijuana. That don't seem like a small deal to me. Obviously Kevin and I will never agree on anything, so I encourage everyone to go do a internet search on Noffsinger VS Bride Brook, and come to their own conclusion. I am not here to tell folks what to think, I only ask that they think, and start separating fact from opinion.
Replied on Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 07:36 AM CST
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