Interesting article (and also very short.)

 

I'd argue that using only 1 day's worth of landing is not a large enough sample size to determine if it was the marijuana affecting them or if they just had an "off day."

 

There is a lot more to the study you just have to have access to the journal it is published in. I have access through my University library, but I don't want to repost on here due to copyright laws and what not.

Might as well have this policy for states that allow it, but it should never be allowed in the first place. Pilots were used in Canada in a test of marijuana once and they still suffered effects from being high almost 2 days after they finished smoking. Legalized marijuana= more fatalities on highways. The main reason it's not legal now is there is no quick way to check "how high" someone is when they drive. You can't do a breathalyzer at this point, I am completely against legalization but if you want to get it legalized work on inventing something that will allow it to be regulated.

 

Also I would never go to any doctor/lawyer/engineer that I knew smoked dope.

Who knows, you may already? :sssh:

The thirty days in your system is for someone that smokes regularly. We had someone tested we were sure was high and when it came back negative we said no way. The fellow at the hospital that did the test said if you don't do it on a regualr basis it's like most other drugs and out of your system in 3 days.

 

Not necessarily.

 

A lot of it depends on your metabolism, the amount of THC in the marijuana, how active you are, and how much you've smoked.

 

You're right though, in the sense that it can be out of your system in 3 days (or maybe less?). Like I said, it varies; however, the point remains that you can still test positive for marijuana when it had absolutely no bearing on an accident, such as in the example I stated previously.

 

I've read where you can test positive for marijuana if they test your hair follicles for up to 3 years. Now THAT is amazing.

Not necessarily.

 

A lot of it depends on your metabolism, the amount of THC in the marijuana, how active you are, and how much you've smoked.

 

You're right though, in the sense that it can be out of your system in 3 days (or maybe less?). Like I said, it varies; however, the point remains that you can still test positive for marijuana when it had absolutely no bearing on an accident, such as in the example I stated previously.

 

I've read where you can test positive for marijuana if they test your hair follicles for up to 3 years. Now THAT is amazing.

A lot of drugs will show up years later in a hair test.

Who knows, you may already? :sssh:

 

I would hope not, but I never knowingly would that's for sure. I feel pretty confident in the people I use though. I have no need for an engineer, the family doctor I go to is my grandmother's brother and I will be my own lawyer here in about six months.

Might as well have this policy for states that allow it, but it should never be allowed in the first place. Pilots were used in Canada in a test of marijuana once and they still suffered effects from being high almost 2 days after they finished smoking. Legalized marijuana= more fatalities on highways. The main reason it's not legal now is there is no quick way to check "how high" someone is when they drive. You can't do a breathalyzer at this point, I am completely against legalization but if you want to get it legalized work on inventing something that will allow it to be regulated.

 

Also I would never go to any doctor/lawyer/engineer that I knew smoked dope.

You can already get a DUI currently for other drugs besides alcohol. And a field sobreity test would work just fine.

I would hope not, but I never knowingly would that's for sure. I feel pretty confident in the people I use though. I have no need for an engineer, the family doctor I go to is my grandmother's brother and I will be my own lawyer here in about six months.

Would you knowing go to any of those who drank?

Would you knowing go to any of those who drank?

 

Depends on what you mean by drank. I'm not a big fan of alcoholics either but having a glass of wine with dinner is a far cry from being an alcoholic. I do view Alcohol differently than marijuana though which is what I assume you are getting at.

 

But I wouldn't go to any doctor who let alcohol consumption come close to interfering with their work.

Depends on what you mean by drank. I'm not a big fan of alcoholics either but having a glass of wine with dinner is a far cry from being an alcoholic. I do view Alcohol differently than marijuana though which is what I assume you are getting at.

 

But I wouldn't go to any doctor who let alcohol consumption come close to interfering with their work.

 

But you wouldn't go to a doctor who didn't let smoking marijuana interfer with their work?

But you wouldn't go to a doctor who didn't let smoking marijuana interfer with their work?

Drugs are bad mmmkay!

But you wouldn't go to a doctor who didn't let smoking marijuana interfer with their work?

 

Drugs are bad Mr. Mackey, but as I've stated I think marijuana does have different effects, and it's illegal. I mean say what you want about whether or not it has long lasting impact on smokers. But that doesn't change the fact it's illegal. As far as lawyers go now especially I have signed on to a code of ethics that would require me to turn in any attorney using marijuana I knew of to the state bar association and the police authorities (assuming I found out from ways other than being hired to represent the user). If I failed to turn him in i could face losing my own license to practice law and face jail time.

Drugs are bad Mr. Mackey, but as I've stated I think marijuana does have different effects, and it's illegal. I mean say what you want about whether or not it has long lasting impact on smokers. But that doesn't change the fact it's illegal. As far as lawyers go now especially I have signed on to a code of ethics that would require me to turn in any attorney using marijuana I knew of to the state bar association and the police authorities (assuming I found out from ways other than being hired to represent the user). If I failed to turn him in i could face losing my own license to practice law and face jail time.

 

Sounds like your whole arguement comes back to the "it's illegal, so it should stay that way" stance.

Sounds like your whole arguement comes back to the "it's illegal, so it should stay that way" stance.

Which keeps slavery legal, woman unable to vote, etc.

Which keeps slavery legal, woman unable to vote, etc.

 

Are you suggesting that marijuana users are being are discriminated against like women and African American's once were? Because there is a big difference. A woman voting or an African American being free is not realistically the same as giving someone the right to use a narcotic that has damaging effects on the body, and puts the user at risk of hurting others (be it behind the wheel of the car or lapsed judgment in some other respect).

I'm interested in hearing why a state would be "stupid enough" to allow it?

 

What is the state losing by legalizing medical marijuana?

 

What are they gaining?

 

LBBC?