For Pot Smokers, It’s Just Not Fair

For Pot Smokers, It’s Just Not Fair
Posted by CN Staff on January 31, 2006 at 22:53:57 PT
By Zak Mazur
Source: UWM Post
Wisconsin -- It is 2006 and you’d think American society would have a more rational understanding of how marijuana affects people. We laugh and scoff at old anti-pot movies like “Reefer Madness” because of their ridiculous portrayals of how people behave after smoking marijuana. Meanwhile, large segments of the American public have regularly consumed marijuana for decades, yet society has not devolved into anarchy. The streets are not filled with marijuana-crazed zombies stumbling about moaning, drooling and giggling as they stuff their faces with Cheetos and Snickers bars.
Compared to alcohol, marijuana is relatively tame, as far as drugs go. Yet for right or for wrong, marijuana is still illegal. And if you have to undergo drug screening for that dream job, the bong hit you took three weeks ago might come back to haunt you. Here is why: Most drug testing consists of urine analysis. A person who smokes marijuana, say, on the weekends, may have marijuana in his/her system for as long as 12 weeks. This is because THC — the chemical that gets you high — metabolizes in fat cells. However, other drugs do not metabolize in the body in the same way. For example, amphetamines can only be detected in urine for one to four days; cocaine can be detected for four to five days; codeine and morphine, two to four days; heroin, eight hours; methamphetamines (crank), three to five days; and PCP, three to seven days! (Note: these statistics vary depending on body type and metabolism and are not one hundred percent accurate.)If a hardcore coke or heroin addict can manage to detox for just one week, they have a better chance of passing a urine analysis test than the occasional pot smoker. The latter may not be able to detox in the span of time between applying for a job, getting the interview and finally having a drug test. Put another way, a person could do PCP, snort coke and shoot junk on the weekend, get naked, climb a tree and howl at the moon while hallucinating, yet later that week (if they are still alive) conceivably pass a urine analysis test. The responsible pot smoker — who might have a 4.0 GPA and strong work ethic, great recommendations — will not pass the same test. The same holds true for all other hard drug users: All they must do is resist their cravings for crack, heroin or crank for a mere week, and they can beat the drug screening. Meanwhile, the pot smoker cannot. Fair? No, but as my mother says, “Life ain’t fair!”And here is where it gets really unfair: A raging alcoholic has nothing to worry about regarding drug screening. From the perspective of an employer, however, one would think it would be preferable to hire the person who is guilty of the occasional bong hit instead of the person who comes to work hung over everyday. The alcoholic could “drink scotch whiskey all night long” and chain smoke, yet pass a drug test with flying colors the very next morning. But you smoke a little pot on the weekends and: “Sorry, sir, our company has strict regulations against employing drug users.”The hypocricy is enough to drive one to drugs and alcohol!Despite all that, a private company has every right to decide who they hire. Although non-drug or alcohol users get fired everyday for poor performance or any other number of reasons, it is understandable why an employer would not want to hire a hard drug user. Drugs like cocaine, heroin, crank and, the legal drug, alcohol, really do destroy lives and affect peoples’ ability to function. Source: UWM Post, The (Milwaukee, WI Edu)Author: Zak MazurPublished: February 01, 2006Copyright: 2006 The UWM PostContact: post uwm.eduWebsite: -- Cannabis Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on February 01, 2006 at 15:32:29 PT:
The last paragraph was not mine
but the Good Professor's. But you get the gist of it; it's always 'somebody else' whose behavior needs regulating, not the self-appointed morals proctors who dream up this nonsense. And when surly old curmudgeons like moi point out the inevitable crises this causes, using historical evidence that is irrefutable, the prohibs blithely ignore the plain-as-day and thoroughly predictable course of events with a conceit that borders on delusions of godhood; THEY won't make the same mistakes as have been made in the past in other times and lands, oh no! They're too SMART for that! They know how to do it right, you'll see! And so the whole dreary, predictable mess of prohibition trundles along like a tank with a drunkard at the controls, crushing everything in sight until enough people manage to climb on top of it, jump down the hatch, throttle the driver and pull the ignition wires. Oh, speed the day!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by kaptinemo on February 01, 2006 at 15:22:26 PT:
It's a hop, skip and a jump from being
'your brother's keeper' to being your brother's MASTER.And that it precisely what is the rationale behind drug testing: to become masters of those who normally would tell such would-be slaveowners where to stuff it.Prohibition has *always been* about this dynamic: The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States 
by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School
A Speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference: makes that very clear. As the Good Professor put it: *"Because it violated that iron law of Prohibitions. What is the iron law of Prohibitions? Prohibitions are always enacted by US, to govern the conduct of THEM....I just want to go back to the prohibition against the drinking of gin. How could a country prohibit just the drinking of gin, not the drinking of anything else for forty years? Answer: The rich people drank whiskey and the poor people drank what? -- gin. Do you see it?" "Have you ever seen the rhetoric that goes around the gambling prohibition? You know what it is. Look, we have had a good time. We have been together yesterday, we have been together today, I have known a lot of you guys for ages. How about after the talk, we have a minute or two, let's go on up to your room and we will play a little nickel, dime, quarter poker. Want to play some poker this afternoon? Why not? It's a nice thing to do.""Would we be outraged if the California State Police came barreling through the door and arrested us for violation of California's prohibition on gambling? Of course we would. Because, who is not supposed to gamble? Oh, you know who is not supposed to gamble -- them poor people, that's who. My God, they will spend the milk money. They don't know how to control it. They can't handle it. But us? We know what we are doing..."That's it. Every criminal prohibition has that same touch to it, doesn't it? It is enacted by US and it always regulates the conduct of THEM. And so, if you understand that is the name of the game, you don't have to ask me, or any of the other people which prohibitions will be abolished and which ones won't because you will always know. The iron law of prohibitions -- all of them -- is that they are passed by an identifiable US to control the conduct of an identifiable THEM."From 'thy brother's keeper' to 'thy brother's master' in a hop, skip and a jump. Easy as pie...and bloody hard to stop once it gets going. And in it's wake it leaves broken homes, broken lives, blood and misery. As for me, I'll stand with ol' Tom Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" And that means putting up with things that other people do that annoy you; better that than a nanny/police state that monitors every freakin' thing you do in order to prevent you from hurting yourself...for your own good. And a prohibition is absolutely done for when it does what? Comes back and bothers US. If, at any time, in any way, that prohibition comes back and bothers us, we will get rid of it for sure, every doggone time. Look at the alcohol prohibition if you want a quick example. As long as it is only THEM --- you know, them criminals, them crazy people, them young people, them minority group members --- we are fine. But any prohibition that comes back and bothers US is done for.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by Max Flowers on February 01, 2006 at 14:05:11 PT
I meant "wouldn't be shopping *there* anymore, ever"I sure wish there was an edit feature on this site... I never have understood why there isn't. Nearly every other message board I've ever seen on the net does. Isn't there a plug-in script for it or something?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Max Flowers on February 01, 2006 at 13:59:08 PT
Boycott the pee-testers 
jared3602, I think you missed a great opportunity to tell the guy right to his face that they blew it with the drug test part. I wonder why you "said okay" and then drove off instead of sticking it to him right there? Anyway you perhaps did the next best thing in my view.OverwhelmSam, I applaud your tactic and I do similar things. One time I was in a major supermarket, Safeway I think it was, and this creepy recorded announcement was playing on the PA that said something like "...for your safety, Safeway is a drug-free employer" I was disgusted and went up to the manager without buying anything and told him I just heard that drug-free garbage on the speakers, which I knew meant they violated their employees' privacy with urine tests and that I won't be shoping anymore, ever, and I would be telling everyone I knew not to also. He just stared at me with a blank look. I could tell no one had ever expressed that to him before and that he couldn't even comprehend my position.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by jared3602 on February 01, 2006 at 13:13:03 PT
piss test
I went to a job interview once and the manager loved me. so much so he wanted me to start the next day all i had to do was drive accross town and take the piss test at some company. I said ok, took the paper work, walked to my car and drove off. 4 days later he called me and asked what the problem was and I said, "I refuse to take a drug test."To this day I have never taken a drug test and will gladly walk away from a job that requires me to take one. My thinking is I am a great employee and it is their loss not mine. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by afterburner on February 01, 2006 at 09:12:31 PT
And That's What It's For
"The hypocricy is enough to drive one to drugs and alcohol!"Follow the money, the investments of the Congress and the Executive, and could it be?, the Judical.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by afterburner on February 01, 2006 at 09:07:34 PT
"they want expendables that can be used for a season or two and sent on their way without ever becoming committed to a more responsible relationship"The head-hunters even have a name for it: "churn and burn"!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by westnyc on February 01, 2006 at 08:42:01 PT
Freedom ended to thunderous applause!
Sometimes, I still can't believe that our Supreme Court made it constitutional for a special interest group to demand that we urinate in a cup to prove we are drug-free. It's like they say on the Simpsons: "Ya know, it's funny because it's true!"This decision made me understand the importance that politics plays in my personal life. I am and always will be disturbed by this decision for many, many reasons; and, I can't decide if it is the violation of sooooo many constitutional rights, or the actual fact that they exempted all elected or appointed officials, especially themselves. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by siege on February 01, 2006 at 07:39:59 PT
They want you to take the JOB home, and when you do that it mess up the family live big time and the home gos to hell fast.
and they have just distroyed the family unit...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by MEGA on February 01, 2006 at 07:10:37 PT:
Protect - Our - Boys - Use Hemp Plastic
It is said that ... ( Industrial Hemp Plastic )is 10 time times stronger then steel, and light weight. ....... Then why can't we make a ( Floor Board ) out of Hemp plastic and put them in all ( HUMMERS ). 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by unkat27 on February 01, 2006 at 06:21:50 PT
Incompetence, Inc.
On the other hand, if we're talking about a majority of slave labor jobs or conglomerates, the management is actually happy to have lots of good excuses for letting people go after they've used them for a year and don't want to give them that pay-raise they were promised. For more info on the factor of incompetence in the working-class and how employers use it against their employees, read the 'Peter Principle' by Laurence Peters.The idea is that employers don't want lots of braniacs and puritans on their work-force, they want expendables that can be used for a season or two and sent on their way without ever becoming committed to a more responsible relationship, because the longer they employ someone the more responsible they become (and the more money they have to dish out per hour, the longer the vacation with pay, the more insurance, etc...). After years of using incompetent workers, they can throw up their hands and say, "Well, I tried to be fair. Now I guess I'll have to give the job to my son-in-law."Keeping it in the family is much easier that way. No royalty in the USA, you say? Look deeper into the clever design and think twice about that conclusion. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by OverwhelmSam on February 01, 2006 at 03:36:00 PT
Interesting Twist on Drug Testing Companies
In my line of work, I routinely hire different companies to get things done for me. As soon as they tell me they do drug screening, I won't do business with them. I know others who have the same business ethic, because what an employee does in their PRIVATE lives, is no elses business. I had to get some body work done on my truck and I asked body shops if they drug test their employees. As soon as they told me yes, I went to the next entry in the yellow pages. I will not support a business that drug tests their employees unless I have no other choice. I recommend a campaign to encourage people against the drug war to do the same. Let's hit them in the pocket book.I just wish people would stop working for companies that drug test all together. There are other jobs out there that don't test, and these drug testing companies are going to fire you or sell the company before you retire anyway. Hopefully they'll go under as a result of this intrusion into their employees lives.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by whig on February 01, 2006 at 02:58:57 PT
"Despite all that, a private company has every right to decide who they hire. Although non-drug or alcohol users get fired everyday for poor performance or any other number of reasons, it is understandable why an employer would not want to hire a hard drug user."Do they? Can a company refuse to hire black people? How about people who smoke tobacco at home? Can a company require its employees never to drink wine, even ceremonially?Many jobs require sobriety, no doubt. But this doesn't turn on what people do when they aren't working, but whether it is still affecting them at work. If someone is a bus driver, and comes to work drunk, I wouldn't consider it acceptable. But if the same person went home after driving all day, watched a football game and drank a beer before going to bed, it wouldn't be permissible to fire him or her for that. Nor would it be for a cigarette. Nor should it be for a joint.If someone's off-work activities are affecting their actual job performance, that's an issue. Otherwise, it shouldn't even be on the table.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment