Recreational marijuana legal here in Canada as of tomorrow

[BLAZEY]

Well ok fair enough. Me too.

It's especially bad as it stays in your system for up to 30 days after being used. I've had some good cannabis but never one that kept me high that long. LOL

I work in the office of a road building company where many of our employees are operating heavy machinery, hence the policy. It was in place to include medical use (still not allowed for safety reasons while operating equipment).

 

[OhDannyBoy]

I work in the office of a road building company where many of our employees are operating heavy machinery, hence the policy. It was in place to include medical use (still not allowed for safety reasons while operating equipment).

Just curious do they also test for prescription narcotics like pain killers?

 

[GreatLakes]

I really don't care either way. Our company is getting an insert with the pay stubs this week reminding everyone that the company policy is to treat marijuana as it would treat alcohol. It is not permitted at work, while on job sites, or while operating company equipment or vehicles. After work is is your private time, just don't come to work stoned. Our policy already deals with medically prescribed pot. We are a road building company and it was categorized with all other medicine that should not be taken while operating heavy machinery. We all had to sign the policy when hired. It basically tells us now that pot is becoming legal it still prohibited while on the job. The consequence don't change even though it's legal.

The only thing that comes to mind is that many people won't have to jump through the hoops to get the medical card to buy it now.

I believe that case I mentioned wasn't a termination for being high at work, it was a termination for having it in your system and if memory serves it stays in your system about 30 days. If you drank 20 days ago and are tested today for alcohol you pass. If you smoked pot 20 days ago and are tested for mariguana you fail.

I know when it was on the ballot here our company sent out a reminder that having any trace of marijuana in your system at all during a random drug test was cause for termination even if it was legal. It wouldn't matter if you were high at work or not, if it was still in your system you were terminated.

 

[BLAZEY]

Just curious do they also test for prescription narcotics like pain killers?

Yes prescription narcotics and other drugs that give the warning not to operate machinery while taking them are also included in the policy wording. I had to clarify it when I had bronchitis and was prescribed Codeine for the cough. But because I was and office worker and did not operate heavy machinery I was cleared to be able to work.

 

[Domo]

Well...

Cannabis isn't perfect. It can cause problems. My uncle (RIP) took some concentrated cannabis, suffered a seizure whilst swimming and drowned. So I am prejudiced. But I have to concede this was a strong strain.

When it comes to medicinal use, I'm all for it. Other drugs have medicinal uses. Ketamine for depression. Ecstacy for skeletal disorders. You'd never credit it. But if we can help people with these meds so be it

 

[BLAZEY]

I believe that case I mentioned wasn't a termination for being high at work, it was a termination for having it in your system and if memory serves it stays in your system about 30 days. If you drank 20 days ago and are tested today for alcohol you pass. If you smoked pot 20 days ago and are tested for mariguana you fail.

I know when it was on the ballot here our company sent out a reminder that having any trace of marijuana in your system at all during a random drug test was cause for termination even if it was legal. It wouldn't matter if you were high at work or not, if it was still in your system you were terminated.

Random drug tests are not the norm here unless there is a previous reason to warrant testing, which really wouldn't be random. I have copied the company's wording below:

"1) consuming or being in possession of alcohol, cannabis and cannabis-related products[1], illegal drugs or prescription drugs that inhibit or may inhibit an employee's ability to perform their job safely and productively at any time while on Company premises or on any Company job site;

2) operating any vehicle or equipment that is owned, leased or otherwise under the control of the Company while under the influence of alcohol, cannabis and cannabis-related products1, illegal drugs, prescription drugs that inhibit or may inhibit an employee's ability to perform their job safely and productively, or without a valid driver’s licence;


[1] Including but not limited to cannabis and cannabis-related products containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)"


The biggest thing company is concerned with is being under the influence and that it inhibiting you from performing your job safely and productively.

 

[OhDannyBoy]

The biggest thing company is concerned with is being under the influence and that it inhibiting you from performing your job safely and productively.

No, it's insurance liability. Insurance is far less when you can claim your workplace is drug free.

 

[Domo]

I might also mention that Professor Robin Murray has given his blessing for the decriminalisation of cannabis. He knows more than any of us.

https://g.co/kgs/7K2Wqs

 

[barkley]

Something to keep in mind is just because it is legal doesn't mean you can do it. There was a case here where someone was fired for failing a drug test in a state where it was legal. The firing was upheld on appeal because a company can still have a policy against having the drug in your system even if it is legal and you partook off the clock.

Just curious do they also test for prescription narcotics like pain killers?

in washington there are MANY employers who still have rules about it despite it's legality-and they have EVERY LEGAL RIGHT to prohibit their employees from use (if they are upfront and say it's a condition of employment that you NEVER consume it in any way/shape/form then by accepting the job you've accepted the condition).

at least one of the BIG employers around here that i've read the employee handbook for: their position (upheld in the courts) is they can do a drug test for a number of different reasons-the 3 most common are pre-employment, suspicion of being under the influence, and random. if the test comes back positive for a scrip narcotic then there's a medical review where the employee has to say when they last (prior to taking the test) consumed that med and then provide the prescription information. if the scrip is current and valid then the levels of the drug in the test are then looked at to see if it falls within their individual prescription's guidelines (so if someone had a scrip for a pain med to take only twice a day and they told the reviewer they last took a pill 24 hours earlier but the test showed twice the amount that should be in their system w/that dose and time frame-they would either get fired or if it's a decent employer-mandatory counseling on the company's dime). these are all of course trumped by any health and safety laws for folks operating equipment/caring for kids, sick, elderly-that's an automatic removal from the job.

COSTCO, BECAUSE LARGE SIZE WILL MATTER... One of my concerns, Is an increase in obesity rates.

we had a ton of fast food places CERTAIN they were going to roll in the big bucks by scooping up lots next to where the legal shops were going in (it was well known months and months in advance b/c of all the licensing and approvals it takes). well they neglected to read the laws-you can't imbibe in a public place and the shops ABSOLUTELY won't let you so much as open the packaging on property so someone might grab a pizza to take home when the munchies hit but they didn't get the droves of stoned consumers they hoped for.

 

[Kae]

Well ok fair enough. Me too.

It's especially bad as it stays in your system for up to 30 days after being used. I've had some good cannabis but never one that kept me high that long. LOL

Not true

 

[BLAZEY]

No, it's insurance liability. Insurance is far less when you can claim your workplace is drug free.

Nothing has really changed though. It is a reminder that just because it will be legal tomorrow it's still not allowed just like before. Insurance is still the same and worker worksite safety is still priority. Claiming to be drug free is less meaningful than being accident free.

 

[longboard55]

It went from medical to legal in California this year. Really not that noticeable. Same people still smoke it

 

[OhDannyBoy]

Not true

Which part?

 

[amberpi]

There’s been underage use for a loooooong time, making it legal isn’t going to change that.


I’m pretty neutral on making it legal. I’ll look into edibles to see if it will help with pain control. I do qualify for a marijuana card from my dr but it was a huge hassle of a process so I didn’t bother.

@NFLDERS why are you against it?

I use CBD products for pain (it doesn't get you high) and it's flipping unbelievable. I am too stubborn to use the opioids prescribed to me, so when CBD became legal here it was a god send. I was hesitant, but seriously, it's amazing.

 

[OhDannyBoy]

Nothing has really changed though. It is a reminder that just because it will be legal tomorrow it's still not allowed just like before. Insurance is still the same and worker worksite safety is still priority. Claiming to be drug free is less meaningful than being accident free.

It's a safety issue as no one wants to be sued. Which is why you have insurance. And Insurance knows this. So having a no drug policy keeps insurance rates low.

I think we may be arguing the same point though from differing positions.

Look I have nothing against the no drug policy, especially in situations like your where people really can be hurt.

 

[Domo]

I'd be happy with the idea if, like in the UK, there were designated smoking areas - this time, for marijuana users. I respect your right to smoke the stuff, as long as I can smell like my aftershave and not like your cannabis.

 

[kdonnel]

Edited to add: if you want insight into how this is going to effect our country, look at Colorado. It's been legal there since 2014.

One effect in Colorado is actually an increase in the number of minority youths arrested for minor drug crimes.
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/29/4839...n-colorado-more-minority-kids-arrested-for-it

There has been an increase in the number of children born with THC in their system. There have not been enough studies done to show if THC has a negative effect on developing fetuses. Seems to me like a bad idea to continue to use while pregnant but a very high percentage of expectant moms disagree. https://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/07/11/marijuana-pregnant-thc-positive-babies-colorado/

There is still a thriving black market for marijuana. Black market weed is cheaper and the state is losing out on lots of tax revenue. There will likely be a war on the black market forever.

It has had a negative effect on affordable housing and retail space. Marijuana growers and dispensaries have lots of money to pay for space and the building owners are charging them and every other retailer more.

Marijuana has caused a gentrification of neighborhoods not unlike what tech companies did to Seattle.

It is definitely still an experiment and the jury is still out as to whether legalization has more positives or more negatives.

 

[belle032]

I am 100% for the legalization. I imagine it will be legal in the near future here in NY. I personally believe the benefits of marijuana far outweigh any negatives, and no I am not a user.

Both my father and brother used it in oil/capsule form when undergoing chemo. For both of them, it was mainly used to keep their appetites up and help them sleep, both of which are so important for cancer patients. For my father, who passed away this past April from cancer, it was also used to help ease the end of his life.

Being able to purchase it legally will also help to regulate it. I don't care if you are 100% against it, let's pick the lesser of two evils here: teenagers buying it off the street from an unknown sourcen where it could literally be laced with ANYTHING or teenagers walking into a legal, regulated, well-run dispensary and buying it in a controlled environment? Oh and not to mention, a percentage of that revenue goes back to the state to fund various needed programs.

 

[Domo]

Additionally, one could argue that Cannabis Induced Psychosis cases could be offset by taxation dollars that could be rerouted into education, medical care and more.

 

[kdonnel]

Being able to purchase it legally will also help to regulate it. I don't care if you are 100% against it, let's pick the lesser of two evils here: teenagers buying it off the street from an unknown sourcen where it could literally be laced with ANYTHING or teenagers walking into a legal, regulated, well-run dispensary and buying it in a controlled environment? Oh and not to mention, a percentage of that revenue goes back to the state to fund various needed programs.

Teenagers are left out of this equation and will continue to buy on the unregulated black market. In the states where it has been legalized you can only shot at the dispensary at 21. I don't know for certain the age limit in Canada but I would be willing to bet it is also 21. The unregulated black market remains after legalization unless we are willing to open legal pot up to anyone who enters a dispensary no matter their age.