Not a pot head

yep i believe we are saying the same thing in the fact that the co cant chance WHEN you did it.
i made my comment because ya equated smoking pot to being a theif which is not comparing "apples to apples"

 

Don't worry about it, everybody will be selling pot soon enough the economy is pretty ruff right now......unless you got something better to sell......In the Bible it says God gave us all the seed bearing plants to use......

Our goverment sucks, and maybe things will get better... Cheers...............just think if they banned alcohol, how many people would be going nuts right now?

 

They tried that once. They realized it didn't work too well.

 

Not directly, no. What a company is going to see though, is 'dishonesty' (not the same thing as illegal, but that's not how they'll see it. And for any company, dishonesty in one thing equals dishonesty in all things. Ergo, if you do partake of illegal drugs, you are much more likely to do something else dishonest - such as sell the trailer or something.

Also, you have to have money to feed that horrible habit. You'll probably sell fuel and steal from other truckers for that high.

Stupid, I know. But that's how corporate thinks

 

Scarecrow.. what I find interesting as all get-out is that the current prohibition isn't working any better than the original. But since the non-alcoholic drugs are seen as problems for the "lower classes", and are not favored by the elite, they will continue to be banned while alcohol kills more people per year than all the other drugs combined.

but I should get off my soap box before I get started...

 

I agree with what you're saying, but legalizing illegal drugs (boy that sounds redundant) would make for a whole other can of worms. Yes it might eliminate some problems, but I'm certain it would create more than it would eliminate.

First of all our wonderful gooberment would have to establish a new department to regulate and oversee the industry. You know as well as I do that they would do this because the thought of utilizing a branch or agency that already exists just makes too much sense. I give you the Dept. of Homeland Security and the TSA as examples. Granted they could pay for this new department with the tax revenue the newly legal drugs would bring. But we know how inefficiently federal agencies work. The next problem would be increased health care costs for the thousands of current recreational drug users that would flock to the pharmacy or whatever retail outlet that would now be selling cocaine, meth, weed, etc. and have the party of a lifetime in celebration of their new freedoms. Inevitably this could create a mass of over doses for what could be a much more pure product.

Just a couple of scenarios to consider.

My how we have highjacked this thread...

 

We actually debated this issue in a class I was in at college. The problem with taxing mj, is that people don't use as much of that as say a smoker goes through in one day. You're not going to smoke 20 joints or more on one day like you would with cigs, or with a 12 pack of beer. The tax income from mj wouldn't be enough to make it worth while, unless the tax was really high (boy there's a pun!).

There are also some very interesting medical benefits of mj that I discovered while preparing for that debate. I was surprised at some of the stuff it does.

 

Ah, I don't sweat it, I used to get the old "You like the Red Wings? You suck" but after last seasons trouncing in the playoffs (especially game 4, I can't stop laughing at that one), it's been very quiet. We've put an end to the rivalry.

I totally agree with you, that's why I haven't touched pot in over 10 yrs, and the last time i remember using it it was just one time thing. I think of pot like my exwife thinks of sex, I don't need it, I don't want it, and I can live without it. LOL And I do like to have an occasional beer or mixed drink from time to time. But I follow an 8 hour bottle to throttle rule. I don't drink within 8 hrs of anychance of being behind the wheel.

 

This would have been OK however a split specimen test must be demanded within 72-hours after notification of a positive test result. You must also remember that if a split specimen test is demanded there are no cutoff levels in that test (a certain amount of a chemical which causes the test to be positive). In other words, ANY AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL IN THE SPLIT SPECIMEN IS A POSITIVE. And by the way.....another company may NOT overlook a positive. Being self insured as no relative bearing on hiring a driver who has tested positive. The relative information is in Parts 40, 382, and 391 of the rules.

From a retired federal DOT official

 

were the people going nuts?