Should we be able to use cannabis on our time off?

And since I wasn't making an intoxication argument the study serves as data on THC in the bloodstream, which is all I was arguing. As an aside, how many dope smokers do you suppose use weed in a clinical environment and have their experiences accurately recorded? I made no claim about frequency or certainty of "flashback" and avoided using the term until the last reply, IIRC. I have made the point fat-soluble THC will store away in fat and when that fat is later processed that THC will be in the bloodstream. Having THC in your bloodstream is a good way to fail a drug screen. I'm sure failing one because a user's fat and not recent use will make getting fired so much more enjoyable than failing it the usual way. /sarc

 

You are absolutely correct I confused your post with the other post I was in a comment chain with. I do apologize.

 

Exactly. This, combined with the fact that we cannot objecively determine impairment or lack thereof by quantifying the amount of THC present in someone's system, is why moving the goalpost from detected to impairment is intellectually dishonest.

 

How can an outsider viewing your posts make sense of which point you're trying to make when you're one moment making quotes about impairment such as "Whether it makes them feel high or not is irrelevant. What matters is that it affects their judgement, perception, reaction, etc." Which is describing impairment then later you say impairment cannot objectively be determined and follow it up with the doozy about intellectual dishonesty and moving goalposts?

And once again, if it's solely about what is detectable then we are on the cusp of that entire landscape dramatically changing and the relevance of the initial poll and post being especially heightened. And also probably infuriating to many who expressed a zero tolerance view buttressed by the previous regulations which can no longer be used as a convenient argument against the question the op was trying to flesh out.

 

Reading this thread has impacted my cognitive functionality much more than smoking a joint would have.

 

Asking questions about the post is often useful or reading the previous replies, depending on what confusion is taking place. Just because drug screen methods may be changing, it doesn't mean companies will have the leeway to accept more frequent weed users until those test standards and the threshold limits are put into place. "Imagine if we could power the world with flying dinosaur dreams". OK, I'm imagining it now. The fact remains we still use diesel and gasoline to get down the road, even if everyone imagines/knows tomorrow we will power everything with dinosaur dreams.

 

The point I was making in the post that you quoted was that it doesn't matter how somebody feels. What matters is whether or not there is a detectable amount of THC present in somebody's system.

And you should stop using the word impairment unless you are intentionally attempting to muddy the waters, because AFAIK "impairment" isn't defined or used in the regulations.

 

There's zero fantasy involved. The facts are clear.

As of June 1, 2023 DOT updated the rules to allow each company to choose either oral fluid or urine for random drug screens (I wasn't interested enough to read into it too see if it applies to pre employment as well). Now they are in the process of certifying two labs to handle oral fluid samples.

Oral fluid detection windows are extremely different than urinalysis detection windows and will essentially allow for non habitual drug users to remain undiscovered generally.

And yes companies will be accepting "more frequent drug users" unbeknownst to them if they choose to employ oral fluid testing instead of the alternative.

 

Police your own vocabulary.

Nothing is muddied. You were wrong and can't accept it.

You literally gave the definition of impairment.

"Impairment:
the state or fact of a faculty or function being weakened or damaged.
"a degree of physical or mental impairment"

Your words: "What matters is that it affects their judgement, perception, reaction, etc."

You didn't merely shift the goalposts you switched stadiums, haha

Take your loss like a man

 

"You can't fire me, I would have passed an oral fluid drug screen."
Lawyers for victims of trucking crashes will get court ordered drug test results and companies that avoid more sensitive tests will be presumed to have been looking the other way and juries will act accordingly. Why would insurance companies allow their clients to use less sensitive tests? They are the ones paying the big settlements. It's their money being delivered to attorneys by the dump truck load.

The one argument I haven't heard from the weed fans is "trucking is a big responsibility that is why you should only get a little high." No, wait I think I did read something like that in post #353.