Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - View Single Post - CO's Amendment 64 up 53-47!!!
View Single Post
Old 11-07-2012, 07:05 PM   #85 (permalink)
poutanen
Reformed Creep-o-saurus
 
poutanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AWNOW View Post
Eh, lets be honest now. I do know a few people who need to have weed. When you are smoking 4 bowls a day or more for several years you can't just simply stop smoking. You are dependent on it and a restless mind sucks for them. It is a very extreme smoker, but they do exist and no harm is done in at least recognizing that there are some people out there that need weed to make it through the day.
I smoked daily for 4 years or so. I was so into it I was one of the lead organizers for the Toronto Marijuana March in the early 2000s. One day I woke up and said to myself "meh, I'm done smoking for a while, time to focus my energy elsewhere" and I quit cold turkey. See below for more info...

Quote:
Originally Posted by killclimbz View Post
It is a mental addiction though. Take it away from them and sure they'll want it.
Exactly, it is a habitual addiction, not a physical addiction. It may be just as hard to break for some but in general if you feel like quitting smoking pot, you quit smoking pot. How many cigarette smokers and casual drinkers just quit one day and never go back? My guess is almost none.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AWNOW View Post
I agree 100%, I just think it is sensible to agree that some people are dependent on it instead of saying no one is. Just opens up a hole in the premise that doesn't need to exist.
The only people "dependent" on weed are people using it to help control pain, nausea, etc. associated with terminal illnesses. A habitual pot smoker is not "dependent".

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowvols View Post
They can still fire you. If it is in your system how do they know if you smoked last night or smoked right before you came to work and got into an accident? That is the same as if you had alcohol in your system. Alcohol just flushes out quicker.
Alcohol is metabolized in your liver to acetaldehyde. An alcohol test by either blood or breath measures your blood-alcohol content. This test is pretty accurate at determining impairment at the time of the test. (i.e. if you had an accident at work and were subjected to a D&A test, if you came back positive for alcohol over the legal driving limit, you were likely impaired at the time)

THC is metabolized into THC and THC... lol (Delta9-TCH is metabolized into two other forms of THC, and the psycoactive metabolites only stay in your system for a relatively short period of time (a few hours) before they are metabolized into non-psychoactive forms of THC. D&A tests don't distinguish WHICH metabolite is being quantified, so they are not accurate at determining impairment as far as I know.

Therefore, you'd have a reasonable case if you were fired for testing positive for THC in your system, as an employer only has grounds to dismiss if you are likely impaired at work. I'm sure there are many jurisdictions that handle this differently, but there is a fine line on Charter/Constitutional rights when it comes to D&A testing. Furthermore, if there is a chance you are "addicted" to a substance generally speaking the company has to find you help before they can just outright fire you. So the dependence argument comes back to bite us in the ass there. If we say it's not addictive, we can't argue that we shouldn't be fired because we have a "problem"...
poutanen is offline