# Drugs during work hours



## Cl906um

Dang. Am I wrong to worry about this jeopardizing my safety. Overreacting perhaps? I personally don't think so. I know everyone is saying legalize it. But I for one don't think recreation should coincide with work...


----------



## HackWork

When you said "dope" I assumed you meant heroin. This isn't the Trailer Park Boys, Americans don't call weed dope. Which one is it?


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Cl906um said:


> Dang. Am I wrong to worry about this jeopardizing my safety. Overreacting perhaps? I personally don't think so. I know everyone is saying legalize it. But I for one don't think recreation should coincide with work...


I'd ask him once not to smoke up during work hours. 

Second time he'd be history.


----------



## Cl906um

HackWork said:


> When you said "dope" I assumed you meant heroin. This isn't the Trailer Park Boys, Americans don't call weed dope. Which one is it?


I must be too old. Yes. Pot.


----------



## Cl906um

​


HackWork said:


> When you said "dope" I assumed you meant heroin. This isn't the Trailer Park Boys, Americans don't call weed dope. Which one is it?


Btw. Nobody in their right mind is trying to legalize heroin.


----------



## Cl906um

We always said weed wasn't called dope because it makes you smarter... Sarcasm hard to express in type.


----------



## Cl906um

MechanicalDVR said:


> I'd ask him once not to smoke up during work hours.
> 
> Second time he'd be history.


I try to avoid confrontation with subjects I am not comfortable with. Kind of a subject that can totally ruin someone which is pretty sensitive. When it jeopardizes my livelihood is the point where I can't turn my cheek.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Cl906um said:


> I try to avoid confrontation with subjects I am not comfortable with. Kind of a subject that can totally ruin someone which is pretty sensitive. When it jeopardizes my livelihood is the point where I can't turn my cheek.


You have a job to do and you need your workers 100%.


----------



## Cl906um

Seems like mech and I are the only squares out there. No wonder why the trades are suffering. I am just refusing to work with someone under the influence. I could care less what you decide to do on your own time. The lack of comment on this post is kind of surprising.


----------



## Majewski

Fired.


----------



## Cow

You could also tell him he needs to go in and take a random drug test...


----------



## Majewski

Cow said:


> You could also tell him he needs to go in and take a random drug test...


Then fire him.


----------



## RePhase277

No way. No way would I tolerate him not sharing.


----------



## Majewski

RePhase277 said:


> No way. No way would I tolerate him not sharing.


Exactly! lol


----------



## micromind

Cow said:


> You could also tell him he needs to go in and take a random drug test...


This is very likely the easiest way to handle it. Or just say that you've heard that the company will be making everyone take a drug test in the next week or so.


----------



## 360max

drug test.


----------



## 3DDesign

Mandatory drug test


----------



## PlugsAndLights

60 minutes had a segment about the difficulty employers are having 
filling jobs in the rust belt. They're having to hire immigrants because 
too few of the locals can pass drug tests. 
I don't really agree with drug tests myself. It's great that they prevent
drug use during work hours but getting fired for what you do at home 
on the weekend isn't what I consider fair. 
Anyways, in this case, I agree with Mech.. Unfortunately you have to 
deal with this head on. -( 
And ya, pot is dope. 
P&L


----------



## The_Modifier

Cl906um said:


> ​
> Btw. Nobody in their right mind is trying to legalize heroin.


Crap, there goes my idea of *OSHA Incentives*


----------



## The_Modifier

Cow said:


> You could also tell him he needs to go in and take a random drug test...


But make CS hold it for him- and the cup as well. :laughing:


----------



## Cow

The_Modifier said:


> But make CS hold it for him- and the cup as well. :laughing:


I wouldn't want to do something CS would like though....


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Cl906um said:


> Seems like mech and I are the only squares out there. No wonder why the trades are suffering. I am just refusing to work with someone under the influence. I could care less what you decide to do on your own time. The lack of comment on this post is kind of surprising.


We both have old fashioned values I guess. 

Doesn't matter what the influence is when one is working under the influence of anything they are not 100%..


----------



## chicken steve

The_Modifier said:


> But make CS hold it for him- and the cup as well. :laughing:


I've done_ far far_ worse in my 30 yr meatwagon tenure Mr Mod

I've also hotfooted _many_ an OD to the ER 

That said, i'll let you guess which '_dope_' is the most prevalent that you're co-worker might be on.....

Go ahead, give it a shot 

~CS~


----------



## MechanicalDVR

chicken steve said:


> i've done_ far far_ worse in my 30 yr meatwagon tenure mr mod
> 
> i've also hotfooted _many_ an od to the er
> 
> that said, i'll let you guess which '_dope_' is the most prevalent that you're co-worker might be on.....
> 
> Go ahead, give it a shot
> 
> ~cs~


*meth?????*


----------



## lighterup

MechanicalDVR said:


> We both have old fashioned values I guess.
> 
> Doesn't matter what the influence is when one is working under the influence of anything they are not 100%..


OLD FASHIONED?..damn Mech , if I'm doing my math right , you came
right out of Post Neil Young vs the southern man , Haight Ashbury , braw burning days! You aint old ..your just gettin started.:notworthy:


----------



## lighterup

Cl906um said:


> Dang. Am I wrong to worry about this jeopardizing my safety. Overreacting perhaps? I personally don't think so. I know everyone is saying legalize it. But I for one don't think recreation should coincide with work...


Legal or not , no one should have someone working along side of them
high (or drunk). Alcohol is legal , you can't show up drunk at work..right?

You're not wrong. I own my business , work out on the jobs, had a guy 
light a one hitter up on the job right in front of me...he actually thought 
it was okay..didn't see what all the fuss was about:blink:

Needless to say he don't like me no more.


----------



## sbrn33

I would mention that the boss is talking about have random drug tests during the day. Then it is not on you so much.


----------



## 99cents

sbrn33 said:


> I would mention that the boss is talking about have random drug tests during the day. Then it is not on you so much.


He might want to clear that with the boss first.

I would bring it up in a safety meeting and tell everybody that drugs aren't tolerated. If he doesn't get the message then you single him out, maybe figure out an excuse to fire him.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

lighterup said:


> OLD FASHIONED?..damn Mech , if I'm doing my math right , you came
> right out of Post Neil Young vs the southern man , Haight Ashbury , braw burning days! You aint old ..your just gettin started.:notworthy:


I'm older than you think and I normally admit to.


----------



## GrayHair

PlugsAndLights said:


> 60 minutes had a segment about the difficulty employers are having
> filling jobs in the rust belt. They're having to hire immigrants because
> too few of the locals can pass drug tests. ...


My nephew complained about it 20-25 years ago. Said that out of the handful that passed, most were so fried he couldn't trust them to operate anything more complicated than a push-broom.

Many companies also have a rigid drug free policy for their contractors. State governments also have a "no tolerance" policy; your company had to test you after any incident, or if drugs were found in a common area, EVERYBODY got tested. Anyone testing positive for anything was gone.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

GrayHair said:


> My nephew complained about it 20-25 years ago. Said that out of the handful that passed, most were so fried he couldn't trust them to operate anything more complicated than a push-broom.
> 
> Many companies also have a rigid drug free policy for their contractors. State governments also have a "no tolerance" policy; your company had to test you after any incident, or if drugs were found in a common area, EVERYBODY got tested. *Anyone testing positive for anything was gone.*


As it should be!


----------



## telsa

GrayHair said:


> My nephew complained about it 20-25 years ago. Said that out of the handful that passed, most were so fried he couldn't trust them to operate anything more complicated than a push-broom.
> 
> Many companies also have a rigid drug free policy for their contractors. State governments also have a "no tolerance" policy; your company had to test you after any incident, or if drugs were found in a common area, EVERYBODY got tested. Anyone testing positive for anything was gone.


The Pentagon has asserted that half of those wishing to serve get washed out due to prior drug use// drugs in their system. ( THC will stay in your body for two-weeks. )

BTW, the REAL reason that the USSR left Afghanistan in defeat was rampant drug addiction. Their army there was suffering 60% casualties every year due to addiction. 

Similarly, the Afghan army is riven with drug addicts. They lose battle after battle because they're high as a kite. There are plenty of YouTube videos illustrating this.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

telsa said:


> The Pentagon has asserted that half of those wishing to serve get washed out due to prior drug use// drugs in their system. ( THC will stay in your body for two-weeks. )
> 
> BTW, the REAL reason that the USSR left Afghanistan in defeat was rampant drug addiction. Their army there was suffering 60% casualties every year due to addiction.
> 
> Similarly, the Afghan army is riven with drug addicts. They lose battle after battle because they're high as a kite. There are plenty of YouTube videos illustrating this.


Addiction is a major force in these times all around.


----------



## Southeast Power

MechanicalDVR said:


> You have a job to do and you need your workers 100%.


It somewhat depends on the type of work. If you are roping bungalows, you are going to need it. 

The 17 minute version:


----------



## Signal1

99cents said:


> He might want to clear that with the boss first.
> 
> I would bring it up in a safety meeting and tell everybody that drugs aren't tolerated. If he doesn't get the message then you single him out, maybe figure out an excuse to fire him.


I like this one.


----------



## Southeast Power

lighterup said:


> OLD FASHIONED?..damn Mech , if I'm doing my math right , you came
> right out of Post Neil Young vs the southern man , Haight Ashbury , braw burning days! You aint old ..your just gettin started.:notworthy:


hes about my age and we missed that by about 5 years. :001_unsure:


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Suncoast Power said:


> It somewhat depends on the type of work. If you are roping bungalows, you are going to need it.
> 
> The 17 minute version:
> 
> https://youtu.be/COMc3K-97z4


I had that album. 

I've roped a girl now and then but only the ones that like to play rough!


----------



## Jlarson

micromind said:


> This is very likely the easiest way to handle it. Or just say that you've heard that the company will be making everyone take a drug test in the next week or so.


I've had people flee the site at the very mention of test time. :laughing:



RePhase277 said:


> No way. No way would I tolerate him not sharing.


Yeah share or get fired. :jester:


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Suncoast Power said:


> hes about my age and we missed that by about 5 years. :001_unsure:



I was at Woodstock for a couple days with my older sister and two cousins! 
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Southeast Power

MechanicalDVR said:


> I was at Woodstock for a couple days with my older sister and two cousins!
> :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


You remembered so, were you really there?

Do you remember anything about who played while you were there?


----------



## emtnut

4/21 .... National drug testing day


----------



## HackWork

GrayHair said:


> Anyone testing positive for anything was gone.


What if they found Sabrina's gonorrhea??


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Suncoast Power said:


> You remembered so, were you really there?
> 
> Do you remember anything about who played while you were there?


LOL, with all those bouncing boobs on semi hot chics the stage was the least of my concerns. I learned the meaning of contact high.

I remember Santana, Canned Heat, and The Dead pretty clearly.


----------



## Old Brian

Cl906um said:


> My coworker seems off. Especially after lunch. Kinda has a cigarette smell like he is trying to cover up the dope. How do I approach the subject? As his foremen... No experience in this field.


Tell your supervisor that you're having a performance issue on your crew, and that you're going to deal with it. At your next toolbox meeting, lay out what's expected regarding drugs and alcohol on the work site and what the consequences will be if those expectations are not met. Put it in writing so that there's no ambiguity. Make sure the crew is aware that if anyone exhibits signs of impairment, a drug and alcohol test will happen. If the person fails the test, then they get whatever the consequence is that you've already laid out for the crew.

Document every step of the testing process, from your reason for the testing right up to the imposition of the consequence. That way nobody can say that they are being unfairly targeted. You and the company are off the hook if anyone is fired and they scream unfair dismissal. By acting decisively and quickly, you also reinforce your standing with the crew. It can be very demoralizing for morale if they see that somebody with performance issues is left alone. They'll think why bother to put out 100% if Slacker can do whatever he wants.

I was an electrical supervisor with Shell for almost a decade, so I've been down this road more than once.

Good luck,
Brian


----------



## lighterup

MechanicalDVR said:


> LOL, with all those bouncing boobs on semi hot chics the stage was the least of my concerns. I learned the meaning of contact high.
> 
> I remember Santana, Canned Heat, and The Dead pretty clearly.


I saw Santana open for Van Halen at Cow Palace in San Fran....good concert.:thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve

https://youtu.be/ACdwCIld3kE?t=27
:thumbsup:
~CS~


----------



## MechanicalDVR

lighterup said:


> I saw Santana open for Van Halen at Cow Palace in San Fran....good concert.:thumbup:


I have loved his music ever since back then.


----------



## John Valdes

HackWork said:


> When you said "dope" I assumed you meant heroin. This isn't the Trailer Park Boys, Americans don't call weed dope. Which one is it?


Agree. I call it medicine.



Cl906um said:


> Btw. Nobody in their right mind is trying to legalize heroin.


Sounds stupid and maybe it is, but why not legalize all drugs.
Good way to weed out the dumb asses.
Heroin was legal until the early 1900's. So was morphine and other substances. 
They had no opioid epidemics. People just died as they do today.
Please remember I am concerned about peoples welfare. The addicts and those they hurt.
But government intervention is not the answer.
The only reason we incarcerate people for drug possession and use is because many people rely on this behavior to have and keep their jobs.
We can start with law enforcement and the funeral business as the last monetary winner.
There are many other professions and facilities in between that absolutely rely on illegal drug enforcement and treatment. 



Cl906um said:


> Seems like mech and I are the only squares out there. No wonder why the trades are suffering. I am just refusing to work with someone under the influence. I could care less what you decide to do on your own time. The lack of comment on this post is kind of surprising.


I totally agree. You should not have to work or do anything with a person under the influence of any drug. The workplace is no place for alcohol or drugs.



Cow said:


> You could also tell him he needs to go in and take a random drug test...


Now, that is something I totally disagree with.
Until they have a fool proof test, that can tell if the person is on drugs at that very moment, random drug testing should be halted.
The problem with random testing is you may have to fire your best guy that has never ever used on the job.
Just a few puffs of cannabis on Friday night will be a positive test and if you have a policy to fire for positive testing, you either fire your best guy or you look like you are playing favorites or being inconsistent.

FYI: Had this same employee ( best one you got) used heroin, cocaine or prescription drugs and was not using regularly, he would most likely pass the test.
This stands true only for a basic urinalysis. Drug tests come in many flavors and some can detect use as far back as 6 months.



Suncoast Power said:


> You remembered so, were you really there?
> Do you remember anything about who played while you were there?


I was going to call him on the Grateful Dead. But they were there.
A shame Hendrix held out for last and ended up playing in the morning sunshine (no pun intended "orange sunshine").

Did you ever read Carlos Santana's story about Woodstock?
Jerry Garcia gave him a hit of acid (LSD). Since he did not have to take the stage for several hours he ingested it.
30 minutes later they told him he was next! :001_huh:



MechanicalDVR said:


> LOL, with all those bouncing boobs on semi hot chics the stage was the least of my concerns. I learned the meaning of contact high.
> 
> I remember Santana, Canned Heat, and The Dead pretty clearly.


How old were you that weekend? And do you actually believe you can get high by being around pot smoke?
(contact high)?


----------



## MechanicalDVR

John Valdes said:


> How old were you that weekend? And do you actually believe you can get high by being around pot smoke?
> (contact high)?


I was a teenager. No you get high by breathing while standing in the clouds of smoke for hours on end. :thumbup:


----------



## sbrn33

The more I read Johns posts the more I love him. 
This is coming from someone who has never done pot ever.


----------



## Cow

John Valdes said:


> Now, that is something I totally disagree with.
> Until they have a fool proof test, that can tell if the person is on drugs at that very moment, random drug testing should be halted.
> The problem with random testing is you may have to fire your best guy that has never ever used on the job.
> Just a few puffs of cannabis on Friday night will be a positive test and if you have a policy to fire for positive testing, you either fire your best guy or you look like you are playing favorites or being inconsistent.


That sounds like a problem for the guy smoking pot, not the company having the tests done. If you want to smoke Friday, you should be doing it with the assumption there may be a random drug test Monday that you may not pass!

Then it becomes a question of how important is it to smoke pot to the person that may get tested? Seems they can roll the dice and take their chances or quit smoking pot.

I don't see any reason to quit random drug tests just because they haven't caught up to the current laws on pot smoking. I see it the other way around. You can stop smoking pot until a different kind of test can determine if you're high right then and there if you feel the tests aren't fair.

My argument errs on the side of caution over the side that says random drug tests should stop.:no:


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Cow said:


> That sounds like a problem for the guy smoking pot, not the company having the tests done. If you want to smoke Friday, you should be doing it with the assumption there may be a random drug test Monday that you may not pass!
> 
> Then it becomes a question of how important is it to smoke pot to the person that may get tested? Seems they can roll the dice and take their chances or quit smoking pot.
> 
> I don't see any reason to quit random drug tests just because they haven't caught up to the current laws on pot smoking. I see it the other way around. You can stop smoking pot until a different kind of test can determine if you're high right then and there if you feel the tests aren't fair.
> 
> My argument errs on the side of caution over the side that says random drug tests should stop.:no:



If I need to work with someone that could effect my safety I prefer them to be sober and not under the influence of any substance.


----------



## sbrn33

Cow said:


> That sounds like a problem for the guy smoking pot, not the company having the tests done. If you want to smoke Friday, you should be doing it with the assumption there may be a random drug test Monday that you may not pass!
> 
> Then it becomes a question of how important is it to smoke pot to the person that may get tested? Seems they can roll the dice and take their chances or quit smoking pot.
> 
> I don't see any reason to quit random drug tests just because they haven't caught up to the current laws on pot smoking. I see it the other way around. You can stop smoking pot until a different kind of test can determine if you're high right then and there if you feel the tests aren't fair.
> 
> My argument errs on the side of caution over the side that says random drug tests should stop.:no:


Ever have a few beers on a Sunday?


----------



## catsparky1

I worked for dam near 20 years high and drunk . Passed 110 inspections with no write ups
and not one trip to a hospital trip for me or any man on the crew .
With that said it is not what you are on it is how you hold yo self YO .

All of us are on something yes all of us .

do not lie to you're self at one point we all have done it .

All of us !!!!!!!!


----------



## MechanicalDVR

catsparky1 said:


> I worked for dam near 20 years high and drunk . Passed 110 inspections with no write ups
> and not one trip to a hospital trip for me or any man on the crew .
> With that said it is not what you are on it is how you hold yo self YO .
> 
> All of us are on something yes all of us .
> 
> do not lie to you're self at one point we all have done it .
> 
> *All of us !!!!!!!!*


NO, not really all!


----------



## John Valdes

MechanicalDVR said:


> I was a teenager. No you get high by breathing while standing in the clouds of smoke for hours on end. :thumbup:


:blink: 



Cow said:


> That sounds like a problem for the guy smoking pot, not the company having the tests done. If you want to smoke Friday, you should be doing it with the assumption there may be a random drug test Monday that you may not pass!
> 
> Then it becomes a question of how important is it to smoke pot to the person that may get tested? Seems they can roll the dice and take their chances or quit smoking pot.
> 
> I don't see any reason to quit random drug tests just because they haven't caught up to the current laws on pot smoking. I see it the other way around. You can stop smoking pot until a different kind of test can determine if you're high right then and there if you feel the tests aren't fair.
> 
> My argument errs on the side of caution over the side that says random drug tests should stop.:no:


I can agree with some of your points.
However, when alcohol and legally prescribed pills can be consumed outside of work without repercussion, I feel it is unfair to someone who may smoke pot away from the workplace. 

Would you have an issue with an employee having a few beers after work?
This is the point.
Its not about marijuana. 
Marijuana is legal in a few states now and more than half the country has medical marijuana.
The country will need to adapt to changing times and to changing thinking about marijuana.
Like it or not, pot is here to stay.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

John Valdes said:


> :blink:
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with some of your points.
> However, when alcohol and legally prescribed pills can be consumed outside of work without repercussion, I feel it is unfair to someone who may smoke pot away from the workplace.
> 
> *Would you have an issue with an employee having a few beers after work?*
> This is the point.
> Its not about marijuana.
> Marijuana is legal in a few states now and more than half the country has medical marijuana.
> The country will need to adapt to changing times and to changing thinking about marijuana.
> Like it or not, pot is here to stay.



I couldn't careless what an employee does during their off hours but they need to be 100% on my job when their attention to detail could have an adverse effect on my job or my well being.


----------



## Switched

John Valdes said:


> Would you have an issue with an employee having a few beers after work?
> This is the point.
> Its not about marijuana.
> Marijuana is legal in a few states now and more than half the country has medical marijuana.
> The country will need to adapt to changing times and to changing thinking about marijuana.
> Like it or not, pot is here to stay.


What they do outside of business affects everyone these days. There have been plenty of people let go from jobs, well paying ones at that, all because they did something in their personal life (Think of postings that are made via Facebook and Twitter). 

We live in an era of zero privacy coupled with an addiction to image. The boundaries between personal and private are quite blurred these days. When someone makes a decision to do something, whether that is alcohol or drug related or simply posting an off color joke online, all of it affects us.

If most of my friends had a few drinks or smoked a blunt at lunch, they could go back to work and do just fine, but they do not operate machinery or equipment that can kill themselves, others, or the someday end users. What a person consumes in their private life is essentially their business, but it is when their private choices affect their public life that they have problems. 

I have to think about how those employees choices affect their work and the company image, because their personal choices can sink a company.


----------



## Lone Crapshooter

To start with the should be no such thing as a illegal drug. The government does not have the right to tell you can and cannot put in your body it's yours and you can do with it what you want. The government does have the responsibility to tell what you should and should not put in your body but that is as far it goes. 
That being said employers do have the right to establish rules that promote a safe work place and drug testing is a tool that helps promote a safe work place. If a employer says no drug influence in the work place that is their right and the legality or illegally in the eyes of the government is a non issue.
Send the employee in for a drug test if he ask why say reasonable suspicion.

LC


----------



## John Valdes

MechanicalDVR said:


> I couldn't careless what an employee does during their off hours but they need to be 100% on my job when their attention to detail could have an adverse effect on my job or my well being.


I agree 100%. 



Switched said:


> What they do outside of business affects everyone these days. There have been plenty of people let go from jobs, well paying ones at that, all because they did something in their personal life (Think of postings that are made via Facebook and Twitter).
> 
> We live in an era of zero privacy coupled with an addiction to image. The boundaries between personal and private are quite blurred these days. When someone makes a decision to do something, whether that is alcohol or drug related or simply posting an off color joke online, all of it affects us.
> 
> If most of my friends had a few drinks or smoked a blunt at lunch, they could go back to work and do just fine, but they do not operate machinery or equipment that can kill themselves, others, or the someday end users. What a person consumes in their private life is essentially their business, but it is when their private choices affect their public life that they have problems.
> 
> I have to think about how those employees choices affect their work and the company image, because their personal choices can sink a company.


That's the point. When drugs or alcohol interferes with work, there is a line that every employer should draw.
However, this is not the norm. Most people lose their jobs by just showing up on Monday morning.
That's when they like to pull the random ****. Its like they want to catch people in some instances.



Lone Crapshooter said:


> Send the employee in for a drug test if he ask why say reasonable suspicion.


 If someone gives a reason "for cause", then I do agree drug testing should be part of the plan. 
I don't agree with pulling names out of a hat.
Thats what random drug testing is.
All you got to do is show up for work to lose your job in an environment like that.


----------



## lighterup

Lone Crapshooter said:


> To start with the should be no such thing as a illegal drug. The government does not have the right to tell you can and cannot put in your body it's yours and you can do with it what you want. The government does have the responsibility to tell what you should and should not put in your body but that is as far it goes.
> That being said employers do have the right to establish rules that promote a safe work place and drug testing is a tool that helps promote a safe work place. If a employer says no drug influence in the work place that is their right and the legality or illegally in the eyes of the government is a non issue.
> Send the employee in for a drug test if he ask why say reasonable suspicion.
> 
> LC


 I'm not against employers having a drug testing policy , but as another
post put it , there is the issue of alcohol as well. 

I think all electricians should stay sober during work...I mean this
is a serious trade we're in.
I don't care what HVAC or plumbers are doing..Tin and Pvc kings.
What we do has consequences on lives of the public and property or 
both.


----------



## Lone Crapshooter

There is nothing wrong with a alcohol testing policy. Most places I have worked have both.


----------



## socket2ya

Judging by some of the posts on here I think some of you guys are stuck in 1950. We are talking about pot here, not heroine or LSD, or even showing up drunk. These days I smoke everyday as it helps with my degenerative disc problem in my neck. I own my own company, but if I did work for someone else and they told me I couldn't smoke during the work day, I would tell them good luck to you.


----------



## HackWork

socket2ya said:


> Judging by some of the posts on here I think some of you guys are stuck in 1950. We are talking about pot here, not heroine or LSD, or even showing up drunk. These days I smoke everyday as it helps with my degenerative disc problem in my neck. I own my own company, but if I did work for someone else and they told me I couldn't smoke during the work day, I would tell them good luck to you.


The date doesn't matter. No matter how you or I feel about weed, it is still illegal. It is a schedule 1 narcotic, it is illegal. 

If you choose to take this drug, you may get fired. You take that risk on.

Again, I am not saying that I agree with it, but I do believe in personal responsibility. There are many things in life that I would LOVE to do, like knock out chicken steve's teeth when he posts lies. But I don't do those things because I don't want the legal trouble or business liability that goes along with it. A person who wants to smoke weed has to weigh the risks vs. reward, and take responsibility for their decision.


----------



## trentonmakes

And here i worry about cigarette smoke when i walk into a customers home! Lol

What employer would be ok with thier employees smoking pot during the workday???

Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk


----------



## socket2ya

HackWork said:


> The date doesn't matter. No matter how you or I feel about weed, it is still illegal. .


The date does matter because today in MA weed is legal for recreational use, yet in 1950 it was not. It might sound crazy but I work better from a physical and mental standpoint with MJ because it's been a part of my life for so many years now. 

On the flip side, however, I don't think people who are not regular smokers should be experimenting with it on work time. The original poster said that his guy came back acting funny- he probably should not be cutting an electrical panel


----------



## lighterup

trentonmakes said:


> And here i worry about cigarette smoke when i walk into a customers home! Lol
> 
> What employer would be ok with thier employees smoking pot during the workday???
> 
> Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk


Someone after 1950?:whistling2:


----------



## lighterup

socket2ya said:


> The date does matter because today in MA weed is legal for recreational use, yet in 1950 it was not. It might sound crazy but I work better from a physical and mental standpoint with MJ because it's been a part of my life for so many years now.
> 
> On the flip side, however, I don't think people who are not regular smokers should be experimenting with it on work time. The original poster said that his guy came back acting funny- he probably should not be cutting an electrical panel


okay ..this is a joke , right? I served in the Military with alot of Massachusetts
guys and I will say , you are some of the wildest , funniest and down to
earth people I got to know. some are friends to this day..You are definitely
poking fun right now!

An electrician that shouldn't work in the panel cuase he's high?:laughing:
What's his employer gonna do with him?


----------



## socket2ya

lighterup said:


> An electrician that shouldn't work in the panel cuase he's high?:laughing:
> What's his employer gonna do with him?


I was exaggerating by using that example, but my larger point is that there are people who can handle being high and working and other people who cannot.


----------



## LARMGUY

Cl906um said:


> Seems like mech and I are the only squares out there. No wonder why the trades are suffering. I am just refusing to work with someone under the influence. I could care less what you decide to do on your own time. The lack of comment on this post is kind of surprising.


You are his foreman. Grow a pair and have a come to Jesus meeting with all your guys. Tell him By the way, the UA is tomorrow, and watch him crap his pants. If he doesn't show up...


----------



## LARMGUY

socket2ya said:


> The date does matter because today in MA weed is legal for recreational use, yet in 1950 it was not. It might sound crazy but I work better from a physical and mental standpoint with MJ because it's been a part of my life for so many years now.
> 
> On the flip side, however, I don't think people who are not regular smokers should be experimenting with it on work time. The original poster said that his guy came back acting funny- he probably should not be cutting an electrical panel


Extending this out you would get on a plane with a pilot that says, "I work better from a physical and mental standpoint with MJ because it's been a part of my life for so many years now."


:no:


----------



## MechanicalDVR

LARMGUY said:


> Extending this out you would get on a plane with a pilot that says, "I work better from a physical and mental standpoint with MJ because it's been a part of my life for so many years now."
> 
> 
> :no:


Gee this seems to have devolved into liberal thinking! 

Right along the lines of "I drive better after drinking"!


----------



## Switched

I don't have experience with drugs so I can't speak of them. I do know alcohol though... so I can say my 2 cents on it...

I don't fear the guy that gets buzzed off of a couple of drinks, he obviously doesn't have a problem.

I fear the guy that "Can handle his booze", he has too much experience drinking.

I imagine the same is with drugs and weed.

And yes, I do believe you have an issue if you can't not consume/partake of something (alcohol/drugs) during business hours, includes if you are on call, or in personal time that may carry over to personal time.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Switched said:


> I don't have experience with drugs so I can't speak of them. I do know alcohol though... so I can say my 2 cents on it...
> 
> I don't fear the guy that gets buzzed off of a couple of drinks, he obviously doesn't have a problem.
> 
> I fear the guy that "Can handle his booze", he has too much experience drinking.
> 
> I imagine the same is with drugs and weed.
> 
> And yes, I do believe you have an issue if you can't not consume/partake of something (alcohol/drugs) during business hours, includes if you are on call, or in *personal time that may carry over to personal time*.


You mean personal time that may carry over into professional time?


----------



## Switched

MechanicalDVR said:


> You mean personal time that may carry over into professional time?


sure....:laughing:

I am too high and drunk, while kicking my dog and beating my kids, to care......


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Switched said:


> sure....:laughing:
> 
> I am too high and drunk, while kicking my dog and beating my kids, to care......


While I'd believe that of a few here you aren't on that list!:whistling2:


----------



## glen1971

socket2ya said:


> Judging by some of the posts on here I think some of you guys are stuck in 1950. We are talking about pot here, not heroine or LSD, or even showing up drunk. These days I smoke everyday as it helps with my degenerative disc problem in my neck. I own my own company, but if I did work for someone else and they told me I couldn't smoke during the work day, I would tell them good luck to you.


Although it is outside of the OP's original issue - are you sure it's just weed? Some companies I've worked around list tolerances of all drugs at their "acceptable" levels in their D&A policy... I hope that the employers don't relax their policies, even if the drug becomes legal... 
IMO, there is no place in today's workplace for those that show up drunk, high or impaired by OTC drugs including those prescribed.. They are putting themselves, their coworkers, me, my company, my clients and others at risk for severe consequences up to an including a fatality.. Do what you want to on your off time so long as it doesn't affect your work ability, including passing a D&A test (whether it be random, pre-access, or post incident)....

Here is a link I found this morning on one of the acceptance levels (pg 16)..
https://www.coaa.ab.ca/COAA-Library/SAF-CDM-CBP-01-2014-v5 Canadian Model.pdf


----------



## MechanicalDVR

I will just leave this here.

I have never been a smoker, toker, or illegal drug user in any manner.

That said, for 6 years I was taking 90 roxicetts (by doc's orders) a week and went to work everyday and worked overtime. 

Never had any kind of accident or issue during that time period.

I could have drilled a hole through my hand and never felt it but I got the job done, rather well I may add.


----------



## John Valdes

I heard a quote the other day on TV. It was on "Deadliest Catch".

The young captain said his old man had a saying that he observed to this very day.

"_When your problem becomes my problem, we got a problem_". 

Kinda says it all.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

John Valdes said:


> I heard a quote the other day on TV. It was on "Deadliest Catch".
> 
> The young captain said his old man had a saying that he observed to this very day.
> 
> "_When your problem becomes my problem, we got a problem_".
> 
> Kinda says it all.


His old man was on to something!:thumbsup:


----------



## trentonmakes

Problem is, when his problem becomes your problem, it may be too late!

Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk


----------



## MechanicalDVR

trentonmakes said:


> Problem is, when his problem becomes your problem, it may be too late!
> 
> Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk


A decent foreman or lead man should be able to find out pretty quick what your guys are like on the job.


----------



## JBrzoz00

I think they have mouth swab tests that can tell if your under the influence of weed at the moment. 

If your high you will make mistakes, mistakes cost $.


----------



## Cl906um

JBrzoz00 said:


> I think they have mouth swab tests that can tell if your under the influence of weed at the moment.
> 
> If your high you will make mistakes, mistakes cost $.


I think the only reason weed isn't legal yet in many states is because a cheap way to detect levels is not yet available. You can get a swab for its presence, but the level one is hard to come by.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Cl906um said:


> I think the only reason weed isn't legal yet in many states is because a cheap way to detect levels is not yet available. You can get a swab for its presence, but the level one is hard to come by.


Regardless of level if it's present while on the clock, it should be good bye!


----------



## inetdog

MechanicalDVR said:


> Regardless of level if it's present while on the clock, it should be good bye!


Except for the fact that test results can continue to be positive for up to 6 weeks after use. Long after there are any mental or physical effects.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## MechanicalDVR

inetdog said:


> Except for the fact that test results can continue to be positive for up to 6 weeks after use. Long after there are any mental or physical effects.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


I highly doubt that a swab test would show more than a couple hours before hand.


----------



## inetdog

MechanicalDVR said:


> I highly doubt that a swab test would show more than a couple hours before hand.


Possibly not. Blood tests are far more sensitive.
One critical factor is whether the test is sensitive to cannabinoids or to the metabolic by-products that may be easier to detect.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## MechanicalDVR

inetdog said:


> Possibly not. Blood tests are far more sensitive.
> One critical factor is whether the test is sensitive to cannabinoids or to the metabolic by-products that may be easier to detect.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Agreed but my commentary was based on this:

"I think they have mouth swab tests that can tell if your under the influence of weed at the moment. "


----------



## John Valdes

MechanicalDVR said:


> I was at Woodstock for a couple days with my older sister and two cousins!
> :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


So you are at minimum 61 years old to have been there at 13. 
I have wonder at times how old you were. Or young.



JBrzoz00 said:


> I think they have mouth swab tests that can tell if your under the influence of weed at the moment.
> If I'm high, I will make mistakes, mistakes cost $.


FIFY



Cl906um said:


> I think the only reason weed isn't legal yet in many states is because a cheap way to detect levels is not yet available. You can get a swab for its presence, but the level one is hard to come by.


I had no idea about swabs. Any link to this?



MechanicalDVR said:


> Regardless of level if it's present while on the clock, it should be good bye!


Cannabis can remain in the body for a very long time. Making random drug testing unfair in states that have medical and or legal weed. 
Your use of oxycodone on the job makes this a valid argument.

You went to work taking up to 12 oxycodone pills a day with no concern or repercussion. You did say 90 per week? 
What made you any different than the guy that smoked on his own time in a legal or medical state? I think you would be more of a concern than the other guy that is on nothing.
You even say how well you performed while on this medication.
I find this to be hypocritical. 




MechanicalDVR said:


> Agreed but my commentary was based on this:
> 
> "I think they have mouth swab tests that can tell if your under the influence of weed at the moment. "


I have to look into this as I have yet to hear of this test.
I have heard they are working on a breathalyzer similar to the alcohol test used by the cops.


----------



## Big John

I ain't a fan of people under the influence of anything on the clock. Claiming you work fine like that is just like a functional alcoholic saying he performs well with a cup of vodka: He might work okay at that moment, but he still performs worse overall than if he weren't ever an alcoholic, so it's a dumb comparison.

That said, it definitely slays me to see guys get on their high horses about weed. Legal alcohol is far and away more devastating, and it is very common for guys to show up severely hungover or even drink on the clock. Even worse are the risks of legal opiates: Prescription painkillers are devastating many parts of rural America, and big name drug companies are happily profiting at our expense, but by all means, let's be sanctimonious about weed.

The problem isn't the substance, the problem is the person who A) either doesn't have the judgement to exercise intelligent use or B) has succumb to addiction and is not receiving the medical support necessary to beat it.

Trying to divide up these impairments and addictions into arbitrary "acceptable" and "unacceptable" categories of morality is a pointless waste of time and does nothing to realistically address problems.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

John Valdes said:


> So you are at minimum 61 years old to have been there at 13.
> I have wonder at times how old you were. Or young.
> 
> *I normally just don't say because of my wife's age and the repercussions about it from judgmental people.*
> 
> I had no idea about swabs. Any link to this?
> 
> *It was mentioned in the thread by someone else.*
> 
> Cannabis can remain in the body for a very long time. Making random drug testing unfair in states that have medical and or legal weed.
> Your use of oxycodone on the job makes this a valid argument.
> 
> You went to work taking up to 12 oxycodone pills a day with no concern or repercussion. You did say 90 per week?
> What made you any different than the guy that smoked on his own time in a legal or medical state? I think you would be more of a concern than the other guy that is on nothing.
> You even say how well you performed while on this medication.
> I find this to be hypocritical.


*Yes 90 a week, I took them round the clock. I slept about 3 hours a day. 
Everyone (Union and employers at both jobs) was aware of my prescription use. I never missed a beat or had any issues on the job. I'll also add I was the type that could drink a quart of bourbon in a day with no effects either. You also have to realize I am highly resistant to any drugs or even anesthesia. Back then I was close to 300# and was built like a typical gym rat body builder. I don't take anything for pain now or engage in bourbon at this point other than a sipping shot now and then.*


----------



## Paulusgnome

When it comes to testing for cannabis, urine testing is worse than useless because it in no way tests for impairment. All a urine test can tell is that the subject has taken some cannabis on board at some point in the last couple of weeks.
How many of use would be happy if the beers that you had on Friday night would cause you to fail an alcohol test on Monday morning because of the acetaldehyde (alcohol metabolite)in their urine?
At least the saliva test gets a bit closer to the truth - if you have smoked any cannabis in the past 6 hours, the saliva test will most likely show it but anything earlier will likely not show. This is a bit imprecise because the test is a pass/fail based on a fairly arbitrary threshold, but is still vastly better than urine testing.
I think that if the testing was fairer, then a whole lot more people would pass who are currently being excluded by a testing regime that tests for past use and does not test for impairment.


----------



## John Valdes

MechanicalDVR said:


> *Yes 90 a week, I took them round the clock. I slept about 3 hours a day.
> Everyone (Union and employers at both jobs) was aware of my prescription use. I never missed a beat or had any issues on the job. I'll also add I was the type that could drink a quart of bourbon in a day with no effects either. You also have to realize I am highly resistant to any drugs or even anesthesia. Back then I was close to 300# and was built like a typical gym rat body builder. I don't take anything for pain now or engage in bourbon at this point other than a sipping shot now and then.*


Still, you worked under the influence of narcotics and still say you did just fine.
I will stand by my point.
You were on drugs at work. Someone that tests positive for cannabis at work may not have ever ingested/smoked cannabis at work ever in their life.
You said "fire them". 



Paulusgnome said:


> When it comes to testing for cannabis, urine testing is worse than useless because it in no way tests for impairment. All a urine test can tell is that the subject has taken some cannabis on board at some point in the last couple of weeks.
> How many of use would be happy if the beers that you had on Friday night would cause you to fail an alcohol test on Monday morning because of the acetaldehyde (alcohol metabolite)in their urine?
> At least the saliva test gets a bit closer to the truth - if you have smoked any cannabis in the past 6 hours, the saliva test will most likely show it but anything earlier will likely not show. This is a bit imprecise because the test is a pass/fail based on a fairly arbitrary threshold, but is still vastly better than urine testing.
> I think that if the testing was fairer, then a whole lot more people would pass who are currently being excluded by a testing regime that tests for past use and does not test for impairment.


I agree.
Until we can test at the level we can test for alcohol, random drug testing should be stopped.
I'm not saying no to drug testing. I'm saying NO to random drug testing.


----------



## HackWork

John Valdes said:


> Still, you worked under the influence of narcotics and still say you did just fine.
> I will stand by my point.
> You were on drugs at work. Someone that tests positive for cannabis at work may not have ever ingested/smoked cannabis at work ever in their life.
> You said "fire them".


He was on doctor prescribed medication and as far as we know he was following the prescription.

One thing that you just can't get around is that weed is illegal. It's as simple as that. Weed is a Schedule 1 narcotic, _Weed has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S._ It is federally illegal. Some states try to skirt around that, but it's still illegal. 

If you choose to partake in illegal drug use, you put yourself at risk of being fired. This is called personal responsibility. 

Do I agree with weed being illegal? No. But I know that it is. 
Do I agree with the wide road with no houses on it having a 25MPH speed limit? No, but if I drive 45MPH on it I have no excuse and can't complain.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

John Valdes said:


> Still, you worked under the influence of narcotics and still say you did just fine.
> I will stand by my point.
> You were on drugs at work. Someone that tests positive for cannabis at work may not have ever ingested/smoked cannabis at work ever in their life.
> You said "fire them".


Yes I did for 6 years straight but it was still legal, if cannabis becomes legal then so be it.


----------



## mitch65

Ask the guy if he's smoking up on the job. Regardless of what he says, explain the company drug and alcohol policy.


----------



## John Valdes

MechanicalDVR said:


> Yes I did for 6 years straight but it was still legal, if cannabis becomes legal then so be it.


It is legal in several states and medical legal in several more states. More than half of the US has some sort of marijuana law. We even have medical CBD oil for medical use here in good ole SC!
Now, the feds stand is different. And I am going to assume that's going to be your next post.
But what good conservative accepts federal laws and negates state laws.


----------



## HackWork

John Valdes said:


> It is legal in several states and medical legal in several more states.


 No, John, weed is not legal anywhere in the United States.

Saying that week is legal in some states is the same as saying that being an illegal alien is legal in some cities, just because those cities choose to illegally ignore federal law.

Your gripe should be with:

A) The federal government.
B) The people who choose to do something illegal even though they know it might get them fired.


----------



## macmikeman

I'll tell you what should be illegal. Fat broads that's what. If they hit 160 lbs or greater, then automatic arrest and they go behind bars. Sick of seeing them all over the stinking place no matter where I go.


----------



## sbrn33

Cl906um said:


> I think the only reason weed isn't legal yet in many states is because a cheap way to detect levels is not yet available. You can get a swab for its presence, but the level one is hard to come by.


Why should that matter. The alcohol test is a joke. I could be .15 and my wife could be .05 and I am in waaay better shape, but she is still legal.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

John Valdes said:


> It is legal in several states and medical legal in several more states. More than half of the US has some sort of marijuana law. We even have medical CBD oil for medical use here in good ole SC!
> Now, the feds stand is different. And I am going to assume that's going to be your next post.
> But what good conservative accepts federal laws and negates state laws.


My stance is based solely on the laws of the state the person works in.


----------



## John Valdes

I spent more minutes than I want to count on answering Hax and Mechd.
I decided to not try and argue my points as it is fruitless.


----------



## HackWork

John Valdes said:


> I spent more minutes than I want to count on answering Hax and Mechd.
> I decided to not try and argue my points as it is fruitless.


You're right, it is fruitless.

I know you are a big weed proponent so it skews your view. In the end, it's illegal whether we like it or not. 

I have a friend who got fired from a great job as a teacher at a catholic school because she got pregnant and was not married to the father, who she has been with for 12 years. She knew the policy, so her complaining about being fired is asinine, IMO. 

It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. You know the rules, if you want to be a rebel, you have to be willing to accept the consequences.


----------



## Bird dog

HackWork said:


> You're right, it is fruitless.
> 
> I know you are a big weed proponent so it skews your view. In the end, it's illegal whether we like it or not.
> 
> I have a friend who got fired from a great job as a teacher at a catholic school because she got pregnant and was not married to the father, who she has been with for 12 years. She knew the policy, so her complaining about being fired is asinine, IMO.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. You know the rules, if you want to be a rebel, you have to be willing to accept the consequences.


Reminds me of the theme to "Baretta". Don't do the crime if you can't do the time ohh noh don't do it.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Bird dog said:


> Reminds me of the theme to "Baretta". Don't do the crime if you can't do the time ohh noh don't do it.


Decent theme song for back then, awesome bird old Fred was, the show eh par for the times I guess. 

There was at least one cop show on every night during those years.


----------



## Paulusgnome

HackWork said:


> ... In the end, it's illegal whether we like it or not.


I find myself wondering how my personal safety is enhanced by the drugs that my co-worker is taking being legal.
Are you saying that if said co-worker is taking a legal, prescribed drug, that is safe?


----------



## HackWork

Paulusgnome said:


> I find myself wondering how my personal safety is enhanced by the drugs that my co-worker is taking being legal.
> Are you saying that if said co-worker is taking a legal, prescribed drug, that is safe?


Did I ever say that, or anything like that? Or are you just trying to find a narrative to refute while telling us your views?

My posts were extremely clear: don't complain about losing your job if you do something that is illegal and against company policy.


----------



## TOOL_5150

Cl906um said:


> ​
> Btw. Nobody in their right mind is trying to legalize heroin.


Its already legal, in the pill form. :brows:


----------



## drewsserviceco

TOOL_5150 said:


> Its already legal, in the pill form. :brows:



How bout it!! And the pills are more dangerous due to the added acetaminophen, which was added to prevent overuse/abuse.


----------



## telsa

MechanicalDVR said:


> Decent theme song for back then, awesome bird old Fred was, the show eh par for the times I guess.
> 
> There was at least one cop show on every night during those years.


You forget: so much crime !

Honolulu, San Francisco, New York... crime was everywhere !


----------



## lighterup

macmikeman said:


> I'll tell you what should be illegal. Fat broads that's what. If they hit 160 lbs or greater, then automatic arrest and they go behind bars. Sick of seeing them all over the stinking place no matter where I go.


You need to have aheight classification to that 160lb mark


----------



## drewsserviceco

lighterup said:


> You need to have aheight classification to that 160lb mark



4'6"


----------



## lighterup

:laughing::thumbup:


drewsserviceco said:


> 4'6"


----------



## MechanicalDVR

macmikeman said:


> I'll tell you what should be illegal. Fat broads that's what. If they hit 160 lbs or greater, then automatic arrest and they go behind bars. Sick of seeing them all over the stinking place no matter where I go.


A 6' girl at 160# would look like a skeleton.


----------



## catsparky1

Hey lets do this . Lets all get f---up and go to work . 
Then report back here from the findings of our calculated scientific research program .


----------



## MechanicalDVR

catsparky1 said:


> Hey lets do this . Lets all get f---up and go to work .
> Then report back here from the findings of our calculated scientific research program .


Get up on the wrong side of the bed there bro?


----------



## catsparky1

No I had not gone to sleep yet . Working nights on a bar remodel . Staring at 45 taps of beer all night long .


----------



## MechanicalDVR

catsparky1 said:


> No I had not gone to sleep yet . Working nights on a bar remodel . Staring at 45 taps of beer all night long .


I like working nights, beer taps normally stink unless kept really clean.


----------



## Majewski

After a lot of though. I now think drugs during work hours are much needed......


----------



## Bird dog

If they start testing for caffeine, I'm in trouble.


----------



## Majewski

bird dog said:


> if they start testing for caffeine, i'm in trouble.


[email protected][email protected]#[email protected]$%#%$#fdgvvcxvcxcvxdfgxrgrxdfgfdrg


----------



## MechanicalDVR




----------



## Sparksmith

As much as I am 100% against mingling drugs and work, I can't help but entertain myself with the thought of an electrician getting caught up in "stoner behavior", like misplacing his channel-locks in the fridge or suddenly not able to come back down off of a ladder.


----------



## John Valdes

MechanicalDVR said:


>


In reality this is much more true than not. :thumbsup:


----------



## MechanicalDVR

John Valdes said:


> In reality this is much more true than not. :thumbsup:


I hear the salads and brownies are great from friends that have gone to Colorado.


----------



## JoeSparky

I had a helper about about 15 years ago that was an absolutely useless piece of . He had a really short temper too. The boss wouldn't fire him because he was a warm body and we were desperate for help. He was the only employee I have ever encouraged to smoke pot on the job. He was useless stoned or not, but his temper went away when stoned


----------



## lighterup

macmikeman said:


> I'll tell you what should be illegal. Fat broads that's what. If they hit 160 lbs or greater, then automatic arrest and they go behind bars. Sick of seeing them all over the stinking place no matter where I go.


Well according to Charles Barkley , you may want to avoid San Antonio:whistling2:


----------



## lighterup

JoeSparky said:


> I had a helper about about 15 years ago that was an absolutely useless piece of . He had a really short temper too. The boss wouldn't fire him because he was a warm body and we were desperate for help. He was the only employee I have ever encouraged to smoke pot on the job. He was useless stoned or not, but his temper went away when stoned


I worked for a builder , who thankfully , rarely showed up on his jobs.

If he showed up , eyes all bloodshot smelling of reefer , he was actually
pretty decent human being. Spoke more respectful , was able to talk
with a more friendly demeanor...BUT

If this guy showed up straight ...he was a d**k and I'm telling you if
I saw him coming , I would start heading for my "lunch hour" and if 
the d**k was showing up , it was a quick wave and ignition starting , 
gear to drive and bye bye...:laughing:


----------



## triden

MechanicalDVR said:


> A 6' girl at 160# would look like a skeleton.


I think that's how he likes them. You know his women don't smoke pot otherwise they'd be eating too many cheetos and bending his scale needle past the 160lb mark.


----------



## triden

MechanicalDVR said:


>


----------



## Missouri Bound

The legality of pot / weed / Mary Jane..or whatever you call it is not at all the issue. Someone who is under the influence can and will either hurt themselves or someone else someday. Remember that alcohol is legal everywhere but that doesn't excuse someone trying to work drunk. It's not a statement about what they do on their own time and it's frankly nobody's business. But if their habits keep them from safely performing their duties then it's a huge problem for everyone. One warning is all that is necessary. The second warning should come with a suspension. Termination is the next step.


----------



## John Valdes

Missouri Bound said:


> The legality of pot / weed / Mary Jane..or whatever you call it is not at all the issue. Someone who is under the influence can and will either hurt themselves or someone else someday. Remember that alcohol is legal everywhere but that doesn't excuse someone trying to work drunk. It's not a statement about what they do on their own time and it's frankly nobody's business. But if their habits keep them from safely performing their duties then it's a huge problem for everyone. One warning is all that is necessary. The second warning should come with a suspension. Termination is the next step.


I counted only one person in this thread that admitted to smoking cannabis at or during work hours. And then defended his actions.
99% (guessing) of the guys on this forum agree that use of any drug and or alcohol on the job is strictly prohibited and I personally look at people that insist this is okay to be at minimum a, "Moron"

Drug testing has its place. I personally do not agree with random drug testing.
But if an employee were to exhibit signs of intoxication on the job, he or she should be tested. "For Cause" I think the legal term for this?

I don't like the Monday morning surprises. This is usually when they test people. Its as if the WANT to catch someone.
Funny part is I rarely saw any management people randomly selected by the computer for drug testing.
This random computer selection seems to not really be true.
They know who they want to test and who they don't in many cases.


----------



## Missouri Bound

John Valdes said:


> I counted only one person in this thread that admitted to smoking cannabis at or during work hours.


I suspect that as the legality becomes the norm...and I expect it to there will be more and more people doing it. Then it becomes the question as to how much is tolerable? Years ago it was a 3 martini lunch that was the norm for some businessmen. And what determines a persons ability to perform after a joint or a few drinks? Simple....those around him, those supervising him. I'm not sure if you remember the **** Van **** show (yes, I'm old). The fact that he was a raging alcoholic was well known. He also polished off a bottle of booze just before he went on to do the live show......which was just about flawless every time. That being said, no way, no how am I condoning any habit, vice or action that can affect the ability of a person to do his job correctly and safely. But many think they can and often do. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. Thats just 'n stupid


----------



## John Valdes

The majority of people on this forum do not agree with any drug use on the job. That includes alcohol.


----------



## Switched

So here is an interesting test I did....

I have been having zero luck getting applications for experienced journeymen, despite a full offer of benefits and above average pay. In my advertisement I specifically state that we will perform a background check and pre-employment drug test.

I decided to just run an ad simultaneously as my normal ad that just states: Hiring experienced journeyman electricians, with the same pay & benefits.... Low and behold I started to get a decent amount of resumes. 

In the phone interview I said that we would be performing a background check and drug test. None, and I mean none, of the applicants went any further.

Rather disappointing state of affairs.


----------



## John Valdes

Switched said:


> So here is an interesting test I did....
> 
> I have been having zero luck getting applications for experienced journeymen, despite a full offer of benefits and above average pay. In my advertisement I specifically state that we will perform a background check and pre-employment drug test.
> 
> I decided to just run an ad simultaneously as my normal ad that just states: Hiring experienced journeyman electricians, with the same pay & benefits.... Low and behold I started to get a decent amount of resumes.
> 
> In the phone interview I said that we would be performing a background check and drug test. None, and I mean none, of the applicants went any further.
> 
> Rather disappointing state of affairs.


That is interesting.
If a guy can't stop for long enough to clean his system of drugs, hes not very smart.
He would also have a problem IMO.


----------



## emtnut

John Valdes said:


> That is interesting.
> If a guy can't stop for long enough to clean his system of drugs, hes not very smart.
> He would also have a problem IMO.


Is the problem that he can't give up his weed, or the problem is he has to give up weed for a month, and then worry about retesting on a day or 2 or even 'no' notice.

Or put it this way ... what if they had a 'beer' test that could see if you had a single pint in the last 30 days.

On the job .... NO WAY, including alcohol , On the weekend, I think people should be free to do what they want.
(I know your more on the pro side, but I figured I'd throw in my 2c at the same time)


----------



## Switched

In this area it would be next to impossible to find guys that don't smoke weed after work and on the weekends, this is after all a laid back California surf town....:whistling2:


----------



## HackWork

Switched, I can't wait for that entire state of junkie liberals to fall into the ocean. I will save you first though.


----------



## Switched

HackWork said:


> Switched, I can't wait for that entire state of junkie liberals to fall into the ocean. I will save you first though.


I can't either, If it does... I am poised to actually have ocean front property. I am personally all for global warming. The rising sea levels will make me a millionaire!


----------

