Company would only state, " Violation of Company Policy ", would not put in writing I failed a urininalysis. Yes, lawyer.
Advice please.

Go to GNC and get that stuff that cleans out your system in an hour and then higher a lawer, thell put you on probation and then just clean out yourself right before you go in for your tests every month or whenever they do them.

Well, my company gives the tests, if you fail you have the right to go to another doctor and get another 'more accurate' blood test to prove it wrong. That is if it is a 'false' acusation. If your trying to 'cheat' the test than the GNC stuff works. Also think this should be in OT.

[This message has been edited by newfie (edited 04-29-2004).]

Since you falsely failed, my question is this: have you done drugs in the past 4 years? If not, you can probably get a hair sample and get that tested. When it comes out clean, stick it to the company. If "maybe", take another urine test ASAP. Either way, you need to speak with a lawyer. Also, stay away from poppyseed muffins for the time being

quote Originally posted by Jason Carpenter: Go to GNC and get that stuff that cleans out your system in an hour and then higher a lawer, thell put you on probation and then just clean out yourself right before you go in for your tests every month or whenever they do them.

Random, Post Accident, may not have an hour.
I used to indulge. As the Bible ( I do believe ) says, " Everything in moderation ". People on drugs is not the problem, it is what some people do.
What is fair about doing heroine, cocaine, whatever and passing a drug test a week later. Smoke some weed and be scared for a month. Whatever, we deal with it.
Have you ever read the instructions on the one hour "miracle clean" ? Not sure about the GNC product but the ones I have seen say "for best results do not indulge for two days before the test" , "urinate as much as possible before the test" How many times can you piss in one hour?
I do not know how my thread started like it did. Was I edited ? "Yes a lawyer" was a responce to a reply I think.

Find out what kind of test was administered. The most common test, called the EMIT test, is known be somewhat unreliable. A Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) test is far more accurate and could clear things up. You might consider getting the test done yourself and then contacting a lawyer.

This site has some good info on drug testing:
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing.shtml

Bump
Any help from this time zone?

Meant to stay in Chat.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-30-2004).]

Okay, I will chime in. You can get a lawyer, however if you used in violation of the companies policy, you may not have much of a leg to stand on. You can go out and get another test done on your own if the company you work for will not retest you, however it may not be revalent and the company's laywers would likely have any test that were done on your own thrown out, simply because you have the opportunity to "flush" any potential drugs out of the system. Your argument of having to sweat longer if you use weed will not stand either. Bottom line, if you use drugs and the company that you work for has a stipulation stating that no one that is a user will remain employed, they can release (fire) you if they determine that you used drugs.

Your one saving grace may be if they refuse to retest you after the positive... if it is policy to retest any positive results... Check into it, and run with it.

Isn't there a law that companies have to allow you to go through detox the first time? I still wouldn't want to have to do that if it was false, of course.

Here is some more good info on testing, a little old, but nothing's changed much:
http://www.pdxnorml.org/bladder.html

The simple EMIT test may be fooled by drinking something, but tea is as good as anything. Makes you pee, helps flush your system out. Lots of water helps too, by flushing, and by diluting the sample. The other tests won't be so easily fooled but are more expensive so not given that often.

GL

quote Originally posted by topcat: You can go out and get another test done on your own if the company you work for will not retest you, however it may not be revalent and the company's laywers would likely have any test that were done on your own thrown out, simply because you have the opportunity to "flush" any potential drugs out of the system. Your argument of having to sweat longer if you use weed will not stand either. Your one saving grace may be if they refuse to retest you after the positive... if it is policy to retest any positive results... Check into it, and run with it.

The company could have given a follow up with another sample before I could flush my system. I expected a follow up then requested one. It was after three days (weed not an issue) that I was notified, five actually. They lost time on the weekend maybe but did retest same sample forensically. Is that in accordance to policy of retesting? Should'nt the employee have the right to be advised so he can test himself?
Drug tests have been held up to be invasion of privacy, unreasonable search and siezure. This is a right we voluntarily give up and is why we sign a consent form. We do not give up the rights of due process, equal protection, or recourse. This is rarely stated in co. policies nor listed measures we have available.
We are due protection from discrimination of handicapped. This is why the consent form also states we understand immediate termination as a result. The policies protect them. Are they required to disclose our rights?
I can go on for a while but am busy clearing out. Keep the advice and food for thought coming.
A word of advice! When you test give enough for two samples, have them seal it also with a chain of costody tracking # and keep it for yourself. Ask them for storage measures.
From time to time I get on, watch for updates. Will be interesting.
I will be in Chat. "Which is better-Cut my losses. A little bit here in Tech, same topic.

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: Isn't there a law that companies have to allow you to go through detox the first time? I still wouldn't want to have to do that if it was false, of course.

That depends. Any job I would get wouldn't be included in any kind of law like this. I don't know what industry cliffw is in, but the nuclear industry has zero tolerance, so if someone failed a test, they immediately give a followup. If they fail again, they had better go back to school, because they'll never get another job in the industry.

And this relates to tecnical Fiero dicussion, how?

Moving to TO/T.

If its truely a false reading, I know how you feel. I dont, nor ever taken any drugs. I took an annual flight physical once, sooner than expected due to a cancelation. So I go over a day early, right after lunch. I showed too high a blood sugar indicating Diabetes which immediately disqualified my licence. Turned out it was simply because I had several cans of Pepsi just before the urine test. I still had to go to the hospital and go thru this 4 hour test to prove I didnt have it before they reinstated me. Its really worse when known users get away with it, and you get falsly accused.

quote Originally posted by iluvmacs: That depends. Any job I would get wouldn't be included in any kind of law like this. I don't know what industry cliffw is in, but the nuclear industry has zero tolerance, so if someone failed a test, they immediately give a followup. If they fail again, they had better go back to school, because they'll never get another job in the industry.

Same deal for civilians working on military installations. Zero tolerance. There are certain industries that just can't afford to have someone under the influence. I guess that is the price one pays to play.

I'm confused. WHen you say false, do you mean you have never done drugs, or you mean you have done them months ago? If so, what drug, and what showed up?

Were you falsely accused? Or did you do it but not for awhile? I'm getting mixed signals from you. If you were falsely accused, I'd go for it and find any way to get your job back with pay for the time you were fighting it. But, on the other hand if it's only been awhile and you did do it. I don't know what you can do.

I guess I just don't get this whole drug thing. If you know you are getting tested, and you don't know when you are, then why risk the chance of getting busted. You probably had to sign a paper when you were hired to the fact that you would be terminated if you tested positive, didn't you? I don't know, I don't think I would ever risk my families welfare just to get high. But that's just me. I don't have drug tests at work but I do drive for a living and if I get my license suspended I lose my job. Now, I absolutely love to speed and whip around corners but I don't do it anymore because I don't want to risk the chance of losing my license, therefore my job, my house, my family...etc.

Whatever happens I wish you luck.

Poppy seed begals / buns..ect. will cause you to fail a drug screen.

Drug testing it makes criminals out of ordinary people.

I'm with Fierogirls-Mom.

I'm not for sure if you were falsely accused or you really did do drugs and hence, failed their UAT. I hate to say this, but if you are doing drugs then you deserved to get canned from your job. If that is the company policy, and I don't blame them, why should you get a second chance?

But the subject of this thread is Falsely... So I'm assuming that. Is your employer under Union Contract? Is it a good job? Do you want to go back?

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 05-02-2004).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Poppy seed begals / buns..ect. will cause you to fail a drug screen.

Maybe with older drug testing methods, but not with more current ones..

quote Drug testing it makes criminals out of ordinary people.

No it doesn't. For example, alcohol is perfectly legal yet has no place at my job. There's nothing criminal about preventing people under the influence of alcohol or drugs from operating millions of pounds of rail equipment and dangerous commodities at high speeds.

Anyone else get the feeling that there's a LOT of this story we're not being told? I work in an industry that the federal governments mandates the employees be monitored by drug and alcohol testing. I've been tested more times than I could possibly remember. Now my employer even requires new applicants to submit a hair sample for analysis of any recent drug use. I actually think it's pretty generous that we're allowed 2 failures within a 10 year period before being terminated. My employer also tries to work with people by offering treatment programs for substance abusers and some folks have been through them multiple times. I've yet to see anyone get terminated for failing a drug and alcohol test who didn't deserve it. If you understand the conditions of your employment and conscientiously choose to not abide by them, I see little reason for sympathy, implications of smoking pot a month ago included.

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: No it doesn't. For example, alcohol is perfectly legal yet has no place at my job. There's nothing criminal about preventing people under the influence of alcohol or drugs from operating millions of pounds of rail equipment and dangerous commodities at high speeds.

CRIMINAL:
Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
Relating to the administration of penal law.

Guilty of crime.
Characteristic of a criminal.
Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.

Tell me how a person that tests positive for drugs is not a criminal and is "punnished" for this "crime" by loosing their job..

Ecxcuse me?
But loosing a job for having a "controlled substance" in your system is a far cry from operating equipment or working "under the influence".
What one does OUTSIDE of work IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. Drug testing IS an invasion of the "right to privacy".

If I walked trough the door of your business wreaking of alcohol or pot smoke then YES we have a problem and I will not argue. IF I am unable to complete my "work" with a proficient level of competancy then you can "fire" me and can rightly do so.

Onto this BS

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: Anyone else get the feeling that there's a LOT of this story we're not being told? I work in an industry that the federal governments mandates the employees be monitored by drug and alcohol testing. I've been tested more times than I could possibly remember. Now my employer even requires new applicants to submit a hair sample for analysis of any recent drug use. I actually think it's pretty generous that we're allowed 2 failures within a 10 year period before being terminated. My employer also tries to work with people by offering treatment programs for substance abusers and some folks have been through them multiple times. I've yet to see anyone get terminated for failing a drug and alcohol test who didn't deserve it. If you understand the conditions of your employment and conscientiously choose to not abide by them, I see little reason for sympathy, implications of smoking pot a month ago included.

Yet another way of seperating the masses into two catagories but does not take into account the 300 pound "drug abusing" fat ass that orders two whoppers with cheese, large fries, two chocolate pies and a diet coke at buger king and DRIVES the health care cost through the roof because of triple bypass surgery.

OH yeah, that is "A" Ok and perfectly acceptable. I have news. to exclude a "drug abuser" in favor of another drug abuser is total crap!
If it is OK to stay out of a 300 pound fatso's life then this guy SHOULD be afforded the same rights.

End of story.

All you have to stand on is THE LAW and this "law" is not realistic because it VIOLATES other laws.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-02-2004).]

How do you know that the person that indulges in illicit drugs is not under the influence while at work? Some drugs will not give the tell-tale signs of being used without testing. You can not smell cocaine on a person after they use it. Also think about how some that are strung out will sell their children for a fix, would they be willing to steal from their employer to get a fix?

When you are hired, it has to be listed as a condition of employment, and the person accepting the job signs something saying they will submit to the drug testing. Therefore it is not an invasion of privacy. If you do not wish that part of your life to be examined, then do not take the job, and look elsewhere.

quote Originally posted by topcat: How do you know that the person that indulges in illicit drugs is not under the influence while at work? Some drugs will not give the tell-tale signs of being used without testing. You can not smell cocaine on a person after they use it.

If you can't obviously "detect it" by "impaired" work performance then what may I ask is the problem?

quote Originally posted by topcat: Also think about how some that are strung out will sell their children for a fix, would they be willing to steal from their employer to get a fix?

Now this is the difference between "ABUSE" and "USE".

Drug "usage" DOES NOT automaticly constitue abuse. There is a clear distinction between the two. Use is fine, abuse is bad. One is a responsible approach the other is iresponsible.

If this guy was beating up his co-workers or absent all the time then that would constitute an "abuse" and drugs MAY be the root cause.

Since he has not indicated anything like this other than an ordinary "invasion of his privacy" I can logically conclude that he did NOT abuse drugs and his only guilt if any was "allowing an invasion of his privacy" by his employer. A law that was written to STRIP people of their right to privacy or live a life in exile for doing nothing more than a 300 pound fatso does.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-02-2004).]

Impaired work perfomance is not the only issue at stake, Impaired judgement is also something to consider.

[This message has been edited by topcat (edited 05-02-2004).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: CRIMINAL: Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse. Relating to the administration of penal law. Guilty of crime. Characteristic of a criminal. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent. Tell me how a person that tests positive for drugs is not a criminal and is "punnished" for this "crime" by loosing their job..

Has this person been convicted of a crime in court through the established judicial system? No. The only way I could see the term "criminal" being applied in these situations is that the person who voluntarilly agreed to company policies as a condition of their employement and then knowingly and deliberately chooses to violate them is indeed being shameful, disgraceful, and a probable waste of talent.

quote But loosing a job for having a "controlled substance" in your system is a far cry from operating equipment or working "under the influence". What one does OUTSIDE of work IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. Drug testing IS an invasion of the "right to privacy". If I walked trough the door of your business wreaking of alcohol or pot smoke then YES we have a problem and I will not argue. IF I am unable to complete my "work" with a proficient level of competancy then you can "fire" me and can rightly do so.

I agree that what one does outside of work is their own busuness with the stipulation that the any effects of said outside behavior do not follow them back into the workplace, which, unfortunately, is all too often the case with substance abusers. And one does not have to reek of alcohol or drugs for their mental capacity and work performance to be diminished.

quote Yet another way of seperating the masses into two catagories but does not take into account the 300 pound "drug abusing" fat ass that orders two whoppers with cheese, large fries, two chocolate pies and a diet coke at buger king and DRIVES the health care cost through the roof because of triple bypass surgery. OH yeah, that is "A" Ok and perfectly acceptable. I have news. to exclude a "drug abuser" in favor of another drug abuser is total crap! If it is OK to stay out of a 300 pound fatso's life then this guy SHOULD be afforded the same rights.

So exactly what does eating fast food or obesity have to do with abusing substances that affect your mental capacity?

quote All you have to stand on is THE LAW and this "law" is not realistic because it VIOLATES other laws.

Well then perhaps you elaborate on why drug testing hasn't been banned altogether. But since it's probably because as is often the case your interpretation is wrong, I'm sure we'll now instead be treated to another irrelevent tangent such as the lame obesity analogy above.

the last half-dozen posts are amusing. but i'm still waiting for cliffw to answer fierogirls-mom's question.

My buddy went in to get a drug test.
I blazed a blunt with him before he went to it.

When he got the results the doctors were all confused. He was so high off the scale that they thought the test screwd up somewhere. lol
He was like 3X over their consideration of a "heavy smoker".

Its nice up here. Its illegal for a drug test to be taken in consideration for employment.
Only in some situations this isnt true.

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer:

You seem like to generalize people who do drugs as "impaired" but that is typical propoganda and is readily eaten up by the uneducated lemmings who just go along with the "program". I happen to know more truth about drugs, addiction and abuse. There are MANY addictions and abuses like my example of over eating.

There is not enough evidence to support your theory that a person who smoked pot over the weekend, he or she is any more or less capable of doing their job.

If one passes the "probation" period and has proven themselves capable then what may I ask do drugs have to do with it if done at home?
Now if job performance "drops off" then what may I ask is the problem in fireing them and hireing another person? You have yet to answer my questions, you and many others only spout off baseless "facts" about "drugs = bad" so much that I almost feel you are pre-programmed.

The way I see it drugs have NOTHING to do with work at all.
Please tell me where they do and how it can be corrected? You seem so wise to this stuff yet you sound like a broken record.

Even airline pilots can fly 8 hours after drinking, the rule is called "8 hours bottle to throttle " something to mull over next time you board an airplane.
Alcohol levels will have dropped by then but will not have completely vanished from the system. The point I'm making is there are far more airline accidents due to pilot error when they have not even had anything to drink and some have been caused by heart attack from an improper diet.

Drugs do not impair people when they are done OUTSIDE of work. What one does at home is personal and private and the masses SHOULD NOT be subjected to random drug tests. Employers really need to hire people and fire people based on job performance and NOT personl and private matters they have NO BUSINESS being involved in.

For all you know I am straight as an arrow but how can you tell? You can't and I do not have to divulge my personal matters with you or anyone to get and keep my job. All I have to do is DO my job and if I can't well then maybe I'll take up basket weaving and be the best damn basket weaver this side of the mississippi river, I may need to tourque up a bowl just to keep my sanity while doing it but I won't be able to get a job at a basket weaving factory because of mandatory drug testing...... That is just plain ridiculous.

Nuff said.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-02-2004).]

Well this is the first time i've read through this thread and I must say, it is getting really interesting.

I love how using drugs is justified here.....regaurdless of what the situation may be....and regaurdless of what you think about drugs on a personal level, the bottom line is drugs are ILLEGAL. And by law, for an employer to give a drug test, you have to sign for it upon your being hired into the company. So if you go home at 5 o'clock and smoke a joint, and 9 o'clock the next day, they want to test you, well thats the risk you took at 5 o'clock the day before. If you know you might get tested and you do drugs, and you get caught, well thats your own freakin fault. If you don't agree with an employer drug testing, well then go find a job else where.

Think of it this way....would you want Ozzy Osborne to build your childs swing set? Hell I wouldn't....that dude is WAYY beyond fried from all the drugs he's done....and to think...hes not high anymore....yet the guy can hardley function.

If you ask me...I think alchohol should be illegal and weed not illegal.....bc I feel as if alcohol causes more damage....but thats not the way it is...its the oposite...and regaurdless of if we like it or not, thats the way things are.....

Just my .2 cents

quote Originally posted by lurker: the last half-dozen posts are amusing. but i'm still waiting for cliffw to answer fierogirls-mom's question.

but.. i asked it first!!

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: You seem like to generalize people who do drugs as "impaired" but that is typical propoganda and is readily eaten up by the uneducated lemmings who just go along with the "program". I happen to know more truth about drugs, addiction and abuse. There are MANY addictions and abuses like my example of over eating.

For someone supposedly so knowledgable about the subject, you are doing and extremely poor job of doing anything but lashing out fellow members who have poked holes with ease in the weak and ludicrous claims you have put forth thus far.

quote There is not enough evidence to support your theory that a person who smoked pot over the weekend, he or she is any more or less capable of doing their job.

Maybe not for the first time or extremely rare user, but there is a substantial amount of evidence indicating that people who use drugs over time do have a tendency to be less productive and of lower mental faculty. And there is NO way to ensure that they AREN'T bringing the residual effects of their substance abuse into the workplace.

quote If one passes the "probation" period and has proven themselves capable then what may I ask do drugs have to do with it if done at home? Now if job performance "drops off" then what may I ask is the problem in fireing them and hireing another person? You have yet to answer my questions, you and many others only spout off baseless "facts" about "drugs = bad" so much that I almost feel you are pre-programmed.

First off, I could only find one actual question in your previous replies to this thread, and I did indeed answer it. Making unfounded and easily disproven accusations only further diminishes what little amount of credibility you originally brought with you to the thread.

By the very nature of testing positive for illicit drug use, employees found to be using said illicit drugs have just been shown to be willing to engage in illegal activitiy. That automatically raises suspiscions about what other sorts of illegal or unethical activity they may be or may be willing to engage in. If they are also in open violation of company policies to which they agreed to be bound by as a condition of their employment, that only further demonstrates both a lack of respect for the company and a willingness to be unethical. In short, untrustworthy. Not exactly the sort of employee or coworker I'd like to have around.

If a drug abusing employee has access to classified or sensitive information, it's possible they can present a security threat for a variety of reasons. You already seem to be in agreement that equipment operators shouldn't be impaired to any degree.

Terms like "impaired" and "proficient" are open to a fairly wide range of interpretations and I can guarantee that union types, lawyers, etc, would have an absolute field day with a manager or company trying to dismiss an employee for such causes. Better to have a clear, simple zero tolerance type of policy that's easy to both understand and apply uniformly.

Additionally, in our litigious society, companies can be and are held liable for the actions and behaviors of their employees. Even a hint of tolerating an employee with known drug use and possible impairments can compound those liabilities. I can't blame employers one bit for doing what they can within reasonable limits to shield themselves from the liabilities and risks of employees who use drugs and potentially bring the effects into the workplace.

quote The way I see it drugs have NOTHING to do with work at all. Please tell me where they do and how it can be corrected? You seem so wise to this stuff yet you sound like a broken record.

So let me get this straight, you think that employers spend considerable amounts of money to attract, recruit, screen, and train employees just so they can later turn around and fire them for what in your opinion is a minor reason like drug and alcohol abuse? If you truly believe that, then I suppose we can end this little debate right now as I have no interest in continuing on against someone who obviously has no common sense.

quote Even airline pilots can fly 8 hours after drinking, the rule is called "8 hours bottle to throttle " something to mull over next time you board an airplane. Alcohol levels will have dropped by then but will not have completely vanished from the system. The point I'm making is there are far more airline accidents due to pilot error when they have not even had anything to drink and some have been caused by heart attack from an improper diet.

8 hours is plenty of time for an average human body to absorb and metabolize an amount of alcohol that one would reasonably expect to be consumed. Has it yet occurred to you that the reason more accidents are attributable to pilot error instead of impairment is precisely because current regulations regarding drug and alcohol testing are so effective?

quote Drugs do not impair people when they are done OUTSIDE of work. What one does at home is personal and private and the masses SHOULD NOT be subjected to random drug tests. Employers really need to hire people and fire people based on job performance and NOT personl and private matters they have NO BUSINESS being involved in.

I agree, just don't bother coming back to work until ALL of the residual affects of said drug use are gone. Doubly so if you've willingly entered into an agreement stating that you won't and outlining the consequences of you breaking that agreement. And for whatever it's worth, the masses are not subject to random drug tests as you stated. Only if they have willingly entered into an agreement with another private party. Don't want to piss in a jar when asked, don't enter an agreement saying that you will. It's really not all that complicated.

quote For all you know I am straight as an arrow but how can you tell? You can't and I do not have to divulge my personal matters with you or anyone to get and keep my job. All I have to do is DO my job and if I can't well then maybe I'll take up basket weaving and be the best damn basket weaver this side of the mississippi river, I may need to tourque up a bowl just to keep my sanity while doing it but I won't be able to get a job at a basket weaving factory because of mandatory drug testing...... That is just plain ridiculous.

Frankly, I don't really care if you abuse drugs and furthermore I think you should be happy to have your basket weaving job that allows you to both maintain your employment and abuse drugs. Sounds like you've found a perfect solution vfor your needs, as should anyone else who chooses to abuse drugs. Now was it really all that difficult to finally arrive at this conclusion?

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer:

Drug users are no more or less abt to commit a crime just because the "crime" is a bogus law, that is in itself a violation of civil liberties.
In other words it is illegal to make laws against "drug use" and in fact there are none. Drugs are "controlled" in such a way that they are unobtainable without permission from the government. If you don't have the expressed permission of the government to have a drug in your "possesion" then you are a bad guy. If it is in your system then you must have "posessed" it and you are therefore guilty.

Bad cerdit is another reason to be excluded from obtaining employment, again it is the minimization of liability based on the propensity of a person to steal because they have money problems. I seem to recall an actress accused of stealing dresses from a store. Thing is she could easily buy them. Again the basis of exclusion for a precieved "fault" (drug use, financial status, education, ect. ect.) is a bunch of crap.

Can you dig that man?

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-03-2004).]

I'm going to make a observation on experience here. I have found that people who smoke pot on occasion are more productive than those who smoke cigerettes. Cigertte smokers take a average of 2 hours per day fixing thier habit during the work day. What is legal and illegal is a matter of social acceptance which changes constantly.

I'll disagree that those who smoke weed will become more addictive to harder drugs. In my opinion smoking weed would be similar to a occasional drinker. So by the standards I'm hearing if you drink on occasion your very apt to become a drunk who drinks nothing but hard liquor. I think thats a far stretch. I'm not for or against weed, I personally don't do it anymore, or drink for that matter. I have my GT to work on which simulates me more than any drugs or drinking . I think this is part of the main problems with any addiction and why many get started. Lack of interest, or external simulation do to many reasons. Peer pressure, depression, etc. The group you hang with will determine which type of abuse you will do because of accessability.

Just a few thoughts.

quote Originally posted by FieroGT87: Just a few thoughts.

Good healty observation.

Yesterday I blew through a (just changed) red light, I was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.... I just was not paying attention and that is all it takes for an accident to happen. I am much much more carefull when I have a few beers. Running a red light would not have happend, I know this for a fact, I don't even have the radio on or try to multitask while driving "under the influence". I don't drink and drive anymore because it is a scapegoat that can be used to lock me up even for a first offense. Thing is I am less likely to be arrested when I cause an accident for fumbeling with the radio dial or just day dreaming as was the case yesterday. As a matter of fact I did that alot less than if I was "running the gauntlet" in an illegal manner, I didn't want to get busted and throw in jail for a stupid and common mistake.

I would like to add that making drugs illegal and lowering the BAL has had an effect on accidents involving users of those drugs.
As far as I can see accidents still happen, theft still happens and murder still happens. WHY? because people are stupid and they do stupid things.

Enron was NOT run by a bunch of unemployed people with drug problems and bad credit. The 2 car crashes I saw yesterday we probably not related to drugs and alcohol but more one person was not paying attention to the road.... I assume and I'm probably right. A vast majority of incidents and accidents are a result of someone not paying attention to what they are doing or already have a plan to do something wrong. Drugs an alcohol are nothing more than a mitigation of responsibility of ones actions, it's that simple.

I can only speek for myself but when I did drink or do drugs then drive I made damn well sure I didn't make any mistakes. I wasn't paranoind, I was just extra carefull. I have NEVER been issued a citation or been busted while driving under the influence but I have been issued citations for driving violations. luck, maybe? Not like I have never driven past a cop plasterd or had one follow me, I was just carefull not to do anything obviously out of the ordinary that will draw attention to myself.

I feel I just avoided it by knowing MY limitations when "impaired". I was no less likely to blow through a red light when uner the influence because when the light turns yellow I stepped on the brake pedal weather impaired or not.
When I drive, my job is to pay attention and sometimes I slip up, being under the influence is not the problem. I make mistakes and I know what ones will get me into trouble and try to avoid them as best I can but even the best laid plans can change in an instant.

I did alot of driving under the influence in my day but I don't do it at all anymore because it aint worth it.
I am still just as likely to get into an accident but I won't be charged for driving under the influence, that's for damn sure!

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-03-2004).]

quote Originally posted by FieroGT87: I'm going to make a observation on experience here. I have found that people who smoke pot on occasion are more productive than those who smoke cigerettes. Cigertte smokers take a average of 2 hours per day fixing thier habit during the work day. What is legal and illegal is a matter of social acceptance which changes constantly.

I agree with the cigarette comment. Lots of folks I work with blow hours during they day puffing on cigs behind the building. However, all the folks I have known that smoked weed have had almost zero ambition beyond what it took to get more money for weed and pay the rent. Thats not to say that they are not productive, because they are, but there is no ambition there beyond pot money. That's unfortunate.

Bill, I hadn't thought about that very much but you are right about your focus while "under the influence". Mainly because we know if we get pulled over the problems associated with it are not good from alegal stand point. The people who drink/smoke and drive and are habitual and don't care or pay attention to the outcome. I has nothing to do with being drunk or high, it's the attitude associated with that person and their concern with how it affects other people.

In a nutshell who cannot group all people who use weed or drink in the same catagory, for the reason Bill stated. Some people don't care and this has nothing to do with using or drinking. People use this as the excuse as to why something bad happened. It's easier to accept than saying that person is just a bad apple from the get go.

DJRice,

I'll agree that maybe 50% fit that catagory. But stop and think about all the celebrities that use drugs. They have plenty of ambition and money. The just get bored or depressed and look for a outlet, again look a accessiblity within a culture or class of people. Most people in middle to lower incomes use weed because it's cheap. There are the exceptions in this class in which theft and robbery become necessary to support the habit with harder drugs. But drugs and drinking can become a addictition, which I don't think anyone is arguing.

quote Originally posted by FieroGT87: Bill, I hadn't thought about that very much but you are right about your focus while "under the influence". Mainly because we know if we get pulled over the problems associated with it are not good from alegal stand point. The people who drink/smoke and drive and are habitual and don't care or pay attention to the outcome. I has nothing to do with being drunk or high, it's the attitude associated with that person and their concern with how it affects other people. In a nutshell who cannot group all people who use weed or drink in the same catagory, for the reason Bill stated. Some people don't care and this has nothing to do with using or drinking. People use this as the excuse as to why something bad happened. It's easier to accept than saying that person is just a bad apple from the get go.

What it all boils down to is responsibility. Pissing into a bottle will not and should not determine it.

I know people that do not do any drugs and I prefer not to associate with them because they are arrogant and irresponsible. Unlike my daily drug doing friends that are far more responsible and level headed, their lives are not revolving around stabbing people in the back in order to get respect or finacial gain.