SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Oregon ended marijuana prohibition at midnight Wednesday, joining Colorado, Washington state, Alaska and the District of Columbia in legalizing recreational use of the drug.
The new law means Oregon likely will reap benefits that appear to have followed legalization elsewhere: Reduced crime, from a legal industry supplanting a black market; higher tax revenue, once weed is legal to sell; and police forces and courts unburdened by droves of misdemeanor pot offenders.
Oregon voters in November approved Measure 91 with 56 percent of the vote. As of now, adults 21 and older can legally possess up to eight ounces of marijuana inside their home and up to one ounce outside. Adults can grow up to four plants per household, out of public view.
Sign of the times.
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:45PM
sigh. even the conservative governments are starting to ease up. but industry? pfffft! in a pig's eye. they are in love with the idea of drug testing you. I have no clue why but they seem to think they get better people (??) that way. don't know.
here in calif, I was close to taking a job - and then the recruiter told me that a piss test is needed. for a software job, doing REST api work on a disk drive/storage system. yeah, when I'm driving a forklift full of heavy drives, I better not have any 'chemicals' in me. yup. oh wait, I'm NOT applying for a forklift driver position, I write code. oh, in that case, I have no idea what the fuck the employer is thinking, but I told the recruiter 'sorry, I am not interested in this one, now'.
what the hell is wrong with you employers? is it a republican mentality you have: that if others enjoy themselves, there must be some crime in it? or your puritanical roots? or fear of the government bothering you? for some jobs, the gov does butt into your business but hard to believe they are forcing software companies to test their employees, on non-gov projects.
and fwiw, many of the REST apis I've seen are so bad, they could USE a guy who has had alternate 'views' of things (lol).
if it maters, its a japanese (named) company but located in the bay area. huge company; maybe its the home office, in japan, that is stuck in the past and refuses to modernize how it treats its workforce.
what is your experience working for japanese or other asian companies? do they freak-out if you engage in such activities on your own time and outside of work? is this in other countries, as well? suppose it was sony (its not); and suppose sony is drug testing its local US employees. does sony (again, as an example) test its employees in all other countries, as well? I wonder if its even legal in many countries to have companies assume you are 'bad' unless proven otherwise.
there are quite a few companies, and some US-based ones, too, here in the bay area that continue to 'test'. boggles the mind that they want to reject some of the best and most creative software guys I've ever known and worked with, based on an outdated and inapplicable moral view that is not widely held anymore, at least within the youth that they are now going to have to hire exclusively from.
so, its great that states are loosening up; but if you can't get a job in those states, its still a lock-out for your lifestyle.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:50PM
Not that I agree with it entirely, but I found this to be an interesting read (from a company that, obviously, makes money on drug tests): http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/companies/employer/drug-screening/testing-reasons/why-drug-test.html [questdiagnostics.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Thursday July 02 2015, @02:48PM
Why Drug Test? [questdiagnostics.com]
Employees who abuse drugs are 2.5 times more likely than other non-substance abusing coworkers to be absent for >8 days. Drug abusers are 3.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident at work and 5 times more likely to file a workers compensation claim. 44% of abusers have sold drugs to other employees and 18% have stolen from co-workers to support their habit.
It seems to all boil down to be a more profitable peon and secondary treating co-workers nicely. The first reason should not be underestimated.
"much of the cost resulting from lost work productivity and increased healthcare spending."
Well perhaps they should have a fast food and stress test too..
Oh WAIT the stress test may reflect on incompetent management. No-go ;)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Thursday July 02 2015, @03:02PM
And as usual, there is confusion between "drug user" and "drug abuser". Because, of course, we all know, if a drug is made illegal by the federal government, then any use of that drug is abuse. </sarcasm>
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 02 2015, @03:36PM
Perhaps drug use consequences and probability for specific things to occur?
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday July 03 2015, @01:44PM
That's the reason for the sarcasm tag at the end of my comment - there's no connection between "drug use consequences and probability for specific things to occur" and where a drug ends up on the DEA's "schedule" of narcotics. If there was, marijuana would be off the schedule and alcohol would be Schedule I (which is basically the "if we catch you with this, we'll throw you in prison for a while" group).
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @06:36PM
But there is a lot of wiggle room in their statistics that they don't want you to look at too closely.
Nowhere does it say that these absences are drug related, (correlation / causation), or the result of arrests for mere possession which will not happen now that it is legal. (In fact the 8 day absence sounds more like an alcoholic's relapse than anything else.)
Further they lump all drugs together, and gloss over the fact that Alcohol is thrown in there too. Toss those out and everything looks different. Current testing methods can't aren't capable of distinguishing a marijuana yesterday from a joint smoked during today's coffee break.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Thursday July 02 2015, @10:54PM
Current testing methods can't aren't capable of distinguishing a marijuana yesterday from a joint smoked during today's coffee break.
You're right. Better smoke a marijuana on coffee break every day just to be sure you're getting high.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 02 2015, @11:13PM
Employees using alcohol is perhaps neither a good idea. But I guess you say that drug (as in cannabis etc) users are less prone to upset the workplace?
Another risk down the road is peer pressure to smoke weed just like drinking alcohol is today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @06:50AM
What do you mean "down the road"? There's a lot more peer pressure to smoke weed than drink, because its illegal.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday July 02 2015, @09:15PM
What's "drug abuse"?
What about the workers' rights to do what they want outside of work?
Here's a thought: measure absenteeism and performance rather than urine.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 02 2015, @11:18PM
If you look at the text in my post that says "drug abuse" it's the drug testing company that generated it.
As for work. Only performance and courtesy should be the important factors to benchmark employees to.
(Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Friday July 03 2015, @06:25AM
I went to the website. It's obviously from the company selling the tests. There are citations, but these aren't peer-reviewed publications. They're all links to the same website and going to those links tells you nothing about how those numbers were generated. We don't even know how "abuser" is defined. Without that, their claims are meaningless.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mcgrew on Thursday July 02 2015, @05:25PM
Interesting but flawed in this context. They throw marijuana in with heroin and cocaine and speak of "abusers". An abuser goes to work stoned or drinking, but there is no good test for marijuana intoxication, only if it's present in your system. Unlike cocaine or heroin, pot will show up for a month.
Just because someone uses a substance doesn't mean they abuse that substance. I like beer, but I never drank while I was at work, and I won't drive after drinking it. But drug testing for pot is akin to demanding that your employees never have a beer.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @06:41PM
Worse than that, they include Alcohol, then use a broad brush to paint all drugs as equally bad.
In Washington state cops are still motor vehicle testing accident cases for Marijuana, and making a big deal about it in their press releases, but losing case in court simply because the tests only indicate metabolites, and not intoxicants. The lapdog press makes no attempt to investigate these points.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:58PM
Weed is fine for rock musicians, artists and other creative people. And college kids are experiment with weed so there's no sense in going after them (except the big pushers, maybe).
I happen to think that regular moderate to heavy use detracts from long term performance in many fields. And it does so in a different way than tobacco or alcohol - these are three completely different drugs, with different effects. The people who I know or have suspected of being users (by their eyes) just seem a little bit slower, more set in their ways, as if smoking weed aged their brains 15-20 years or something. So I don't think outright legalization is a good move.
And yes, there are scientific studies that seem to indicate a link between heavy pot use and neurological damage, but there is no scientific consensus at this point. I'm worried that by the time consensus has been reached, pot will be legal in all 50 states, same as with tobacco (I'm leaving alcohol aside because the prohibition here was tried and lasted only a few years).
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 02 2015, @02:13PM
Aged brains.. easier to compete for others then?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02 2015, @02:26PM
If you mean do I think it's easier to compete against a pothead vs. someone similar in age, background, and natural ability who doesn' t use, the answer is yes. I'd rather have higher performing coworkers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bart9h on Thursday July 02 2015, @02:14PM
Regular moderate to heavy use indeed can detract from long term performance, but that don't justify the test. THC stay detectable in the blood for a long time, and even light usage can get you on the test. The performance should be evaluated on practical terms.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:01PM
There's a problem with this idea: we already have legal alcohol, and people who are heavy drinkers likewise have permanent body damage: liver problems, obesity ("beer belly"), physical aging (they tend to look older), etc. I imagine it affects their minds too. Same too with cigarettes; I seriously doubt 1000 heavy cigarette smokers at the age of 50 will perform as well as 1000 50yo non-smokers.
Any recreational drug used heavily in the long term is going to have detrimental effects on your body and mind. So why single out marijuana? If you're going to keep alcohol, which seems to be worse in most ways, legal, then you need to do the same for pot. If you're going to ban pot because it's bad for you, then you need to do the same with alcohol, regardless of how much crime and violence this causes (since, after all, banning pot has done the exact same thing).
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday July 03 2015, @12:00AM
So I don't think outright legalization is a good move.
Then you're an authoritarian who values physical safety over fundamental liberties. Congratulations on being an enemy to freedom, in a very similar way that people who support mass surveillance and the TSA are.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02 2015, @02:06PM
I would never hire a pot-head. They tend to run at the mouth and ignore capitalization.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:07PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 02 2015, @02:25PM
Not a republican mentality at all. Two things drive corporations to drug test everyone. First, there is the boss's innate desire to control every fucking thing around him, including your time off. Second, is the insurance industry. There is nothing partisan about this thing at all. But, there is a somewhat lesser factor. The drug testing people are making lots of money, so they can afford to lobby the state and federal capitals to ensure that drug testing isn't decreased in the near future.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Thursday July 02 2015, @02:42PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday July 02 2015, @02:49PM
Right, and that's a risk. If a genuinely social conservative enforcement regime comes back to the white house, they have established authority and precedent to arrest people in all these states.
Congress needs to amend federal Marijuana laws to only recognize intent to sell across national or state borders as a federal crime. I mean, full legalization would be nice, but "only de facto legal because Obama's AG agreed to stop arresting people for it" isn't good enough.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @06:59PM
Social conservative enforcement still has to answer to State's Rights advocates, which at this time is a much stronger and growing group than the former. That is why recreational marijuana is being implemented state by state, and each state requires in-state production.
There is a court battle waiting in the wings, when the feds do try to step into a recreational state, because of the language in the Tenth Amendment [constitutioncenter.org]. Once a state undertakes regulation, the feds must step back. (Or so the reasoning goes.)
The Federal government is in no particular hurry to test (and probably lose) this in court.
Another interesting issue is brought into play here, as Washington and Oregon share a border, and may drop any objection to imports from other recreational states. Are the DEA going to now set up check points on the I5 corridor?
Horse has fled the barn if you ask me. There are several states where recreational marijuana is fighting for a ballot slot, and as the citizens in those states look at the utter lack of total destruction and mayhem caused in Washington and Colorado, it will almost surely pass.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:04PM
"States rights advocates" universally seem to shut up completely the moment those regimes come in. Because the vast majority of those people are seeking to advocate for the states' rights to unreasonably apply socially or economically conservative positions. The details of the different "debates" being settled that way are sufficiently distinct, that I'm not going to try extend that umbrella further, but there's a lot history of "states rights" being a cover for anti-human rights, once those rights start to become central to the national debate, that I can't honestly buy into your position.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:16PM
Its been rather apparent over the last many months you don't buy into any opinion but your own. So no great loss here.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:31PM
you don't buy into any opinion but your own
I am very suspicious of anyone who would buy opinions, and even more suspicious of anyone who is only interesting in investing in opinions rather than owning them free and clear. Borrowed or stolen opinions are, in fact, not opinions at all, but lies, facades, pretenses, or propaganda. So what would you have a poor Soylentil do, fro? Not have opinions? Or purchase them second hand?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:54PM
I suggest most are given (foisted?) free (as in beer) to any who will listen, and the price to be paid comes later, mostly by at least tacitly allowing that some part of your prior operating assumptions may have flaws, and the learning curve imposed to incorporate new ideas into the old.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday July 03 2015, @12:18AM
and the learning curve imposed to incorporate new ideas into the old.
Ah! We agree! I have always maintained there is no such thing as intellectual property, because ideas cannot be transferred, as anyone who has tried teaching knows. It is the intellectual labor that makes the idea your own, so I think we can say that opinions are based on a labor theory of value (hey, Marx was right!), rather than a market or exchange value. So, what was the original point?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:11PM
"You're disagreeing with me, thus a singleminded zealot." That's a shallow counterargument that combines an easy ad hominem with a bare assertion.
I was disagreeing with you because my opinion differs from yours and discussions are a way to seek, but not always get, clarity about why those differences exist. Occasionally that can be really enlightening, and while, no, you've not convinced me of anything, I can certainly recall a few discussions that led to me reconsidering a point.
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Friday July 03 2015, @12:51AM
there's a lot history of "states rights" being a cover for anti-human rights
Beginning with the first time out of the gate for states' rights: the right to keep slaves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @01:15AM
And the most recent time: the right to treat non-heterosexuals as sub-human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @12:03AM
Right, and that's a risk. If a genuinely social conservative enforcement regime comes back to the white house, they have established authority and precedent to arrest people in all these states.
The constitution does not actually grant the federal government the power to ban drugs. The commerce clause is being abused in absolutely ridiculous ways by authoritarians in the courts and the rest of the government. They're not actually acting under any legitimate authority.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Thursday July 02 2015, @04:50PM
Not solely puritan or republican but all stemmed from alarmist propaganda and bullshit.
Since drugs are illegal, it is a crime to use them. It is also a crime to steal and murder someone. All crime is bad for society. So if you use drugs, you are a criminal in the same way a murderer or thief is a criminal. You willingly broke the law! Would you want criminals working for you? Of course not! If they can't be trusted to obey the law, how can they be trusted to obey the rules of your work place and follow instruction?
So the image of the drug user is that of a criminal. And if they have no problem breaking the law when they use drugs, what stops them from breaking other laws? So hey if they have no problem smoking that joint, then I can also safely assume that they would have no problem stealing. The image is that of someone who is completely untrustworthy, irresponsible, reckless and without morals. That image has been maintained over the years ensuring that anyone who uses drugs is an very undesirable employee. Someone who smokes a bit weed every now and then is just as untrustworthy as a murderer.
Even adults who experimented or abused drugs in their youth outright denounce their use and often use the phrases "I was a dumb kid" or "I matured/grew up".
"BUT WAIT!" Your thinking. I'm talking about good ol marijuana. Not shooting heroin!
Since pot is listed as schedule I right up there with crack, heroin and meth, it carries the same "immoral weight". So your employer sees no difference between you smoking a bowl and pondering an algorithm or a jonesing heroin addict who gunned down a mother in front of her child for 20 bucks. But that is thankfully changing as more and more people wake the fuck up and realize that marijuana is a safe drug for recreational and medical use. That thinking is also opening up new research which is helping to clear the smoke (pun intended) surrounding the legitimate use of marijuana.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 03 2015, @01:34PM
I don't smoke pot. I've tried it a few times, some were fun, some were meh, some were paralyzing. But it doesn't appeal to me the way a good old fashioned beer does. As such I haven't spent much time thinking about the subject.
I do wonder whence all the hysteria about it. Was it timber and paper companies wanting to knock hemp out of the market? Was it "Reefer Madness" and its coded racism? Pot's effects are so innocuous, and the plant's benefits so many, that it makes no good sense that it should have been banned. Employing it as an alternative source of fiber to prevent deforestation alone is worth legalizing it.
The meaning I see in marijuana legalization is not because I personally want to smoke it but because it is an outbreak of reason and hope that reason may win through in these pre-revolutionary times.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday July 06 2015, @12:15AM
I used to hate it as well as my first few times were spent completely stoned. Then I smoked with an experienced friend who showed me that there were different strains of weed which have different effects and potency. Like alcohol, you don't smoke a bunch all at once. I gained a better appreciation for it once I knew my limits. Now, I smoke once in a while. This past 4th of July weekend I smoked 3 days in a row. But I only took a single pull or two every few hours. Best part is you don't wake up with any hangovers. Though, you sometimes feel groggy if you smoked a lot but that is manageable by pacing yourself. And the munchies makes everything taste better when your are high. From candy to fruit, its all amplified. I once devoured six cups of various fruit yogurts and a few oranges and an apple after a few pulls to cap a hard days work.
Does it replace alcohol? No, as you I don't get that sleepy, relaxed state from it. But man, I do get wicked hangovers from it if I don't pace myself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:24PM
Japan (and many other Asian nations) have strict anti-drug policies. On a personal note, I don't see the problem here. You don't want to work for an employer that does drug screenings, and no one is forcing you to do so. If an employer states that they won't hire anyone who wears orange socks, and you feel strongly about the freedom to wear orange socks, you can go work for someone who doesn't care what color socks you wear to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @08:25AM
That's assuming you are in position to make such choices..
But if you ARE, please stay the fuck from corporations that implement cargo-cult policies like this. It's an indicator that there's other stuff wrong as well. Perhaps they are interested in your bathroom break lengths too? Maybe you end up spending half of your time banging your head against broken oracle web app instead of being productive. Dysfunctional companies also like to push plenty nonscientific nonsense as something important in order to seem like they were functional. Get ready for that also.
Way too many people just swallow that shit when they did't actually have to. If you haven't smoked for a while and can pass the test easily, is that enough of an excuse to take a job like that? Don't let them get away with it when you _know_ it's bullshit. Take the other company that can't afford braindamage.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:52PM
That's odd, and personally I think it's particular to that employer. I've had quite a few different software jobs over the last 17 years now, and only one employer wanted a drug test. It was a really big company which makes microprocessors. And even that was about 15 years ago; I don't know if they still do that. None of my other employers have given me a drug test, and that includes another big company which makes processors, and work which requires a security clearance.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday July 02 2015, @09:42PM
In my experience private companies dont piss-test, including one I worked for that made class-2 medical devices that could potentially involve life-threatening situations. All public companies ive worked for, even shit retail jobs, do test once up front as a condition of employment and never again unless you royally fuck up on the job.
Although its a goddamn shame that weed is a schedule-I substance, I can understand the point - demonstrating either the discipline to lay off the shit so you can get that job, or implicitly the intelligence to beat the drug test without alerting to wonky readings. Jobs require a degree of self-control, especially when they depend on lucrative government contracts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dusty monkey on Thursday July 02 2015, @10:00PM
My employer requires a drug test upon being hired.
About 6 years ago they decided that random drug testing was also a good idea. They canceled the random drug testing after 2 weeks due to having to fire everyone that they tested.
The drug test upon entry is a good idea. It is proof that you do not (at least at that point) have a serious drug problem where you cannot temporarily stop doing drugs in order to pass the test.
The random drug testing is a bad idea, because lots of people do drugs recreationaly, like many of your best employees.
- when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil - stop supporting evil -
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 03 2015, @01:07AM
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday July 03 2015, @01:23AM
you're conflating "being intoxicated at work" with "being intoxicated in one's free time". drug tests only test for metabolites, to show whether you have done the drug in the past week or month, they do not show if you are currently intoxicated. if somebody is fucked up on the job enough that there's liability issues, that's grounds to fire them already, whether or not the employees get intoxicated during their free time is a red herring.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 03 2015, @01:39AM
you're conflating "being intoxicated at work" with "being intoxicated in one's free time".
I disagree.
have done the drug in the past week or month,
Won't show up in a urine test, what the original poster was speaking of.
My view is to treat other recreational drug use just like it is treated for alcohol. If they're intoxicated at work, then sorry, boot them (unless it's due to a recognized disability-related issue and they're not in a position where they put themselves or others at risk). If they drank alcohol some point in the past month, then it's not a legitimate concern of the employer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Friday July 03 2015, @02:56AM
here's a chart [erowid.org] with drug detection times. so yes, like i said, all drug tests do is determine whether you've used drugs in the past week or month, not whether you are currently intoxicated. at least learn the basics [wikipedia.org] of the subject. what employees do during their free time is none of their boss's business, period. employees should be based on their performance, not on whether or not their boss approves of what they do during their time off. the sole purpose of employee drug testing is to violate employees' privacy and rights.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 03 2015, @04:14AM
so yes, like i said, all drug tests do is determine whether you've used drugs in the past week or month, not whether you are currently intoxicated.
I don't get that impression from the chart. The times discussed are well within the range needed to test for current intoxication.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday July 03 2015, @06:45AM
except they don't indicate intoxication, they indicate whether you've used the drug recently, not whether you are currently on them. if they tested for intoxication only, there would only be a detection period of a couple hours, not days. it is not possible to determine with a standard drug test if the person is on drugs at the time of the test or if they did it days ago. if drug tests were solely to detect current intoxication then they wouldn't be the rights and privacy violation that they are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 04 2015, @12:37AM
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday July 03 2015, @07:03AM
"I don't get that impression from the chart. The times discussed are well within the range needed to test for current intoxication."
You're kidding right?
SUBSTANCE BLOOD SALIVA SWEAT URINE HAIR
Shortest Detectability - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Longest Detectability
Alcohol 12 hrs 6-12 hrs unknown 6-24 hrs (5 days with EtG) n/a
Amphetamine 12 hrs 3 days unknown 1-4 days up to 90 days
Barbiturates unknown unknown unknown 1-21 days unknown
Benzodiazepines unknown unknown unknown 1-42 days unknown
Cannabis (smoked--single use) 1-3 days 12-24 hrs unknown 1-3 days 0 to 90 days
Cannabis (smoked--regular use) 1-2 weeks 12-24 hrs unknown 15-50 days up to 90 days
Cannabis (oral--single use) 2-7 days unknown unknown unknown
Cocaine unknown 1 day unknown 4-5 days up to 90 days
Codeine/Morphine unknown 12-36 hrs unknown 2-4 days up to 90 days
Heroin unknown unknown unknown 2-4 days up to 90 days
MDMA (Ecstasy) 1 - 3 days 3 days unknown 1-5 days up to 90 days
Methamphetamine 1-3 days unknown unknown 3-5 days up to 90 days
PCP 1-3 days 3 days unknown 3-7 days up to 90 days
Just how long do you think the effects last?
Let's look at a single example:
Cannabis (smoked--single use) 1-3 days 12-24 hrs unknown 1-3 days 0 to 90 days
The intoxicating effect lasts approximately FOUR hours but is DETECTABLE for one to three DAYS. How the hell is that "well within the range" of current intoxication.
Are you ignorant? Or just being obtuse?
Ignorance is cured with a wee bit of knowledge. Stupidity is a lifelong affliction. I hope it is ignorance, but your statement implies otherwise.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @08:44AM
I wouldn't hire a programmer that randomly reverses implication arrows.