Only in the sense that it remains detectable that long in a urine test. Believe me, if you get high Friday night you will have come down by Saturday morning.
Errrr, so I’ve been told.
Count me in as one of those suspects.
There’s about as much authority in the Constitution granted the Feds to make drugs illegal as there is to make abortion legal. In other words, none.
It should be up to the states. Not that it can’t screw up your life, as that right wing rag the New York Times will tell you.
But it’s not the Government’s job to save us from ourselves. Let Darwinism run its course.
Interestingly, it doesn’t seem to qualify, really, as a gateway drug, at least no more than cigarettes and alcohol do. Not that that matters constitutionally, IMHO.
Which was precisely the reason for my question upthread. THC in detectable in one’s system long, long after the effects have worn off. In your scenario, the Monday-morning worker will be, in all likelihood, completely sober and unimpaired, and yet would fail a drug test. Ironically, if he’d dropped acid or taken ecstasy, cocaine, or even heroin, there’s a good chance he’d pass with flying colors.
Can you show me where in the constitution that employers are granted that right?
AFAICMO, it’s not enumerated anywhere, and has no organic connection to the original intent of the founding fathers.
I’m not sure you understand how marijuana works. It can still be tested for a month or so later, because the metabolites are still in your system. The high typically lasts an hour or so (and maybe another hour or so after that to get back to 100% sober…I wouldn’t suggest doing on your lunch break). Even the best weed in the world, smoked in amazing amounts, will still return the user to baseline in 4-6 hours or so.
Why does it have to be mentioned in the Constitution? That document is meant to (primarily) talk to the relationship between people and their government.
Now, if one wanted to they could continue the recent (bullshit) trend of elasticizing the Commerce Clause, that drugged workers produce less or faulty or dangerous stuff, and therefore what they make could end up being sold in another state that damages the people of that state, and therefore the Feds could regulate such interstate commerce… and in fact that clause has been stretched worse recently…
But even with a less liberal interpretation of that clause (I didn’t know you were a conservative 
), in any case it’s clearly not forbidden. Ergo, employers can do what they want wrt dope smokers.
I’m not sure you do, either.
THC is fat-soluble, so it takes a while for all that to leech out of your system. Frequent, daily smokers* may* still test hot after 30 days. However, the half-life is not 30 days. (I believe “half-life” refers to the amount of time it takes for half of the dosage to leave your system.) If you went to a New Year’s Eve party and took a toke off a joint at a party, you would probably not still test positive 30 days later. Maybe 3 days, but I think after 4-5 days, you’d only have negligible amounts still in your system. The 30-day rule refers to people who smoke every day and are continually adding THC to their fat stores. The less you smoke, the less lead time you need to pass a drug test.
I’m not a fan of drug testing as a condition for all employment. People who drive, operate heavy machinery (including airplanes), or do things like neurosurgery should probably be required by their employers to test drug free. People who sit at a desk and do not interact with the general public, I don’t care if they are stoned at work. But I don’t want my brain surgeon to blaze one up before cutting into my skull, obviously. That said, I don’t care if the brain surgeon hits the bong when she’s off duty and not likely to be called in to cut into somebody’s brain. And the problem with employer drug screening is that the weed can stay in your system long enough to test positive, even though you might have smoked days ago.
I haven’t followed this at all - is this more “medical marijuana (wink wink)” or actual “if you want to get baked we don’t care” stuff? I am hoping for the latter and that the rest of the states follow suit.
Regards,
Shodan
@ Shodan.
Prop 19 (if it passes) will allow an individual over 21, to personally possess, process, share or transport not more than one ounce solely for that persons personal use and not for sale. Also, possession of tools etc. for growing will be legal. Cultivation is legal as long as the “growing area” is no more than 25 sq ft.
As I read the prop, those who sell will have to qualify under the law as sellers. Also contained in the prop. is a prohibition against consuming when minors are present.
I’m reading the voter information material and trying to paraphrase the three full pages of small print. l
Same here, although residing as I do in one of the three holdout states with no (off-premises) Sunday beer sales, I’m not holding my toke in expectation of a Pot in the Box in my neighborhood anytime soon. Or in my lifetime.
No, it isn’t. It is primarily to lay out the structure and functions of the government. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought, remember.
Could you legally smoke it in public?
Ah, yeah, remember that ad? 
“puff . . . Now [hee-hee], let’s see if I can still make a straight line!”
In public… No.
Nor can you sell it unless you’re licensed and permitted to sell it (whatever that requires)
You can not consume it in a public place.
Can’t Smoke in a car, boat or aircraft while it is being operated or while it “impairs the operator.”
Anyone employed by a seller, handling, etc., must be 21+
Hm. Jeez, I kinda assumed all that was the law in California now.
I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine that the current rules for dispensaries would still apply. I see the main difference being that you won’t need a doctor’s “recommendation” in order to be allowed to buy/possess it.
Oh, I understand that. Clothahump said “Someone can get drunk on Friday night and show up to work Monday morning functional. Not so with pot, which can take up to 30 days to clear out of one’s system.” He implied that if someone smokes pot on Friday night, come Monday morning they will still not be functional. I was just explaining that on Monday morning they will still test positive for THC, but they won’t be high anymore.
Thanks.
That goes about three quarters of the way far enough, IME. Perhaps after a few years when the world doesn’t come to an end because the Dread Killer Weed[sup]TM[/sup] is legalized, the rest of the country can come to its senses and we can concentrate on stuff that is actually dangerous.
Regards,
Shodan
From what I understand, you should also have scare-quoted “doctor”, too. As in, the list of people who could “prescribe” medical marijuana was far greater than just doctors.
Nitpick: they’ll test positive for metabolites of THC, not THC itself. There is no more THC in your system, as that is metabolized during the time you’re high into other compounds which are what the test tests for. Once you’re no longer buzzed, there’s no more THC (or, actually, vice versa- once there’s no more THC, your buzz goes away). AFAIK, there is no direct test for THC, which would allow us to test for very recent use and, arguably, for impairment…other than a desire for peanut butter and cheese sandwiches with a side of Funyons.