Amazon’s answer to delivery driver shortage: Pot smokers(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Amazon’s answer to delivery driver shortage: Pot smokers
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-09-01/amazons-answer-to-delivery-driver-shortage-recruit-pot-smokers
281 comments
http://web.archive.org/web/20210903083804/https://www.latime...
One underappreciated aspect of this. They will ignore marijuana at time of hire. But they will absolutely test you if there is ever an accident or if you are injured at work (even if you just strain your back picking up a heavy object) before you see an occupational health doctor. If you come back positive in the course of injury, they won't cover your workers compensation bills. They'll fire you (for being intoxicated) and you'll have to cover your own medical expenses without access to workers comp coverage or the emoyee health plan (because you've been fired).
The article seems to allude to that:
“If a delivery associate is impaired at work and tests positive post-accident or due to reasonable suspicion, that person would no longer be permitted to perform services for Amazon,” she said.
“If a delivery associate is impaired at work and tests positive post-accident or due to reasonable suspicion, that person would no longer be permitted to perform services for Amazon,” she said.
I mean, this has always been this case with alcohol hasn't it? it's legal to consume but not while at work or operating vehicles. if you do so and injuries/death result, you are held liable.
The test for marijuana aren't as useful as the tests for alcohol. Marijuana test may still come up positive long after you are impaired.
Yes, THC is lipophilic. Heavy users can take as long as 30 days to test negative.
Even longer, personally failed a drug test after not smoking for 4 months. I believe it's something to do with modern test involve looking for what THC breaks down into as the body processes it instead of THC itself.
Is that not a different kind of test, for current presence rather than past use?
There aren't any reliable tests for active marijuana intoxication. Blood tests are sometimes used in DUI situations, but the science is weak. It's not as definitive as alcohol testing. You can test positive for marijuana in hair and urine tests weeks after last use, and test positive in blood tests well beyond the point of intoxication (like the next day).
I has a friend who tested positive on urine test despite not ever consuming MJ. Turns out he took ibuprofen and the test came out positive.
Even if your friend truly did not consume marijuana how do you conclude it was the ibuprofen that caused that failed test?
It was the only medication he was taking at the time because of a tooth ache. The authority requiring the test let it pass.
I would still want to rule out other factors before concluding ibuprofen had anything to do with it such as a mix up in samples or the tester doing something wrong like contaminating the tests. A single data point in this instance truly shows nothing.
It's also on the list of drugs that could trigger a false positive in an urine test:
https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/urine-drug-screening-mi...
”Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have also been shown to interact with UDS immunoassays. Both ibuprofen and naproxen have been documented to cause false-positive barbiturate4 and cannabinoid1-4 levels. In addition, ibuprofen can cause a false-positive PCP level.1-2,4”
https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/urine-drug-screening-mi...
”Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have also been shown to interact with UDS immunoassays. Both ibuprofen and naproxen have been documented to cause false-positive barbiturate4 and cannabinoid1-4 levels. In addition, ibuprofen can cause a false-positive PCP level.1-2,4”
Thank you for the information I have never heard of that. Now I understand why you would think that. In Canada we, from what I have see, do very little drug testing. I have never been asked to take one and work medical field. I believe oil rig workers are sometimes subjected to them. It’s just not that common. But if I did do one now I will avoid Ibuprofen and similar products.
No, cannabis is quite unique in that thc metabolites get stored in the fat, and there's not really a way to just check for acute intoxication. I've had friends who were heavy, heavy users who took 1.5 months to clear up. (Casual smokers can clear up in a few days or 1-2 weeks at most)
bserge(1)
Damn, I always forget that drug testing is still a thing.
If you were under the impression that Amazon & other companies are actually screening for cannabis use, you should realize that in any legal state they basically did everything they could to make sure their employees would not test positive. It's extremely hard to find people that would work minimum wage and are completely weed/drug free - especially if you need young, physically fit workers. Having higher turnover because you have to fire people after a while because of a drug test just means you have less experienced drivers.
It's funny that, as the article points out, school bus driver jobs would outbid Amazon since that means that schools are having the same issue but really have no choice when it comes to drug testing and are generally more restrictive.
If you were under the impression that Amazon & other companies are actually screening for cannabis use, you should realize that in any legal state they basically did everything they could to make sure their employees would not test positive. It's extremely hard to find people that would work minimum wage and are completely weed/drug free - especially if you need young, physically fit workers. Having higher turnover because you have to fire people after a while because of a drug test just means you have less experienced drivers.
It's funny that, as the article points out, school bus driver jobs would outbid Amazon since that means that schools are having the same issue but really have no choice when it comes to drug testing and are generally more restrictive.
Bus companies cannot compete. Bus companies will simply claim a shortage and your child will be left at home if the route has no driver.
To get the contract you must be the lowest bidder. In order to do that you need to pay drivers as little as possible. Raising wages means losing money.
To get the contract you must be the lowest bidder. In order to do that you need to pay drivers as little as possible. Raising wages means losing money.
Uhh no. Leaving kids stranded at a bus stop is a huge liability for the school because if the kid wanders off and gets hurt or gets in trouble, the school could be held at fault. If a bus company is leaving kids stranded more than once in a blue moon, they will lose their contract.
Nah, the school can blame the bus company, and the bus company can blame the school. Any queries about abandoned children just get bounced back and forth until the matter is forgotten about. Split liability typically means no liability.
Of course Amazon is watching out for their business interest, but they are doing the morally right thing here.
I do not smoke anything as a personal preference and do not enjoy when second-hand smoke and smell affects me but I support legalization for the simple reason that criminalization of marijuana and stigmatization of pot smokers is much much worse.
I do not smoke anything as a personal preference and do not enjoy when second-hand smoke and smell affects me but I support legalization for the simple reason that criminalization of marijuana and stigmatization of pot smokers is much much worse.
Except all Amazon has done was taken a group marginalized by the prison system (war on drugs) and is taking advantage of their position (drug testing vulnerable or felon status due to drug arrests) and putting them in a situation where they are at the absolute mercy of Amazon if anything were to happen. (Get T-boned by someone who ran a red light? We'll drug test you and fire you for cause even if you were sober at the time.)
This is an extension of prison labor.
This is an extension of prison labor.
>This is an extension of prison labor.
You lost me with that hyperbole. I fail to see how you can equate voluntarily working for a company earning at least minimum wage and other benefits, as "prison labor".
You lost me with that hyperbole. I fail to see how you can equate voluntarily working for a company earning at least minimum wage and other benefits, as "prison labor".
It's amazing we have so many volunteers for some of the worst jobs around. Happy volunteers, voluntarily working. You can see it on their faces, at 8:37pm pulling packages out of a van and running to a door, happy little contractors, happily volunteering.
Alright, let's flip the question: what doesn't constitute an "extension of prison labor"? If you think everything is an "extension of prison labor" that's not really an interesting statement. Is being a prehistoric hunter-gatherer also an "extension of prison labor"? It seems to check your boxes. Risking your life to hunt for woolly mammoths definitely seems more risky than delivering packages at 8:37pm, so I doubt those hunters were "happy volunteers, voluntarily working".
Well, today's society isn't that far off from slavery. The main difference is the lash has been replaced by economic punishments. People have the gall to call work voluntary when you literally starve if you opt out. Most workers will not see much improvement in their quality of life despite working hard for long hours.
We'll be free once our basic necessities are taken care of unconditionally. That means food, housing... Everything needed for a life with dignity. Until then, we are slaves to the current economic system whether we want to or not. We are not in a position where we can say "no, I don't want to do this anymore" without serious consequences.
We'll be free once our basic necessities are taken care of unconditionally. That means food, housing... Everything needed for a life with dignity. Until then, we are slaves to the current economic system whether we want to or not. We are not in a position where we can say "no, I don't want to do this anymore" without serious consequences.
>Well, today's society isn't that far off from slavery. The main difference is the lash has been replaced by economic punishments. People have the gall to call work voluntary when you literally starve if you opt out.
What's the difference between having to work or else you starve, and having to hunt/gather or else you starve?
What's the difference between having to work or else you starve, and having to hunt/gather or else you starve?
Hunter gatherer society actually included A LOT of downtime. People are being worked to death, and it's reflected in the deteriorating mental health that's prevalent.
I'll have to ask the guy next time I see him if he feels like "it's voluntary", because someone on the internet said "well, actually, they choose this!"
The contractor/gig economy is absolutely gross, and the vast majority of people are turning a blind eye because it's just so nice "for the consumer"
The consumer is actually more important than the human. Are you seriously going to tell me you don't understand what's wrong here?
I'll have to ask the guy next time I see him if he feels like "it's voluntary", because someone on the internet said "well, actually, they choose this!"
The contractor/gig economy is absolutely gross, and the vast majority of people are turning a blind eye because it's just so nice "for the consumer"
The consumer is actually more important than the human. Are you seriously going to tell me you don't understand what's wrong here?
>Hunter gatherer society actually included A LOT of downtime
Why is downtime relevant here? We're talking about whether it's voluntary or not. Also, does that mean prison labor isn't prison labor if they're sufficient "downtime"?
>People are being worked to death, and it's reflected in the deteriorating mental health that's prevalent.
Okay, the working conditions are bad, I never denied that. But you know what's worse? Being a prehistoric hunter-gatherer. I'm going to go on a limb and say that hunting woolly mammoths is orders of magnitude more dangerous. If that's the metric we're using then their "extension of prison labor"-ness is off the charts compared to amazon.
>I'll have to ask the guy next time I see him if he feels like "it's voluntary", because someone on the internet said "well, actually, they choose this!"
I'll reiterate my question from the prior comment: are hunter-gatherers' hunting activities "voluntary"? If not, does that mean what they're doing is an "extension of prison labor"?
>Are you seriously going to tell me you don't understand what's wrong here?
I acknowledge the unfavorable working conditions that they're under, but I disagree with the characterization that it's an "extension of prison labor". Comparing it to that might provide shock value for how bad their working conditions are, but it's a disservice to the actual prison labor population because it trivializes their issues.
Why is downtime relevant here? We're talking about whether it's voluntary or not. Also, does that mean prison labor isn't prison labor if they're sufficient "downtime"?
>People are being worked to death, and it's reflected in the deteriorating mental health that's prevalent.
Okay, the working conditions are bad, I never denied that. But you know what's worse? Being a prehistoric hunter-gatherer. I'm going to go on a limb and say that hunting woolly mammoths is orders of magnitude more dangerous. If that's the metric we're using then their "extension of prison labor"-ness is off the charts compared to amazon.
>I'll have to ask the guy next time I see him if he feels like "it's voluntary", because someone on the internet said "well, actually, they choose this!"
I'll reiterate my question from the prior comment: are hunter-gatherers' hunting activities "voluntary"? If not, does that mean what they're doing is an "extension of prison labor"?
>Are you seriously going to tell me you don't understand what's wrong here?
I acknowledge the unfavorable working conditions that they're under, but I disagree with the characterization that it's an "extension of prison labor". Comparing it to that might provide shock value for how bad their working conditions are, but it's a disservice to the actual prison labor population because it trivializes their issues.
This is an extension of prison labor.
Work in prisons is often not optional, and if it is the inmate may not earn "good behavior" time if they choose not to work. It also averages something like $0.60/hour across the country.
I don't think $17/hour & mandatory sobriety are anything close to prison labor, but I will grant you that it isn't consistent or fair to fire someone that tests positive for marijuana if they weren't high at the time of the accident. Is there a way to test if someone is currently high on weed vs. has simply had some recently?
Work in prisons is often not optional, and if it is the inmate may not earn "good behavior" time if they choose not to work. It also averages something like $0.60/hour across the country.
I don't think $17/hour & mandatory sobriety are anything close to prison labor, but I will grant you that it isn't consistent or fair to fire someone that tests positive for marijuana if they weren't high at the time of the accident. Is there a way to test if someone is currently high on weed vs. has simply had some recently?
> It also averages something like $0.60/hour across the country
Is that equivalent to disposable income? What percentage of people in the US are left with $24 (or less) disposable after 40 hours minimum wage?
I had a friend who was left with NZD20 to spend on themselves after a full week of work (after food, shared rent, power, and other true expenses; non-smoker with zero savings of any kind).
Is that equivalent to disposable income? What percentage of people in the US are left with $24 (or less) disposable after 40 hours minimum wage?
I had a friend who was left with NZD20 to spend on themselves after a full week of work (after food, shared rent, power, and other true expenses; non-smoker with zero savings of any kind).
Without overtime, $17/hour works out to nearly the exact personal median wage in the US, and I don't think that making more than 50% of the population is a situation that can be accurately compared to forced prison labor.
So, yes: Some people have no disposable income at all. Some live in debt. Sometimes they have no choice, sometimes it's poor planning. None of that is the equivalent of forced labor, Or longer imprisonment if the prisoner chooses not to work.
To be clear though, I haven't done a thorough examination of my own opinion on the ethics of prison labor, wages, etc. I'm not stating an opinion on that one way or another. I'm just saying that it is not a valid target of comparison against Amazon's wages in this case.
So, yes: Some people have no disposable income at all. Some live in debt. Sometimes they have no choice, sometimes it's poor planning. None of that is the equivalent of forced labor, Or longer imprisonment if the prisoner chooses not to work.
To be clear though, I haven't done a thorough examination of my own opinion on the ethics of prison labor, wages, etc. I'm not stating an opinion on that one way or another. I'm just saying that it is not a valid target of comparison against Amazon's wages in this case.
Something I learned from a pot smoker: they sometimes mix it with other drugs for higher effects.
Correct... but not really relevant especially if Amazon is still screening for other drugs.
Anecdotally, I have never met nor heard of anyone mixing anything with weed except for tobacco, sometimes.
So how is this "correct"?
So how is this "correct"?
Because I know people that have mixed drugs like that. Usually some type of euphoric. So it is correct, though I don't know if it's particularly common.
Weed doesn't cause people to do that. So why does it matter?
It doesn't matter. Look further up the discussion thread and you'll see that was my original point: Some people may mix weed with other drugs but that's irrelevant for the linked story.
I don't see the point in mentioning it. Some people skydive. Some people prefer dogs over cats.
What's the point?
What's the point?
Look further up. I wasn't the one who mentioned it. I was the one who replied and said it wasn't relevant.
Then someone said I was wrong because people don't actually mix drugs like that, and I contradicted them based on personal knowledge of it happening.
Then you asked me why it matters, perhaps not realizing that I had already said it does not, further up the thread. Now you're saying it's not worth mentioning. I agree, which is why I made my original comment way up the thread, so this has become a bit circular.
Then someone said I was wrong because people don't actually mix drugs like that, and I contradicted them based on personal knowledge of it happening.
Then you asked me why it matters, perhaps not realizing that I had already said it does not, further up the thread. Now you're saying it's not worth mentioning. I agree, which is why I made my original comment way up the thread, so this has become a bit circular.
Okay so why bring it up?
(I'm kidding, thanks for clarifying)
(I'm kidding, thanks for clarifying)
Doesn't mean some won't do it, or that they will tell you.
What exactly is the implication with this tidbit?
Yes, add caffeine...
Hippie speedball.
Hippie speedball.
I regularly mix cannabis with a super potent CNS depressant that I buy from a shifty young woman dressed as a waitress in my local bar.
Sometimes I mix cannabis with more dangerous drugs like alcohol.
No way bruh, you should publish these findings!
Someone stuffing crack in a joint is not a "pot smoker". They're a crackhead using pot to burn their crack.
Nah, crack harshes the mellow. Real heads put powdered banana peel and nutmeg in their spliff bongs.
I’m more of a Zambian sewer gas kind of guy myself.
I actually inject my marijuanas, personally. Three or four marijuanas is enough to do me in for the night.
But I stay away from the hard shit, like alcohol.
But I stay away from the hard shit, like alcohol.
I go for jenkem when I'm looking for a deep fix.
You'd better be careful, more than 4 Marijuanas is overdose territory.
You'd better be careful, more than 4 Marijuanas is overdose territory.
>One solution is to raise their wages. But that can happen only if Amazon agrees to pay its delivery partners more for their services, which the company can be slow to do.
It's not a labor shortage, it's just a correction in the price of labor
It's not a labor shortage, it's just a correction in the price of labor
> Amazon delivery contractors are often outbid by school bus companies. Drivers who work for those can make more than $20 an hour and be home for dinner. Amazon contract drivers typically earn $17 an hour and often work late into the night to keep up with demand.
I mean, sure, Amazon can raise their wages to compete, and then we run out of... school bus drivers? I'm not sure that's any better.
At a point, you either need to increase the labor pool (by pulling people out of unemployment, retirement, etc) or seriously automate the profession, and we're just not there with delivery services right now.
I mean, sure, Amazon can raise their wages to compete, and then we run out of... school bus drivers? I'm not sure that's any better.
At a point, you either need to increase the labor pool (by pulling people out of unemployment, retirement, etc) or seriously automate the profession, and we're just not there with delivery services right now.
School bus drivers are carting human lives around, not inanimate packages, so I guess it's good that they make more. It's a different job and the pay should reflect that.
School bus drivers should be making double of what they are actually making just for increased liability alone.
I've learned how to drive school buses, and I absolutely agree with your opinion. My first day on the job was my last (well, I drove a bit the next day before refusing to drive in a situation I was not comfortable in); it was just way too stressful thinking about those kids and how any mistake I make could hurt them.
Edit: clarified my actual quit story.
Edit: clarified my actual quit story.
Luckily it's actually pretty hard to hurt kids in a school bus. They are built incredibly heavy and sturdy for exactly this reason -- if you collide with any car other than a loaded semi trailer, the bus will win.
Busses even roll every so often and while the kids are banged up a bit, fatalities are incredibly rare.
Busses even roll every so often and while the kids are banged up a bit, fatalities are incredibly rare.
Yeah, we were told that, and I do know that.
But...the irrational part of me still had anxiety about it.
And we were trained about how to evacuate the kids, which we were supposed to do only in two cases: stuck on railroad tracks and fire. And only those two cases because...being on the bus was safer, just as you said.
But...the irrational part of me still had anxiety about it.
And we were trained about how to evacuate the kids, which we were supposed to do only in two cases: stuck on railroad tracks and fire. And only those two cases because...being on the bus was safer, just as you said.
[deleted]
How does staffing for school bus drivers work? I imagine they have to have a pretty exact number of drivers? They can't really have too many or too few, how close to the exact number do they have to get, or how do they handle underages/overages?
Those are all great questions.
There is almost never an "overage" because there is a driver assigned per route, but they also have a bunch of sub drivers who get paid to show up, wait, and maybe take a route whose driver didn't show up, but if not, they go home after getting paid for an hour of waiting.
That's the gist, but it's a bit more complicated than that; in the school district where I live, bus drivers who were assigned routes actually had two or three per day: one for an elementary school, one for a middle school, and one for a high school. Yes, they are that short-staffed. In fact, all of the buses are advertising paid training because they need drivers that bad.
When I quit on my second day because of the stress about being pushed to get kids to school on time rather than safely, and also feeling like I needed more training to be safe, the head of the transportation department desperately tried to get me to stay.
tl;dr: they have bus drivers on standby who get paid to wait in case routes need to be filled. And they are so understaffed that overages never happen and drivers handle 2 or 3 routes.
There is almost never an "overage" because there is a driver assigned per route, but they also have a bunch of sub drivers who get paid to show up, wait, and maybe take a route whose driver didn't show up, but if not, they go home after getting paid for an hour of waiting.
That's the gist, but it's a bit more complicated than that; in the school district where I live, bus drivers who were assigned routes actually had two or three per day: one for an elementary school, one for a middle school, and one for a high school. Yes, they are that short-staffed. In fact, all of the buses are advertising paid training because they need drivers that bad.
When I quit on my second day because of the stress about being pushed to get kids to school on time rather than safely, and also feeling like I needed more training to be safe, the head of the transportation department desperately tried to get me to stay.
tl;dr: they have bus drivers on standby who get paid to wait in case routes need to be filled. And they are so understaffed that overages never happen and drivers handle 2 or 3 routes.
Staggering school bus service isn’t that uncommon, I don’t think there are many school districts where their bus drivers only need to drive one route rather than 2 or 3. Not only can the drivers be employed for most of the day, but the bus itself gets more use.
I think you are correct, but I didn't want to claim that since I only have experience in one school district, and the experience was very short.
I moved around a lot as a kid so got to participate in many different school districts. Talking to the school bus driver they all talk about their schedules.
Sadly, at the rate Delta is spreading, it's likely we're not going to need school bus drivers for a while.
ffggvv(1)
Some of the comments are assuming that all those who smoke pot are irresponsible or unable to do a job if they do smoke pot (this includes people who may only smoke at weekends/parties btw)
Decades of exposure to intentionally misleading propaganda is difficult to ignore. It becomes a part of the worldview, making it hard to even think outside that box.
True. Once things become 'cultural facts' they're hard to change. Another is explaining remote work to older generations, a lot of them just can't equate it to 'real work'
One more is explaining age discrimination to youngsters.
Especially over the damn zoom time video since they don’t show up for work.
Especially over the damn zoom time video since they don’t show up for work.
Age discrimination goes both ways, it’s not just 40+ workers that experience it
You're on a tech focus site here.
Age discrimination almost certainly goes one way in these cases. That's if you're above 40, and looking to join an early stage start-up, you'll find you're often not a culture fit.
Age discrimination almost certainly goes one way in these cases. That's if you're above 40, and looking to join an early stage start-up, you'll find you're often not a culture fit.
[deleted]
I agree.
True. But some part of that propaganda is from pot smokers themselves. Some enjoy the image of the laid-back happy carefree pothead. Their cult leaders (used to be) Cheech and Chong.
Maybe they've just bought in to someone elses' worldview. But I don't think so.
Maybe they've just bought in to someone elses' worldview. But I don't think so.
There are a lot more people that do or have smoked pot, than those who base their identity on it. The cults were always a minority.
It's like the difference between a commuter on bike here in the Netherlands (more than 30% of all trips) vs the handful of cyclists in spandex with some fragile unsafe bike wanking about how light their bike is.
One is a cult, where it becomes part of someone's identity, one is just person trying to get to work.
We should have the discipline to realize that the people carrying the flag of anything are the least likely to be true representatives of the thing.
It's like the difference between a commuter on bike here in the Netherlands (more than 30% of all trips) vs the handful of cyclists in spandex with some fragile unsafe bike wanking about how light their bike is.
One is a cult, where it becomes part of someone's identity, one is just person trying to get to work.
We should have the discipline to realize that the people carrying the flag of anything are the least likely to be true representatives of the thing.
I’m willing to bet that the annoyance meme of spandex cyclists is intentionally amplified, possibly even created, by marketing agencies working for oil and car companies.
I’m also willing to bet that Cheech & Chong et al. are manifestations of a similarly forced meme, with many industries funding the various ”lazy brainless stoners”.
The exact same pattern can be found from nicotine vapes (the entire ”vape nation” annoyance meme was definitely a graft), and probably a lot of other things.
The point seems to be to control people socially by associating their habits with annoying qualities and fictional negative outcomes, superficially supported by anecdotes represented as scientific truth.
I’m also willing to bet that Cheech & Chong et al. are manifestations of a similarly forced meme, with many industries funding the various ”lazy brainless stoners”.
The exact same pattern can be found from nicotine vapes (the entire ”vape nation” annoyance meme was definitely a graft), and probably a lot of other things.
The point seems to be to control people socially by associating their habits with annoying qualities and fictional negative outcomes, superficially supported by anecdotes represented as scientific truth.
I really like this: "we should [develop] the discipline to realize that the people carrying the flag of anything are the least likely to be the true representatives of the thing."
What other examples are there? Am I one of these people in ways I don't even realize?
I would love to be eating a meal with someone who says this, and then have a really fantastic conversation spring from it: Does this help me feel out my own blind-spots better? Is this always bad? Is this always true?
Great statement, well articulated. Thanks!
What other examples are there? Am I one of these people in ways I don't even realize?
I would love to be eating a meal with someone who says this, and then have a really fantastic conversation spring from it: Does this help me feel out my own blind-spots better? Is this always bad? Is this always true?
Great statement, well articulated. Thanks!
As someone with a very personal relationship with marijuana, I really despise the "pothead" culture. The idea that weed makes you permanently stupid or incapable of working normally whilst sober is simply wrong.
Like everything, being responsible goes a long way. There are responsible marijuana users and irresponsible ones. Blaming it on the weed is really the lazy part of "pothead" culture.
Like everything, being responsible goes a long way. There are responsible marijuana users and irresponsible ones. Blaming it on the weed is really the lazy part of "pothead" culture.
Cheech and Chong are a couple of goofy comedians from the '70s. They are not leaders, and they don't have followers. Maybe they have fans (and are C&C still alive?)
Well no, there are serious health risk associated with weed. Maybe alcohol have them too, yes both deserve legality, but this is not to say it is "safe", especially in young.
There are health risks associated with THC:
- the possibility of psychosis or schizophrenia in people 16-35 (https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/resources/Cannabis...)
- the same risk that inhaling any combustible has
- overeating
- cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-con...)
For some people the benefits outweigh the risks, especially when practiced in moderation.
- the possibility of psychosis or schizophrenia in people 16-35 (https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/resources/Cannabis...)
- the same risk that inhaling any combustible has
- overeating
- cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-con...)
For some people the benefits outweigh the risks, especially when practiced in moderation.
Overeating? That's a health risk for THC?
And the last I heard, oxygen was "combustible". Inhaling a combustible isn't a health risk; inhaling combustion products might be. But many pot smokers use a vape, set to well-below the combustion temperature for their chosen herb.
And the last I heard, oxygen was "combustible". Inhaling a combustible isn't a health risk; inhaling combustion products might be. But many pot smokers use a vape, set to well-below the combustion temperature for their chosen herb.
> Overeating? That's a health risk for THC?
Yeah, certainly. I'm not a doctor, but weed makes people eat. Hence it's been used to help folks with eating disorders.
Source: https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/how-to-stop-munchie...
Vapes have issues too, which include exposure to heavy metals. By combustibles I mean anything you burn. Again, not a doctor and not a medical scientist so I may be using the wrong words but most people who use weed know these things. Most notably, anything that is smoked will incur a small but sharp rise in blood pressure. If you wear a heart monitor (or wrist watch with one) it's fairly trivial to detect.
Source: https://www.leafly.com/news/health/california-cannabis-labs-...
Yeah, certainly. I'm not a doctor, but weed makes people eat. Hence it's been used to help folks with eating disorders.
Source: https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/how-to-stop-munchie...
Vapes have issues too, which include exposure to heavy metals. By combustibles I mean anything you burn. Again, not a doctor and not a medical scientist so I may be using the wrong words but most people who use weed know these things. Most notably, anything that is smoked will incur a small but sharp rise in blood pressure. If you wear a heart monitor (or wrist watch with one) it's fairly trivial to detect.
Source: https://www.leafly.com/news/health/california-cannabis-labs-...
“Maybe” alcohol has health consequences? Like 95,000 deaths per year?
Absolutely, i more made reference to how when somebody mention health impact of weed somebody else say "whatabout alcohol unhealthiness" as though it is relevant.
Of course it is relevant. Many of those 95,000 annual deaths would be preventable if a good variety of quality cannabis was more widely available and its use was more socially acceptable.
I also believe such a paradigm shift would largely eradicate domestic violence.
I also believe such a paradigm shift would largely eradicate domestic violence.
I had a grandfather die of alcoholism. I'd much rather smoke pot than drink alcohol and long term it's almost certainly safer from what we can tell.
It's also hard to be productive drinking but pot can have the opposite effect.
It's also hard to be productive drinking but pot can have the opposite effect.
The science is settled. Trust the science, government knows best.
We don't regulate alcohol use, and it's quite a lot more destructive for some. I don't get the specific puritanism for pot.
Edit: Regulate as in drug testing for past use in an employment context, like what the story is talking about.
Edit: Regulate as in drug testing for past use in an employment context, like what the story is talking about.
>We don't regulate alcohol use,
Yes we do. And it's a cash cow for the government so we're unlikely to stop anytime soon.
Yes we do. And it's a cash cow for the government so we're unlikely to stop anytime soon.
Which country are you in?
Alcohol is one of the most highly regulated substances on the planet.
Also, no puritanism here, just facts about how people can use pot and remain completely in control (again, worth pointing out that someone can fail a pot drug test if they smoked it weeks ago)
Alcohol is one of the most highly regulated substances on the planet.
Also, no puritanism here, just facts about how people can use pot and remain completely in control (again, worth pointing out that someone can fail a pot drug test if they smoked it weeks ago)
Meaning most people can drink alcohol without fear of being tested for past use in a work context. We don't regulate it in the workplace the way we regulate pot use.
I think a big part of the issue is how the subtances work and how the tests work.
Are there tests that indicate past use of alcohol or just the ones I'm aware of where the measurement drops swiftly as alcohol is processed?
Same for marijuana; is there an objective(ish) test that indicates current intoxication or only the tests that show use within about a month?
Are there tests that indicate past use of alcohol or just the ones I'm aware of where the measurement drops swiftly as alcohol is processed?
Same for marijuana; is there an objective(ish) test that indicates current intoxication or only the tests that show use within about a month?
Marijuana does stick around a long time, but they test for other stuff that doesn't, some benzos, heroin, etc. There's apparently something called an ETG test for alcohol consumption that can reach back a few days.
I dunno. Background checks include DUIs.
You don't get a DUI just for being drunk on the couch on the weekend, you have to also be operating a vehicle while drunk. Which is what the parent comment was talking about -- it's not regulated in the same way that pot usage is.
Every alcohol consumer has a DUI? Maybe in Wisconsin, but not in general
> Alcohol is one of the most highly regulated substances on the planet.
It's one of the most-highly taxed. Not quite the same as being banned nearly everywhere, with many countries having mandatory death sentences.
It's one of the most-highly taxed. Not quite the same as being banned nearly everywhere, with many countries having mandatory death sentences.
I think you have it upside-down. It's tobacco and alcohol that have special treatment, not pot.
My main guess for that special treatment is merely that tobacco and alcohol were global when we started taking care about global health issues, so we left them, but banned any newcomer
My main guess for that special treatment is merely that tobacco and alcohol were global when we started taking care about global health issues, so we left them, but banned any newcomer
> My main guess for that special treatment is merely that tobacco and alcohol were global when we started taking care about global health issues, so we left them, but banned any newcomer
That narrative just doesn’t hold up.
Opium, heroin and cocaine were pretty much global when we started taking care about global health issues.
Not consumed by everyone all around the world, for sure, but readily available and consumed nearly everywhere.
Heck, heroin was considered a magical cough syrup safer than morphine at one point. It took nearly 30 years for it to be banned in the US [1][2]
Compared to tobacco and alcohol, it certainly is a young one, but cannabis and hallucinogenic mushrooms hardly qualify as newcomers.
[1]: https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medicine-magazine/from-c...
[2]: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bu...
That narrative just doesn’t hold up.
Opium, heroin and cocaine were pretty much global when we started taking care about global health issues.
Not consumed by everyone all around the world, for sure, but readily available and consumed nearly everywhere.
Heck, heroin was considered a magical cough syrup safer than morphine at one point. It took nearly 30 years for it to be banned in the US [1][2]
Compared to tobacco and alcohol, it certainly is a young one, but cannabis and hallucinogenic mushrooms hardly qualify as newcomers.
[1]: https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medicine-magazine/from-c...
[2]: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bu...
There are plenty of psychoactive substances on the shelves of any major supermarket and most of the stuff is completely unregulated.
How is coffee different from tobacco? How is nutmeg or saffron different from drugs? How about artificial flavonoid—xanthine concoctions such as Red Bull?
How is coffee different from tobacco? How is nutmeg or saffron different from drugs? How about artificial flavonoid—xanthine concoctions such as Red Bull?
> How is coffee different from tobacco?
The difference in effect on health is severe, for one? There’s room for more nuance than ”both of these are psychoactive substances”.
The difference in effect on health is severe, for one? There’s room for more nuance than ”both of these are psychoactive substances”.
Sure. But how about the fact that tobacco and coffee actually share the same psychoactive substances, i.e. Harmala alkaloids?
Do they or don't they have the same harmful effect on health?
It's a new one on me that coffee contains nicotine, the principal addictive agent in tobacco.
It's a new one on me that coffee contains nicotine, the principal addictive agent in tobacco.
They do have the same effects on the central nervous system as far as Harmala alkaloids are concerned, including deleterious effects. Some of the aforementioned alkaloids are neurotoxic, are deposited in brain fatty tissues, and can proceed the development of neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.
The public is largely noninformed about the constituents of coffee and tobacco smoke. Only nicotine and caffeine are ever mentioned, and even scientific articles routinely confuse the effects of pure nicotine and tobacco smoke, and those of pure caffeine and coffee. It is a collective illusion.
I never claimed that coffee contains nicotine: rather, what coffee and tobacco have in common are these Harmala alkaloids, the most abundant of which act as so-called monoamine oxidase inhibitors in humans.
However, some rather unexpected things do contain nicotine: tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants and green peppers.
The public is largely noninformed about the constituents of coffee and tobacco smoke. Only nicotine and caffeine are ever mentioned, and even scientific articles routinely confuse the effects of pure nicotine and tobacco smoke, and those of pure caffeine and coffee. It is a collective illusion.
I never claimed that coffee contains nicotine: rather, what coffee and tobacco have in common are these Harmala alkaloids, the most abundant of which act as so-called monoamine oxidase inhibitors in humans.
However, some rather unexpected things do contain nicotine: tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants and green peppers.
> How about artificial flavonoid—xanthine concoctions such as Red Bull?
In my country, 'energy drinks' cannot be sold to anyone under 20 (same as alcohol and tobacco) for exactly this reason.
In my country, 'energy drinks' cannot be sold to anyone under 20 (same as alcohol and tobacco) for exactly this reason.
Breathalyzers tests are a thing you know.
And I don't know if companies do it but I know that monitoring Gamma GT levels of suspected alcoholics is a thing. It is a problem for those who have naturally elevated levels btw.
What is unfortunate is that we don't have a good test for cannabis-related impairment. It is quite reliable for alcohol BAC is easy to test and correlates with impairment, but for cannabis, you don't really know if a person is completely stoned or if he has sobered up.
But yeah, cannabis use is less tolerated than alcohol use, cultural reasons I guess. Plus, it is really difficult to control alcohol since pretty much anyone can turn staple food into alcohol at home.
And I don't know if companies do it but I know that monitoring Gamma GT levels of suspected alcoholics is a thing. It is a problem for those who have naturally elevated levels btw.
What is unfortunate is that we don't have a good test for cannabis-related impairment. It is quite reliable for alcohol BAC is easy to test and correlates with impairment, but for cannabis, you don't really know if a person is completely stoned or if he has sobered up.
But yeah, cannabis use is less tolerated than alcohol use, cultural reasons I guess. Plus, it is really difficult to control alcohol since pretty much anyone can turn staple food into alcohol at home.
Yeah, I tried to cover that with "past use". They care if you're drunk at work. Which is different from pot, where many workplaces care if you're high at home.
But we do regulate alcohol use... Severely...
I'm not aware of many jobs that "drug" test for any use of alcohol. Yet with cannabis this is considered acceptable.
Cannabis is a Schedule I drug. Alcohol is not.
Not for any legitimate reasons, though. Mostly for historical, political reasons.
I did clarify with the edit.
Personally, I can't smoke pot. I get very nervous, and can't wait until it's out of my system.
But I have worked with many frequent users who smoked daily, and their job. They didn't mind doing terrible jobs.
I'm suprised people arn't talking about habitual pot smokers vs. occasional. If used to smoking--it's no big deal.
Same with alcohol. An alcoholic can drive perfectly well at .08, or a bit higher. An occasional drinker probally shouldn't be drinking and driving.
I heard TX takes into account tolerance when prosecuting DUI's.
But I have worked with many frequent users who smoked daily, and their job. They didn't mind doing terrible jobs.
I'm suprised people arn't talking about habitual pot smokers vs. occasional. If used to smoking--it's no big deal.
Same with alcohol. An alcoholic can drive perfectly well at .08, or a bit higher. An occasional drinker probally shouldn't be drinking and driving.
I heard TX takes into account tolerance when prosecuting DUI's.
And also clearly have never been high enough to realize that they are more likely to be super paranoid and going 10 miles under the speed limit than driving through a fence or running over children. It’s not at all comparable to being drunk.
Your comment is an equally bad generalization.
It's easy to get distracted and then focus on that distraction while high. That's not conducive to safe driving. We don't want people mindlessly blowing through an intersection because they were fixating on how the wind was making the tarp on the truck in front of them flutter.
It's easy to get distracted and then focus on that distraction while high. That's not conducive to safe driving. We don't want people mindlessly blowing through an intersection because they were fixating on how the wind was making the tarp on the truck in front of them flutter.
Driving high is still driving impaired. The failure modes may be different, but that doesn't mean someone who is high is safe to drive.
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is though, as I don't think anyone is suggesting that these drivers will actually be high while driving. Rather, they are people that use marijuana recreationally and would test positive for THC, disqualifying them from many jobs (despite the fact that urine THC levels do not corelate with how "high" someone is).
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is though, as I don't think anyone is suggesting that these drivers will actually be high while driving. Rather, they are people that use marijuana recreationally and would test positive for THC, disqualifying them from many jobs (despite the fact that urine THC levels do not corelate with how "high" someone is).
Driving high is like driving as a grandma.
You're hyper vigilant, looking everywhere, your reactions are delayed a little such as that of an 60 year old person, and you're definitely listening to speed "limit" as the maximum, and not as the average.
You're hyper vigilant, looking everywhere, your reactions are delayed a little such as that of an 60 year old person, and you're definitely listening to speed "limit" as the maximum, and not as the average.
As an avid marijuana user here, no, this is not the narrative that should be spread. As others have said, weed makes you incredibly impaired, just in other ways.
You are slower to process inputs, you are less likely to consider threats or obstacles as dangerous, to an extent your ability to judge distances is hindered, you are much more easily distracted (highway hypnosis, for example, becomes a huge problem - especially with blinking lights and whatnot), your ability to focus is oftentimes next to zero, causing you to be distracted often by music or other passengers in the car.
Plus, driving slowly in and of itself is a hazard - the "speed rule" exists for a reason. If everyone is going 30 mph over the speed limit on a busy highway, you are more likely to cause an accident by going the posted speed limit than if you were to go the same speed as the rest of the traffic - even though it's technically illegal.
So please, do not use marijuana and drive. Stay at home and watch Money Heist and postmates a McFlurry from McDonalds or something.
You are slower to process inputs, you are less likely to consider threats or obstacles as dangerous, to an extent your ability to judge distances is hindered, you are much more easily distracted (highway hypnosis, for example, becomes a huge problem - especially with blinking lights and whatnot), your ability to focus is oftentimes next to zero, causing you to be distracted often by music or other passengers in the car.
Plus, driving slowly in and of itself is a hazard - the "speed rule" exists for a reason. If everyone is going 30 mph over the speed limit on a busy highway, you are more likely to cause an accident by going the posted speed limit than if you were to go the same speed as the rest of the traffic - even though it's technically illegal.
So please, do not use marijuana and drive. Stay at home and watch Money Heist and postmates a McFlurry from McDonalds or something.
When high, you are impaired and shouldn't be driving. Period.
I don't disagree but being high is not a singular, impaired state.
None of the states I've ever been, over the thousands of times I have partaken, with the maybe hundred different strains, with different percentages of indica/sativa, at different dosages, in different forms (flower vs. edible vs. whatever else), have ever been safe for me to operate a vehicle.
No, nobody is an exception. You are not superhuman.
Please stop normalizing this. This narrative makes it harder to change the minds of dissenters and legitimize legalization for those people that actually benefit from it.
No, nobody is an exception. You are not superhuman.
Please stop normalizing this. This narrative makes it harder to change the minds of dissenters and legitimize legalization for those people that actually benefit from it.
Sorry, I don't agree. I don't think cannabis is just a drug for having fun. I'm open to scientific studies that show that car accidents increase but your experience is yours and mine is mine.
The people who have a problem with it aren't going to be able to stop legalization.
You shouldn't do it, I agree.
The people who have a problem with it aren't going to be able to stop legalization.
You shouldn't do it, I agree.
States with legal weed have seen accident numbers increase. The reasons why are more nuanced than that statement implies.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2021/06/21/crash-rate...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2021/06/21/crash-rate...
> I don't think cannabis is just a drug for having fun
Where did I even allude to this? In fact I implied the exact opposite in my last sentence.
Where did I even allude to this? In fact I implied the exact opposite in my last sentence.
Cannabis does and will have medicinal uses. The laws and and the mindset about it are going to vastly change. Delta-8 and all the other numbers are already legal in illegal states.
I never argued the opposite of what you're saying. We agree, I'm not sure what we're debating.
What does "medicinal uses" have to do with the topic of impaired driving? There are all sorts of legal medications that will also impair someone's ability to drive.
The use of THC does not mean you are impaired.
Yes that third one is a huge problem.
[deleted]
[deleted]
That’s bullshit. Someone rolled their car into my front garden at 70+ mph in a 30 mph limit on it.
The only good thing was it was at 3AM so there was no one around on a normally busy street to get wiped out.
And your whole attitude of irrational justification of it says you’re probably not capable of making a rational judgement about whether or not you should drive.
The only good thing was it was at 3AM so there was no one around on a normally busy street to get wiped out.
And your whole attitude of irrational justification of it says you’re probably not capable of making a rational judgement about whether or not you should drive.
Anecdote is not data.
That’s also bullshit. This went into the stats here. Thus is data.
Since when is asking for data considered bullshit? So far, you’ve only provided anecdotes.
I assume you know what the parent comment meant when talking about “data”.
Don’t get me wrong - no one should drive while impaired, period. But offering anecdotes in lieu of data is generally not helpful.
I assume you know what the parent comment meant when talking about “data”.
Don’t get me wrong - no one should drive while impaired, period. But offering anecdotes in lieu of data is generally not helpful.
No, please. I've seen high driving first hand several times. Once after the guy literally told me "it doesn't affect me at all". Proceeded to drive over the kerb and get into the wrong lane.
It is very comparable to being drunk. Some people can in fact handle it, many cannot and severely overestimate their abilities.
It is very comparable to being drunk. Some people can in fact handle it, many cannot and severely overestimate their abilities.
tbf it's possible he was just a crap driver. Either way, while I would never recommend it, I think it is misleading to call it "very comparable". Anecdotally I would say that cannabis impairs quick decision making, and reaction time while driving, and possibly also makes the driver more prone to distraction but I am less sure about that one. Alcohol does both of the first two things, and to a much greater extent, while also obliterating fine motor control, as well as impacting judgement and perception of speed among other things.
So in my completely anecdotal opinion, weed bad, alcohol worse were driving is concerned.
So in my completely anecdotal opinion, weed bad, alcohol worse were driving is concerned.
This is an interesting subject. Most people would be pretty worried about a drunk 747 pilot, and want laws and policies to prevent that from happening. A high delivery driver -- better, but a lot of people still don't like that idea. But tired commuters on the road at 6:30am is acceptable.
Could be better informed by numbers here. But hard to say because there aren't reliable tests for "high right now", and maybe not for "tired" either.
Could be better informed by numbers here. But hard to say because there aren't reliable tests for "high right now", and maybe not for "tired" either.
Impairment testing was talked about 10-15 years ago. It never really caught on.
https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/public-policy/artic...
https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/public-policy/artic...
Some of the smartest people I have worked with smoked pot daily and before work. one is a head of engineering at netflix, another a head of IT at a big firm...
some of the highest performers I have ever worked with, and pot was a daily for them.
some of the highest performers I have ever worked with, and pot was a daily for them.
[deleted]
i think for a small % pot will have a positive impact, but in general there is a reason it is considered a recreational drug. If you put 1000 linux kernel developers in a stadium, do they do better work sober, or if the stadium is hotboxed with some exotic kush. (maybe 5%, 10% see gains... but does the majority receive buffs to their concentration, analytical skills and memory?)
Maybe the question has a different outcome if you're measuring a stadium full of Designers with Adobe Illustrator open, trying to brainstorm how a logo looks?
Maybe the question has a different outcome if you're measuring a stadium full of Designers with Adobe Illustrator open, trying to brainstorm how a logo looks?
And many top politicians, business executives, authors, producers, and musicians were alcoholics. Your claim of having met high performing pot smokers is meaningless.
A larger portion of them are from experience of hiring and being around people who smoke it. I would not employ someone who does because of those people. I have horror stories a mile long.
I know this is unpopular on internet news sites but I assure you that your social reputation isn’t that great if you smoke the stuff generally and that’s not going to change because of the propensity of people to be unreliable or dicks. The only thing that’s faulty is your perception of it.
I know this is unpopular on internet news sites but I assure you that your social reputation isn’t that great if you smoke the stuff generally and that’s not going to change because of the propensity of people to be unreliable or dicks. The only thing that’s faulty is your perception of it.
Hmm. This is a tough one. Do you think those people come off unreliable because they use cannabis, or would it be more likely that they, for example, suffer from a(n undiagnosed) medical condition such as PTSD or ADHD, which tend to make them a bit unreliable at times, but which cannabis treats so that the person is in fact more reliable when constantly high?
I knew some of them before they started using it. It’s almost entirely the cannabis. Including the dude now in psychiatric care after it kicked his schizophrenia hard.
Everyone was promoted it as harmless. It’s not. I’m seeing lives wrecked.
And yes I know alcohol is bad. But I see less long term damage from that as most people seem to grow out of alcoholism I have know. Cannabis not so much - it becomes the primary thing they live for and around. All conversation ends up on it.
Everyone was promoted it as harmless. It’s not. I’m seeing lives wrecked.
And yes I know alcohol is bad. But I see less long term damage from that as most people seem to grow out of alcoholism I have know. Cannabis not so much - it becomes the primary thing they live for and around. All conversation ends up on it.
I think your viewpoint might be biased — do you know any people who haven’t had their lives wrecked because of cannabis?
Is cannabis legal where you live? Criminality causes stress and paranoia.
Are you living in a heavily Christian environment? Asking because in heavily religious environments, schizophrenia with religious illusions often occurs as a result of internal conflict between sin-programming and self-perception.
Is cannabis socially accepted or are people forced to choose between cannabis and other people? Social exclusion has in some studies been ranked more stressful than getting raped, so some sort of social PTSD can be expected to develop in these kind of environments to those who get excluded.
Is cannabis legal where you live? Criminality causes stress and paranoia.
Are you living in a heavily Christian environment? Asking because in heavily religious environments, schizophrenia with religious illusions often occurs as a result of internal conflict between sin-programming and self-perception.
Is cannabis socially accepted or are people forced to choose between cannabis and other people? Social exclusion has in some studies been ranked more stressful than getting raped, so some sort of social PTSD can be expected to develop in these kind of environments to those who get excluded.
I am in my late 40s. Most of the proponents are a lot younger. They haven’t seen the impact it has on them until they get older. That’s not bias.
As for other points I’m an atheist with zero religious values at all. I have used it myself as well. And I’m in a country in a city where no one gives a crap. I’m about as unbiased as you can get.
As for sins, I’m a pretty big fan of them as whole.
The issue here is with the perception that it is harmless which it is definitely not.
As for other points I’m an atheist with zero religious values at all. I have used it myself as well. And I’m in a country in a city where no one gives a crap. I’m about as unbiased as you can get.
As for sins, I’m a pretty big fan of them as whole.
The issue here is with the perception that it is harmless which it is definitely not.
I'm in my mid-sixties (and I'm not a proponent - I would never propound the recreational use of any drug). Maybe I'm not old enough to observe the effects you are referring to. But frankly I think this is arse-over-tit: I think it's young people, with little experience, that are most likely to be harmed by pot. Young people are more likely than older people to experience schizo for the first time; such people are less likely to be cautious in their use of pot. If you're over 40, and you've been using it since your teens, then I don't think you're likely to get many surprises from pot.
I did get a hypotension episode a few years ago, as a result of starting a new strain a bit over-enthusiastically. But even coffee can cause palpitations, if you drink too much just because you like drinking coffee.
My understanding is that certain high-THC strains are much more likely to give rise to psychological problems than other strains. I'm not aware that CBD as such can result in psychological problems.
I did get a hypotension episode a few years ago, as a result of starting a new strain a bit over-enthusiastically. But even coffee can cause palpitations, if you drink too much just because you like drinking coffee.
My understanding is that certain high-THC strains are much more likely to give rise to psychological problems than other strains. I'm not aware that CBD as such can result in psychological problems.
> My understanding is that certain high-THC strains are much more likely to give rise to psychological problems than other strains
Ah, the good ol’ skunk scarecrow.
People have been making various grades of hashish for millennia, with THC content many times that of dry flower — you’d think someone would have noticed if it was more likely to produce psychological issues?
Yet, there is no high-THC hash scare — it’s almost if someone wanted you to avoid good quality cannabis and be content consuming whatever ditch weed global criminal organisations produce.
Ah, the good ol’ skunk scarecrow.
People have been making various grades of hashish for millennia, with THC content many times that of dry flower — you’d think someone would have noticed if it was more likely to produce psychological issues?
Yet, there is no high-THC hash scare — it’s almost if someone wanted you to avoid good quality cannabis and be content consuming whatever ditch weed global criminal organisations produce.
> People have been making various grades of hashish for millennia
Hashish is generally made with high-CBD strains (which is partly why hash tends to mong you out more than weed).
It seems there is evidence that CBD moderates the trippy effects of THC, and reduces the propensity of the product to trigger psychotic states in suceptible individuals.
BTW: in my experience, modern weed strains are beaten in terms of hit-per-gram only by the rarest, highest-grade black hash.
Hashish is generally made with high-CBD strains (which is partly why hash tends to mong you out more than weed).
It seems there is evidence that CBD moderates the trippy effects of THC, and reduces the propensity of the product to trigger psychotic states in suceptible individuals.
BTW: in my experience, modern weed strains are beaten in terms of hit-per-gram only by the rarest, highest-grade black hash.
It’s not true that hashish is made from high-CBD strains. That idea seems to be based on the common misunderstanding that indica strains have more CBD in them.
There are various types of hashish; the traditional Moroccan screened variety is almost certainly all cultivated indica, but Himalayan charas is almost certainly all landrace sativa.
There are various types of hashish; the traditional Moroccan screened variety is almost certainly all cultivated indica, but Himalayan charas is almost certainly all landrace sativa.
Do something that alters your baseline consciousness long enough and it becomes your baseline. Doing anything over a long period of time with regularity will change you.
You have definitely met pot smokers who have, and do live perfectly normal lives because their baseline is better. You probably have no idea who they are.
You have definitely met pot smokers who have, and do live perfectly normal lives because their baseline is better. You probably have no idea who they are.
It is also very possible for cannabis to be an improvement to the baseline. There are many, many people who could not function in society and work for their living without cannabis, be it due to MS-related spasticity, PTSD-related hypervigilance, ADHD-related need for stimulation, autoimmune-related inflammation, difficult to treat eating disorders such as anorexia and ARFID, or just plain old chronic pain — and about about it not working for pain, it does work for some, why should they be denied?
> do you know any people who haven’t had their lives wrecked because of cannabis?
Well, there's me.
And of course, there's all the people I know who haven't ever used cannabis (I take it you meant me to exclude them).
Well, there's me.
And of course, there's all the people I know who haven't ever used cannabis (I take it you meant me to exclude them).
Pot doesn't agree with schizophrenia. We've known that for a long time. It can certainly trigger an episode.
On the other hand, my experience is that many people with bipolar find it improves their mood.
If you have psychiatric difficulties, then it's not a good idea to mess with drugs that are in any way psychedelic. If you have problems with hypertension, it's not a good idea to mess with caffeine or cocaine.
On the other hand, my experience is that many people with bipolar find it improves their mood.
If you have psychiatric difficulties, then it's not a good idea to mess with drugs that are in any way psychedelic. If you have problems with hypertension, it's not a good idea to mess with caffeine or cocaine.
There are lots of people you don't know that smoke pot regularly and you can't tell. I promise you.
Yes there are but they probably aren't very high, they're most likely toking as in slightly buzzed if we were comparing it alcohol. I guess you'd notice drunk people and you'd notice very high pot smokers. But would you mind a coworker having a glass of wine for lunch?
There are long term pot smokers whose intake is very large but whose tolerance has risen such that when they consume they're quite functional. They are usually easy to spot though...
There are long term pot smokers whose intake is very large but whose tolerance has risen such that when they consume they're quite functional. They are usually easy to spot though...
One large brown delivery company also rarely drug tests. Drivers of school buses, semi trucks, and similar have federally mandated drug testing, non-CDL delivery drivers don't. Particularly when liability is transferred to contractors, the surprising part is that this wasn't the encouraged policy from the start.
Also, any shortage is entirely self inflicted from offering poor wages.
Also, any shortage is entirely self inflicted from offering poor wages.
> Drivers of school buses, semi trucks, and similar have federally mandated drug testing, non-CDL delivery drivers don't.
False, at least where I am.
I learned to drive school bus, and they drug tested my class before we were allowed to test, and every month, there were random drug tests.
I quit after 1.5 days because of the stress and the constant push to get kids to school on time over safety.
False, at least where I am.
I learned to drive school bus, and they drug tested my class before we were allowed to test, and every month, there were random drug tests.
I quit after 1.5 days because of the stress and the constant push to get kids to school on time over safety.
I thought I would reply to myself and admit that I read the quote wrong. The quote is correct.
That delivery company also has a union which could've been negotiated for.
>Also, any shortage is entirely self inflicted from offering poor wages.
Yeah! All the millennials who can't buy a home are just self-inflected by not bidding high enough! Government policy certainly didn't' contribute to either!
Yeah! All the millennials who can't buy a home are just self-inflected by not bidding high enough! Government policy certainly didn't' contribute to either!
There's a difference: Amazon can pay more. As you said, the millennials can't. If there's a millennial out there flush with cash but didn't get the house they wanted despite having $$$ more than needed, then yes-- that would be their own choice. Just like it's Amazon's choice to live with a driver shortage if they can pay more but won't.
Based on their 2020 profits, they can pay more. $20B in profits, 170,000 deliverers worldwide. They could take 10% of that and pay those folks an average of about $10,000 more/year.
They have the money, so if their business suffers at all as a result of too few drivers, then it's absolutely self-inflicted.
Based on their 2020 profits, they can pay more. $20B in profits, 170,000 deliverers worldwide. They could take 10% of that and pay those folks an average of about $10,000 more/year.
They have the money, so if their business suffers at all as a result of too few drivers, then it's absolutely self-inflicted.
>There's a difference: Amazon can pay more. As you said, the millennials can't. Just like it's Amazon's choice to live with a driver shortage if they can pay more but won't.
But GP was talking about "any shortage", not just amazon's shortage. For the sake of argument I'll let that slide. I'm sure millennials can pay more. It just would involve uncomfortable sacrifices, and most people don't think that's not worth the trade-off for going from renting to owning. Likewise, amazon would like more delivery drivers, but isn't desperate enough to actually raise wages and/or improve working conditions.
>Based on their 2020 profits, they can pay more. $20B in profits, 170,000 deliverers worldwide. They could take 10% of that and pay those folks an average of about $10,000 more/year.
You forgot to include the cost of capital.
But GP was talking about "any shortage", not just amazon's shortage. For the sake of argument I'll let that slide. I'm sure millennials can pay more. It just would involve uncomfortable sacrifices, and most people don't think that's not worth the trade-off for going from renting to owning. Likewise, amazon would like more delivery drivers, but isn't desperate enough to actually raise wages and/or improve working conditions.
>Based on their 2020 profits, they can pay more. $20B in profits, 170,000 deliverers worldwide. They could take 10% of that and pay those folks an average of about $10,000 more/year.
You forgot to include the cost of capital.
You forgot to include the cost of capital.
No, that's why I included the stipulation "if their business suffers at all as a result of too few drivers"
Sure, they're not going to pay drivers more if those increased costs exceed the losses they'd suffer from a delivery shortage.
No, that's why I included the stipulation "if their business suffers at all as a result of too few drivers"
Sure, they're not going to pay drivers more if those increased costs exceed the losses they'd suffer from a delivery shortage.
> But GP was talking about "any shortage", not just amazon's shortage.
And followed it by arguing they could just raise wages, which makes it clear the "any" is within the context of at least talking about employers, and quite likely specifically talking about Amazon
You're being obtuse.
> Likewise, amazon would like more delivery drivers, but isn't desperate enough to actually raise wages and/or improve working conditions.
In other words, they've made a choice.
And followed it by arguing they could just raise wages, which makes it clear the "any" is within the context of at least talking about employers, and quite likely specifically talking about Amazon
You're being obtuse.
> Likewise, amazon would like more delivery drivers, but isn't desperate enough to actually raise wages and/or improve working conditions.
In other words, they've made a choice.
>And followed it by arguing they could just raise wages
>In other words, they've made a choice.
Did you skip the rest of the comment about how millennials can pay more, but choose not to?
>In other words, they've made a choice.
Did you skip the rest of the comment about how millennials can pay more, but choose not to?
Yes, I skipped it because it had no relevance whatsoever to the point of the original comment you replied to, because, as I pointed out, it's clear from context that it talked about Amazon's shortage, not any general form of shortage.
My reply above made that clear, so again you're being obtuse.
My reply above made that clear, so again you're being obtuse.
Amazon's delivery time targets are more likely to cause accidents than employing pot smokers. As long as their drivers are sober while they're driving, what they do on their own time shouldn't be a problem. What's likely to cause accidents is incentivizing drivers to ignore stop signs and run red lights so they can meet their delivery target metrics.
The money quote:
Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants, concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the many states where weed use remains illegal. […]
“If one of my drivers crashes and kills someone and tests positive for marijuana, that’s my problem, not Amazon’s,” said one
Amazon is just looking out for Number One and to hell with their so-called “partners.” This isn’t anything new.
If I were an ADA prosecuting such a case, I’d charge Amazon as a co-conspirator.
Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants, concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the many states where weed use remains illegal. […]
“If one of my drivers crashes and kills someone and tests positive for marijuana, that’s my problem, not Amazon’s,” said one
Amazon is just looking out for Number One and to hell with their so-called “partners.” This isn’t anything new.
If I were an ADA prosecuting such a case, I’d charge Amazon as a co-conspirator.
Especially with their new corporate slogan, "Puff hard and break things."
I’m guessing they can do this because they’re big enough to push back on insurance requirements.
The drug testing requirement for delivery drivers isn’t necessarily a moral imperative from management. It’s a condition of their insurance requirements. The article touches on this:
> Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants, concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the many states where weed use remains illegal.
The drug testing requirement for delivery drivers isn’t necessarily a moral imperative from management. It’s a condition of their insurance requirements. The article touches on this:
> Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants, concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the many states where weed use remains illegal.
Or perhaps they are underwriting their own insurance. Once companies get big enough, it makes more sense for them to hold onto the premiums themselves and just pay an insurance company to administer the paperwork.
I wouldn't work for Amazon even if they gave me weed to smoke.
It is strange to me that the only job I have ever been drug tested for was a movie theater as a janitor.
No tech job has ever even mentioned it.
No tech job has ever even mentioned it.
Marijuana testing is an arbitrary bar, but a fairly well-known one, so you do actually improve the distribution of your candidate pool by using it for low-skilled jobs with a large, undifferentiated labor pool.
Specifically, if it's known that these jobs test for Marijuana use, you're cutting off the portion of the applicant pool that knows this but still uses anyway, which stochastically reduces the likelihood that a candidate will eg show up to work intoxicated (fwiw, I'm a big fan of marijiana: I use it regularly, am a commensurately lighter drinker relative to my peers, and I'm pretty sure I'm making the right choice in terms of health and responsibility)
Like I said, it's an arbitrary bar and a path-dependent one, and a counterfactual equilibrium in which alcohol or another intoxicant was tested for would work just as well. But it's not irrational for employers to use it in certain labor market conditions. There are analogues in other labor markets, like requiring a college degree to be a firefighter; the false positive rate only really starts to matter if you start finding it difficult to find qualified applicants.
Tech jobs, by contrast, already have plenty of bars that their employees need to clear. In this context, any candidates swept up in blunt drug tests are likely to be false positives, and the use of the bar is a net negative for the employer.
Specifically, if it's known that these jobs test for Marijuana use, you're cutting off the portion of the applicant pool that knows this but still uses anyway, which stochastically reduces the likelihood that a candidate will eg show up to work intoxicated (fwiw, I'm a big fan of marijiana: I use it regularly, am a commensurately lighter drinker relative to my peers, and I'm pretty sure I'm making the right choice in terms of health and responsibility)
Like I said, it's an arbitrary bar and a path-dependent one, and a counterfactual equilibrium in which alcohol or another intoxicant was tested for would work just as well. But it's not irrational for employers to use it in certain labor market conditions. There are analogues in other labor markets, like requiring a college degree to be a firefighter; the false positive rate only really starts to matter if you start finding it difficult to find qualified applicants.
Tech jobs, by contrast, already have plenty of bars that their employees need to clear. In this context, any candidates swept up in blunt drug tests are likely to be false positives, and the use of the bar is a net negative for the employer.
As marijuana becomes increasingly legalized, I'm not sure why any company would continue to test for it, other than maybe using saliva tests to make sure workers aren't getting high on the job.
From a safety point of view, it’s difficult to test for marijuana intoxication. There’s a simple test any employer could do to test whether their forklift driver is drunk right now. The best a marijuana simple marijuana test can do is whether you’ve had it in the past few days.
You make a decent point. This is why I mentioned a saliva test, but in truth I'm not sure how effective it is. Anecdotally, I can tell you I once smoked at night before bed and passed a saliva test the next morning.
I believe they do that for police roadside tests in Australia. From what I can gather they have a rather bad reputation for not correlating very well with intoxication.
BAC is a well understood thing to measure, but marijuana testing seems pretty unreliable to me. I’ve read conflicting reports about how strongly TCH found on a saliva swap correlates to actual intoxication, and I don’t believe there’s been much scientific investigation done to determine what levels of intoxication are safe for what activities. As the primary customers of these products are law enforcement, and private sector “rules enforcement”, I’ll remain skeptical of them until somebody manages to convince me otherwise.
BAC is a well understood thing to measure, but marijuana testing seems pretty unreliable to me. I’ve read conflicting reports about how strongly TCH found on a saliva swap correlates to actual intoxication, and I don’t believe there’s been much scientific investigation done to determine what levels of intoxication are safe for what activities. As the primary customers of these products are law enforcement, and private sector “rules enforcement”, I’ll remain skeptical of them until somebody manages to convince me otherwise.
I wonder if they'll eventually introduce some sort of sobriety or reaction-time test on their phone apps to see if you're in a state to drive
Other places that don't' drug test and you'll probably be paid better and not work in sweatshop like conditions - most office jobs...
I'm not sure how one might reliably assess/assert impairment for a cannabis user. Traces can last for weeks and result in positive tests (blood analysis), even if the user isn't remotely stoned at the time. Don't know whether there's a breath test nowadays that indicates use in the past n hours, which might give a better idea of likely impairment.
It's not an idea I've explored seriously in any depth, but it seems like testing for capabilities required for a specific task might be a way to go here over actual drug tests.
Thus if it's determined that people need a certain reaction time to drive safely, that could be one thing tested.
Clearly setting the levels and the particular capabilities might well be contentious, but by aligning the test(s) with what's needed for the task it's fairer and in certain ways more robust: for instance, you could be under the threshold for alcohol/cannabis but if you combine that with legal medicines that cause drowsiness or simply happen to be extremely sleep deprived, you might pass a traditional test but the combined effects would lead one to fail a capability test.
It also helps in other ways too, such as fairly treating older people - you might be a sharp 75 year old and yet come up against some age limit. This let's you continue so long as you maintain the capabilities. Then if things start to change it's clear and takes some of the awkwardness out of the discussion about whether one is still fit for a job.
Of course the risk is that people are pseudoscientific or arbitrary in setting the capabilities to a level that doesn't align. We've all seen the unrealistic hiring prerequisites that managers ask for if left to decide (must have ten years experience of XYZ!) In the wrong hands these could be used unfairly (eg setting totally unrealistic levels precisely to screen out groups they don't want).
Thus if it's determined that people need a certain reaction time to drive safely, that could be one thing tested.
Clearly setting the levels and the particular capabilities might well be contentious, but by aligning the test(s) with what's needed for the task it's fairer and in certain ways more robust: for instance, you could be under the threshold for alcohol/cannabis but if you combine that with legal medicines that cause drowsiness or simply happen to be extremely sleep deprived, you might pass a traditional test but the combined effects would lead one to fail a capability test.
It also helps in other ways too, such as fairly treating older people - you might be a sharp 75 year old and yet come up against some age limit. This let's you continue so long as you maintain the capabilities. Then if things start to change it's clear and takes some of the awkwardness out of the discussion about whether one is still fit for a job.
Of course the risk is that people are pseudoscientific or arbitrary in setting the capabilities to a level that doesn't align. We've all seen the unrealistic hiring prerequisites that managers ask for if left to decide (must have ten years experience of XYZ!) In the wrong hands these could be used unfairly (eg setting totally unrealistic levels precisely to screen out groups they don't want).
"Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use13—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.14–16 However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol."
from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mari...
I wonder how much marijuana actually contributes to crashes. I think people can certainly get too high to drive, but unlike alcohol which lowers inhibitions, being 'too high' could even increase inhibitions somewhat (more anxiety, paranoia), so I'd expect people too high to drive are much less likely to get behind the wheel than drunk people. I certainly buy that 0.1% BAC + marijuana is probably worse than 0.1% BAC alone, but I'm curious what a just legal limit would be in comparison to 0.08% BAC regulations. What BTHCC produces equivalent impairment to 0.08% BAC, and how does that interact with THC tolerance?
Are people who consume thc multiple times per day worse drivers than people who never consume thc, when both groups are sober? I'd imagine there is a tolerance effect where stoned frequent-users are better drivers than stoned infrequent-users.
Would be interesting to try to make a cabinet arcade-style driving game that would accurately predict actual-road driving ability. Could even be used as a tool to demonstrate the dangers of drunk driving by putting it into bars and letting people try when above the legal limit (definitely some dangers of giving people good scores when they perform well while drunk though...)
from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mari...
I wonder how much marijuana actually contributes to crashes. I think people can certainly get too high to drive, but unlike alcohol which lowers inhibitions, being 'too high' could even increase inhibitions somewhat (more anxiety, paranoia), so I'd expect people too high to drive are much less likely to get behind the wheel than drunk people. I certainly buy that 0.1% BAC + marijuana is probably worse than 0.1% BAC alone, but I'm curious what a just legal limit would be in comparison to 0.08% BAC regulations. What BTHCC produces equivalent impairment to 0.08% BAC, and how does that interact with THC tolerance?
Are people who consume thc multiple times per day worse drivers than people who never consume thc, when both groups are sober? I'd imagine there is a tolerance effect where stoned frequent-users are better drivers than stoned infrequent-users.
Would be interesting to try to make a cabinet arcade-style driving game that would accurately predict actual-road driving ability. Could even be used as a tool to demonstrate the dangers of drunk driving by putting it into bars and letting people try when above the legal limit (definitely some dangers of giving people good scores when they perform well while drunk though...)
My company fixes recruiting process and software problems. Hats off to Amazon for this. I probably have the pot smoker conversation about once a month, usually with a 50-something or older executive that is running a factory short-staffed.
Pot is radioactive for many employers because insurance discounts and employment regulations are stuck in the "Refer Madness" era (Refer Madness was a propaganda film about the dangers of pot). So, employers face two surprises: increasing liability, workers comp and other insurance AND potentially, "hi we're from a government agency and under regulation XYZ 202 sub paragraph 293888 you need to drug test and immediately fire those that flunk or we will fine you. Have a happy day!"
Pot is radioactive for many employers because insurance discounts and employment regulations are stuck in the "Refer Madness" era (Refer Madness was a propaganda film about the dangers of pot). So, employers face two surprises: increasing liability, workers comp and other insurance AND potentially, "hi we're from a government agency and under regulation XYZ 202 sub paragraph 293888 you need to drug test and immediately fire those that flunk or we will fine you. Have a happy day!"
> 50-something or older executive
Do you mean to imply or assume that 50-somethings are unfamiliar with marijuana? It was already common for Baby Boomers, who are older than that.
What happens is that open-minded, pot-smoking 20-somethings think 50-somethings are close-minded and ignorant. Then 30 years later many of those 20-somethings are the exact same as their predecessors. Instead of dismissing the older generation, the 20-somethings might consider how they will avoid that fate.
Do you mean to imply or assume that 50-somethings are unfamiliar with marijuana? It was already common for Baby Boomers, who are older than that.
What happens is that open-minded, pot-smoking 20-somethings think 50-somethings are close-minded and ignorant. Then 30 years later many of those 20-somethings are the exact same as their predecessors. Instead of dismissing the older generation, the 20-somethings might consider how they will avoid that fate.
> My company fixes recruiting process and software problems. Hats off to Amazon for this. I probably have the pot smoker conversation about once a month, usually with a 50-something or older executive that is running a factory short-staffed.
Reading between the lines, the exec is trying to hire more workers for their factory, and wants to know if they can stop testing for marijuana so they'll be able to hire more workers. To which the poster, who has recurring experience with this issue, must (unfortunately) recommend against it because of the reasons they enumerate.
Or maybe it was just a close-minded, ignorant ageist comment. Better to assume positive intent though.
Reading between the lines, the exec is trying to hire more workers for their factory, and wants to know if they can stop testing for marijuana so they'll be able to hire more workers. To which the poster, who has recurring experience with this issue, must (unfortunately) recommend against it because of the reasons they enumerate.
Or maybe it was just a close-minded, ignorant ageist comment. Better to assume positive intent though.
I asked, I didn't assume anything.
after all, what's the difference between a drunk driver and a stoner driver?
the drunk driver runs the red light, and the stoner keeps waiting for the stop sign to turn green!
the drunk driver runs the red light, and the stoner keeps waiting for the stop sign to turn green!
More realistically:
The drunk driver will tell you that they're basically sober, and will be shocked when everyone can tell from their behavior that they're drunk.
The stoned driver will tell you how stoned they are, and will be concerned that everyone else on the street can tell from their behavior.
(These are, of course, broad generalizations. There will be exceptions.)
The drunk driver will tell you that they're basically sober, and will be shocked when everyone can tell from their behavior that they're drunk.
The stoned driver will tell you how stoned they are, and will be concerned that everyone else on the street can tell from their behavior.
(These are, of course, broad generalizations. There will be exceptions.)
Shadonototro(1)
hughrr(3)
Recruit the undead
boost the number of job applicants by as much as 400%
Anybody else think they meant 420% ?
Anybody else think they meant 420% ?
How about just having decent working conditions and paying a living wage? Amazon is cancer.
Those are also good ideas, but you don't have to exclude pot smokers in order to implement them.
$15/hr is what populist politicians have been calling a living wage. What do you think they should pay?
I think you may be misunderstanding the parent comment. In current usage, the term "living wage" doesn't have any connection to employee wages or what quality of life they buy. It's just a shibboleth reaffirming one's identity as anti-corporation qua corporation.
For warehouse workers, this would not be a problem. Although I imagine that could impact Amazon's bottom line.
For delivery drivers, it's a terrible idea. Driving large vehicles around people's neighborhoods while high is dangerous. It's a negative externality Amazon is recklessly putting onto the public.
Cue mental gymnastics of potheads claiming they actually drive better while stoned.
For delivery drivers, it's a terrible idea. Driving large vehicles around people's neighborhoods while high is dangerous. It's a negative externality Amazon is recklessly putting onto the public.
Cue mental gymnastics of potheads claiming they actually drive better while stoned.
I’m keeping my camera ready for when Snoop Dogg brings me my package.
When did HN start having such low quality comments?
What sort of intellectual dialog and witty repartee did you expect? I'm pretty sure that the guy at Amazon who decided to hire the potheads isn't going to win a Nobel.
A debate about drug classification? An insight with data or maybe even an intelligent anecdote about the travails of hiring in modern day USA?
Your comment wouldn't even get points on Reddit, it might get a "lol" on twitter
Your comment wouldn't even get points on Reddit, it might get a "lol" on twitter
Agreed. I see almost no intellectual curiosity and learn little these days. I'm only here because I hope it might change again.
People who live in glass houses and all.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28338633
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28338633
I'm genuinely confused by this comment. Can you explain why you think speculation about the hardware costs of Waymo robotaxi is at all related to a complaint about silly jokes on HN?
The complaint wasn’t about a silly joke. It was about low quality comments.
A comment that’s just “I think I remember ________” is about as low quality as it gets — especially when it turns out to be wrong.
I know low quality comments. I’ve contributed hundreds of them myself. Check my comment history if you don’t believe me!
A comment that’s just “I think I remember ________” is about as low quality as it gets — especially when it turns out to be wrong.
I know low quality comments. I’ve contributed hundreds of them myself. Check my comment history if you don’t believe me!
Ah OK, I didn't follow because I strongly disagree that that's a low quality comment, even if it turned out to be wrong.
That isn’t a low quality comment it was widely reported at the time that each cost $250k. See for yourself https://www.google.com/search?q=waymo+each+cost+%24250k&rlz=...
This company is just a nightmare. Seriously, do we really need more folks that smoke pot on the road?
The hell kind of comment is this? Would you ask, "Do we really need more folks who drink beer on the road?"
As long as they're not high/drunk when they're working, what's the issue?
As long as they're not high/drunk when they're working, what's the issue?
> Seriously, do we really need more folks that smoke pot on the road?
Who cares if they smoke pot when not working. We don't need high/impaired people on the road.
Who cares if they smoke pot when not working. We don't need high/impaired people on the road.
Well I am all in favor of legalizeing, but there is side effect: those who are smoking in public, cigarette but especially pot, must have harsh consequence. I go to some place in US and it is stinking everywhere on public streets. People can not force everybody to inhale their drug fume only because they want their high.
Edit for clarifying: maybe a $200 fine is good point for starting, go up to $500 with repeating. I also think many smoker drop cigarette butts and we need greater fine for that if it will stop.
Edit for clarifying: maybe a $200 fine is good point for starting, go up to $500 with repeating. I also think many smoker drop cigarette butts and we need greater fine for that if it will stop.
If by "harsh consequences" you mean a $20 fine for smoking pot/cigarettes/cigars in a crowded public places I guess maybe. If you're proposing locking people up that seems a bit extreme.
Just out of curiosity and this isn’t meant to be mean, but, what kind of harsh consequence do you think would be appropriate for imposing that smell?
Not gp, but I think a fine is pretty reasonable.
Jogging in the park and inhaling pot constantly is getting really annoying. I know a number of families that moved to the burbs, and one of the reasons they voiced is the sharp increase is pot smell/smoke in the kids' playgrounds.
Jogging in the park and inhaling pot constantly is getting really annoying. I know a number of families that moved to the burbs, and one of the reasons they voiced is the sharp increase is pot smell/smoke in the kids' playgrounds.
Joggers in parks are also annoying. Run in the woods, forest.
This is no doubt an unintended consequence of city ordinances/state laws that require you be X feet away from others. Where the fuck-else can you go other than a public place if you live in the city and have no yard?
Where do you draw the line though? Body odor isn't pleasant neither is bad breath or alcohol breath. Are you suggesting a fine for those as well?
Oh, I'm all in favour of "harsh consequence" for people for making bad smells. I'd start with drivers with engines that belch fumes and particulates because they are defective or out-of-adjustment.
We should aalso inflict "consequence" on the SUV drivers who clog the roads in the town I live in; I have medically-compromised lungs, so the stink of diesel fumes isn't just an annoyance for me.
Let's also punish people who use wood-fired stoves in built-up areas. I live in a smoke-controlled zone, but for some reason builders are allowed to install these stoves in new-build homes, provided the model of stove meets certain standards. Well, that's cool; if the stove itself is safe, it must be the owner, operating it incorrectly. So let's give them some consequence too.
These offences aren't much like smoking a ciggie, which last about 7 minutes; the amount of fumes produced by a ICE per minute is much greater than that produced by a smoker, and the ICE generally runs for much longer than 7 minutes. Wood-fired stoves are normally run continuously for several hours, and not for heat; they are used to generate a nostalgic and aesthetic effect. If that harms others, or even if it just creates a bad smell, let's be harsh.
I'm also keen to impose "harsh consequence" on dog owners who allow their dog to deposit smelly stuff at my front gate, and who then fail to pick up that shit and take it away with them. This is a particular problem if you get a 3-week cold snap; 3 weeks-worth of dogshit all thaws at the same time, and the smell of dogshit coming out of deep-freeze pervades entire neighbourhoods. And of course, pot-smoke doesn't contain toxoplasmosis.
We should aalso inflict "consequence" on the SUV drivers who clog the roads in the town I live in; I have medically-compromised lungs, so the stink of diesel fumes isn't just an annoyance for me.
Let's also punish people who use wood-fired stoves in built-up areas. I live in a smoke-controlled zone, but for some reason builders are allowed to install these stoves in new-build homes, provided the model of stove meets certain standards. Well, that's cool; if the stove itself is safe, it must be the owner, operating it incorrectly. So let's give them some consequence too.
These offences aren't much like smoking a ciggie, which last about 7 minutes; the amount of fumes produced by a ICE per minute is much greater than that produced by a smoker, and the ICE generally runs for much longer than 7 minutes. Wood-fired stoves are normally run continuously for several hours, and not for heat; they are used to generate a nostalgic and aesthetic effect. If that harms others, or even if it just creates a bad smell, let's be harsh.
I'm also keen to impose "harsh consequence" on dog owners who allow their dog to deposit smelly stuff at my front gate, and who then fail to pick up that shit and take it away with them. This is a particular problem if you get a 3-week cold snap; 3 weeks-worth of dogshit all thaws at the same time, and the smell of dogshit coming out of deep-freeze pervades entire neighbourhoods. And of course, pot-smoke doesn't contain toxoplasmosis.
Hey, we wouldn't have to stand around outside if the busybodies hadn't stopped us lighting up in bars.
Hopefully somebody introduces this. Weed stinks and people who smoke it outdoors are as much a nuisance as people who smoke cigarettes. Both should be legal but banned from any public places.
To be consistent we would have to ban cars for the same reason too. At least near where people live or work.
Also many perfumes and colognes. Some can be incredibly overwhelming.
No, cars and cigarettes are known to cause far more substantial health effects to those around. By what instinct does one find oneself tempted to compare bad smell to cancer and asthma?
Harsh? Like caning, or what?
Do you fart in public? Should your butt be plugged in public too?
Do you fart in public? Should your butt be plugged in public too?
I’m with you on the fines. It’s about as pleasant as snooting up someone else’s bowel contents on a train.
It is antisocial behaviour, has a health impact and needs to have a consequence.
It is antisocial behaviour, has a health impact and needs to have a consequence.