Pot posession charges 88% increase in BC

[Smurf]

ukcanuck wrote:

So what is your solution then? As I understand it most work sites have drug testing.

An excellent question. As I said earlier I have been out of camps for a few years and there was never testing in any camps I was in. The best reference I have would be my son who was an engineer in the oilfield and spent weeks in camps up until a couple of years ago when he left the industry. He said he was never tested once when he was in the industry or staying in camps. I have never heard anyone till now say there was testing in most camps. If there is and they are dry I say that's a good start.

I truly have no solution but total abstinence which I realize will never happen. Education would be the best start. Getting the idea out of peoples head that anything that impairs your mind is harmless. We need parents to stop letting their children know that mind altering substances are okay, harmless. We need to get mind altering substances black balled just like is happening with tobacco. I agree we would be much better off if government (us the people) were making the profits from it but we would be even better off if there were no profits to be made. The less the better, not the other way around.

What worries me most is if the medical profession is right and I stress "if" that you are somewhat impaired as long as THC is in your system, days, weeks, then how dangerous is it. I have been told that it is exactly like alcohol in that it hides itself to the user. Even tests that I have seen show that people are much more impaired than they think they are. This kind of thing worries me greatly. How impaired are you and for how long. How long after use are you actually slightly impaired to the extent that you might react minutely slower in an emergency situation and cause an accident that wouldn't normally happen.

I realize that there are thousands of things that can cause these same situations but we do not knowingly need to add to this by using something that in most cases is totally unnecessary. I am not actually against pot or anyone who uses it. I am just honestly worried that it is causing many more problems than we actually realize or want to accept. I totally realize that someone having a couple of tokes in their basement watching a movie is harmless. What I am worried about is when he steps out to drive home or go to the store for munchies. Or if and again I say if they are right that the affects last longer than thought, he goes to work the next day in a more dangerous than normal condition. I am stiving for prevention at it's utmost.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

[twobits]

I guess you guys know more than the medical professionals or is it denial. keith asked for up to date proof. RW and goatboy had already posted up to date information from the medical community and workplace safety. From what I can see the medical professionals are saying that the THC stays in your system for extended periods of time and that since it is what impairs you, you are impaired to some extent for that period of time. Sounds very logical to me. I would assume that you are alcohol impaired to some extent for as long as there is alcohol in your system. The amount of impairment would depend on amount used, frequency, etc.. I knew men in camp that I believe were permanently stoned and others who were permanently drunk. More than once I asked to work with someone else in a dangerous situation.

Why do you not find us some up to date, valid information from the medical communuity that proves them wrong because I for one am not going to take your word for it. Valid proof please.

Smurf, the notion that users are impaired for extended periods is nonsense. Some here have claimed up to 30 days based on the logic that use can be detected by a test in that period. Problem is that the tests don't detect the active ingrediant that gives the high, THC, they detect the metabolites of THC which are not psychoactive. In plain english, the metabolites do not make a person "high". THC is metabolized very quickly by the body, within a few hours the person will have metabolites in their system but nothing more than traces of THC hence they will not be impaired by the drug.
If one wants to argue the "lingering" effects of chronic use such as long term cognative impairment, lethargy etc, that is a wholly different kettle of fish that does not relate to the issue of immediate impairment after the use of a substance and equal long term effect arguments can be made for alcohol, prescription drugs etc etc. Do we make these illegal too because of the long term health consequences or are we more concerned about immediate impairment while on the job site?
Bottom line is that the high is gone in a few hours, there is not enough lingering THC that can be cumulative in the system to cause impairment, and tests only confirm that there was exposure in the past.....not when or not how much and most importantly, if the person is currently impaired. This is exactly why in Canada drug testing cannot be compelled from an employee unless it can be prooven that it may be a safety issue.


Pharmacology
The isomer most experts believe responsible for the effects of marijuana[1] is Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This isomer is a viscous, noncrystalline, water-insoluble, but highly fat soluble compound. Reported behavioral effects of marijuana must be interpreted with caution due to differences in dose, route of administration, social and cultural setting, and the experience and psychological set of the user. Critically, as is true with tobacco, the amount of active substance reaching the blood stream is dependent, in very large measure, upon the smoking technique being employed and the amount of substance destroyed or decomposed by the high temperature associated with the smoking.

According to current research, it is estimated that a marijuana cigarette when smoked with maximum efficiency will deliver no more than 50 percent of the Delta-9 THC within it. Put another way, when smoked in the cited fashion, only 50 percent of the Delta-9 THC will be absorbed into the lungs. The pharmacological effects of marijuana begin almost immediately after smoking begins, often within minutes, and blood plasma levels of Delta-9 THC peak approximately 20 minutes after ingestion (Schuckit, 1995, p. 90). With oral administration (by mouth as opposed to smoking), onset of effects is delayed, usually occurring thirty to sixty minutes later. Peak effects are also delayed, often occurring in the second or third hour after administration. These effects have been shown to correlate well with plasma concentrations. When taken orally, the effects of marijuana may linger up to 5 hours.

Marijuana is rapidly metabolized. The Delta-9 THC is converted into an inactive metabolite which is excreted in urine and feces. Peak plasma levels at first drop quickly (half-time of minutes), followed by a much slower phase (half-time of days). This slower phase is the body gradually metabolizing and eliminating the Delta-9 THC from the body. Traces of the substance exist for several days in human plasma and (from animal studies) also in the fat and brain after a single administration. Methodologies now exist that can detect the urinary metabolites of marijuana several days after the smoking of only a single marijuana cigarette. Marijuana metabolites were detected in urine in one study of heavy marijuana users 27 days after cessation of marijuana use.

There is thus little question that the technology exists to detect marijuana use days after such use has ceased. The ability to attribute importance to blood or urine concentrations of THC or its metabolites and associate this with impaired functioning is a more difficult task. Setting a blood or urine concentration level in the same fashion that blood alcohol levels (BALs) are set and associating this level with impairment is difficult, the major problem being the variability among subjects. This difficulty is further exacerbated by the fact that marijuana is very often used in combination with other substances, most frequently alcohol. Thus the issue and role of drug combinations has to be considered. Even with the cited detection technology, a positive test result stands to mean only that the subject was exposed to marijuana at some point in the recent past.

[Smurf]

keith1612 wrote:

my wifes father and her sister in law both work for the oilfield companies doing safety training and audits and i have never heard anyone say statistics dont mean much.
last i heard they mean everything and are what you base all training and safety on.
if you dont follow stats you are just following your gut feelings which means squat.

Okay I see where I lost you there. Yes we used stats all the time and they do mean something. What I meant was that when talking about accidents or what we wanted to achieve stats meant nothing to me. They showed us how we stood in comparison to other sites or the industry, but did not show us/me where we/me wanted to be. I did not truly care about the rest of the industry because my goal was always to be accident free and we actually attained it many years (never in a large camp of hundreds plus).

The reason I said they don't mean squat to me is when I hear someone say show me the stats. Are the stats really that bad and on and on, it makes me mad. The stats are really bad if there is one accident. If one person is sent home to their family injured, crippled or even worse dead. That is the reason I say they mean squat, because the only good stat is zero and we should all be striving for that at all times. Not speeding which has been pointed out as stupid, not driving impaired which is just as stupid and not working impaired which is just as stupid. Just because the stats are lower doesn't make it any better if people are injured or worse.

Believe me when I say that it was a fantastic feeling when we had a year end staff meeting and one of us was able to stand up and say that we went the whole year without a loss of time acident. There of course always cuts, scrapes etc. but nothing that required any loss of work time even on the day if said accident.

Hope this makes it clearer.

[Smurf]

Excellent post twobits but no where in there can I see where it says when you would actually be comletely over your impairement which is what I have been saying all along.

All I can truly see is:

There is thus little question that the technology exists to detect marijuana use days after such use has ceased. The ability to attribute importance to blood or urine concentrations of THC or its metabolites and associate this with impaired functioning is a more difficult task. Setting a blood or urine concentration level in the same fashion that blood alcohol levels (BALs) are set and associating this level with impairment is difficult, the major problem being the variability among subjects. This difficulty is further exacerbated by the fact that marijuana is very often used in combination with other substances, most frequently alcohol. Thus the issue and role of drug combinations has to be considered. Even with the cited detection technology, a positive test result stands to mean only that the subject was exposed to marijuana at some point in the recent past.

As far as I can see they are saying it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine the level of impairement the next morning.
Can you point out where I am wrong.

[ukcanuck]

Excellent post twobits but no where in there can I see where it says when you would actually be comletely over your impairement which is what I have been saying all along.

All I can truly see is:

There is thus little question that the technology exists to detect marijuana use days after such use has ceased. The ability to attribute importance to blood or urine concentrations of THC or its metabolites and associate this with impaired functioning is a more difficult task. Setting a blood or urine concentration level in the same fashion that blood alcohol levels (BALs) are set and associating this level with impairment is difficult, the major problem being the variability among subjects. This difficulty is further exacerbated by the fact that marijuana is very often used in combination with other substances, most frequently alcohol. Thus the issue and role of drug combinations has to be considered. Even with the cited detection technology, a positive test result stands to mean only that the subject was exposed to marijuana at some point in the recent past.

As far as I can see they are saying it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine the level of impairement the next morning.
Can you point out where I am wrong.

Lol that's funny, I don't know how more plain it could be, unless its an extremely risky job where people's lives are exposed to high risk, a marijuana "hang over" (for lack of a better term) just is a non issue. Separately, I would agree with you that working on a job site like the one you described with a stoner would make me concerned about someone actually high on the job, but that's an addiction issue and one that like alcohol abuse has nothing to do with the drug itself.

[keith1612]

keith1612 wrote:

my wifes father and her sister in law both work for the oilfield companies doing safety training and audits and i have never heard anyone say statistics dont mean much.
last i heard they mean everything and are what you base all training and safety on.
if you dont follow stats you are just following your gut feelings which means squat.

Okay I see where I lost you there. Yes we used stats all the time and they do mean something. What I meant was that when talking about accidents or what we wanted to achieve stats meant nothing to me. They showed us how we stood in comparison to other sites or the industry, but did not show us/me where we/me wanted to be. I did not truly care about the rest of the industry because my goal was always to be accident free and we actually attained it many years (never in a large camp of hundreds plus).

The reason I said they don't mean squat to me is when I hear someone say show me the stats. Are the stats really that bad and on and on, it makes me mad. The stats are really bad if there is one accident. If one person is sent home to their family injured, crippled or even worse dead. That is the reason I say they mean squat, because the only good stat is zero and we should all be striving for that at all times. Not speeding which has been pointed out as stupid, not driving impaired which is just as stupid and not working impaired which is just as stupid. Just because the stats are lower doesn't make it any better if people are injured or worse.

Believe me when I say that it was a fantastic feeling when we had a year end staff meeting and one of us was able to stand up and say that we went the whole year without a loss of time acident. There of course always cuts, scrapes etc. but nothing that required any loss of work time even on the day if said accident.

Hope this makes it clearer.

ok i dont know how long you have been out of camps but all camp jobs as i know it are dry, they also as far as i have heard all drug test as a condition of employment.
anyone involved in any kind of jobsite accident/incident is also drug tested.
going by that if there was a major weed issue in camps it would be well known.
i dont know why you cant keep the topic in line, this has nothing at all to do with workplace accidents.
if you can find some factual information on a serious issue with impaired pot smokers in the workplace go start a thread on that.
there is abuse of all forms and workplace and driving are covered under their own regulations and laws.

[keith1612]

Lol that's funny, I don't know how more plain it could be, unless its an extremely risky job where people's lives are exposed to high risk, a marijuana "hang over" (for lack of a better term) just is a non issue. Separately, I would agree with you that working on a job site like the one you described with a stoner would make me concerned about someone actually high on the job, but that's an addiction issue and one that like alcohol abuse has nothing to do with the drug itself.

would be no different that a alcohol hangover or i suppose going to work with the flu or a cold.
far in general from a high risk scenario.

[ukcanuck]

Lol that's funny, I don't know how more plain it could be, unless its an extremely risky job where people's lives are exposed to high risk, a marijuana "hang over" (for lack of a better term) just is a non issue. Separately, I would agree with you that working on a job site like the one you described with a stoner would make me concerned about someone actually high on the job, but that's an addiction issue and one that like alcohol abuse has nothing to do with the drug itself.

would be no different that a alcohol hangover or i suppose going to work with the flu or a cold.
far in general from a high risk scenario.

I agree other than when the surgeon is poking around in someones brain while battlling a headache and dehydration, I don't see what's the issue myself, unless its that some still are stuck on marijuanna as an issue because its against the law and therefore you're a criminal and have no morals and should be punished...

[waynetyea]

well next year they might hire another 100 rcmp to catch all these pot smokers.. after all they are easy to spot.. just look for the ones that are going the speed limit or just a bit lower and the ones that arnt driving aggressivley.. however they might even have a coffee close by... ya hire 200 and lets fill the jails with these guys

[Looney]

Actually that would be better than the streets, schools and workplaces.

[keith1612]

Actually that would be better than the streets, schools and workplaces.

yes fill the jails with harmless pot smokers so you can feel safe walking the streets with all the meth and heroin addicts.
fighting BC crime at its finest.

[Looney]

Nope throw them all in there to. Clean up the streets.

[Looney]

Actually the prisons could be set up as farms etc. and they could produce food, clothing etc for the poor. If they didn't like it they could give up their drugs and get a job. One chance when they are caught. Voluntary drug testing and they could stay out of prison if they stay clean.

[Rwede]

Actually the prisons could be set up as farms etc. and they could produce food, clothing etc for the poor. If they didn't like it they could give up their drugs and get a job. One chance when they are caught. Voluntary drug testing and they could stay out of prison if they stay clean.

I like it.

I know the potheads would rather lay on the couch and watch videos, but some productive return would be a win/win situation for all involved.

[WhatThe]

Actually the prisons could be set up as farms etc. and they could produce food, clothing etc for the poor. If they didn't like it they could give up their drugs and get a job. One chance when they are caught. Voluntary drug testing and they could stay out of prison if they stay clean.

Ya you are looney,lets send 500,000 people to prison for smoking pot. I guess they can cozy up to other 2 million other BC drug users known as alcohol drinkers.
Where do people like you come from and will you please leave my country. I'm not joking.

I don't even know why I responded to such complete idiocy.