# Impact of Legalized Recreational Marijuana on EMS?



## MMiz (Jan 20, 2014)

Has anyone noted any EMS-related issues with the legalization of marijuana?

Increased call volume for certain calls?  Workplace issues?  Anything else?


----------



## unleashedfury (Jan 20, 2014)

I am not in a legalized state, but marijuana is generally not the choice of recreational drug in my primary coverage area. 

We are on the major pipeline of the trafficking from NYC to Philadelphia and the areas inbetween Wilkes Barre, Scranton, Allentown and Bethlehem brings tons of Methamphetamines and Opiates to the area. 84% of the drug related activity and arrests here were related to methamphetamines, opiates and prescription drugs.


----------



## MonkeyArrow (Jan 20, 2014)

I don't live in a legalized state so I don't have anything to support my hypothesis with, but I suppose call volume will increase with more alcohol-like calls: DUIs, acute intoxications, etc.


----------



## medicsb (Jan 20, 2014)

My guess is that there will be no impact on EMS or ED visits.  If there is any sort of noticeable difference, it would be a few extra patients with panic attacks.  Realistically, the overwhelming majority of buyer of legal MJ are going to be folks that were already recreational users.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Jan 20, 2014)

MonkeyArrow said:


> I don't live in a legalized state so I don't have anything to support my hypothesis with, but I suppose call volume will increase with more alcohol-like calls: DUIs, acute intoxications, etc.




DUIs will go to jail. Just like always. 

"Acute intoxication" will get an RX for a Cheetos bolus and a nap. 

People that smoke pot aren't getting high and being idiots unless they smoke sherm/wet or they're idiots BEFORE they smoked pot. 

I find stoners to be mostly innocuous.


----------



## 9D4 (Jan 20, 2014)

From a DUI standpoint, as someone previously mentioned the topic, any THC metabolites is considered grounds for prosecution. As some of you may be aware, THC is fat soluble. Which means it stays in the system for a long time. Can be upwards of a month. The testing method will have to change from urine to swab, or.. Well you wouldn't be legal to drive for a couple days after one smoke. As of now, I can't say 
From my limited knowledge of workplace (I only know from speaking to one fire guy in WA), some places with legalized are now resorting to swab to test workers (which monitors about 12-14 hours).
Now personally I don't think there will be an increase of any merit on EMS calls.
I think we have more issues right now with synthetic than any we will have with real. I'm aware of a few cases just here locally where this has occurred. One was the freshman brother of a good friend of mine; 


> New Research Links Smoking Synthetic Marijuana With Stroke in Healthy, Young Adults


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131119142230.htm
Edit: Didn't see the acute intoxication. 
What's the worst that happens? Someone greens out on ya (normally caused by smoking going into the stomach)? Alright go to bed. You'll be fine when you get up (I may be putting too much faith in people on this one).


----------



## MonkeyArrow (Jan 20, 2014)

DEmedic and 9D4, I was mostly coming from a standpoint of DUIs causing more accidents which would lead to more EMS responses. However, given that recreational users are probably now going to become the legal users, I don't really see anything drastically jumping. I was just coming from the train of though that like any other drug, marijuana would impair ones judgement enough to cause people to do stupid things, which is when EMS usually gets involved. Just wanted to reiterate that these are purely my wild guesses as I have not experienced the effects of marijuana enough to scientifically describe its impact.


----------



## Tigger (Jan 21, 2014)

Well absolutely nothing has changed here in my little slice of Colorado. The people that were smoking pot before hand are still smoking pot. The idiots that drive high are still driving high, and they still go to jail when they get caught. 

Lots of my patients are stoned. This is nothing new to me. The cops didn't care before and they definitely do not now.

If the ambulance gets into an accident, I still pee in a cup. If the UA is positive for THC, I will be terminated. No one takes into account whether or not you were actually under the influence at the time and there is no blood draw requirement for employers or anything like that. 

Honestly pot is so prevalent in this state that I am not expecting big changes at all.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 21, 2014)

Where I'm at pot is so widespread that it's practically legal.  I mean, there are already conventions and festivals for the stuff and people walk around smoking in public, right in front of the cops, and don't get hassled.  I think it's a pretty benign drug.  

If anything, I think that large-scale legalization might actually wind up being a good thing in regards to overall health and wellness.  Alcohol is a hugely devastating substance that has a long list of social and physical problems.  What if people used pot socially instead of getting drunk?  I imagine less violence, fewer cases of severe intoxication, decreases in a number of cancers and organ failures, and probably a decrease in DUIs.  

How many times have you picked up unresponsive, vomiting patients found laying outside a bar at 2 AM?  Or been to a domestic dispute where someone got drunk and beat the heck out of someone else?  Or had the jaundiced patient with a belly so full of fluid that it looks like it'll pop, all from years of alcohol abuse?  

Now, think of how many times you've had to deal with someone because they're high.  Sure, it happens, but not nearly as often as we deal with drunks.  And it's almost never anything life threatening.  People don't get high and beat their wives.  They get high and eat Cheetos.


----------



## unleashedfury (Jan 21, 2014)

Tigger said:


> Well absolutely nothing has changed here in my little slice of Colorado. The people that were smoking pot before hand are still smoking pot. The idiots that drive high are still driving high, and they still go to jail when they get caught.
> 
> Lots of my patients are stoned. This is nothing new to me. The cops didn't care before and they definitely do not now.
> 
> ...



What I was figuring already, the people that were doing it illegally are just doing it now legally, 

Kinda like underage drinking,, the underage did it for years just now doing it legally,, when they turn 21


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Jan 21, 2014)

TheLocalMedic said:


> Where I'm at pot is so widespread that it's practically legal.  I mean, there are already conventions and festivals for the stuff and people walk around smoking in public, right in front of the cops, and don't get hassled.  I think it's a pretty benign drug.
> 
> If anything, I think that large-scale legalization might actually wind up being a good thing in regards to overall health and wellness.  Alcohol is a hugely devastating substance that has a long list of social and physical problems.  What if people used pot socially instead of getting drunk?  I imagine less violence, fewer cases of severe intoxication, decreases in a number of cancers and organ failures, and probably a decrease in DUIs.
> 
> ...




People who get drunk now will still get drunk if it is legal. I don't see any change occurring with that.


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 21, 2014)

The change I anticipate will be defined when an employee is terminated for using (not proven to be intoxicated on the job) legal marijuana and takes the employer to court. Eventually some test will be necessary to determine if the former employee still had enough THC in their system to be impaired,  so they will drum up some THC microgram per serum ml per body weight kg ratio as a guideline and then people will try to smoke just enough to stay "one toke under the line" to steal a phrase.

I reiterate a comment on commonsense EMS work: do not work with an impaired co-worker. Ever. To any degree. And don;t be that co-worker yourself.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 22, 2014)

DesertEMT66 said:


> People who get drunk now will still get drunk if it is legal. I don't see any change occurring with that.



Yeah, but if there was an alternative intoxicant to alcohol, perhaps we would see less people getting trashed on alcohol.  Perhaps it will even stave off a number of would-be alcoholics.  I can dream, can't I?


----------



## Tigger (Jan 22, 2014)

mycrofft said:


> The change I anticipate will be defined when an employee is terminated for using (not proven to be intoxicated on the job) legal marijuana and takes the employer to court. Eventually some test will be necessary to determine if the former employee still had enough THC in their system to be impaired,  so they will drum up some THC microgram per serum ml per body weight kg ratio as a guideline and then people will try to smoke just enough to stay "one toke under the line" to steal a phrase.
> 
> I reiterate a comment on commonsense EMS work: do not work with an impaired co-worker. Ever. To any degree. And don;t be that co-worker yourself.



Blood draws can determine the preset level of THC in a patient or suspect. A second test can determine baseline THC content, which is an option for law enforcement out here to determine DUI charges. 

Frankly I think this what employers should be doing but I doubt it happens.


----------



## unleashedfury (Jan 22, 2014)

Tigger said:


> Blood draws can determine the preset level of THC in a patient or suspect. A second test can determine baseline THC content, which is an option for law enforcement out here to determine DUI charges.
> 
> Frankly I think this what employers should be doing but I doubt it happens.



How much cost is associated with this type of test though? 

I remember when bath salts was a huge phase around here and testing for it was so expensive that it wasn't warranted. It was just assumed that a person was taking bath salts. 

The problems we have associated with alcohol will exsist with marijuana but the smell of marijuana on the breath will be impossible. I assume you just get suspicious if you see your partrner carrying visine, and has a lunchbox full of snacks.


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 22, 2014)

unleashedfury said:


> How much cost is associated with this type of test though? ….
> ….The problems we have associated with alcohol will exsist with marijuana but the smell of marijuana on the breath will be impossible. I assume you just get suspicious if you see your partrner carrying visine, and has a lunchbox full of snacks.



INdeed!
:rofl:

They'll get a urine test perfected if there is a market for it.


----------



## wannabeHFD (Jan 22, 2014)

All it will be is newbies or parents freaking out. Cannabis does not cause any medical emergencies


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 22, 2014)

DUI into a tree?


Also, many folks who use one recreational drug use others, often simultaneously.  Unless getting marijuana cheaper and easier than before slakes their need, they will still be drinking and doing crank or Ambien or whatever PLUS more weed than before.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 22, 2014)

mycrofft said:


> DUI into a tree?
> 
> 
> Also, many folks who use one recreational drug use others, often simultaneously.  Unless getting marijuana cheaper and easier than before slakes their need, they will still be drinking and doing crank or Ambien or whatever PLUS more weed than before.



It'll be REEFER MADNESS!!!  :roll eyes:

In all seriousness though, I think you're using a poor slippery slope argument.  Does alcohol automatically lead to abusing prescription medication?  Does watching violent movies lead to beating your wife?

There are many many people who use pot quietly and responsibly, and that number grows by the day.  Sure, there's also a lot of rampant drug abuse going on, but addicts are going after stuff a bit harder than pot, and marijuana doesn't exactly pose the same health risks as other drugs.  It could even be argued that pot is a fair sight healthier than using alcohol.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 22, 2014)

Tigger said:


> Blood draws can determine the preset level of THC in a patient or suspect. A second test can determine baseline THC content, which is an option for law enforcement out here to determine DUI charges.
> 
> Frankly I think this what employers should be doing but I doubt it happens.



I'm pretty sure that all the tests can determine is the presence of THC metabolites above a certain threshold, but cannot say "how much" a person has truly consumed.  That's part of the problem, it's generally just a 'yes' or 'no' check box on whether there's any at all in someone's system. 

From what I understand the mouth swab tests are becoming more popular because it's based on the principle that the epithelial cells in the mouth slough off and regenerate at a fast pace, meaning that if there's a positive test from the mouth the person has used within about 12 hours.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Jan 22, 2014)

I would presume most EMS agencies will have a zero tolerance policy in place. One could only imagine the liability and legal issues if an occurrence happened and an employee had positive history. 

Although, it may be legal within the state (alike concealed weapon, medication(s) etc); policies will deem the approval. 

R/r 911


----------



## Handsome Robb (Jan 23, 2014)

Until marijuana is legalized federally and there is an accurate test to test for acute intoxication, which they're getting a lot closer too with the swab tests, no EMS agency will allow employees to smoke marijuana on their time off

Marijuana is a schedule one drug according to the federal government. Federal government trumps the state government.


----------



## unleashedfury (Jan 23, 2014)

Robb said:


> Until marijuana is legalized federally and there is an accurate test to test for acute intoxication, which they're getting a lot closer too with the swab tests, no EMS agency will allow employees to smoke marijuana on their time off
> 
> Marijuana is a schedule one drug according to the federal government. Federal government trumps the state government.



Agreed, but from what I gather the Swab test can be manipulated by brushing your teeth.. how true is this.. Hell if I know. But I remember our random drug tests when from Swab test to urinalysis after they were told the swab test is not as accurate as other means.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Jan 23, 2014)

unleashedfury said:


> Agreed, but from what I gather the Swab test can be manipulated by brushing your teeth.. how true is this.. Hell if I know. But I remember our random drug tests when from Swab test to urinalysis after they were told the swab test is not as accurate as other means.




Swab tests are designed to test for recent use. You're right they aren't the most accurate but they're getting better. From what I've seen they actually are pretty tough to get past lately. One of those, "you've gotta get lucky" things.

I have my own beliefs on marijuana but until it's legalized federally and there's no possibility of threatening my employment there's no way I'm risking my livelihood for a night of fun. Kinda funny to read some of the responses in this thread. 

Really shows how misrepresented marijuana has been in our culture in the past.


----------



## unleashedfury (Jan 24, 2014)

Robb said:


> Swab tests are designed to test for recent use. You're right they aren't the most accurate but they're getting better. From what I've seen they actually are pretty tough to get past lately. One of those, "you've gotta get lucky" things.
> 
> I have my own beliefs on marijuana but until it's legalized federally and there's no possibility of threatening my employment there's no way I'm risking my livelihood for a night of fun. Kinda funny to read some of the responses in this thread.
> 
> Really shows how misrepresented marijuana has been in our culture in the past.



I'll be frankly honest I tried and did some questionable things in my hey day, but I grew up. And when I was a Team Leader at my old car dealership my one tech was a smoker, I just told him what you do on your own time is your business, As long as you don't show up on my time under the influence I don't care.


----------



## Golden Eye (Jan 24, 2014)

We need more people like Robb and Unleashed.
So MANY people especially the older generation are still being misleaded about weed, it's unbelievable.

Screw the government, they're so corrupted, it's not even funny.


----------



## SandpitMedic (Jan 24, 2014)

Golden Eye said:


> We need more people like Robb and Unleashed.
> So MANY people especially the older generation are still being misleaded about weed, it's unbelievable.
> 
> Screw the government, they're so corrupted, it's not even funny.



Have you seen the national polls? There are a lot of Unleashes and Robbs.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 24, 2014)

SandpitMedic said:


> Have you seen the national polls? There are a lot of Unleashes and Robbs.



I heard that California may be the next to legalize it.  And I'm awfully surprised we weren't the first.  Gotta be all those OC republicans tipping the scales…  <_<


----------



## SandpitMedic (Jan 24, 2014)

I am impartial. I don't really like getting high, nor do I shun others who may enjoy it. With weed I mean.

I believe in due time we will teach our children about the prohibition era of weed as we do the prohibition era of alcohol currently. And soon like in the next 4-6 years. By 2020.... Wow that is really weird to say and think about....
Sorry ...  by 2020 I think weed will have been legalized by all states and the federal govt, perhaps sooner.


----------



## SandpitMedic (Jan 24, 2014)

I also heard Cali is next, and I am as surprised as you that the state that brought us Sublime and Snoop Dogg will be 3rd to legalize it.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 24, 2014)

Here's how I imagine it going down in California…

It gets legalized in the state.  

Big tobacco companies like Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds will buy up large tracts of land in the central valley and plant big areas of marijuana crops.  

This mass produced marijuana will have a pretty uniform and (as the pot snobs, not too far removed from wine snobs, would say) par or sub-par quality.  

This will create a marketplace where we have the cheaper, lower quality marijuana products and a premium market where the specially cultivated, smaller crops will still ask a premium price.  

The state will rake in a pretty huge tax on all the product sold.  And the range of products will be large, including all the various forms of the product and accessories.  

Other states will see the profit and push legalization soon after.  

$$$ Profit $$$


----------



## unleashedfury (Jan 24, 2014)

SandpitMedic said:


> I am impartial. I don't really like getting high, nor do I shun others who may enjoy it. With weed I mean.
> 
> I believe in due time we will teach our children about the prohibition era of weed as we do the prohibition era of alcohol currently. And soon like in the next 4-6 years. By 2020.... Wow that is really weird to say and think about....
> Sorry ...  by 2020 I think weed will have been legalized by all states and the federal govt, perhaps sooner.



That's what I believe. I mean growing up if you would have told me marijuana would be legal I would have laughed at you and said Yeah Right!! 

But history has proven one thing. In the prohibition days, speakeasies and moonshining where of the pleather, alcohol funded organized crime. Some believe the end of prohibition helped build a economy out of the great depression. Increasing jobs, and revenue. Of course there may still be areas of employment or religious groups that will prohibit marijuana just as those who have you refrain from alcohol. 

I strongly believe that Marijuana will be subjected to legalization, for 2 reasons.
1. Widespread use, and the means to enforce marijuana laws is limited. The means to arrest, arraign, and house offenders is costly, and overwhelms the justice system for people who may have a small amount of marijuana present. 
2. Economic favorability, If the federal govt. legalizes marijuana use for recreation, State and federal taxes may be placed on it. Employment will increase as they'll need farmers, manufacturers and distributors. Of course if they are going to offer a premium blend and a generic blend. they will need salesperson and representatives just like a tobacco company. 

as far as the "addiction factors" its a psychological thing. I know people who cant go through a day without having THC, Just like cigarettes being a Psychological thing and nicotine. If you don't have either or one or the other, misery, edgy and anxiety tends to be present.


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 24, 2014)

TheLocalMedic said:


> It'll be REEFER MADNESS!!!  :roll eyes:
> 
> In all seriousness though, I think you're using a poor slippery slope argument.  Does alcohol automatically lead to abusing prescription medication?  Does watching violent movies lead to beating your wife?
> 
> There are many many people who use pot quietly and responsibly, and that number grows by the day.  Sure, there's also a lot of rampant drug abuse going on, but addicts are going after stuff a bit harder than pot, and marijuana doesn't exactly pose the same health risks as other drugs.  It could even be argued that pot is a fair sight healthier than using alcohol.



Speaking from experience in a jail. No, one drug does not always lead to worse ones. And if weed is legal there is supposedly a lowered chance they will be running into hard characters like they do now. While _the majority of weed smokers do not go on to hard drugs_ (I accept this on faith), the VAST majority of hard drug users did and do smoke weed because they are mostly polychemical abusers if opportunity and money allow it.

Pharmaceutically speaking, alcohol and weed are apples and oranges. Alcohol is a bad substance for many people and good for none, in reality. Weed is too but it lacks some of the more active aspects of inhibition blocking alcohol does. Once we get legalized pot, we can start studies of its effects on the human brain and user's psychosocial standing we can't do as is.

Smoking anything is silly, what with inhaling micro soot and combustion gasses, dirty ashtrays (that smell like bad socks), increase likelihood of fires starting, etc.


----------



## 9D4 (Jan 24, 2014)

SandpitMedic said:


> I am impartial. I don't really like getting high, nor do I shun others who may enjoy it. With weed I mean.
> 
> I believe in due time we will teach our children about the prohibition era of weed as we do the prohibition era of alcohol currently. And soon like in the next 4-6 years. By 2020.... Wow that is really weird to say and think about....
> Sorry ...  by 2020 I think weed will have been legalized by all states and the federal govt, perhaps sooner.


I read the other day that with the current rate that MMJ is progressing that it will be around 2030. I'll try to find that again.



mycrofft said:


> Speaking from experience in a jail. No, one drug does not always lead to worse ones. And if weed is legal there is supposedly a lowered chance they will be running into hard characters like they do now. While _the majority of weed smokers do not go on to hard drugs_ (I accept this on faith), the VAST majority of hard drug users did and do smoke weed because they are mostly polychemical abusers if opportunity and money allow it.
> 
> Pharmaceutically speaking, alcohol and weed are apples and oranges. Alcohol is a bad substance for many people and good for none, in reality. Weed is too but it lacks some of the more active aspects of inhibition blocking alcohol does. Once we get legalized pot, we can start studies of its effects on the human brain and user's psychosocial standing we can't do as is.
> 
> Smoking anything is silly, what with inhaling micro soot and combustion gasses, dirty ashtrays (that smell like bad socks), increase likelihood of fires starting, etc.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/...s-gateway-effect-much-larger-than-marijuanas/
http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/
There's your gateway drug theory presumption backed up somewhat. 
I think the bigger reason of it is the black market enforces the behavior. I can't tell you how many times I picked up from people when I was younger that I didn't know too well and got offered coke, ecstasy (common) and even heroin once. 

I didn't quite understand your second point, but am I reading right that you think mmj is good for no one? 

To your last point, have you not noticed how popular vapes are getting? Those little pens people inhale smoke out of? Yeah, those can be filled with what is called tincture and oils for the liquid ones. Or shatter for the solid vapes. People will always smoke, but this is the generation where technology absorbs our lives. The more techy you are, the more props you get. Even edibles are getting pretty popular. I remember my uncle a couple years back bringing back a lollipop from a dispensary one time and that was his preferred method after.


----------



## Golden Eye (Jan 25, 2014)

I honestly feel they should change the law and let us smoke on our downtime only.
There's too many things going on (911) and after our shift, it would be great to just relax in bed and smoke and not have to worry about anything.

But for people who abuses it and smokes while they're on their job, they should be fired and not get hired back to any companies. They should make adult choices and not be stupid when they have a duty to perform while on their shift.

This is my opinion. I know many will disagree upon, but idc.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 25, 2014)

If you need a chemical to help you relax after a shift, isn't that a sign of a bigger issue in how you deal with stress?


----------



## NomadicMedic (Jan 25, 2014)

Relax in bed and smoke? Seriously?


----------



## Av8or007 (Jan 25, 2014)

ffemt8978 said:


> If you need a chemical to help you relax after a shift, isn't that a sign of a bigger issue in how you deal with stress?




True, but just to play devils advocate - what is the difference between someone using delta 9 THC compared to someone using ETOH to "relax" off duty.

Both cause impairment, both may be ok if off duty and this impairment is not an issue (no work soon or no driving) and both have dose dependent risks, although likely a lot less with THC.

Both can also cause psychological dependence, etoh can also cause physical dependence. Both may be either used occasionally or abused. 
---------
Fyi for the record i DO NOT and never have used drugs.


----------



## UnkiEMT (Jan 25, 2014)

unleashedfury said:


> I assume you just get suspicious if you see your partrner carrying visine, and has a lunchbox full of snacks.



Well bugger, I just noted in another thread that I in fact do carry a bag with some eyedrops and snacks in it...

I better keep my eyes out for the narcs now.


----------



## Golden Eye (Jan 26, 2014)

DEmedic said:


> Relax in bed and smoke? Seriously?



So drinking alcohol and popping pills is fine, but smoking or injesting marijuana is looked down upon? Lol.

If you ever did your research about why mairijuana was banned, you would know it saves lifes, but the big pharmaceutical companies doesn't want that because they already make billions using us as test experiments already and still do til' this day with their so called "vaccines" which contains so much toxic chemicals you woul be surprised what's in it. No wonder autism rate has skyrocketed the past year and so called SIDS. In the 1983, only 1 in 10,000 children had autism, now in 2013, it's 1 in 50. And you guys also noticed that cancer rate has gone up with different new kind of diseases? I'm surprised still at how many people still trust our government til this day. They're so corrupt and you wouldn't even know it until you do your research. So yeah, keep popping pills and eat your GMO foods while I stick to organic and natural remedies.

I don't smoke anymore, but I used to when I was a teenager. I'm just sick of people still acting like sheeps and still falling for the marijuana propaganda. Same with pills, vaccines, and GMO foods.

I know I went off topic a little, but whatever.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Jan 26, 2014)

ffemt8978 said:


> If you need a chemical to help you relax after a shift, isn't that a sign of a bigger issue in how you deal with stress?




I think that's situational dependent. If you're using every single night and it's the only thing hold in you together than yes, I agree, there's a problem.

If you're using recreationally/socially, every now and again I don't see an issue.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 27, 2014)

Golden Eye said:


> So drinking alcohol and popping pills is fine, but smoking or injesting marijuana is looked down upon? Lol.



…  I think that they were remarking on the fact that smoking in bed is dangerous.  Ever see a mattress fire?  Those things don't spontaneously combust...


----------



## Tigger (Jan 27, 2014)

I've got no issues with marijuana use. But overall, don't tell me that setting something on fire and inhaling the smoke is healthy. It's not. 

As for marijuana saving lives? Evidence please. 

Not even going to touch the vaccine comments.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 27, 2014)

Tigger said:


> I've got no issues with marijuana use. But overall, don't tell me that setting something on fire and inhaling the smoke is healthy. It's not.
> 
> As for marijuana saving lives? Evidence please.
> 
> Not even going to touch the vaccine comments.



Tigger, you're absolutely right about smoking being unhealthy in general.  Inhaling heated gas and particulates isn't good for you.  

As for not touching the vaccine comment…  May I?  Vaccines DO NOT cause autism, and I still have no idea where the SIDS reference came from.  Yes, autism is on the rise, but there is NO evidence that vaccines are in any way responsible.  Yes, there are preservatives and various chemicals present in vaccines that are "bad" for you, but they are present in very small amounts and there is an abundant lack of data from opponents of vaccination that they are causing any problems.  Speculation about vaccines being linked to autism is just that: speculation.  And the benefits of vaccination far outweigh a speculative risk (polio anyone?).  Sure, more people are being vaccinated than ever, but there are many many other things that we are in contact with now more than ever as well, and any may be a contributing factor…  Pollution, prescription meds, cleaning chemicals, antibiotics, new bacteria and microbes, female suffrage (kidding).  There are so many things out there that could potentially be linked to autism or cancer rates that it may be impossible to tell for sure if any are proximate causes.  

Also, take into account the fact that autism awareness plays a very significant role in that 1 in 50 statistic.  "While government researchers admitted they cannot be certain of the reasons behind the upward trend in numbers of children parents report as having been diagnosed with autism, they concluded that better testing methods, changes in diagnostic services and increased awareness of ASD among parents, educators and health care professionals probably explain the striking rise in autism prevalence."

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-Ne...s-1-in-50-American-Children-Diagnosed-wi.aspx

The article does conclude that there is an increase in autism, but that is in part explainable by increased awareness and better testing.


----------



## STXmedic (Jan 27, 2014)

http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 27, 2014)

Robb said:


> I think that's situational dependent. If you're using every single night and it's the only thing hold in you together than yes, I agree, there's a problem.
> 
> If you're using recreationally/socially, every now and again I don't see an issue.



I disagree...if you are using it to deal with the stress of your job, then it's a problem.  I'm not even going to discuss the recreational/social aspects of it.


----------



## chaz90 (Jan 27, 2014)

STXmedic said:


> http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/



One of my favorite websites. I've grown tired of attempting to explain the absence of any links with actual logic to some small minded people. Referring some to this website is just so much easier.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 27, 2014)

STXmedic said:


> http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/



+1 internets


----------



## unleashedfury (Jan 27, 2014)

TheLocalMedic said:


> Tigger, you're absolutely right about smoking being unhealthy in general.  Inhaling heated gas and particulates isn't good for you.
> 
> As for not touching the vaccine comment…  May I?  Vaccines DO NOT cause autism, and I still have no idea where the SIDS reference came from.  Yes, autism is on the rise, but there is NO evidence that vaccines are in any way responsible.  Yes, there are preservatives and various chemicals present in vaccines that are "bad" for you, but they are present in very small amounts and there is an abundant lack of data from opponents of vaccination that they are causing any problems.  Speculation about vaccines being linked to autism is just that: speculation.  And the benefits of vaccination far outweigh a speculative risk (polio anyone?).  Sure, more people are being vaccinated than ever, but there are many many other things that we are in contact with now more than ever as well, and any may be a contributing factor…  Pollution, prescription meds, cleaning chemicals, antibiotics, new bacteria and microbes, female suffrage (kidding).  There are so many things out there that could potentially be linked to autism or cancer rates that it may be impossible to tell for sure if any are proximate causes.
> 
> ...



A Round of applause. 

there is a million different aspects that could cause autism increases these days vs. just vaccinating your children. 

I met tons of "flower power" parents who insist that vaccinating your children is no good. Umm.. Small pox and polio have both been practically eradicated, I haven't heard of a good case of Mumps in forever. shall we? 

Vaccination has become the target for holistic medicine and the hippies. Yet we seem to forget that theres probably more hazardous materials in your own home these days vs. what there was 20 years ago. The research to prove Autism and other Mental health disorders has significantly improved since the hey day. Needless to say 30 years ago if your kid appeared as ADHD or Autistic the answer was to beat them. that they were lazy, unintelligent drooling mouth breathers. Now we have the means to prove that kids do have mental health issues and can test much earlier to provide a success track and support services to provide a much more functional  or fufillinglife.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Jan 27, 2014)

ffemt8978 said:


> I disagree...if you are using it to deal with the stress of your job, then it's a problem.  I'm not even going to discuss the recreational/social aspects of it.




That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This thread is about all aspects of marijuana use by EMS professionals though, not just those using it to "wind down" after work.

Periodic use even if it's stress related is not a problem in my eyes. If you can't function without smoking a bowl or have to have it when you come home or you don't sleep that's a problem.

How many people have had a really rough day at work, gone home and had a beer or cocktail? I'm not talking about getting blasted in talking about one drink. I know I have and I know I do not have a problem either. I don't drink every day, I don't need alcohol to cope. If someone wants to go home and indulge responsibly in a legal substance why does that automatically mean they have a problem?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 27, 2014)

Robb said:


> That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This thread is about all aspects of marijuana use by EMS professionals though, not just those using it to "wind down" after work.
> 
> Periodic use even if it's stress related is not a problem in my eyes. If you can't function without smoking a bowl or have to have it when you come home or you don't sleep that's a problem.
> 
> How many people have had a really rough day at work, gone home and had a beer or cocktail? I'm not talking about getting blasted in talking about one drink. I know I have and I know I do not have a problem either. I don't drink every day, I don't need alcohol to cope. If someone wants to go home and indulge responsibly in a legal substance why does that automatically mean they have a problem?



Except that it is still an illegal substance a) in 48 other states, and b) at the federal level.  Just because this administration has said they won't prosecute cases in those two states does not mean that the next administration will refuse to prosecute them also.

Yes, this is a generalized discussion on the impact of "legalized" marijuana use on EMS but I don't feel like discussing the whole thing.  Others here will offer their opinions on various aspects of it, but the stress relief factor is what I wanted to discuss.

But if you feel periodic use is okay, then let me ask you this:  

At what level of THC in a person's system should they not be allowed to work or drive, or have patient care, and what is that level based on?

Have there been any studies that show how long it takes the body to process the THC and remove it from the system?  

What level of THC affects a person's judgement, and how long after smoking does the body return to THC levels that do not affect judgement?


----------



## unleashedfury (Jan 27, 2014)

ffemt8978 said:


> Except that it is still an illegal substance a) in 48 other states, and b) at the federal level.  Just because this administration has said they won't prosecute cases in those two states does not mean that the next administration will refuse to prosecute them also.
> 
> Yes, this is a generalized discussion on the impact of "legalized" marijuana use on EMS but I don't feel like discussing the whole thing.  Others here will offer their opinions on various aspects of it, but the stress relief factor is what I wanted to discuss.
> 
> ...



This is what I want to know. Where alcohol a person is classified as legally intoxicated at 0.08 and is impaired and cannot legally operate a motor vehicle. 

Where as alcohol the gold standard is 1 alcoholic beverage = 1 hour to be processed through your system. Of course this is a average as I may process a alcoholic beverage in 20 minutes vs. someone elses 2.5 hours. 

Where as THC we don't have a standard to follow to decide what the time for THC to be processed through the body and no longer impairs the user. Naturally as marijuana comes in various strengths and measures. So what is the measure of the equivalence to 1 alcoholic drink. will it be measured in grams, or Pipefulls, the size of a average "joint" or what have you. 

If it does become a legalized product the people who chose to use it, need a standard to follow by


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 27, 2014)

There is some excellent research and speculation out there that Marijuana legalization will save a large number of lives as it becomes a substitute product for tobacco. One or two blunts a day is exponentially less damaging to your lungs then a pack of cigs. There is a pretty good feeling among economist that Lung Cancer rates as well as blood pressure problems associated with nicotine use..etc..etc...will drop rapidly after the legalization of marijuana. 


I am all for it being legalized but I am also for private corporations retaining the right to refuse employment and fire people who use it period...


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jan 27, 2014)

unleashedfury said:


> This is what I want to know. Where alcohol a person is classified as legally intoxicated at 0.08 and is impaired and cannot legally operate a motor vehicle.



Perhaps we should have the government set the acceptable level of THC the same way they did the BAC level: completely, 100% arbitrarily. 

Just pick a number and put it into law.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jan 27, 2014)

ffemt8978 said:


> But if you feel periodic use is okay, then let me ask you this:
> 
> At what level of THC in a person's system should they not be allowed to work or drive, or have patient care, and what is that level based on?
> 
> ...



Well considering that we still can't answer those questions about alcohol, I'm not sure why it's so important to have the "acceptable level" of THC nailed down, especially considering the fact that it is so rarely implicated in accidents that affect others.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 28, 2014)

Halothane said:


> Well considering that we still can't answer those questions about alcohol, I'm not sure why it's so important to have the "acceptable level" of THC nailed down, especially considering the fact that it is so rarely implicated in accidents that affect others.



Maybe the rarity of accidents has to do with it's rarity of being present during patient care - possibly due to it being illegal.

However, with the legalization in two states, it is something that is going to become more common.  If THC affects a person's judgement, then it will eventually end up affecting patient care.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jan 28, 2014)

To the original question, I think legalization will have absolutely minimal impact on EMS and on the healthcare system overall.

THC intoxication generally doesn't result in violent or destructive or risky behavior. THC "overdoses" are practically non-existent. Long term health effects are probably possible, but are likely much less than what follows the use of other common drugs. THC interacts minimally with other drugs, though it can potentiate sedative affects of benzos and other tranquilizers. 

I don't think we'll even see a dramatic increase in the number of people using it. Most people who are inclined to use it already do.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 28, 2014)

Halothane said:


> To the original question, I think legalization will have absolutely minimal impact on EMS and on the healthcare system overall.
> 
> THC intoxication generally doesn't result in violent or destructive or risky behavior. THC "overdoses" are practically non-existent. Long term health effects are probably possible, but are likely much less than what follows the use of other common drugs. THC interacts minimally with other drugs, though it can potentiate sedative affects of benzos and other tranquilizers.
> 
> I don't think we'll even see a dramatic increase in the number of people using it. Most people who are inclined to use it already do.



I would agree with this statement provided it is not the EMS providers using it.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jan 28, 2014)

ffemt8978 said:


> I would agree with this statement provided it is not the EMS providers using it.



Why shouldn't off-duty EMS providers use a legal and largely harmless substance?

Do EMS providers have fewer rights than non-EMS providers?

Do you think EMS providers should be disallowed from consuming alcohol, as well?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 28, 2014)

Halothane said:


> Why shouldn't off-duty EMS providers use a legal and largely harmless substance?
> 
> Do EMS providers have fewer rights than non-EMS providers?
> 
> Do you think EMS providers should be disallowed from consuming alcohol, as well?



Show me data that says approximately how long it takes THC to no longer affect a person or how long it takes to metabolize and we can discuss it.  Alcohol has a relatively know rate of being metabolized by the body, and there are limits to what is tolerated in your system while at work.  Also, alcohol has a relatively known effect on judgement and motor abilities.  Can the same be said of THC?

And don't our patients have the right to be treated by somebody who is not under the influence of anything?


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 28, 2014)

Halothane said:


> Why shouldn't off-duty EMS providers use a legal and largely harmless substance?
> 
> *Do EMS providers have fewer rights than non-EMS providers?*
> 
> Do you think EMS providers should be disallowed from consuming alcohol, as well?




Quite frankly yes, we are and should be held to a higher standard.


----------



## Anu (Jan 28, 2014)

Golden Eye said:


> So drinking alcohol and popping pills is fine, but smoking or injesting marijuana is looked down upon? Lol.



No, it's not.  And yes, it is.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 28, 2014)

ffemt8978 said:


> Show me data that says approximately how long it takes THC to no longer affect a person or how long it takes to metabolize and we can discuss it.  Alcohol has a relatively know rate of being metabolized by the body, and there are limits to what is tolerated in your system while at work.  Also, alcohol has a relatively known effect on judgement and motor abilities.  Can the same be said of THC?
> 
> And don't our patients have the right to be treated by somebody who is not under the influence of anything?



The general consensus is that the effects of marijuana depend on the dose and method of ingestion.  However, in the case of a standard dose (i.e. a joint) that is smoked, multiple studies generally agree that the "acute intoxication" phase or "high" lasts 2-4 hours with some lingering effects (including motor impairment) may last up to eight hours.  Heavier use or ingesting marijuana in food may make the intoxication stronger and longer lasting.  Metabolites may be present for 2 weeks to 3 months, depending on body fat, kidney function and amount of use, but the metabolites do not get you "high" or in fact have any effect on cognitive function.  

While the effects of marijuana vary from user to user (just like with alcohol, mind you) there are a collection of symptoms that are generally the same with most users.  They include euphoria, loss of coordination or reaction time, memory impairment, dry mouth, bloodshot eyes, disorientation, impaired judgement, difficulty problem solving, increased appetite and somnolence.  Uncommon side effects include paranoia, racing heart rate and acute psychosis (generally in those predisposed to mental illness).  

>>>TL : DR VERSION:  We know how pot affects people and roughly how long it lasts if you're smoking it.  

There are tests being developed to more accurately determine whether a user is under the influence of marijuana, but one commonly being used is the oral swab.  LAPD is now using one that can determine use within three hours.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/12/27/41219/la-dui-checkpoints-will-expand-testing-of-drug-imp/

I agree that nobody should drive under the influence, let alone practice medicine while high.  However if it is used responsibly, I don't see this being an issue.  Most, if not all, companies out there have policies stating no alcohol 8-12 hours before shift, and a similar policy should be in place for marijuana.


----------



## TheLocalMedic (Jan 28, 2014)

On another note, where I live and work marijuana is very widely used.  I mean, VERY widely used.  While it's not legal, unless you're doing something really flagrant, like smoking pot in a really public place (like the mall) or around kids, law enforcement really doesn't give a hoot about it.  

That being said, I have been on scores of DUI collisions, and only TWO where the driver was high on marijuana.  One caused some pretty significant property damage, but neither resulted in any injuries or involved other vehicles.  I have had more collisions with people blitzed on prescription meds than stoned.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jan 28, 2014)

Rialaigh said:


> Quite frankly yes, we are and should be held to a higher standard.



Why?

And who gets to decide what this "higher standard" is? 

Are physicians responsible to this standard, as well? What about teachers? Electricians? Taxi drivers? Why or why not? How do you come to that conclusion?

And why would/should recreational, off-duty (of course) use of THC violate this "higher standard", anyway? Does off duty use of alcohol violate it? Am I not allowed to have a glass of wine with my dinner, or a beer while watching a football game?

What else would this "higher standard" require? Do I need to attend church? Work out every day? Maintain a certain bodyfat or be able to bench press a certain % of my body weight? Read a certain number of books per year? Volunteer in soup kitchens for a certain number of hours per year?

I think the best approach by far is to simply leave adults alone to make their own decisions about what to put in their body and what to do with their own time. Unless you have COMPELLING evidence that some off-duty activity negatively impacts on-duty performance and the safety of others, it simply isn't your business to say what decisions other people should or shouldn't make.


----------



## ExpatMedic0 (Jan 28, 2014)

If it can be proven that the effects of it are not in your system while on duty, its no ones business and I think its fine ifs legal in your area. 

However, if its effects are in anyway still impairing the provider, its the same as coming to work under the influence of any other mind altering substance(eg ETOH) 
The question is, is there a test which we can give to a suspected provider to prove if they are high or not? The main problem is THC stays in your body for longer than the therapeutic effect of the marijuana and you will still test positive on a UA, even days after the effects of the drug are gone. At least that is my understanding?


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 28, 2014)

Halothane said:


> *Why?*
> 
> And who gets to decide what this "higher standard" is?
> 
> ...



Because those of us that work 911 are public servants just like police and fire and we serve at the pleasure and need of our respective communities. Would your EMS organization have an issue employing someone part time who also works part time as a very high publicity porn star? How about your local law enforcement, do you think the community would tolerate a sheriff that smoked weed every time he got off work? 

Like it or not as public servants we are and should be held to a higher standard. If you don't want to be held to a higher standard and looked at differently then EMS is just a taxi driver job...its the public service that sets us apart, and it's sad to see many agencies doing their best to get away from that.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Jan 28, 2014)

Why? Why should we be held to a higher standard? Are you serious? It's a job. That's all it is. A means to earn money to support your family and do things that you like to do and live your life. Work is a means to live, not life. By that argument mailmen should be held to a higher standard because they're public servants so are trash men and referees. Hell the we're all covered by the same statute when it comes to assault and battery.


And with that I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 28, 2014)

Robb said:


> Why? Why should we be held to a higher standard? Are you serious? *It's a job. That's all it is. A means to earn money to support your family and do things that you like to do and live your life. Work is a means to live, not life.* By that argument mailmen should be held to a higher standard because they're public servants so are trash men and referees. Hell the we're all covered by the same statute when it comes to assault and battery.
> 
> 
> And with that I'm done with this thread.



So you think all jobs are only a means to earn money and serve no other purpose...If the only reason you are in EMS is for the money then I would urge you to find another field. there are a lot more lucrative jobs out there that require less time and effort to do right that don't involve killing someone when you aren't on top of your game.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Jan 28, 2014)

Rialaigh said:


> So you think all jobs are only a means to earn money and serve no other purpose...If the only reason you are in EMS is for the money then I would urge you to find another field. there are a lot more lucrative jobs out there that require less time and effort to do right that don't involve killing someone when you aren't on top of your game.



I love my job, I chose it because I love medicine and enjoy interacting with and caring for people. I'm a damn good medic and go above and beyond for my patients. I've been out for 8 weeks secondary to a shoulder injury and can't wait to go back. 

That still doesn't change the fact that my job is just that, a job. My life is my life. I didn't say I work just for money. I said I work so I can do the things that I want to do in my time off. If that means that I'm a :censored::censored::censored::censored:ty medic and don't know what I'm doing then fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

It's pretty insulting to me that you'd tell me there are more "lucrative" jobs out there. You think I don't know that?


----------



## Tigger (Jan 28, 2014)

ffemt8978 said:


> Show me data that says approximately how long it takes THC to no longer affect a person or how long it takes to metabolize and we can discuss it.  Alcohol has a relatively know rate of being metabolized by the body, and there are limits to what is tolerated in your system while at work.  Also, alcohol has a relatively known effect on judgement and motor abilities.  Can the same be said of THC?
> 
> And don't our patients have the right to be treated by somebody who is not under the influence of anything?



Here is the NHTSA' s research on THC and human performance while driving. Note that some symptoms of high level impairment could persist up till 24 hours. 

We know that alcohol can impair individuals at least 12 hours after consumption, yet policies were enacted at EMS agencies allowing employees to consume so long as it wasn't 12 hours prior to work. I'm not sure why that couldn't also occur with marijuana. It's well documented that even with most aggressive methods of ingestion possible that the effects will still be gone 24 hours after last use. I've had hangovers that lasted as long, but by company policy I could have certainly still been at work, as I am sure many others have done as well.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 28, 2014)

Robb said:


> I love my job, I chose it because I love medicine and enjoy interacting with and caring for people. I'm a damn good medic and go above and beyond for my patients. I've been out for 8 weeks secondary to a shoulder injury and can't wait to go back.
> 
> That still doesn't change the fact that my job is just that, a job. My life is my life. I didn't say I work just for money. I said I work so I can do the things that I want to do in my time off. If that means that I'm a :censored::censored::censored::censored:ty medic and don't know what I'm doing then fine, you're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> It's pretty insulting to me that you'd tell me there are more "lucrative" jobs out there. You think I don't know that?



I'm not trying to be insulting at all. Your last post said this 



Robb said:


> It's a job. That's all it is. A means to earn money to support your family and do things that you like to do and live your life. Work is a means to live, not life.




I'm sorry if I misread the post but it appeared to me you basically said work is a means to earn money. That EMS is a job, to earn money, and that is all. 

I never said anything about you being a :censored::censored::censored::censored:ty medic, please don't put words in my mouth like that. On the contrary from your posts on this forum I hold you in very high regard.

 My post was just to iterate that this is more than just "a job", for many people it is a career, and there is a difference. People who are good at this don't do it for the money, they do it for the love of the job.  When your talking about a public service career, and not just a means for 15 dollars an hour, there is a higher standard.


----------



## TransportJockey (Jan 28, 2014)

Rialaigh said:


> Because those of us that work 911 are public servants just like police and fire and we serve at the pleasure and need of our respective communities. Would your EMS organization have an issue employing someone part time who also works part time as a very high publicity porn star? How about your local law enforcement, do you think the community would tolerate a sheriff that smoked weed every time he got off work?
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not as public servants we are and should be held to a higher standard. If you don't want to be held to a higher standard and looked at differently then EMS is just a taxi driver job...its the public service that sets us apart, and it's sad to see many agencies doing their best to get away from that.




I'm a 911 medic. But I am by no means a public servant. Their tax dollars don't go to my paycheck at all. We are healthcare not public safety. Even on the 911 side. And with ems abuse rampant and ERs being used as safety nets, a lot of time we are just very expensive taxi cabs. 
So by your definition of being held to a higher standard what do you think should be allowed or disallowed?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 28, 2014)

Tigger said:


> Here is the NHTSA' s research on THC and human performance while driving. Note that some symptoms of high level impairment could persist up till 24 hours.
> 
> We know that alcohol can impair individuals at least 12 hours after consumption, yet policies were enacted at EMS agencies allowing employees to consume so long as it wasn't 12 hours prior to work. I'm not sure why that couldn't also occur with marijuana. It's well documented that even with most aggressive methods of ingestion possible that the effects will still be gone 24 hours after last use. I've had hangovers that lasted as long, but by company policy I could have certainly still been at work, as I am sure many others have done as well.



Since driving is a big part of this job, then using the data from the NHTSA works for me, as does a 24 hour since last use policy if the data is accurate.  

I know a lot of us in this thread keep comparing THC use to alcohol use, because there are some similarities pertaining to this discussion.  I would just like to point out that while the BAC limit for most people is .08 to drive, commercial drivers operating under a CDL have a much lower limit.  Given our group history (EMS as a whole) driving record, does anyone really advocate people driving ambulances under the influence of any substance that can affect judgement and reaction times?

To be clear, I don't care what people do in their own homes, and think the government has intruded too far into personal lives and actions.  I do have an issue with what people do at home that affects their performance on the job.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jan 28, 2014)

Rialaigh said:


> Because those of us that work 911 are public *servants* just like police and fire and we serve at the pleasure and need of our respective communities. Would your EMS organization have an issue employing someone part time who also works part time as a very high publicity porn star? How about your local law enforcement, do you think the community would tolerate a sheriff that smoked weed every time he got off work?
> 
> Like it or not as public *servants* we are and should be held to a higher standard. If you don't want to be held to a higher standard and looked at differently then EMS is just a taxi driver job...its the public service that sets us apart, and it's sad to see many agencies doing their best to get away from that.



Sorry, but I am no one's servant. I provide my services for a wage or a fee and I have no obligation to anyone beyond fulfillment of the contracts that I agree to. Beyond that I am not bound by anyone else's idea of what constitutes a moral choice.

If my employer doesn't want me using weed or alcohol then they can make that a stipulation of the employment contract, and I'll have to decide to either accept that term or go somewhere else. But there is no inherent, lofty "higher standard" to which all EMS workers are obligated to adhere just by virtue of the fact that they are EMS workers instead of mechanics.

Anyway, those who are widely considered "public servants" are actually typically held to a much _lower_ standard than the general public. No one has more privileges and gets away with more things (that would get a normal citizen thrown in jail) than police, judges, and politicians.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jan 28, 2014)

ffemt8978 said:


> Since driving is a big part of this job, then using the data from the NHTSA works for me, as does *a 24 hour since last use policy if the data is accurate.  *



I think that is reasonable.



ffemt8978 said:


> I know a lot of us in this thread keep comparing THC use to alcohol use, because there are some similarities pertaining to this discussion.  I would just like to point out that while the BAC limit for most people is .08 to drive, commercial drivers operating under a CDL have a much lower limit.  Given our group history (EMS as a whole) driving record, does anyone really advocate people driving ambulances under the influence of any substance that can affect judgement and reaction times?
> 
> To be clear, I don't care what people do in their own homes, and think the government has intruded too far into personal lives and actions.  I do have an issue with what people do at home that affects their performance on the job.



The problem is (and this might be different for commercial drivers, I don't know - but I doubt it) that the .08 threshold was chosen not because it is the magic BAC at which people become prone to causing accidents; it was lowered from 0.1 for purely political reasons. Very few accidents are caused by people with a BAC of 0.1, usually it is quite a bit higher in accidents, and 95% of those charged with DUI are caught at a checkpoint or are pulled over for a taillight out or a minor moving violation, not for driving recklessly and endangering others.  

The point is that there is a problem with these limits, and it is that they aren't evidence based and really aren't even intended to make us safer, just to expand police power. I just hate to see the same thing happen with marijuana, although it is bound to.


----------



## ExpatMedic0 (Jan 28, 2014)

Halothane said:


> But there is no inherent, lofty "higher standard" to which all EMS workers are obligated to adhere just by virtue of the fact that they are EMS workers instead of mechanics.



Yep, and if there was, off duty legal marijuana use is pretty much at the bottom of my list of concerns when weighed against the other issues in EMS. I mean, considering you can staff an ambulance after 2 weeks of training for EMT, what kind of standard is that? The mailman, (who is a federal employee not private) that was mentioned earlier, likely makes more than twice what an EMT does and probably had more training.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 28, 2014)

Halothane said:


> I just hate to see the same thing happen with marijuana, although it is bound to.


Wouldn't it make sense then to first determine what the limit should be BEFORE we allow it?


----------

