# Drug screening for EMS cert/school



## CaptainJeanLucPicard (Oct 27, 2009)

Dear forum,

I'm thinking about becoming an EMT. I'm also a regular marijuana smoker. I smoke mostly as a sleep-aid before I go to sleep, as I suffer from moderate insomnia. I also use recreationally sometimes on my own time, when I don't have to work (I'm a pharmacy technician). I don't use any other drugs (except LSD, once or twice, but nothing addictive or dangerous; e.g. cocaine, heroin, etc). What is your experience or knowledge about being/becoming an EMT while using marijuana? Do you need to take a drug screening test to get certified or enter and EMT-school? I live in south NJ, and would plan on attending Camden County College's EMT program, if that helps at all. 

Also, please don't jump down my throat about 'using' while being an EMT. I'm not a junkie, I don't depend on any substances, and I'm not addicted to anything. It doesn't interfere with the rest of my life. I don't go to work high, nor do I feel the 'need' to get high all the time.

Thanks for your input.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 27, 2009)

I've never known any college to require a pre-admission drug test.  My work in hospitals has always been conditional to a pre-employment, random, and post-accident drug test.  I have no problem with people smoking marijuana, you've just got to decide if you want to risk cheating a drug test at least once, and possibly more, times versus your career.  If you're really into smoking pot, move to California, get a prescription and be covered.  I'm not going to tell you how to cheat a drug test, though.   Best of luck.


----------



## Archymomma (Oct 27, 2009)

I had to take one before starting work.


----------



## Sasha (Oct 27, 2009)

They may not screen you to get in, but if someone suspects you are using marijuana they mgiht ask for drug screen. Also many employers do pre-employment drug screen and random drug screens.

Marijuana is a drug. It's illegal to use it in most cases. There are LEGAL things you can take to help you sleep.


----------



## medicdan (Oct 27, 2009)

You are not tested for your work as a pharm tech? What assurances does your employer have you dont go to work high?


----------



## EMSLaw (Oct 27, 2009)

You won't be tested, I suspect, to get into the program or get certified, but I strongly suspect that your employer will test you. Even to volunteer I had to take a hair follicle drug test (to show any drug use in the last 6 months).


----------



## Simusid (Oct 27, 2009)

My service requires a urine test.


----------



## DGreno (Oct 27, 2009)

I didnt have to take a test to start school but I did before I was allowed to do clinicals. Most public service (police, fire, ems,...) require you to submit to randoms, even on the volunteer side. If you do get a drug screen, and fail it, it will follow you through your whole career. Im not going to hound you about your choices, but be careful about how it affects you in your career.


----------



## Shishkabob (Oct 27, 2009)

I know someone who went to the same college I did for EMT, and they asked him to do a drug screen, which he would have failed, so he didn't go through with it, so yes it does happen.  


Quit the smoking, do legal sleep aids,  and you'll be fine with the test.




But don't expect someone to trust you with equipment worth thousands, NARCOTICS, and peoples lives, if you do drugs yourself.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 27, 2009)

While I'm a proponent of decriminilization of marijuana, you've got more to think about here than legal issues.  You'll be working in a profession that doesn't look kindly upon drug users and, sadly, rarely differentiates between a recreational marijuana smoker and a narcotics abuser.  If this is the path you wish to take, perhaps it's best to lay off the ganja until you've completed school.  Melatonin works great for getting to sleep, as does strenuous exercise during the day.  If pot were legal, I'd indulge.  It's not and I wouldn't risk a career or a job over it.


----------



## rescue99 (Oct 27, 2009)

CaptainJeanLucPicard said:


> Dear forum,
> 
> I'm thinking about becoming an EMT. I'm also a regular marijuana smoker. I smoke mostly as a sleep-aid before I go to sleep, as I suffer from moderate insomnia. I also use recreationally sometimes on my own time, when I don't have to work (I'm a pharmacy technician). I don't use any other drugs (except LSD, once or twice, but nothing addictive or dangerous; e.g. cocaine, heroin, etc). What is your experience or knowledge about being/becoming an EMT while using marijuana? Do you need to take a drug screening test to get certified or enter and EMT-school? I live in south NJ, and would plan on attending Camden County College's EMT program, if that helps at all.
> 
> ...



Ummm... Ya have to make an adult decision here...high or hired.


----------



## Dominion (Oct 27, 2009)

Agree with what rescue99 said.  To answer your question, no most schools do not drug test.  However I have never heard of an EMS agency that doesn't do atleast a pre-employment screening.  Most of the time it's Urine but our surprise tests are follicle, our accident tests are blood.   

If you smoke during employment, yea maybe you won't be caught by random testing or go to work high.  Hey it's not my place to tell people what to do in their spare time, I'll give you my opinion but you can take it and tell me to pound sand if you want.   But keep this in mind, if you are in an accident (no matter how minor with anything) or if you injure yourself, you could be in trouble.  So lets say you are lifting a patient and you strain your back and sustain a serious back injury.  You will have to take a drug screen and if you smoked a couple days ago at a party, you are at risk for losing your workmans comp, your job, and your license.


----------



## eveningsky339 (Oct 27, 2009)

CaptainJeanLucPicard said:


> Dear forum,
> 
> I'm thinking about becoming an EMT. I'm also a regular marijuana smoker. I smoke mostly as a sleep-aid before I go to sleep, as I suffer from moderate insomnia. I also use recreationally sometimes on my own time, when I don't have to work (I'm a pharmacy technician). I don't use any other drugs (except LSD, once or twice, but nothing addictive or dangerous; e.g. cocaine, heroin, etc). What is your experience or knowledge about being/becoming an EMT while using marijuana? Do you need to take a drug screening test to get certified or enter and EMT-school? I live in south NJ, and would plan on attending Camden County College's EMT program, if that helps at all.
> 
> ...



You said don't jump down your throat, but this is absurd.  You are using illegal narcotics while trying to get involved in EMS.  Get a prescription for a legal sleep aide such as Lunesta or take over the counter meds such as diphenhydramine. 

 I hope you get screened so you quit this nonsense.  "Sleep aid" my foot.


----------



## wyoskibum (Oct 27, 2009)

My paramedic school required a drug test, background check, etc...

Perhaps you should find other (legal) treatment for your isomnia?


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 27, 2009)

wyoskibum said:


> Perhaps you should find other (legal) treatment for your isomnia?


 
It just so happens I saw a help wanted article that is medically related and could be a different career path instead of EMS. 

*Job, Hobby and Treatment - Rolled into one*

http://www.insidebayarea.com/search...h-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com


----------



## JCampbell (Oct 27, 2009)

Because "legal" sleep aids never affect users the next day, right?  Ever hear them say "May cause next day drowsiness, do not use ........ if you plan on operating machinery, etc"?  I think instead of telling him to try another medication, how about just plain exercise, or proper diet, or any number of things other than switching one drug for another.  OP to answer your question,  I HIGHLY doubt you will be asked to drug test before school. I am CERTAIN you will be drug tested prior to hiring, and post accident, and randomly, and due to "suspicion".


----------



## medicdan (Oct 27, 2009)

The OP is from New Jersey... so its entirely likely when he finishes his class he will join a township rescue squad, which may or may not have a formal drug testing program, pre employment or even post accident. THat township may be in severe need for EMTs to respond to calls, and may not look so closely at this applicant. Is that a problem?
The OP is only interested in drug testing for his EMT class, not working in the field. 
Purely hypothetically. Anyone see a problem with this?


----------



## Shishkabob (Oct 27, 2009)

Do I have a problem with someone working in any medical / public service field who does illegal drugs?

You bet.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 27, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Do I have a problem with someone working in any medical / public service field who does illegal drugs?
> 
> You bet.



What if they decide to chug a bottle of cough syrup?  That's not illegal, is it?  Or what if they smoke salvia?  Or smoke DMT?  OR any of the THOUSANDS of compounds that exist in nature that aren't scheduled yet by Supreme Edict of the DEA?  I judge people by their performance.

Would you rather ride with someone that smokes marijuana infrequently and never within 48 hours of a shift, or a guy who gets poop-faced drunk every night?


----------



## Shishkabob (Oct 27, 2009)

Illegal is illegal is illegal.  If salvia is legal in their state (Which I believe 30ish states it is) then by all means, go for it, so long as it's not affecting you on shift. 


I knew what career field I wanted to get in to as a kid, and guess what?  None of those jobs allow any sort of drug use or criminal past, so I dodged all sorts of "recreational" drug experimentation and major criminal acts.  I had my life together.  Tough snoogies if you smoke pot and want to be an EMT... you can do one, not both.   If you're adult enough to make a stupid criminal decision, you're adult enough to deal with the consequences.  





Your question is so biased it's not even funny.  How about I reciprocate it for you?  "Would you rather work with someone who drinks infrequently and never within 48 hours of a shift, or someone who smokes marijuana stoned out of their gourd every night?"


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 27, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Illegal is illegal is illegal.  If salvia is legal in their state (Which I believe 30ish states it is) then by all means, go for it, so long as it's not affecting you on shift.



I feel that you can do anything on your private time if it doesn't affect you on your shift.  If pot were legalized, how would you feel about individuals using it and working EMT? Not at the same time, of course.  Responsible use.



> Your question is so biased it's not even funny.  How about I reciprocate it for you?  "Would you rather work with someone who drinks infrequently and never within 48 hours of a shift, or someone who smokes marijuana stoned out of their gourd every night?"



I'd rather work with someone that, when they clock in, are sober, alert, conscious and ready for the shift.  If they freaking smoked crack a week ago, I couldn't care less.  As long as it doesn't affect their ability to run calls and deal with patients in a safe manner, making educated decisions along the way, we're going to be good to go.


----------



## Melclin (Oct 28, 2009)

You know what's an oddity? America the land of freedom and liberty is also a land of random drug tests. I'm not making a judgment on the level of infringement on personal privacy that a drug test constitutes (although as it happens I disagree with it), but it just seems incongruous with the rest of the American ethos. Legislating for seat belts or the reasonable control of firearms, seems to be harder than pushing s**t up hill with a straw, but random, compulsory drug tests are the norm? Weird.


----------



## Summit (Oct 28, 2009)

If there is ever an incident on your job (think fender bender), any employer is going to drug screen you. With the use you described, you'll test positive even if you aren't high at the moment.

Result is that you are:
FIRED
Disqualified from Workers Comp Coverage
Stripped of you cert
Stripped of medical control legal defense
Lawsuit bait

Personally, I could give a :censored::censored::censored::censored: if you smoke as long as you aren't doing it within 24 hours of duty, but it's a poor decision for liability and professional reasons.


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 28, 2009)

*The only people I ever had complain about drug testing were users.*

100%. Verified and admitted before they were thrown out of the Guard.

Any time you are finding ways to skirt standards you should have already asked and answered your own question. Why go somewhere that your cannabis habit will get you busted, thrown out, etc. Silly risky behavior. Can't drive. Can get arrested. Childish.

If you have "moderate insomnia", see your MD and figure out what's happening. Self medicating illegally is not the sort of critical thinking solution a good EMT is going to come up with.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 28, 2009)

One question I have;  If the individuals here who are against smoking marijuana lived in very medical marijuana friendly state like California and the OP was prescribed marijuana by a M.D., would you have a problem with them smoking it?  It's then just a prescription drug, safer than any opiate or benzo, for sure.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 28, 2009)

Melclin said:


> You know what's an oddity? America the land of freedom and liberty is also a land of random drug tests. I'm not making a judgment on the level of infringement on personal privacy that a drug test constitutes (although as it happens I disagree with it), but it just seems incongruous with the rest of the American ethos. Legislating for seat belts or the reasonable control of firearms, seems to be harder than pushing s**t up hill with a straw, but random, compulsory drug tests are the norm? Weird.



I'm a bit bewildered, Melclin.  

I agree with you about the infringement of personal liberty when the government decides, arbitrarily and capriciously, what substances an individual may or may not put in their bodies.  However, to switch from a "Why should the government intervene in situations where no one is impinging upon the rights of others", to "I sure wish the government would force more people to do things against their will" is *the* problem with our system.

My gun-loving friends preach the Constitution like a preacher does the Bible.  Yet when I mention legalizing soft drugs, they complain about it and rally against it.  My hippy-type friends talk about the militarization of the American police and the further erosion of our freedoms in the War on Drugs, yet they are appalled that I carry a sidearm and preach for guns to be banned.

America is about *individual liberty, natural rights and freedom from prosecution for making choices different than others*.  If more people understood that, it would further the "live and let live" notions of our Founding Fathers.  Instead, each special interest group focuses only on their specific interest instead of the larger issue, the Constitution as a whole.


----------



## Shishkabob (Oct 28, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> One question I have;  If the individuals here who are against smoking marijuana lived in very medical marijuana friendly state like California and the OP was prescribed marijuana by a M.D., would you have a problem with them smoking it?  It's then just a prescription drug, safer than any opiate or benzo, for sure.



I think you fail to understand the definition of "Illegal".  It doesn't matter what the individual state defines as legal when it comes to drugs, it's still up to the federal government.

Your .1oz "medical stash" might not catch you any grief from the LAPD, but if a federal agency were to spot you with it, you'd still get in trouble.



It's not legal till the federal government says it is.  So even if it's "medical" (which is idiotic and untrue as it is), it's still illegal.


----------



## wyoskibum (Oct 28, 2009)

Melclin said:


> You know what's an oddity? America the land of freedom and liberty is also a land of random drug tests. I'm not making a judgment on the level of infringement on personal privacy that a drug test constitutes (although as it happens I disagree with it), but it just seems incongruous with the rest of the American ethos. Legislating for seat belts or the reasonable control of firearms, seems to be harder than pushing s**t up hill with a straw, but random, compulsory drug tests are the norm? Weird.



The random drug tests are required by the employer, not the government.  If I don't want to subject myself to random drug tests, I have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere.


----------



## Melclin (Oct 28, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> I'm a bit bewildered, Melclin.
> 
> I agree with you about the infringement of personal liberty when the government decides, arbitrarily and capriciously, what substances an individual may or may not put in their bodies.  However, to switch from a "Why should the government intervene in situations where no one is impinging upon the rights of others", to "I sure wish the government would force more people to do things against their will" is *the* problem with our system.
> 
> ...



Yeah I know the feeling. I have a number of views that are, considered very conservative here, esp for my demographic (young university student), but I'm also quite passionate about many aspects of social justice that people don't often associate with the conservative side of politics. You point out an interesting common political phenomenon: ideological groups often have a seemingly contradictory footnote to their beliefs (charmingly satirized in 'American Dad', "[speaking of abortion] We're conservatives! The one way we don't like to kill things, is THAT way").

I've always had two conflicting notions at the heart of my thoughts on these matters:

1)The first is the Orwellian notion that I would rather be free to make the wrong choice than be forced to make the right one.

2)The other is that while a person is smart, _people_ are idiots. So when you're in the business of looking out for their best interests (as a government is supposed to be doing), you may have to make decisions for them that they don't like: tough love.

This is all very tangential. It all depends on what you want from your society. American is at the bottom of the list on just about every measure of a what the rest of the developed world considers to be a civilized society. But if they are a price you are willing to pay for all you 'freedom' then I can accept that. 



A curious aspect of American society is the pillar on which the 'founding fathers' are held. People regularly invoke their name to prove a point as though it is self evidently obvious that they are the undisputed authority on everything. Why (and this is an actual question, its not argumentative rhetoric) are their opinions _so_ sacrosanct? 



wyoskibum said:


> The random drug tests are required by the employer, not the government.  If I don't want to subject myself to random drug tests, I have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere.



Yeah I suppose that makes sense. I get that its different people doing it, but the end result is the same. Its still an unnecessary violation of privacy (if, of course, you take that point of view). I would have thought that people would be against a result, not the particular cause. They don't seem to mind when an employer F@$# them, just as long as the government doesn't. We have a similar mistrust and veiled dislike of authority in Australia, however, it extends to the private sector as well as the public. In America it seems to stop at the public. Just an observation.


*FOR EVERYONE:*
There's some exceedingly interesting talks given by Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief; and Dr. Alex Wodak, Head of the Alcohol and Drug service in Syndey's St. Vincet's hospital, broadcast here recently. If you're interested in the legality of drugs then I urge you to listen to it. They are only about 7 minutes each.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2717526.htm


----------



## Griff (Oct 28, 2009)

wyoskibum said:


> The random drug tests are required by the employer, not the government.  If I don't want to subject myself to random drug tests, I have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere.



Just an interesting side note: ^_^

Drug screening is mandatory for all of the University of South Alabama's EMS programs (Basic, Medic, CC, and degree programs), and a significant portion of the university's budget is derived from taxes (it's a state school). The governor is the president of the BoD (I suspect that is common for most/all state schools, at least here), and has a large say in fiscal administration and policy making. So, in a sense, I would think that at least one government funded/controlled (at least in part) EMS program requires drug screening. I've been tested twice in the past six months by the school.

References here:
http://www.southalabama.edu/ems/index.html


----------



## medichopeful (Oct 28, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> It just so happens I saw a help wanted article that is medically related and could be a different career path instead of EMS.
> 
> *Job, Hobby and Treatment - Rolled into one*
> 
> http://www.insidebayarea.com/search...h-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com



I think I remember hearing about this on the radio show "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me."


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 28, 2009)

Linuss said:


> I think you fail to understand the definition of "Illegal".  It doesn't matter what the individual state defines as legal when it comes to drugs, it's still up to the federal government.
> 
> Your .1oz "medical stash" might not catch you any grief from the LAPD, but if a federal agency were to spot you with it, you'd still get in trouble.
> 
> ...





> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Tenth Amendment, US Constitution.

So if you could show me specifically where the US Constitution was amended to deal with drugs, the argument is settled.  

Of course, we'll be hearing about "interstate commerce" now, right?

What specific federal law would be violated by possession of a quarter ounce of marijuana, in California, with a prescription?


----------



## eveningsky339 (Oct 28, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> One question I have;  If the individuals here who are against smoking marijuana lived in very medical marijuana friendly state like California and the OP was prescribed marijuana by a M.D., would you have a problem with them smoking it?  It's then just a prescription drug, safer than any opiate or benzo, for sure.



There are many painkillers which produce an altered mental state in a fashion similar to marijuana, so it would be hypocritical to denounce marijuana as a medical substitute.

My only concern is the method in which the prescribed marijuana is administered.  Some people think that they can roll a joint and smoke away with a valid marijuana prescription.  This, of course, leads to lung cancer, and is more harmful than cigarettes in this regard.

Administered orally in the form of a capsule, there should be little cause for concern.



I am all in favor of medical marijuana because it sets proper grounds for legal and illegal use.  It is illegal to take unprescribed painkillers in a recreational fashion.  It should also be illegal to smoke marijuana in a recreational fashion.

No matter the criminal status of marijuana, I will always think that it is "bad" to use as a recreational drug.


----------



## eveningsky339 (Oct 28, 2009)

Griff said:


> Just an interesting side note: ^_^
> 
> Drug screening is mandatory for all of the University of South Alabama's EMS programs (Basic, Medic, CC, and degree programs), and a significant portion of the university's budget is derived from taxes (it's a state school). The governor is the president of the BoD (I suspect that is common for most/all state schools, at least here), and has a large say in fiscal administration and policy making. So, in a sense, I would think that at least one government funded/controlled (at least in part) EMS program requires drug screening. I've been tested twice in the past six months by the school.
> 
> ...



I personally feel that every EMS agency should do drug screens.  We can debate about the decriminalization of marijuana to the grave, but the bottom line is this:  I don't want a stoner answering my EMS calls.  I don't want a stoner operating an emergency vehicle.  Whether is marijuana or vicodin or any other opiate/benzo, these chemicals are not conducive to the proper function of a professional, compassionate emergency medical technician.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 28, 2009)

Melclin said:


> 1)The first is the Orwellian notion that I would rather be free to make the wrong choice than be forced to make the right one.
> 
> 2)The other is that while a person is smart, _people_ are idiots. So when you're in the business of looking out for their best interests (as a government is supposed to be doing), you may have to make decisions for them that they don't like: tough love.


We've got a disagreement here based on premise.  The government doesn't exist to look out for the individuals "best interest", it exists to protect their rights.  People sometimes voluntarily make stupid decisions, such as taking out loans with absurdly high interest rates for example, but it's their decision and as long as they were mentally capable at the time of that decision they should be compelled to abide by the conditions.  You've just said that "people" are idiots, that is the reason we've a republican government limited in power by the Constitution.  If "people" are too stupid to make the right choices consistently, how will those same people elect a body politic that will make the right decisions?  How will those "idiots" be able to keep a watchful eye on the actions of the elected officals?



> This is all very tangential. It all depends on what you want from your society. American is at the bottom of the list on just about every measure of a what the rest of the developed world considers to be a civilized society.


Of course, the rest of the civilized world has cameras on every street corner, anti-"hate" speech laws, impingement of firearm ownership, etc. And if we're doing so poorly, why are the economies of other nations following our lead?  I'm sick of the Socialist Union of Europe getting any press time.  We fought a war to be free of their socialistic tyranny, not so we can pander to them years later.  As much as they'll insult us, they don't mind sticking their hand out in our direction.  Contrary to world belief, America doesn't exist to make the world happy.  If these other nations are so stunningly awesome, why are so many people trying to immigrate to our shores?



> A curious aspect of American society is the pillar on which the 'founding fathers' are held. People regularly invoke their name to prove a point as though it is self evidently obvious that they are the undisputed authority on everything. Why (and this is an actual question, its not argumentative rhetoric) are their opinions _so_ sacrosanct?


Well, they wrote the documents that founded our nation.  I realize now it's _chic_ to dislike "old White men" in government, but I do feel that they successfully constructed the first nation "conceived in liberty".  If you dislike their writings or our system of government, I assure you no one will shoot you for leaving our country.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 28, 2009)

eveningsky339 said:


> I personally feel that every EMS agency should do drug screens.  We can debate about the decriminalization of marijuana to the grave, but the bottom line is this:  I don't want a stoner answering my EMS calls.  I don't want a stoner operating an emergency vehicle.  Whether is marijuana or vicodin or any other opiate/benzo, these chemicals are not conducive to the proper function of a professional, compassionate emergency medical technician.



Hell yeah! I'm off to the squad bay for a cigarette, then heading to the bar afterwork! Let's do some shots of Wild Turkey to celebrate our victory over them thar reefer-heads! Yeehaw!


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 28, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> Hell yeah! I'm off to the squad bay for a cigarette, then heading to the bar afterwork! Let's do some shots of Wild Turkey to celebrate our victory over them thar reefer-heads! Yeehaw!


 
I am all for medical marijuana but if one is just a stoner and has to smoke pot just to get through the day, they are of little use to EMS.  Other professionals are held responsible for their behavior.  Why should EMS be the poor pathetic ones that everyone should cut some slack?   Could it be because some do give off the impression of being exactly as you described rather than that of a health care professional? 

Also, if you smoke cigarettes, you are not going to work for many FDs, EMS companies, hospitals or a whole lot of other employers.


----------



## eveningsky339 (Oct 28, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> Hell yeah! I'm off to the squad bay for a cigarette, then heading to the bar afterwork! Let's do some shots of Wild Turkey to celebrate our victory over them thar reefer-heads! Yeehaw!



:beerchug:


----------



## Griff (Oct 28, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> Hell yeah! I'm off to the squad bay for a cigarette, then heading to the bar afterwork! Let's do some shots of Wild Turkey to celebrate our victory over them thar reefer-heads! Yeehaw!



If your thesis is that, in the United States, certain intoxicating drugs are given disproportionate popular attention compared with other drugs (e.g. marijuana vs. alcohol), I would definitely agree. I think that the point eveningsky339 was making (correct me if I am wrong) concerns the desirability of an intoxicated EMS professional on duty. We can (hopefully ^_^) agree that a drunk on-duty EMT is a bad thing, just like a high on-duty EMT is a bad thing. A major concern with marijuana (playing Devil's advocate here) involves cognitive deficits (spatial reasoning, memory, etc) associated with long term heavy use. It would be easy to be able to lump all intoxicants together as "bad" or "good", but this simply is not the case. One has to consider potential for addiction, side effects, impact on non-users (you can't smoke inside government buildings, for example), and pharmocodynamics/kinetics in order to appropriately assess the cost versus benefit of drug legalization/criminalization. I won't argue that U.S. drug laws (some of them) aren't archaic and even draconian, but to lump tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use together as if they are equal is, I think, fallacious.


----------



## daedalus (Oct 28, 2009)

A stoner is a stoner. You will not get a job in EMS. Medical use is another animal, however I think that if you needed something like pot for a medical condition, you are not going to be holding a job down in EMS.


----------



## rescue99 (Oct 28, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> I am all for medical marijuana but if one is just a stoner and has to smoke pot just to get through the day, they are of little use to EMS.  Other professionals are held responsible for their behavior.  Why should EMS be the poor pathetic ones that everyone should cut some slack?   Could it be because some do give off the impression of being exactly as you described rather than that of a health care professional?
> 
> Also, if you smoke cigarettes, you are not going to work for many FDs, EMS companies, hospitals or a whole lot of other employers.



Cigarettes aren't altering any more than being addicted to ice cream is...unless the two have brain freeze in common.  On the other hand, ice cream doesn't leave a stink on everything it comes in contact with like tobacco does. <_<

On the more serious side; no state is going to issue an EMS license to a candidate who requires mary-jane to function. Not even the Americans with Disability Act can support a person under the influence of a medication with a high potential for creating an unsafe situation for the worker or those around him/her. No employer is required to keep such an employee either.


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 28, 2009)

rescue99 said:


> Cigarettes aren't altering any more than being addicted to ice cream is...unless the two have brain freeze in common.  On the other hand, ice cream doesn't leave a stink on everything it comes in contact with like tobacco does. <_<


 
Cigarettes may not put one in at altered state as marijuana does but they do have demonstrated physiological effects if used regularly.

Ever hear of the Heart and Lung Act?


----------



## rescue99 (Oct 28, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> Cigarettes may not put one in at altered state as marijuana does but they do have demonstrated physiological effects if used regularly.
> 
> Ever hear of the Heart and Lung Act?



Not an argument Vent. Relax. Take some slow, deep breaths. Unwind....Life is wayyyyyy too short to be so tense all the time. Stress will do as much or more harm to the human body than a lousy cigarette will  I'd much rather deal with a mellow smoker than someone who explodes / implodes from being so over stressed. 

Ewwww... the above sounds like a commercial for smoking. :wacko:


----------



## Griff (Oct 28, 2009)

rescue99 said:


> Not an argument Vent. Relax. Take some slow, deep breaths. Unwind....Life is wayyyyyy too short to be so tense all the time. Stress will do as much or more harm to the human body than a lousy cigarette will  I'd much rather deal with a mellow smoker than someone who explodes / implodes from being so over stressed.
> 
> Ewwww... the above sounds like a commercial for smoking. :wacko:



Lol "4 out of 5 medics agree..."


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 28, 2009)

rescue99 said:


> Not an argument Vent. Relax. Take some slow, deep breaths. Unwind....Life is wayyyyyy too short to be so tense all the time. Stress will do as much or more harm to the human body than a lousy cigarette will  I'd much rather deal with a mellow smoker than someone who explodes / implodes from being so over stressed.
> 
> Ewwww... the above sounds like a commercial for smoking. :wacko:


 

I guess that answers my question. You have never heard of the Heart and Lung Act. But then you probably aren't involved in any Public Safety occupation either and probably won't be if you smoke.


----------



## eveningsky339 (Oct 28, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> I guess that answers my question. You have never heard of the Heart and Lung Act. But then you probably aren't involved in any Public Safety occupation either and probably won't be if you smoke.



I happen to disagree with the regular use of tobacco, but within the context of this thread, I'd rather have a chain-smoking EMT-B than a paramedic who thinks he needs to get stoned in order to sleep, or whatever half-baked excuse one needs in order to justify recreational use of illegal narcotics.


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 28, 2009)

eveningsky339 said:


> I happen to disagree with the regular use of tobacco, but within the context of this thread, I'd rather have a chain-smoking EMT-B than a paramedic who thinks he needs to get stoned in order to sleep, or whatever half-baked excuse one needs in order to justify recreational use of illegal narcotics.


 
You are entitled to your opinion.  Just don't plan on getting hired by many FDs, PDs or some hospitals.    Most of our FDs require someone to be smoke free for at least one year prior to hire.   

I also stated my opinion about people who must be stoned each day when it is not for medical reasons.


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 28, 2009)

*This wasn't supposed to be a debate about pot legalization, was it? Or was it?*

Let me drop three and bow out.
1. I live and work near the capitol of Califoahneeah, and the street circus that emerges to speak in favor of legalizing medical dope is embarassing. 
2. I see legalization occurring in my lifetime because the cultural bias is so strong in favor of licensed use and the effects of enforcement so expensive and ruinous to convictees.
3. I don't like working around folks who exhibit the effects of any drug, but the side effect of paranoid self-agrandizement which seems to atach itself to marijuana use just plain ticks me off (aplogies to those present).

Oh yeah, four.
"Wanting to be mellow is like wanting to be senile".
Randy Newman


----------



## eveningsky339 (Oct 28, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.  Just don't plan on getting hired by many FDs, PDs or some hospitals.    Most of our FDs require someone to be smoke free for at least one year prior to hire.


No worries, I've never even held a pack in my hands.



VentMedic said:


> I also stated my opinion about people who must be stoned each day when it is not for medical reasons.


I know, I read your opinion, and I tend to agree.  EMS is no place for people who smoke marijuana outside of medical reasons.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 28, 2009)

eveningsky339 said:


> No worries, I've never even held a pack in my hands.
> 
> 
> I know, I read your opinion, and I tend to agree.  EMS is no place for people who smoke marijuana outside of medical reasons.



What about people who use EtOH?


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 28, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> What about people who use EtOH?


 
At this time, alcohol is still legal.   However, if it interferes with your work or becomes a problem, then the state issuing your license may mandate that you seek counseling along with periodic testing or revoke your license totally.

If you are buying illegal drugs and doing what the state considers to be  illegal activity, then you should face the consequences.   I would hope you are old enough and mature enough to know the difference between legal and illegal.   If you have a problem with marijuana being illegal, change the law through the proper legislation.  Until then, you should be expected to obey the law.


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 28, 2009)

*Ah, ETOH, I'll come back for that.*

Show up hung over or drunk, suspended on the spot. Second offense: fired, or if exceptional factors are involved, diversion to treatment and polish/clean the equip. But off the rigs.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 28, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> If you are buying illegal drugs and doing what the state considers to be  illegal activity, then you should face the consequences.   I would hope you are old enough and mature enough to know the difference between legal and illegal.   If you have a problem with marijuana being illegal, change the law through the proper legislation.  Until then, you should be expected to obey the law.



And in California, where the state provides exceptions for medical usage? Is that ok?


----------



## Shishkabob (Oct 28, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> What specific federal law would be violated by possession of a quarter ounce of marijuana, in California, with a prescription?



Don't know... that's a question for you to ask the DEA, who can, have, and will, arrest people who violate the law, "state sanctioned" or not.  Federal law trumps state law.  Every.  Single.  Time.





Any and every argument for "medicinal" marijuana is from a person who just wants to smoke pot.  There is absolutely NO benefit to smoking marijuana (illegal) over using prescription THC (legal).  On top of that, the FDA has NEVER cleared a drug for medicinal use by smoking it.  

There are PLENTY of legal drugs that do the exact same things that marijuana is purported to do.  Why do you insist in doing it illegally?


Quit hiding behind the wall of "it's for a medical use" when that can be debunked quite easily.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 28, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Don't know... that's a question for you to ask the DEA, who can, have, and will, arrest people who violate the law, "state sanctioned" or not.  Federal law trumps state law.  Every.  Single.  Time.


Oh, I see.  And the Tenth Amendment, that's just irrelevant?  Can you show me where that was struck down?  Or, perhaps, where the Constitution was amended so that the FEDGOV was the deciding factor in what substances you put in your body?  Don't bother with the LAWS (such as the Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act) as they're quite invalid without Constitutional change.  

Of course, we've also got the issue of the Federal Government, brace yourself, being incorrect.  Do you feel, I'm asking for your opinion not a parroting of some LEO you might know, that marijuana and opium are on the same level of lethality and addictive potential?



> Any and every argument for "medicinal" marijuana is from a person who just wants to smoke pot.


It must be nice to not have cancer, not have AIDS and make blanket statements against entire groups of people.  I bet most of those people just went out and GOT cancer so they could smoke dope!  I mean, what's more pleasurable than vomiting up your meals and being able to smoke grass!  Man, I wish I had advanced leukemia so I could smoke pot!

You need to obtain some serious life experiences, your blanket statements at your age smacks of ignorance.



> There is absolutely NO benefit to smoking marijuana (illegal) over using prescription THC (legal).  On top of that, the FDA has NEVER cleared a drug for medicinal use by smoking it.



When a patient gives you "informed consent", what do you do?  Beat them over the head until they do the medical treatement you want them to do?  Call in the SWAT team to toss in some flashbangs and rock out with full ninja-gear?  I didn't think so.  So why is it that a patient can't make informed choices about their own health care and about what plant they choose to smoke?  I'm sure you'll fall back on the "It's illegal!" answer, but I just don't care one bit.  Illegal and immoral aren't always the same concept.

Without harping on about what some hard-nosed cop told you, tell me why you feel patients shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions as to how they ingest a plant that grows wild.



> There are PLENTY of legal drugs that do the exact same things that marijuana is purported to do.  Why do you insist in doing it illegally?


Why do you insist on *making* it illegal?  I mean, come on here buddy, this isn't the Anslinger Era!  We know that smoking dope won't make men grow breasts! Don't you think that legislation passed at a time of public hysteria over the "DEMON WEED" that, according to Henry Anslinger, did make men grow breasts and encouraged violent actions needs to be reviewed?   Why do you feel the need to dictate to someone what plant they may or may not smoke?  What skin is it off of your nose if someone decides to smoke a bong in their own home, instead of taking Marinol? Are you just that into being a busy body that you can't let others make their own decisions?  That mentality has no place in health care, period.



> Quit hiding behind the wall of "it's for a medical use" when that can be debunked quite easily.



I couldnt' care less if it's for "medical" use.  I think individuals have the right to smoke the same plant that the Founding Fathers grew in their own gardens.  Tell me, why is marijuana illegal but alcohol isn't?


----------



## Summit (Oct 29, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Don't know... that's a question for you to ask the DEA, who can, have, and will, arrest people who violate the law, "state sanctioned" or not.  Federal law trumps state law.  Every.  Single.  Time.



Not. Any. More. So. Stow. Your. Jackboots. And. Check. Your. Facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html



> Any and every argument for "medicinal" marijuana is from a person who just wants to smoke pot.  There is absolutely NO benefit to smoking marijuana (illegal) over using prescription THC (legal).  On top of that, the FDA has NEVER cleared a drug for medicinal use by smoking it.
> 
> There are PLENTY of legal drugs that do the exact same things that marijuana is purported to do.  Why do you insist in doing it illegally?
> 
> ...



Yes, I think that smoking will never be an approved method by the FDA and with good reason, but you in one sentece say "why not take it PO" and spend the rest of your post intimating that THC is a worthless drug and should be illegal, in which case, you are wrong again.


----------



## Sasha (Oct 29, 2009)

> Cigarettes aren't altering any more than being addicted to ice cream is...unless the two have brain freeze in common.  On the other hand, ice cream doesn't leave a stink on everything it comes in contact with like tobacco does.



Boo cigarettes!!! I hate working with smokers. They smell like smoke and contaminate the lungs of those around them! Instead of going out and smoking away from everyone they want to smoke right by you so they can talk!

Boo cigarettes! They should be banned all together.

Found this article interesting.
*IOM Says Smoking Bans Reduce Heart Attacks*
Full Article:http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonary/Smoking/16451


> WASHINGTON -- Bans on smoking in public places could reduce heart attacks and heart disease caused by secondhand smoke, according to a report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM).
> 
> The new findings indicate that indoor smoking bans -- which are growing in popularity -- can improve the health of smokers and nonsmokers alike, according to the report, which was prepared for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
> 
> ...


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 29, 2009)

Sasha-  I completely agree with you, smoking tobacco is a nasty filthy habit that contaminates not only the smoker's apparel and body but the air surrounding them that we must share.  I don't feel it's appropriate to interact with anyone, specifically a patient, while reeking of tobacco smoke.  Any substance with the potential for causing "mind altering" effects should be out of one's head by the time they show up for work.  

I feel if we got past the Ansliger-era style view of marijuana, and drugs in general, we'd be able to be a bit more objective in our policy regarding them.  I think that some substances, MDMA for example, offer potential for theraputic development.  However the government bangs the "rave drug" drum loudly and it's soon scheduled so that no real assessment of it can be made.  We'll *never* solve the "drug problem" with more prohibition.  Prisons have problems with drugs and they're about the most controlled location you could imagine!  

Amazing that policy that was brought into existence during a time when the Chief of the Narcotics Division was convincing parents that males smoking marijuana would cause them to develop breasts still exists.  Maybe it's time to reevaluate our position on some things.


----------



## rescue99 (Oct 29, 2009)

Griff said:


> Lol "4 out of 5 medics agree..."



Didn't mean to say smoking is a good thing..it stinks up everything and to an already ill feeling person, it's worse. Just meant I'd rather work with a smoker than put up with hostile or down right burned out partner who is long over due for a career change. Just don't smoke near my truck please


----------



## Shishkabob (Oct 29, 2009)

Summit said:


> Not. Any. More. So. Stow. Your. Jackboots. And. Check. Your. Facts.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html



How does that story change a single thing about my statement?  The DEA will arrest you if you if you're breaking the law, will they not'?

And federal law trumps state law, does it not?





> Yes, I think that smoking will never be an approved method by the FDA and with good reason, but you in one sentece say "why not take it PO" and spend the rest of your post intimating that THC is a worthless drug and should be illegal, in which case, you are wrong again.


I suggest going back and re-reading what I posted, as you obviously mis-interpreted it.  


Not once did I say take marijuana PO.  And not once did I say THC is worthless.  I said there is no benefit to doing the illegal form of THC (smoking marijuana) over doing the legal form of THC.  


Anyone arguing for "medicinal" marijuana, and opting not to do the legal form of THC, is in it strictly for the high, period.


----------



## AnthonyTheEmt (Oct 29, 2009)

All I will say about this is
1. Any EMS employer will drug test you. 
2. As you can see, most people on here (myself included) refuse to work with a stoner (the OP also admitted to using LSD. Is this guy for real?)
3. How could expect anyone to trust you around narcs, or especially the care of another human being if you are lit. 
4. do yourself a favor, and find another line of work. EMS is not a place for stoners, and saying that you cannot sleep without getting lit is a load of crap. Go to the pharmacy and there are other legal methods to solve your "insomnia" problem.


----------



## Summit (Oct 29, 2009)

Linuss said:


> How does that story change a single thing about my statement?  The DEA will arrest you if you if you're breaking the law, will they not'?
> 
> And federal law trumps state law, does it not?


DEA works for DOJ so if DOJ says don't persecute persons following state MJ laws that are in conflict with federals because we won't prosecute, don't you think the DEA will listen to their bosses?

Or maybe they'll listen to you






> blahblahblah


Dude... seriously... rx thc is PO... do you read what you type?


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 29, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> Oh, I see.  And the Tenth Amendment, that's just irrelevant?  Can you show me where that was struck down?  Or, perhaps, where the Constitution was amended so that the FEDGOV was the deciding factor in what substances you put in your body?  Don't bother with the LAWS (such as the Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act) as they're quite invalid without Constitutional change.


You're right... and wrong to a large amount. If state and federal law conflict, then yes, the federal government wins. Read McCulloch v. Maryland. 

Now that said, I'll add two points. 
First point: I imagine that if a medical marijuana user could prove that he never engaged in interstate or international commerce to obtain said marijuana, then there's an issue of states rights v federal rights.

Second point: If the federal government makes a law, it's the federal government's job to enforce it, not the local police. In fact, the federal government is actively complaining that Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, AZ is trying to enforce immigration law with out the federal government's blessing. So, just because you commit a federal crime doesn't mandate that the local police arrest and charge you. They can, but in many cases (like decriminalized marijuana and medical marijuana areas) won't.


----------



## Smash (Oct 29, 2009)

Nice to see "Reefer Madness" is still alive and well.



Linuss said:


> There are PLENTY of legal drugs that do the exact same things that marijuana is purported to do.



Really?  So can you enlighten us as to what it is that binds to cannabinoid receptors in the brain that isn't a cannabinoid?

Then maybe you could let all the researchers know, as they are clearly wasting their time investigated the effects of cannabis in people with AIDS (HIV) & AIDS Wasting, alzheimer's Disease, arthritis, chemotherapy, glaucoma, epilepsy, migraines, MS, chronic pain, psychological problems and the terminally ill.

Nothing has quite the same effect as cannabis, because nothing binds to cannabinoid receptors the same.

This is not an argument for or against the recreational use of marijuana, however it is attitudes like this that retard the legitmate research of cannabis.


----------



## Summit (Oct 29, 2009)

Personally, I'd like to see Rx THC in preference to opioid narcotics for things like pain management in post-op outpatient surgeries and items like broken bones. The chance for abuse and addiction is infinitely less with THC (if the THC is effective enough). It also avoids some of the nasty problems of opioid narcotics like constipation, nausea, and dizziness.

I know I've had several vicodin prescriptions that sat in my bathroom unconsumed while I sat and suffered through bone fx pain on NSAIDS for days because the pain was not as bad as the nausea and dizziness. THC might have been the perfect solution but I don't smoke that crap... much less know where to get it.


----------



## ChargerGirl (Oct 29, 2009)

Most places require a drug test once you have been hired right off the bat. Stay away from sleeping pills even over the counter ones because those make you feel foggy the next morning and especially cranky. Marijuana is fine just don't put the word out that you smoke because someone might rat you out. People have strong opinions when it comes to drugs. You would be suprised how many emts and hospital workers smoke weed. I dont though.


----------



## thatJeffguy (Oct 29, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> You're right... and wrong to a large amount. If state and federal law conflict, then yes, the federal government wins. Read McCulloch v. Maryland.


Only if the conflict is recognized as being within the bounds of the powers of the Federal government.  I can't see anywhere in the Constitution that allows for the government to ban the consumption of "THINGS" because of their effect on a person's body.  I do see the Amendment that ended prohibition putting the powers back to the states, clearly the BATFE isn't concerned with that.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 29, 2009)

Interstate commerace is essentially the 'loophole' used. If a drug crosses state lines, it becomes interstate commerce and opened up to regulation. Also any international treaties that the US has entered into also superceed state power arguments. Good luck getting a United States v Lopez ruling that deals with narcotics.


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 29, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> And in California, where the state provides exceptions for medical usage? Is that ok?


 
Various pain medications are also medicinal.

However, if purchased illegally and taken without a perscription, they are illegal.  

Do you even understand the process it takes to get medicinal marijuana in California?  Do you even know what patients take medicinal marijuana? 

I seriously doubt if you do or you would not be lumping them into the same category as the stoners.  These patients are not junkies just faking an illness to get drugs.


----------



## emtlady76877 (Oct 29, 2009)

*Drug test*

First let me say even though right now I am a volunteer we do get drug tested at reandum times. And at the college I go to we get drug tested before we start our clinical's. I think everybody should be drug tested and if they are using anything illigal or any other mind altering drug they should not be allowed to practice with out first being cleared from a doctor.


----------



## eveningsky339 (Oct 29, 2009)

thatJeffguy said:


> What about people who use EtOH?



Though alcohol is a drug, a few beers to wind down off-duty is nothing to be concerned about.  When an EMT shows up to work drunk or hungover, though, he's no better than a stoner trying to fake his way through a drug screen.


----------



## Shishkabob (Oct 29, 2009)

Smash said:


> Really?  So can you enlighten us as to what it is that binds to cannabinoid receptors in the brain that isn't a cannabinoid?
> This is not an argument for or against the recreational use of marijuana, however it is attitudes like this that retard the legitmate research of cannabis.






SO you're telling me that THC in the non-marijuana form does not do the same exact things as THC in the marijuana form?  You're telling me there aren't any good anti-emetics besides marijuana?  Anti-anxiety drugs?  Anti-convulsants?  Anti-depressants?






You want marijuana for medicinal purposes.  You get given the active ingredient of marijuana that causes the medicinal effects legally(THC), and it's not good enough for you, you still want marijuana.  Don't hide behind the curtain of medicinal use if you refuse the medicine.


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 29, 2009)

Linuss said:


> SO you're telling me that THC in the non-marijuana form does not do the same exact things as THC in the marijuana form? You're telling me there aren't any good anti-emetics besides marijuana? Anti-anxiety drugs? Anti-convulsants? Anti-depressants?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The medicine form, Marinol, has the same active ingredient but also comes with some side effects of its own.  A lot of patients get even more nauseated from it.   

Alot of the more potent anti-emetics need a central line and not all patient do go home with a CL.  Some also are nauseous to where they can not take PO medications.  Inhalation has been an effective route for many medications without all the systemic side effects.

I am all for medicinal marijuana for some patients that demonstrate a need for it.  However, if you are sick enough to require medical marijuana, you should not be working as an EMT.

A little bit of trivia:  Asthma medications (a form of atropine) were rolled into cigarettes and smoked from 1900 to about the mid 1960s.
http://inhalatorium.com/page50.html


----------



## framework4 (Apr 30, 2010)

thatJeffguy said:


> And in California, where the state provides exceptions for medical usage? Is that ok?



Oregon is a Medical Marijuana state. The Oregon Supreme Court recently ruled that companies can fire workers who test positive for marijuana use even if they have a medical marijuana card.
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/04/oregon-court-marijuana-ruling-favors-employers.html


----------



## KimberBoh (Jun 2, 2010)

thatJeffguy said:


> What if they decide to chug a bottle of cough syrup?  That's not illegal, is it?  Or what if they smoke salvia?  Or smoke DMT?  OR any of the THOUSANDS of compounds that exist in nature that aren't scheduled yet by Supreme Edict of the DEA?  I judge people by their performance.
> 
> Would you rather ride with someone that smokes marijuana infrequently and never within 48 hours of a shift, or a guy who gets poop-faced drunk every night?


Thank you so much for your response.  This is the second thread I've read about the subject on this site and I'm dishearted by the crap coming out of some EMTs mouths.  

I'd rather work with, hang out with, date, or leave my kids with an occasional majiuana smoker than some of the EMTs I know that go out and get hammered every chance they get.  I know EMTs that come to work still fuzzy from the night before and unfortunately they'll never get 'popped' on a drug test.


----------



## jjesusfreak01 (Jun 2, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Interstate commerace is essentially the 'loophole' used. If a drug crosses state lines, it becomes interstate commerce and opened up to regulation. Also any international treaties that the US has entered into also superceed state power arguments. Good luck getting a United States v Lopez ruling that deals with narcotics.



Technically, treaties are not supposed to be binding on the states until they have been ratified by the states. Otherwise, the president alone would have the power to make whatever laws they chose within the US without any oversight.

As for the MJ/Marinol issue, my grandfather has had his entire stomach removed over two surgeries (due to cancer) and was given Marinol to help his appetite. It didn't, however my pothead roomie never failed to steal my food when high on the real deal.


----------



## JPINFV (Jun 2, 2010)

jjesusfreak01 said:


> Technically, treaties are not supposed to be binding on the states until they have been ratified by the states. Otherwise, the president alone would have the power to make whatever laws they chose within the US without any oversight.



You might want to pay a little more attention to the treaty process, namely the entire ratification process required prior to a treaty having an effect.


----------



## jjesusfreak01 (Jun 2, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> You might want to pay a little more attention to the treaty process, namely the entire ratification process required prior to a treaty having an effect.



Exactly, but our officials don't always follow the rules though, do they? For example, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea sets the guidelines for international waters (which would be applicable in say, the recent Israel/Gaza incident). The US signed the treaty but it has never been ratified by the states.

I'm not saying that it should have an affect, but that doesn't mean politicians can't pretend.


----------



## JPINFV (Jun 2, 2010)

Which part of the constitution dictates a state by state ratification of international treaties?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 2, 2010)

Let's keep it on topic please.


----------



## Shatha (Jun 3, 2010)

I was surprised by how many people in this topic were so against it. 'thatjeffguy' has got it right.  Marijuana is just a plant. I dont think of it as a drug. Its standed the test of time, its a financial burden to keep fighting it, and its not lethal. 

Its funny, I see posts saying "a few beers to wind down off duty im not concerned about"

Im wondering how weed is any different? Do people know that you can smoke just a little and not be completely out of your mind baked? Just like 1 beer wont get you wasted.

There are dozens other reasons to legalize it, and not so many to keep it illegal. I believe once more people from my generation are in positions to make changes its gunna happen.   /2cents


----------



## Sandog (Jun 3, 2010)

Shatha said:


> I was surprised by how many people in this topic were so against it. 'thatjeffguy' has got it right.  Marijuana is just a plant. I dont think of it as a drug. Its standed the test of time, its a financial burden to keep fighting it, and its not lethal.
> 
> Its funny, I see posts saying "a few beers to wind down off duty im not concerned about"
> 
> ...



FYI, opium is made from a plant as well, Poppy. Some plants are dangerous neural toxins. Being a plant does not make it is safe, after all look at tobacco.


----------



## framework4 (Jun 3, 2010)

Shatha said:


> I believe once more people from my generation are in positions to make changes its gunna happen.



LOL, I've been hearng that line since I was a teen (1970s).  What is overlooked is that those of each generation who do move in to "positions to make changes" are not those who are also Marijuana users and by the time they reach power they don't believe Marijuana is a harmless alternative to alcohol.


----------



## mcdonl (Jun 3, 2010)

Get off the dope. You will end up fat and lazy. 

Don't drink either. It will make you even fatter and miserable. 

Dont even get me started about "chew" and cigs.....


----------



## Shatha (Jun 3, 2010)

Sandog said:


> Being a plant does not make it is safe, after all look at tobacco.



Except it IS safe. Not one single documented death. Tobacco and Opium..not so much.

As far as Framework's post, the west coast has already started decriminalization and forms of legalization in medicinal marijuana. I believe about 10 states currently allow "green cards" and have med. marijuana shops.  It is only a matter of time before it makes its way east. Im positive were going to add more states before we take them away.  The wheels are in motion, the process just needs to come full circle.

And people, weed doesnt make you stupid. Ignorance does.

Edit: Id also just like to point out that in the 70's the "War on Drugs" was still a new campaign.  Marijuana was lumped into the hardcore/gateway drug category.  Nowadays the public is much more educated on its effects and were realizing that it doesnt turn you into an axe murder or make you go insane as people like Anslinger insisted it did.


----------



## mcdonl (Jun 3, 2010)

*It is already legal in Maine...*

BUT... that does not mean it is right. There is a reason why it is called being stoned. And why you are a stoner if you get stoned on a regular basis. 

You can talk it up as being safe and healthy all you want but it is a) a carcinogen b) a mind altering substance that while your HIGH makes it so you CANNOT do your job and c) is comes with all of the other joys that go along with trafficking illegal drugs. It is not all grown in your back yard. There are big fields, with guys with guns and machetes that kill people as a part of their business. 

And I bet if you look deep enough plenty of MVA's and other accidents were a result of some stoner paying more attention to his ren and stimpy action figure than driving.


----------



## JPINFV (Jun 3, 2010)

mcdonl said:


> You can talk it up as being safe and healthy all you want but it is a) a carcinogen b) a mind altering substance that while your HIGH makes it so you CANNOT do your job and c) is comes with all of the other joys that go along with trafficking illegal drugs. It is not all grown in your back yard. There are big fields, with guys with guns and machetes that kill people as a part of their business.



It would be safe to assume that you don't drink alcohol?


----------



## Shatha (Jun 3, 2010)

In my opinion thats very judgmental. But to each there own. 

Id like to go back to my point on alcoholics. Youre an alcoholic if you get wasted on a regular basis. In moderate amounts, alcohol is just fine. Just like if you hit that joint one time youre not going to be nearly as high as if you smoked the whole thing to yourself.

Im saying its safe but im not saying its healthy. By that I mean everytime you smoke, yes youre doing damage to your lungs. What I mean by safe is that if you smoke 1lb in a day its not going to kill you, and obviously that wouldnt be healthy.

a) carcinogen. Yes. However there are several different forms of consumption besides smoke which im sure you know.

b) mind altering. Yes. But go back to beer.  Youre not gunna come to work wasted off 20 beers just like you shouldnt come to work high as the devil.  Theres a time and a place. It should be done in your free time safely that doesnt interfere with your responsibilities as an adult.

c)Drug trafficking. Yes. Whenever I debate with someone on legalization one of my biggest points is that the crime rate would plummet.  We wont need to go to the ghetto or some shady parking lot anymore if we can just get it at the store.


----------



## mcdonl (Jun 3, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> It would be safe to assume that you don't drink alcohol?



Yes. I used to, but I had a close family member who had an issue with it so as a show of solidarity I quit.


----------



## mcdonl (Jun 3, 2010)

Shatha said:


> In my opinion thats very judgmental. But to each there own.



I prefer subjective


----------



## JPINFV (Jun 3, 2010)

mcdonl said:


> Yes. I used to, but I had a close family member who had an issue with it so as a show of solidarity I quit.




The reason I asked is because all three of those points (well, C during prohibition, but there are still moonshiners out there) could be just as easily be said about alcohol, which is what I've always found funny about this argument. One set of vice is bad, but another vice which is pretty much just as equally bad (and, for the record, alcohol is *the* gateway drug) is illegal.


----------



## mcdonl (Jun 3, 2010)

I used to smoke pot. 

And, I think it is an informed opinion when I state that people who smoke pot are way more likley to take a puff or two on the way out the door to go to work. Not saying it would happen in EMS, and not saying I would ever do it but I know that in the past I would not think twice about taking a poke before going to do something I didnt really want to do. Wash my hands, brush my teeth, throw in some visene and splash on some brut and no one was the wiser.

Thats what scares me about it.


----------



## rbromme (Jun 3, 2010)

I personally do not care what people put in their bodies.  I believe natural selection has been hurt by all of the rules and regulations people are supposed to follow already.  My only issue with legalizing pot is that it can not be tested for like alcohol can.  If they had a test like a breathalyzer for it, then I would have no issue as long as the punishment for being under the influence was at least as harsh as DUI/DWI are.  The fact that the magic all-natural feel good plant will effect your reaction time, perception and judgment makes it not safe when used when you are doing something that can cause damage to others.  For that reason alone, I do not support it being legalized.


----------



## jjesusfreak01 (Jun 3, 2010)

rbromme said:


> I personally do not care what people put in their bodies.  I believe natural selection has been hurt by all of the rules and regulations people are supposed to follow already.  My only issue with legalizing pot is that it can not be tested for like alcohol can.  If they had a test like a breathalyzer for it, then I would have no issue as long as the punishment for being under the influence was at least as harsh as DUI/DWI are.  The fact that the magic all-natural feel good plant will effect your reaction time, perception and judgment makes it not safe when used when you are doing something that can cause damage to others.  For that reason alone, I do not support it being legalized.



Actually, we destroy natural selection. If a person decides to follow rules, that is one thing, but EMS and hospitals keep people alive with advanced technology when natural selection would just as soon have them die.


----------



## notmeofficer (Jun 3, 2010)

eveningsky339 said:


> I personally feel that every EMS agency should do drug screens.  We can debate about the decriminalization of marijuana to the grave, but the bottom line is this:  I don't want a stoner answering my EMS calls.  I don't want a stoner operating an emergency vehicle.  Whether is marijuana or vicodin or any other opiate/benzo, these chemicals are not conducive to the proper function of a professional, compassionate emergency medical technician.



well said...

THC remains in the body along with legal drugs.. I don't want a partner on anything that MIGHT impair their ability..legal illegal,, it doesn't matter..

you want to alter yourself.. try another profession... all this touchy feely garbage dances around the issue....

be an example not a potential concern

Right now in California we are seeing a huge influx of downgrading of emts to first responder.. and new potential emts only becoming first responders because of criminal backgrounds (currently not done on first responders)

great.. work with a crook and a doper,, what next

we are losing focus folks.. drug/alcohol use ..legal or otherwise... certainly doesnt help


----------



## Smash (Jun 3, 2010)

notmeofficer said:


> THC remains in the body along with legal drugs.. I don't want a partner on anything that MIGHT impair their ability..legal illegal,, it doesn't matter.


I presume that means you won't work with anyone who takes OTC medications containing codiene for their back pain, or anti-histamines for their allergies, or anti-depressants for their depression, or sedatives like the Z-drugs because they stuggle with 2 or 3 jobs and shift work to pay the bills?



> great.. work with a crook and a doper,, what next



I have two suggestions: 1) a reasoned and sensible discussion of the issue minus the emotive, biased nonsense as above and 2) a short course in English.


----------



## notmeofficer (Jun 4, 2010)

Smash said:


> I presume that means you won't work with anyone who takes OTC medications containing codiene for their back pain, or anti-histamines for their allergies, or anti-depressants for their depression, or sedatives like the Z-drugs because they stuggle with 2 or 3 jobs and shift work to pay the bills?
> 
> 
> 
> I have two suggestions: 1) a reasoned and sensible discussion of the issue minus the emotive, biased nonsense as above and 2) a short course in English.



Please note spelling Sir... Codeine,, struggle.. if any person chooses be the example here.. then be just that..perfect Sir.. 

Don't personalize stuff.. I will try my best not to.. the forum requires it... my "biases" come from a lifetime of professional service.. not so much as biases but more a clear understanding of policies and procedures that work.. and those that don't.

And no..I personally don't want to work with someone under the influence of drugs that affect their motor sensory reactions... the vehicle code does not allow for it as a commercial driver.. Ill have to check if a California ambulance driver license has the similar restriction..I cant remember off the top off my head..I believe it does. Anyone can be arrested for any substance that impairs their ability to drive.. in the case of California there is a zero limit.

I would tell you this.. have an accident with drugs on board.. no way.. it would be the "preventable' part of the accident and both the offender and employer would be on the hook.. the same thing would happen in the case of any "mistake"  Think a good attorney wouldn't have an easier burden of proof involving a person who uses drugs and provides medical care to others and makes a mistake ?.. think again.. they will have that person for lunch.. and rightly so... think an employer wants the liability of an altered employee?.. NO WAY... that is why they drug test all the time.. Perhaps you might read the concept of negligence again... and how we are held to standards of care. Does anyone believe for one second their EMSA would approve of care providers certified by them being under the influence? Another self-evident answer.

I teach and use the adage... "provide care like it's to your own mother".. you want someone "altered" working on your family member?.. the answer is self evident.

Some people just aren't cut out for public safety.. they want "accommodations".. I say crap to that..go work at Mc Donalds.. oh wait.. doesn't McD's drug test?... I don't want someone whose life is such that they aren't focused on what they are doing providing care.. if they are working two or three jobs they should consider a different lifestyle..perhaps one that doesn't have people's existence in their hands. We also have an obligation to each other.. to NOT be altered in anyway that affects our ability to perform. drugs alter us.. that's what they do.. stay home if they affect your ability to perform in anyway.

We have to be right all the time and when we aren't and the public looks at us.. think they want to know we are using drugs while we provide service?.. I don't think so. If a provider is hurting so much they have to be on pain meds they shouldn't be working anyway..all they are is a liability.. want them lifting a gurney with you?.. in a vehicle extrication with you?.. you have got to be kidding..that's not accommodation that's plain ridiculous.

Our jobs are arduous classification jobs... not office jobs where another person's life is in your hands... 

This is a weird thread.. I think everyone already knows whats right.. just some people, again, want to be accommodated for abhorrent behaviors.


----------



## Smash (Jun 4, 2010)

Well spotted, I shall avoid using my iPhone and fat thumbs to type from now on.  Maybe I should use some random and inappropriate punctuation too, people might enjoy that more:;';;./



> And no..I personally don't want to work with someone under the influence of drugs that affect their motor sensory reactions...


 So in all seriousness, if your partner turned up one spring day with red and itchy eyes and a runny nose from their allergies playing up, and you saw them take an anti-histamine, what would you do?  Refuse to run jobs with them?  Report them?  Call the police to have them arrested for operating a vehicle while impaired?




> think they want to know we are using drugs while we provide service?.. I don't think so. If a provider is hurting so much they have to be on pain meds they shouldn't be working anyway..all they are is a liability.. want them lifting a gurney with you?.. in a vehicle extrication with you?.. you have got to be kidding..that's not accommodation that's plain ridiculous.



And this is why it is all but impossible for anyone to have a reasoned discussion on this subject.  If you seriously consider that someone who has a sore back, or maybe a twinge in the shoulder should not be allowed to work rather than take an OTC pain medication, it is clearly pointless in trying to discuss anything at an adult level.  Equating OTC medication for common minor ailments with smoking marijuana is indeed ridiculous.


----------

