Soon to be EMT-b, But an advocate for Medical Mariujana

[VentMedic]

True, however I'd love to see a licensing agency revoke or refuse a license because someone drank alcohol while off duty (to clarify, use does not equal abuse before the concept of alcoholism is brought up), used tobacco, or held a CCW permit.

But if you test positive for drugs and alcohol at work, you may be terminated. If you carry a weapon at work, you may be terminated. If you test positive in a "no smoking" job such as a hospital or FD, you may be terminated.

If you test positive for drugs and alcohol in a pre-employment physical, you will not be hired.

If a drug stays in your system long enough to be detected, tough for you.

If you do not have enough sense to obey the laws, you should not be working with patients. If the drugs you consume are illegal, change the laws. You could be one of those fine examples petitioning for MM in Sacramento.

 

[ah2388]

But if you test positive for drugs and alcohol at work, you may be terminated. If you carry a weapon at work, you may be terminated. If you test positive in a "no smoking" job such as a hospital or FD, you may be terminated.

If you test positive for drugs and alcohol in a pre-employment physical, you will not be hired.

If a drug stays in your system long enough to be detected, tough for you.

If you do not have enough sense to obey the laws, you should not be working with patients. If the drugs you consume are illegal, change the laws. You could be one of those fine examples petitioning for MM in Sacramento.

i dont know where you work at, but at my place they encourage us to sculpt our guns.

/cheeseball

 

[JPINFV]

If you do not have enough sense to obey the laws, you should not be working with patients. If the drugs you consume are illegal, change the laws. You could be one of those fine examples petitioning for MM in Sacramento.

There are a lot of things that I support, but don't advocate for. Personally, I'm more concerned over McDonald v Chicago (SCOTUS case being heard in March that could result in incorporation of the 2nd amendment) than MM.

 

[JPINFV]

i dont know where you work at, but at my place they encourage us to sculpt our guns.

/cheeseball

Just watch out for the guns, they'll getcha

 

[VentMedic]

There are a lot of things that I support, but don't advocate for.

As I have stated already many times, I also support MM. But, for those working in the medical professions, I am not supportive of them in patient care areas if they meet the criteria for use. If they do not meet the criteria, then I would have to question why they are using marijuana.

 

[Veneficus]

If you do not have enough sense to obey the laws, you should not be working with patients. If the drugs you consume are illegal, change the laws. You could be one of those fine examples petitioning for MM in Sacramento.

Does this statement also hold true for physicians who performed abortions prior to legalization?

When the laws of the state and the good of the patient come into conflict, who should win out? Most laws are made by a majority of people who have no first hand medical knowledge. In the US a professional politician cannot be counted on to pass laws based on the interest of the patient if they come into conflict with a political action group.

Look at states like Florida that confine a pregnant woman to a hospital or need a supreme court case to pull the plug on somebody in order to appease a political constituency.

The thread is about medical marijuana, but it could hold true for any medical intervention.

What if a group of people with limited knowledge decide that moms shouldn't have psych meds because they are whiners and lobby a law? Should we investigate every psychiatrist in the country to make sure the script was proper? How about for pain management patients? There is already a considerable culture of conservative pain management.

I think we'd waste a lot of money and time with no conclusions based on peoples' ability to get on the internet and show up at the doctor with a self dx and complaining of all the signs and symptoms of a disease. Especially if you could level a lawsuit if your doctor didn't "treat" you for such "obvious" complaints when you brought them to his/her attention.

I have no doubt that most of the people claiming medical necessity for THC are using medicine as an excuse. But a blind reliance on an imperfect bureaucracy to look out for the best interest of society doesn't seem overly intelligent. In fact it seems like wishful thinking at best and downright ignorant on the other end of the scale.

What if a group lobbied a law for female circumcision or something else westerners find objectionable? In the US there is nothing that effectively stops the rule of the mob. Even SCOTUS can take decades to sort through something. What about the patients suffering in the meanwhile? How about a law that requires physicians to notify parents if their teenage female child doesn't exhibit evidence of being a virgin? How about outlawing the treatment of homosexual males for rectal cancer or AIDS? You think there aren't people in the US who wouldn't rally behind such things with possibly enough political leverage to pass a bill?

Allowing a largely uneducated society like the US to decide what is medically acceptable with no reliable checks and balances is not a very slippery slope, It is outright dangerous.

 

[VentMedic]

Does this statement also hold true for physicians who performed abortions prior to legalization?

When the laws of the state and the good of the patient come into conflict, who should win out? Most laws are made by a majority of people who have no first hand medical knowledge. In the US a professional politician cannot be counted on to pass laws based on the interest of the patient if they come into conflict with a political action group.

Look at states like Florida that confine a pregnant woman to a hospital or need a supreme court case to pull the plug on somebody in order to appease a political constituency.

The thread is about medical marijuana, but it could hold true for any medical intervention.

What if a group of people with limited knowledge decide that moms shouldn't have psych meds because they are whiners and lobby a law? Should we investigate every psychiatrist in the country to make sure the script was proper? How about for pain management patients? There is already a considerable culutre of conservative pain management.

I think we'd waste a lot of money and time with no conclusions based on peoples' ability to get on the internet and show up at the doctor with a self dx and complaining of all the signs and symptoms of a disease. Especially if you could level a lawsuit if your doctor didn't "treat" you for such "obvious" complaints when you brought them to his/her attention.

I have no doubt that most of the people claiming medical necessity for THC are using medicine as an excuse. But a blind reliance on an imperfect bureaucracy to look out for the best interest of society doesn't seem overly intelligent. In fact it seems like wishful thinking at best and downright ignorant on the other end of the scale.

What if a group lobbied a law for female circumcision or something else westerners find objectionable? In the US there is nothing that effectively stops the rule of the mob. Even SCOTUS can take decades to sort through something. What about the patients suffering in the meanwhile? How about a law that requires physicians to notify parents if their teenage female child doesn't exhibit evidence of being a virgin? How about outlawing the treatment of homosexual males for rectal cancer or AIDS? You think there are people in the US who wouldn't rally behind such things with possibly enough political leverage to pass a bill?

Allowing a largely uneducated society like the US to decide what is medically acceptable with no reliable checks and balances is not a very slippery slope, It is outright dangerous.

So your message is that EMT wannabes should just say the hell with any laws and smoke all the pot or do all the drugs they want because our system is a joke?

While the many systems the govern this country may have several faults, without rules and regulations protecting patients from providers who should not hold a license, it would be a lot worse.

The messege should be: know your Federal, state and local laws. Know the regulations for licensing in your state. Know what employers will accept. If you can not abide by the laws and rules in place, look for a different job in another profession.

Do not tell someone to do something found to be illegal in their country, state or licensing agency just because of YOUR opinion that the United States sucks.

 

[Veneficus]

So your message is that EMT wannabes should just say the hell with any laws and smoke all the pot or do all the drugs they want because our system is a joke?

No they should be able to discuss medical ethics and philosophy without the thought police berating them

While the many systems the govern this country may have several faults, without rules and regulations protecting patients from providers who should not hold a license, it would be a lot worse..

That is pure speculation, what is to say that a professional organization would not assume the role of policing providers?

The messege should be: know your Federal, state and local laws. Know the regulations for licensing in your state. Know what employers will accept. If you can not abide by the laws and rules in place, look for a different job in another profession.

Do not tell someone to do something found to be illegal in their country, state or licensing agency just because of YOUR opinion that the United States sucks.

You could have just said you could not answer the questions or not posted.

My point was for people to always consider the ramifications of blindly following a mob mentality. Apparently too complex an issue for a discussion here.

Everyone do as you are told, follow the rules and nobody will get hurt, everything will be ok. Go back to being a sheep and do not stress yourself with such burdons like independant thinking. Everything will be fine, the government will take good care of you and your loved ones and make sure you are protected from yourselves. You are not smart enough to be introduced to anything outside the prescribed sound bites

Is that better?

I have to say it sounds like your position is people here are not smart enough to think or entertain arguments that you can't sum up in the least common denominator of one liners.

Perhaps it is fortunate you are here to protect the poor helpless masses from evil independant thinkers like me.

 

[JPINFV]

So... I'm guessing that there were no gay EMTs in states where all forms of sodomy (including consensual) is illegal prior to Lawerence v Texas? After all, I'd hate to have seen someone before 2003 suggest that someone say 'hell with the laws, have as much sex as you want because the system is a joke.' How about people who commit adultery in states where that's illegal?

Interesting tidbit about case law (including the Supreme Court). Unless something goes to trial, the appeals courts can't invalidate a law.

 

[JPINFV]

That is pure speculation, what is to say that a professional organization would not assume the role of policing providers?

Interesting point. Look at the success of United Underwriters Laboratory.

 

[VentMedic]

I have to say it sounds like your position is people here are not smart enough to think or entertain arguments that you can't sum up in the least common denominator of one liners.

Perhaps it is fortunate you are here to protect the poor helpless masses from evil independant thinkers like me.

Did you read the OP?

There is someone wanting to be an EMT claiming to have a condition that HE feels should justify his pot smoking.

So... I'm guessing that there were no gay EMTs in states where all forms of sodomy (including consensual) is illegal prior to Lawerence v Texas? After all, I'd hate to have seen someone before 2003 suggest that someone say 'hell with the laws, have as much sex as you want because the system is a joke.' How about people who commit adultery in states where that's illegal?

Interesting tidbit about case law (including the Supreme Court). Unless something goes to trial, the appeals courts can't invalidate a law.

Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights. Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged?

Adultery? Ask those who have been through a divorce if that can not come to play a role.

 

[JPINFV]

Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights.

I'm sorry, someone's laughing? I wasn't joking around with my comment about homosexual acts and the fact that some states criminalized such acts. However, if the "law is the law" and should be followed regardless and only changed through the legislature, then there shouldn't have been any homosexuals in the health care fields in places like Texas prior to 2003. After all, if they act on their impulses (even if between two consenting adults) then they are criminals and their licenses should have been pulled.

I could have just as easily gone with civil rights, but I felt that this was more contemporary. Since referencing homosexuals is a little too uncouth apparently, I'll make another analogy. If Rosa Parks held a health care license, should it have been pulled because she refused to sit in the back of the bus?

Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged?

There's a big difference between workplace culture and the moral views of those involved in that field and government backed bigotry. There's a reason why I referenced an actual SCOTUS case since we're talking about laws and the legal system instead of societal (and sub group) feelings on a specific group and/or action. SCOTUS, and the appeals system, can't change society's views. They can, however, change how the law is implemented, and in the case of SCOTUS, invalidate laws.

Adultery? Ask those who have been through a divorce if that can not come to play a role.

Are you seriously suggesting that a licensing agency will pull someone's license because they sleep around? Additionally, in states that do criminalize sleeping around, you support such licensure action because it's in the law? After all, in Michigan, adulteriers are felons.

http://law.justia.com/michigan/codes/mcl-chap750/mcl-328-1931-v.html

 

[Veneficus]

Did you read the OP?

There is someone wanting to be an EMT claiming to have a condition that HE feels should justify his pot smoking. .

Of course you have to result to rhetoric. How could I possibly know what the OP said? I have only typed pages on medical THC indications and complications on both sides of the argument.

So what if he thinks his use is justified? Neither a government agency nor a professional one would back the use of a hallucinagenic substance while working in a patient care arena. Sounds like there is no problem. What are you trying to save us all from?

You seem to have a very simple veiw of the world and contempt for anyone who dares invoke any thought that disturbs it. I am not impressed by the straw man arguments in a medical or philosophical discussion. Perhaps it is my blind trust in human evolution that people smart enough to get on the internet can have meaningful debate on issues that confront modern society.

If your argument is that the rule of law for the protection of society trumps the needs of patients, I question your dedication to both the art of medicine and your patients. No title or degree is going to vindicate that. What's next, not treating criminals to protect society?

Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights. Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged?

Adultery? Ask those who have been through a divorce if that can not come to play a role.

That is exactly the point. It is certainly not a joke. An ignorant mob legislating its values which causes harm to people.

Yes or No question. (in other words simple) Would you knowingly and willingly perform or not perform medical intervention that would cause meaningful harm to your patient in order to live by the rule of law?

 

[Shishkabob]

Typically, laws ARE moral codes, written by a governing body to be enforced.

Yes or No question. (in other words simple) Would you knowingly and willingly perform or not perform medical intervention that would cause meaningful harm to your patient in order to live by the rule of law?

So you're willing to not prosecute an EMT who starts an IV on someone when they are dehydrated?

 

[JPINFV]

Except it's not quite that easy to say, "Well... it's all morality." While set of morals are you going for? Religious code? Philosophical code? Which one?

Similarly, I think it's a bit disingenuous to put, say, property crimes (e.g. theft, burglary, vandalism) or assault based crimes (e.g. assault and battery, rape, murder) on the same grounds as vice crimes (prostitution, drugs, gambling) simply because all three groups are based on "morals." Laws regarding assault or property crimes comes from natural rights. On the other hand, I've always found a hard time trying to figure out what prostitution is trying to protect someone from (considering that prostitution is at it's base, a business transaction). Similarly, who was being protected from alcohol during prohibition?

 

[VentMedic]

Yes or No question. (in other words simple) Would you knowingly and willingly perform or not perform medical intervention that would cause meaningful harm to your patient in order to live by the rule of law?

Why would I willingly cause meaningful harm to a patient if I know that is what the procedure will do?

If you have any medical experience you should know there are checks and balances to prevent this from happening if one knows the procedure is harmful. If you know the procedure is harmful to the patient and you do it anyway without questioning it, then yes you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and/or your licensing board.

If the licensing board clearly states no illegal drug use, then that should be obeyed and you should not lie on your application because of advice or opinion given on an anonymous internet forum in belief that it is your right regardless of what the requirements state.

 

[JPINFV]

Why would I willingly cause meaningful harm to a patient if I know that is what the procedure will do?

...because in the hypothetical situation the law requires it. This isn't about checks in providing medical care. It's a hypothetical situation where the law is obviously wrong and the choice is to do the right thing or break the law.

 

[TripsTer]

What if soccer mom sally has post partum depression? Instead of the Xanax she can just kill herself?

Maybe you have heard of women so depressed they have taken the lives of their kids to "save them" from such misery.

Her taking perfectly legal prescription drugs is not the problem. It's when she becomes dependent and starts to abuse the medication.

So she takes her anti-depression meds every day and then runs out. She's unable to get another prescription and then she commits suicide or god forbid harms her children. So it's not her fault, it's her doc's because he didn't give her that scrip?

What I'm trying to say is that we need to take responsibility and not be so dependent on this crap whether it be pot or prescription drugs. There are other ways to cope with traumatic events. There are many people out there everyday that deal with stress without anti-depressants.

 

[JPINFV]

What I'm trying to say is that we need to take responsibility and not be so dependent on this crap whether it be pot or prescription drugs. There are other ways to cope with traumatic events. There are many people out there everyday that deal with stress without anti-depressants.

...and everyone is different. Should a patient be denied pain control because one patient has a different pain threshold than another?

 

[CAOX3]

Her taking perfectly legal prescription drugs is not the problem. It's when she becomes dependent and starts to abuse the medication.

So she takes her anti-depression meds every day and then runs out. She's unable to get another prescription and then she commits suicide or god forbid harms her children. So it's not her fault, it's her doc's because he didn't give her that scrip?

What I'm trying to say is that we need to take responsibility and not be so dependent on this crap whether it be pot or prescription drugs. There are other ways to cope with traumatic events. There are many people out there everyday that deal with stress without anti-depressants.

Yes, mental illness and cognitive disorders are just a figment of our imagination. :wacko: