Drug screening for EMS cert/school

[thatJeffguy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.