Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
You're mistaking sales for profit. They are not the same in the slightest.
Soon to be EMT-b, But an advocate for Medical Mariujana
- Thread starter Jperdy
- Start date
You're mistaking sales for profit. They are not the same in the slightest.
meastt
Forum Probie
- 14
- 0
- 0
Are you really going to act as if we don't have housewives in america popping pills? Really? (and house husbands)
Your also going to blanket all of those cases into PPD? really?
And as far as PTSD goes, Tx for each individual varies......hmmm imagine that...varies....there are no absolutes in medicine.
Some will use MM and benefit in their own way and many other will abuse.....
Many will benefit from pharms and many will abuse...
I never once said pharms are the "bad guy" but lets call the spade a spade (a wise man/woman once said) Pharms are a huge industry, and many americans are using their doctor as a personal drug dealer....
You might hate it and you might want to argue that all day....but...that my friend is a big, fat spade.
reaper
Working Bum
- 2,817
- 75
- 48
Biggest difference you are over looking, is one simple small fact.
Medications are legal in all 50 states. MM is illegal in all 50 states, under Federal law.
BINGO!
Medications are legal in all 50 states. MM is illegal in all 50 states, under Federal law.
BINGO!
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Medical marijuana might be illegal under federal law, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal under state law. The vast majority of drug enforcement, especially at the user level, is not done by the federal government. Similarly, there's the issue of jury nullification if you have any non-sheeple on a jury (not saying that everyone who would convict is sheeple, but the percent of people in this country who are sheeple are quite high and wouldn't think about nullification even if they ended up voting to convict).
edit:
Similarly, there's been enforcement nullification by Attorney General Eric Holder.
edit:
Similarly, there's been enforcement nullification by Attorney General Eric Holder.
http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192
Last edited by a moderator:
meastt
Forum Probie
- 14
- 0
- 0
Bingo!
reaper
Working Bum
- 2,817
- 75
- 48
Yes, the Feds choose not to prosecute. That does not make it legal by Federal law.
Guess what, Even in Cali a 911 company that gets federal funding, could lose it for hiring someone that admittedly uses.
Will it happen? I doubt it, but that risk is always there.
Then put the Insurance companies in the mix. No one will cover someone driving or treating Pt's while using MM.
Sorry, I believe that it should be legal for use by those that need it. Like cancer Pt's. I do not believe in all the made up excuses to use it. If you have ADD, there are already proven drugs for that and MM is not one of them.
California ruined it for the rest of the country, because they let it get out of hand and anyone can claim medical reasons for it.
Guess what, Even in Cali a 911 company that gets federal funding, could lose it for hiring someone that admittedly uses.
Will it happen? I doubt it, but that risk is always there.
Then put the Insurance companies in the mix. No one will cover someone driving or treating Pt's while using MM.
Sorry, I believe that it should be legal for use by those that need it. Like cancer Pt's. I do not believe in all the made up excuses to use it. If you have ADD, there are already proven drugs for that and MM is not one of them.
California ruined it for the rest of the country, because they let it get out of hand and anyone can claim medical reasons for it.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Oh, I'm not saying that a company will hire someone who smokes marijuana. The likelyhood of being hired and the legality of use are two different issues. Heck, legal vs enforcement is it's own separate issue (how many people speed? Now be honest). There are so many laws in USC that the federal government can't even keep track. You could be strung out completely legally on schedule 2s or 3s because of a chronic issue and probably not be hired because of it for the same reasons.
a) Ofc driving and treating pts while under the effects will never be tolerated (same as alcohol [don't really understand why you even brought it up]).
b) Adderall might work for little Jimmy but Susy finds that the best way to treat her ADHD is with MM. Just because adderall is available does that mean that Susy should be limited to just that? Like mentioned about 300 times in the past couple pages different medication has different effects on different people. It's as simple as that, and to say MM is unnecessary b/c there are already available medications is false.
c) California happens to have a lot of potheads. Should those California residents be denied of the plant that they want? Even though, they hurt no one other then themselves. Why should those who choose to experiment with their OWN consciousness be punished for possessing a harmless (to those not consuming) plant?
I tried not to include any of my opinions and kept it very simple.
Bottom line, there should NEVER be anyone under the effects of MM taking care of patients or operating machinery. But those who wish to have their own experience with this "DRUG" during their free time should have all the right to without having big brother government telling them they can't - imo.
notmeofficer
Forum Crew Member
- 36
- 0
- 6
no thanks to anyone who smokes dope in public safety... its hard enough to work with people who have all their faculties.. I cant imagine working with anyone who was high.. drunk..or under the influence of anything..
I WANT to know my partners are sober.. I am an avid supporter of stricter testing and less liberal policies... and ems directors who let people slide or put them on probation can kiss my butookie
the line is clear
nope to dope
I WANT to know my partners are sober.. I am an avid supporter of stricter testing and less liberal policies... and ems directors who let people slide or put them on probation can kiss my butookie
the line is clear
nope to dope
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Why is the assumption made that anyone who uses MM automatically will come in under the influence any more than someone who uses perscription pain medications or alcohol? I agree that no one should work while under the influence of medications or drugs that alter their thinking ability, however I can't make the jump that use=abuse.
Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
Easy: If you use it for it's non-legal, non-intended use, it's abuse.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Non-intended use? So anyone who gets a rx for an off label use is abusing a drug? Since the FDA has not approved marketing for the King LTD for emergency use, is every EMS agency that uses a King as a backup airway now abusing an intervention?
As far as legal, there are plenty of things that are only illegal because of the Puritian heritage of this country. Besides, prohibition worked so well, especially with all of the people abusing alcohol at the time (read: anyone who drank alcohol).
As far as legal, there are plenty of things that are only illegal because of the Puritian heritage of this country. Besides, prohibition worked so well, especially with all of the people abusing alcohol at the time (read: anyone who drank alcohol).
Last edited by a moderator:
Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
You don't have to "abuse" alcohol but if you show positve at work during a random test, you will be severely disciplined.
If you exceed an unacceptable amount of legal pain meds, you employer has the right to ask for an evaluation. If you are using someone else's script for pain meds or are using multiple doctors to obtain pain medications, your employer and licensing board may ask for further evaluation. If you file a workmen's comp claim even for a needle stick evaluation, a drug test will be done and your medical information will be in question.
While CA offers protection for MM, the Feds do not. And, by CA law this statement is made:
Patients diagnosed with any debilitating illness where the medical use of marijuana has been "deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician"
Will the OP qualify as having a debilitating illness and if so, should he be working in EMS?
There are medical conditions and medications that do disqualify a person from holding a cert/license in the medical professions.
One must consider legalities of the laws as well as disability from the med (MM) and the disease before advocating a person gets an EMT cert just because you think MM is getting a bad rap. Any state licensing agency and employer would come under scrutiny if they did not follow the laws and ensure someone is fit to provide patient care.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
So that's supposed to be an "and" not an "or" implied there? So what is the intended use of marijuana? Is the intended use any different than, say, alcohol? You could have just left it at "legal," so "intended" use must count for something.
The King had approval with the FDA as an airway device. This did not file the paperwork with the word 'emergency' used. However, it is still an approved airway device. Atrovent is not listed as an emergency med either but is still treatment for COPD as a frontline med if used with Albuterol or similar bronchodilator.
There is a difference between a trial and something that has been proven effective that already has established FDA approval.
Are you allowed to drink alcohol at work? Do illegal drugs at work? Can you take narcotics without a script? Have you tried telling your employer that bottle of vodka in your bag is "intended for medicinal" purposes?
Is marijuana any more legal than heroin if not used for the conditions described by the law?
A licensing agency and employer also have some say in what they do and do not want. Guns may be legal carry but if an employer says no on their property, that must be respected. A FD and hospital can also say NO smokers hired and that also within their right.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Which I'm not arguing with.
While it is true that it is technically illegal (by "technically" I mean by the letter yes, but just because it's illegal doesn't mean that it's enforced), the current US attorney general has explicitly said that enforcement of marijuana laws against people with valid prescriptions in states where it is legal under state law is not a priority. Additionally, while SCOTUS has ruled that the federal marijuana laws do fall under interstate commerce clause, there has been plenty of rulings in the past 15 years clarifying exactly what that clause can be used for. It would not surprise me if in the next 10 years the issue comes up again, especially as states rights issues continue to be pushed.
Similarly, the question over what debilitating illness is disqualifying for medical work or EMS work is blurry when on the line. Sure, there are plenty of things that are so far from the line as to not be questioned, but not everything in black and white. Regardless, without knowing what illness the OP has, we don't know if he's on the line or so far past it that virtually everyone will agree that he is too debilitated to work in EMS.
I agree that the entire purpose of any licensing agency is to protect the public. What I do find interesting is that the standards applied to MM isn't applied to anything else. Could you imagine the outcry if a licensing agency refused to license someone because they drank alcohol, even if they allowed enough time for their body to clear all of the alcohol from their blood stream before returning to work? How about violations of Blue Laws in states that still have them? Sorry Bob, but someone reported you drinking a beer while grilling dinner in your back yard on Sunday. We have to revoke your license.
How about pain medication? Oh, sorry you just had wisdom teeth removed, but we see that you've been prescribed Vicodin. As such, we have to pull your license until you can show that you're clean for 3 months. After all, we can't let you work while you have any detectable levels of Vicodin in your system.
I don't think it's too radical, revolutionary, or anything else to try to apply the same mindset being set forth for one mind altering substance as to all mind altering substances.
Last edited by a moderator:
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
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.
Does the person meet the legal criteria for use of MM in CA? If no, then there may be a prescribing breech and the doctor should be investigated as well. If the patient meets the criteria for MM, should they be working in a physically and mentally challenging profession? Until MM is widely accepted as being legal in the U.S. and the criteria for use investigated, one can not advocate for its use in by those working in the health care professions at this time.
Being positive for alcohol is not allowed where I have worked and scripts for narcotics may have to be filed with one's employers occupational health office. Health information is also disclosed to determine an employee's fitness for duty.