On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:35:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:07:03 -0500, "Robin S."
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
However, its still my right to hire only those that I wish to
hire..and I wont hire pot heads or drunks or other users of drugs that
tend to **** you up.


So, it's not an invasion of privacy?

**** no. Now if I had a rule that I could come into your home and ****
test you because you may be using at home, that would be.

But the "Patriot Act" is the best thing your beloved neocons
ever did, right?
What "church" must folks belong to?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:35:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Until they come up with a "under the influence" test that can be used
at work, **** testing is the only reliable method to make sure that
the person you hire to perform a job, is not likely to be under the
influence while performing that job.

When that test hits the market, then Ill agree that there is no reason
for **** testing.

But then...Im sure folks will **** and moan about having to take one
of those too, on the job.

Frankly I dont give a damn if you burn the herb on your own time. Jost
dont come to work impared. And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

You have a problem again, Gummer.
It's my understanding that such tests indicate *use*, perhaps
even days or weeks ago, not "impaired".
A test for "impaired" would be rather simple but probably
weed out lots of fundies & wingers due to their impaired
judgement.

Any test for "use" would seem to be an effort to force
"moral" judgements on others and rarely a test for
"impaired".
Many are also handicapped. Would they also be weeded out
as "impaired"?
--
Cliff

Gunner Lied:

And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, Gunner. Such tests _already_ exist. Typically somewhat like a
video game, doing reaction-time testing, and perhaps other things
depending on the nature of the job. Not able to do the task in the test,
not allowed to operate the train, press, plane, whatever. Perhaps even
get the breathalyzer, ****, blood, and/or other test - for cause -
unless you want to be fired.

In article ,
Cliff wrote:

A test for "impaired" would be rather simple but probably
weed out lots of fundies & wingers due to their impaired
judgement.

Of course, actual safety (even from people impaired on legal drugs) does
not fit with the actual agenda of the people who prefer expensive ****
testing to get rid of all those employees who eat poppyseed bagels, who
show up as heroin addicts on the cheesy tests.

--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:37:13 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

Gunner Lied:

And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, Gunner. Such tests _already_ exist. Typically somewhat like a
video game, doing reaction-time testing, and perhaps other things
depending on the nature of the job. Not able to do the task in the test,
not allowed to operate the train, press, plane, whatever. Perhaps even
get the breathalyzer, ****, blood, and/or other test - for cause -
unless you want to be fired.

Yes such tests do exist. They are expensive, time consuming and a
number of them involve equipment that requires a lab tech to operate.

And they are often wrong.
Im an ex cop. I can "usually" tell if someone is on drugs and can
often times tell you which one. Now to prove that to the courts or to
the labor board will require at the minimum, a blood or **** test and
a certified analysis from a certified lab.

Please point out which common field test, other than the breathyliser
will point out not only how much drugs by percentage are in your
system, but which drug, and wether or not you are impaired or not.

Even the breath test will not point out if you are impaired, only how
much blood alcohol you have in your system. Those numbers are based on
Averages, to determine amount of impairment.

I know a tile setter that will generally blow a .16 (twice the legal
limit) and still does beautiful work, and you cannot tell he is drunk.
At the same time I know a young girl who can blow a .05 and be falling
down.

In article ,
Cliff wrote:

A test for "impaired" would be rather simple but probably
weed out lots of fundies & wingers due to their impaired
judgement.

Of course, actual safety (even from people impaired on legal drugs) does
not fit with the actual agenda of the people who prefer expensive ****
testing to get rid of all those employees who eat poppyseed bagels, who
show up as heroin addicts on the cheesy tests.

And those who eat poppy seed bagles simply ask that a further test be
done, and the results will clear them of opiate useage.

Dont know much about the subject, do you....?

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:47:07 GMT, Gunner
said:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:37:13 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

Gunner Lied:

And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, Gunner. Such tests _already_ exist. Typically somewhat like a
video game, doing reaction-time testing, and perhaps other things
depending on the nature of the job. Not able to do the task in the test,
not allowed to operate the train, press, plane, whatever. Perhaps even
get the breathalyzer, ****, blood, and/or other test - for cause -
unless you want to be fired.

Yes such tests do exist. They are expensive, time consuming and a
number of them involve equipment that requires a lab tech to operate.

And they are often wrong.
Im an ex cop. I can "usually" tell if someone is on drugs and can
often times tell you which one. Now to prove that to the courts or to
the labor board will require at the minimum, a blood or **** test and
a certified analysis from a certified lab.

Please point out which common field test, other than the breathyliser
will point out not only how much drugs by percentage are in your
system, but which drug, and wether or not you are impaired or not.

Even the breath test will not point out if you are impaired, only how
much blood alcohol you have in your system. Those numbers are based on
Averages, to determine amount of impairment.

I know a tile setter that will generally blow a .16 (twice the legal
limit) and still does beautiful work, and you cannot tell he is drunk.
At the same time I know a young girl who can blow a .05 and be falling
down.

In article ,
Cliff wrote:

A test for "impaired" would be rather simple but probably
weed out lots of fundies & wingers due to their impaired
judgement.

Of course, actual safety (even from people impaired on legal drugs) does
not fit with the actual agenda of the people who prefer expensive ****
testing to get rid of all those employees who eat poppyseed bagels, who
show up as heroin addicts on the cheesy tests.

And those who eat poppy seed bagles simply ask that a further test be
done, and the results will clear them of opiate useage.

Dont know much about the subject, do you....?

Gunner

Under my insurance poilcy, all positives must be sent to a lab for
confirmation.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:42:15 -0500, North wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:47:07 GMT, Gunner
said:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:37:13 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

Gunner Lied:

And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, Gunner. Such tests _already_ exist. Typically somewhat like a
video game, doing reaction-time testing, and perhaps other things
depending on the nature of the job. Not able to do the task in the test,
not allowed to operate the train, press, plane, whatever. Perhaps even
get the breathalyzer, ****, blood, and/or other test - for cause -
unless you want to be fired.

Yes such tests do exist. They are expensive, time consuming and a
number of them involve equipment that requires a lab tech to operate.

And they are often wrong.
Im an ex cop. I can "usually" tell if someone is on drugs and can
often times tell you which one. Now to prove that to the courts or to
the labor board will require at the minimum, a blood or **** test and
a certified analysis from a certified lab.

Please point out which common field test, other than the breathyliser
will point out not only how much drugs by percentage are in your
system, but which drug, and wether or not you are impaired or not.

Even the breath test will not point out if you are impaired, only how
much blood alcohol you have in your system. Those numbers are based on
Averages, to determine amount of impairment.

I know a tile setter that will generally blow a .16 (twice the legal
limit) and still does beautiful work, and you cannot tell he is drunk.
At the same time I know a young girl who can blow a .05 and be falling
down.

In article ,
Cliff wrote:

A test for "impaired" would be rather simple but probably
weed out lots of fundies & wingers due to their impaired
judgement.

Of course, actual safety (even from people impaired on legal drugs) does
not fit with the actual agenda of the people who prefer expensive ****
testing to get rid of all those employees who eat poppyseed bagels, who
show up as heroin addicts on the cheesy tests.

And those who eat poppy seed bagles simply ask that a further test be
done, and the results will clear them of opiate useage.

Dont know much about the subject, do you....?

Gunner

Under my insurance poilcy, all positives must be sent to a lab for
confirmation.

Budda bing. Exactly.

There are a number of legal drugs, and natural substances that will
give false positives, but are easily determined in a lab, using gas
spectroanylasis. Not something the safety manager is likely to have
in his office.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:47:07 GMT
in misc.survivalism :

Please point out which common field test, other than the breathyliser
will point out not only how much drugs by percentage are in your
system, but which drug, and wether or not you are impaired or not.

Even the breath test will not point out if you are impaired, only how
much blood alcohol you have in your system. Those numbers are based on
Averages, to determine amount of impairment.

I know a tile setter that will generally blow a .16 (twice the legal
limit) and still does beautiful work, and you cannot tell he is drunk.
At the same time I know a young girl who can blow a .05 and be falling
down.

Anyone who has "detox" experience can tell stories of the guy who come
in, nice suit, clear speech, and has a BAC "enough to stun an Elephant."

I have heard that "evidence" is piling up that, yes, some people can
handle their booze better than others, and it isn't just a matter of body
weight. All I know is that I am not one of them. (Make me a cheap date.)
I learned the hard way, trying to keep up with two guys who's livers were
in shape from regular workouts.


tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

In article ,

Gunner Lied:

And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

I (Ecnerwal) wrote:
Bull****, Gunner. Such tests _already_ exist. Typically somewhat like a
video game, doing reaction-time testing, and perhaps other things
depending on the nature of the job. Not able to do the task in the test,
not allowed to operate the train, press, plane, whatever. Perhaps even
get the breathalyzer, ****, blood, and/or other test - for cause -
unless you want to be fired.

And now gunner says:
Yes such tests do exist.

So first you say they don't, and now you say they do. Flip-flopper.

They are expensive, time consuming and a
number of them involve equipment that requires a lab tech to operate.

And then you start lying about the cost, time, complexity; and you
previously lied about worker acceptance - most places that use such
tests report that workers are far happier knowing that everyone around
them has had to take exactly the same test they did to get onto the job
site, and is functional _today_. The cost of a machine or set of
machines (bought once) to test every worker every day is diddly compared
to the cost (every single test) to "randomly" collect piddle. Most
require nobody to operate them but the worker, and take only a minute or
so. The information is freely available on the web.

Please point out which common field test, other than the breathyliser
will point out not only how much drugs by percentage are in your
system, but which drug, and wether or not you are impaired or not.

As I've said, I really don't care what you're on, or if you're on
nothing at all - the _impairment_ test has no need to determine that. If
the test shows that you are _impaired_, you can either get fired on the
spot, or take a sick day and go get any number of tests to show exactly
what you are or are not on when you fail the test. And you _don't_ get
to go to work while you are a danger to others, regardless of whether
you are a danger to others because you didn't sleep last night, or you
got drunk last night, or you got drunk this morning, or you have a legal
prescription for oxycontin, or you had your maid get you oxycontin
illegally. I really don't feel a bit better about getting killed by some
guy who's "just sleep deprived" or "just drunk" or "just has an ear
infection" than I do about getting killed my some guy who's "stoned".

Personally, I stick to caffeine, theobromine, and a very small amount of
ethanol in the appropriate time relationship to working. But that does
not mean I have any interest in working at places which are more
interested in "reefer madness" than they are in "worker safety".

--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:38:27 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

In article ,

Gunner Lied:

And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

I (Ecnerwal) wrote:
Bull****, Gunner. Such tests _already_ exist. Typically somewhat like a
video game, doing reaction-time testing, and perhaps other things
depending on the nature of the job. Not able to do the task in the test,
not allowed to operate the train, press, plane, whatever. Perhaps even
get the breathalyzer, ****, blood, and/or other test - for cause -
unless you want to be fired.

And now gunner says:
Yes such tests do exist.

So first you say they don't, and now you say they do. Flip-flopper.

Chuckle..we are talking about different tests. Your claim that cheap
easily operated tests exist that can test for everything. They dont.
It takes a work up in a lab to catch everything.

They are expensive, time consuming and a
number of them involve equipment that requires a lab tech to operate.

And then you start lying about the cost, time, complexity; and you
previously lied about worker acceptance - most places that use such
tests report that workers are far happier knowing that everyone around
them has had to take exactly the same test they did to get onto the job
site, and is functional _today_. The cost of a machine or set of
machines (bought once) to test every worker every day is diddly compared
to the cost (every single test) to "randomly" collect piddle. Most
require nobody to operate them but the worker, and take only a minute or
so. The information is freely available on the web.

Mass spectrographs are easy to use and cheap? Interesting.
Btw..I notice your repeated use of the term "liar". Live in
California? Want to go dancing in your parking lot? Keep using it.
Ill give you the option of open hand, cold steel or blued steel.
Thats something I dont much care for, nor do you see me using the
term. Honor is more than just a buzzword with me. Just a heads up.


Please point out which common field test, other than the breathyliser
will point out not only how much drugs by percentage are in your
system, but which drug, and wether or not you are impaired or not.

As I've said, I really don't care what you're on, or if you're on
nothing at all - the _impairment_ test has no need to determine that. If
the test shows that you are _impaired_, you can either get fired on the
spot, or take a sick day and go get any number of tests to show exactly
what you are or are not on when you fail the test. And you _don't_ get
to go to work while you are a danger to others, regardless of whether
you are a danger to others because you didn't sleep last night, or you
got drunk last night, or you got drunk this morning, or you have a legal
prescription for oxycontin, or you had your maid get you oxycontin
illegally. I really don't feel a bit better about getting killed by some
guy who's "just sleep deprived" or "just drunk" or "just has an ear
infection" than I do about getting killed my some guy who's "stoned".

For some reason you seem to think that I am not in favor of ****
testing???? I was the person that originally agreed with it and
stated my reasons why. If we are in agreement that its a good thing,
then why are you bitching?

Personally, I stick to caffeine, theobromine, and a very small amount of
ethanol in the appropriate time relationship to working. But that does
not mean I have any interest in working at places which are more
interested in "reefer madness" than they are in "worker safety".

Shrug...sounds to me like you are mixed up. You are all in favor of
some kind of testing from the 2nd paragraph up...yet you are against
effective testing.

I do wish you would make up your mind.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

Ecnerwal wrote in message ...
In article ,

Gunner Lied:

And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

I (Ecnerwal) wrote:
Bull****, Gunner. Such tests _already_ exist. Typically somewhat like a
video game, doing reaction-time testing, and perhaps other things
depending on the nature of the job. Not able to do the task in the test,
not allowed to operate the train, press, plane, whatever. Perhaps even
get the breathalyzer, ****, blood, and/or other test - for cause -
unless you want to be fired.

And now gunner says:
Yes such tests do exist.

So first you say they don't, and now you say they do. Flip-flopper.

They are expensive, time consuming and a
number of them involve equipment that requires a lab tech to operate.

And then you start lying about the cost, time, complexity; and you
previously lied about worker acceptance - most places that use such
tests report that workers are far happier knowing that everyone around
them has had to take exactly the same test they did to get onto the job
site, and is functional _today_. The cost of a machine or set of
machines (bought once) to test every worker every day is diddly compared
to the cost (every single test) to "randomly" collect piddle. Most
require nobody to operate them but the worker, and take only a minute or
so. The information is freely available on the web.

Please point out which common field test, other than the breathyliser
will point out not only how much drugs by percentage are in your
system, but which drug, and wether or not you are impaired or not.

As I've said, I really don't care what you're on, or if you're on
nothing at all - the _impairment_ test has no need to determine that. If
the test shows that you are _impaired_, you can either get fired on the
spot, or take a sick day and go get any number of tests to show exactly
what you are or are not on when you fail the test. And you _don't_ get
to go to work while you are a danger to others, regardless of whether
you are a danger to others because you didn't sleep last night, or you
got drunk last night, or you got drunk this morning, or you have a legal
prescription for oxycontin, or you had your maid get you oxycontin
illegally. I really don't feel a bit better about getting killed by some
guy who's "just sleep deprived" or "just drunk" or "just has an ear
infection" than I do about getting killed my some guy who's "stoned".

Personally, I stick to caffeine, theobromine, and a very small amount of
ethanol in the appropriate time relationship to working. But that does
not mean I have any interest in working at places which are more
interested in "reefer madness" than they are in "worker safety".


I used to work with a guy who had a serious drug problem. You could
tell the days when he WASN'T high, he pulled his hat down low, and
wore sunglasses to keep the ceiling lights from blinding him.
One Monday he didn't show up. About 10am the OWNER left to go bail him
out of jail so he could drive the fork truck around, unload trucks,
move material and chip drums.
He had been busted late the night before, driving after burning crack
cocaine and heroin all weekend.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:47:07 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:37:13 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

Gunner Lied:

And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, Gunner. Such tests _already_ exist. Typically somewhat like a
video game, doing reaction-time testing, and perhaps other things
depending on the nature of the job. Not able to do the task in the test,
not allowed to operate the train, press, plane, whatever. Perhaps even
get the breathalyzer, ****, blood, and/or other test - for cause -
unless you want to be fired.

Yes such tests do exist. They are expensive, time consuming and a
number of them involve equipment that requires a lab tech to operate.

Sort of like an IQ test for wingers.
Or a sobriety test needed to start your car. Watch the pretty
lights, push the pretty buttons .... to complicated, right?

And they are often wrong.

Sort of like all the false positives for a drug test, right?

Im an ex cop. I can "usually" tell if someone is on drugs and can
often times tell you which one.

Better than any such test I'm certain, right?

Now to prove that to the courts or to
the labor board will require at the minimum, a blood or **** test and
a certified analysis from a certified lab.

Just stand there like a cop. Lie.

Please point out which common field test, other than the breathyliser
will point out not only how much drugs by percentage are in your
system, but which drug, and wether or not you are impaired or not.

And this has what to do with your impaired judgements?

Even the breath test will not point out if you are impaired, only how
much blood alcohol you have in your system. Those numbers are based on
Averages, to determine amount of impairment.

I know a tile setter that will generally blow a .16 (twice the legal
limit) and still does beautiful work, and you cannot tell he is drunk.
At the same time I know a young girl who can blow a .05 and be falling
down.

So you don't really care about impaired ...... just your religion
being forced on others .......

[
A test for "impaired" would be rather simple but probably
weed out lots of fundies & wingers due to their impaired
judgement.
]

See how simple this test was?
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:47:07 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:37:13 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

Gunner Lied:

And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, Gunner. Such tests _already_ exist. Typically somewhat like a
video game, doing reaction-time testing, and perhaps other things
depending on the nature of the job. Not able to do the task in the test,
not allowed to operate the train, press, plane, whatever. Perhaps even
get the breathalyzer, ****, blood, and/or other test - for cause -
unless you want to be fired.

Yes such tests do exist. They are expensive, time consuming and a
number of them involve equipment that requires a lab tech to operate.

Sort of like an IQ test for wingers.
Or a sobriety test needed to start your car. Watch the pretty
lights, push the pretty buttons .... to complicated, right?

The example I've seen tests motor and cognitive ability, and would run on a
laptop and maybe even the better PDAs. It only takes a few minutes,
certainly much less than a drug test, and gives instant results. It does
not distinguish between various causes of impairment, such as drugs v.
simple fatigue. It's cheap, reliable and non-invasive, too.

So, naturally, there's no market for it. Much better to get the guy who
smoked a joint 2 weeks ago and let your hung-over, over tired or caffeine
addled employees keep operating that heavy equipment, right? Government
regulation of worker's compensation insurance and employer liability very
frequently offer employers financial incentives for drug testing programs,
only. In FL, I think it's a 5% discount on worker's comp rates.


And they are often wrong.

Sort of like all the false positives for a drug test, right?

Im an ex cop. I can "usually" tell if someone is on drugs and can
often times tell you which one.

Better than any such test I'm certain, right?

Research shows that cops overestimate their ability to detect alcohol or
drug impairment, more so for the latter, less so for the former.

Jeff

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:39:06 -0500, Cliff said:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:35:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Until they come up with a "under the influence" test that can be used
at work, **** testing is the only reliable method to make sure that
the person you hire to perform a job, is not likely to be under the
influence while performing that job.

When that test hits the market, then Ill agree that there is no reason
for **** testing.

But then...Im sure folks will **** and moan about having to take one
of those too, on the job.

Frankly I dont give a damn if you burn the herb on your own time. Jost
dont come to work impared. And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, there is to a test to see if one is impared or not. I forget
what the cops call it, but they do it everytime the think some one is
****ed up behind the wheel. Oh yeah....It's call the sobrity test, you
know walk the line put your finger on your nose that sort of
thing....It is not just for testing drunks. Many pill poppers
potheads, and even folks who took "cold medicine" have been handed
DUI's for failing the test.

You can tell if some one is "geeking" on coke or crank just by
watching them for ten mins. or so. (I'm sure you know what I mean.)

cliff snipped

n.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:51:39 -0500, North wrote:


Frankly I dont give a damn if you burn the herb on your own time. Jost
dont come to work impared. And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, there is to a test to see if one is impared or not. I forget
what the cops call it, but they do it everytime the think some one is
****ed up behind the wheel. Oh yeah....It's call the sobrity test, you
know walk the line put your finger on your nose that sort of
thing....It is not just for testing drunks. Many pill poppers
potheads, and even folks who took "cold medicine" have been handed
DUI's for failing the test.

You can tell if some one is "geeking" on coke or crank just by
watching them for ten mins. or so. (I'm sure you know what I mean.)

cliff snipped

n.
Yes indeed. However if you have an inner ear infection, you will often
fail the field sobriety test. God knows I conducted enough of them.

If you have any number of neurological diseases, you will also fail,
and will in many cases appear to be groked.

Only blood or **** testing can be used to make the case of consumption
and imparement, and only then based on human averages.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Only blood or **** testing can be used to make the case of consumption
and imparement, and only then based on human averages.


The case for consumption has been made. You have yet to convince anyone of
imparement.

Do you see what I'm getting at, or are we on different pages?

Regards,

Robin

"Robin S." wrote in message
. ..

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Only blood or **** testing can be used to make the case of consumption
and imparement, and only then based on human averages.


The case for consumption has been made. You have yet to convince anyone of
imparement.

Do you see what I'm getting at, or are we on different pages?


You are generally impaired for weeks if not months, and sometimes years
after smoking pot heavily for any extended length of time.

The impairment is purely psycological, but it feels real just the
same..........

The first thing a heavy pot smoker wants when he has run out is to have more
pot, and the object of getting another stash will usually take pretty close
to top priority and consume most of his time and depending on his station in
life, financial resources.

And he is busy in the back of his mind, often conniving those around him as
it is a very central part of his life.

Dont fool yourself, think about how irratible you get once youve run out,
and the priority you then place upon getting more.......

Ever missed dinner at mom's place cause you was busy trying to find some
weed--and if so, what excuse did ya give her ???

I spent 30 years inna daze from that ****, and I'm still not quite sure why
I gave it all up about five years ago, after quitting off and on several
times....I just know its very unlikely Im never gonna get stoned on pot
again.........

===

But I'll tell you one thing, just give it up for two weeks and see then how
you feel about things and life in general.......your just looking at the
world through rose colored glasses if you cant at least do that much.

The craving passes quickly, but unfortunately, life still sucks--and perhaps
even more so, I dunno and simply dont care anymore...........I'm not going
back there no way no how.

--

SVL

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:05:03 -0500, "Robin S."
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Only blood or **** testing can be used to make the case of consumption
and imparement, and only then based on human averages.


The case for consumption has been made. You have yet to convince anyone of
imparement.

Do you see what I'm getting at, or are we on different pages?

Huh?

Gunner


Regards,

Robin




"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:49:31 GMT, Gunner
said:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:51:39 -0500, North wrote:


Frankly I dont give a damn if you burn the herb on your own time. Jost
dont come to work impared. And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, there is to a test to see if one is impared or not. I forget
what the cops call it, but they do it everytime the think some one is
****ed up behind the wheel. Oh yeah....It's call the sobrity test, you
know walk the line put your finger on your nose that sort of
thing....It is not just for testing drunks. Many pill poppers
potheads, and even folks who took "cold medicine" have been handed
DUI's for failing the test.

You can tell if some one is "geeking" on coke or crank just by
watching them for ten mins. or so. (I'm sure you know what I mean.)

cliff snipped

n.
Yes indeed. However if you have an inner ear infection, you will often
fail the field sobriety test. God knows I conducted enough of them.

If you have any number of neurological diseases, you will also fail,
and will in many cases appear to be groked.

Only blood or **** testing can be used to make the case of consumption
and imparement, and only then based on human averages.

Gunner


Agreed however the **** test should only be used after one fails the
sobrity test, my opinion of course.

But I must admitt that I drug test my employees, but my workmans
policy states that I have to.

I use the **** test as part of the job appication, as required under
my insurance policy. After that there are no further drug tests unless
there is an on the job injury. The injured employee is drug tested as
required under my insurance policy.

This requirment is clearly spelled out on my job apps.

If I do not drug test (and I only do the minimume testing required) my
workmans comp insurance rates are anywhere from 30 to 300 % higher.

WV and VA law lets workman comp off the hook in the injured employee
was under the influence during the injury and/or if the intoxication
caused the injury. And I agree with this policy. Party all you
want--on your own time just come to work sober.

Druggies, and drunks in my business usually do something (sober) in
short order to get themselves fired, such as showing up late or not
showing up at all, ripping off the company, Or they do sloppy
hafe-ass work which gets them fired.

The two truck drivers on my payroll (Actual emplyees not subs),
(tractor trailer drivers for transporting the dozer and backhoe) are
drug tested by DOT not me.

Sub-contrators that I hire are exempt because I do not have to cover
them on MY workmans comp policy.

n.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:34:01 -0500, North wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:49:31 GMT, Gunner
said:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:51:39 -0500, North wrote:


Frankly I dont give a damn if you burn the herb on your own time. Jost
dont come to work impared. And as Ive said..at the moment..there is
no reliable way to tell if you are impared on the job, or not.

Bull****, there is to a test to see if one is impared or not. I forget
what the cops call it, but they do it everytime the think some one is
****ed up behind the wheel. Oh yeah....It's call the sobrity test, you
know walk the line put your finger on your nose that sort of
thing....It is not just for testing drunks. Many pill poppers
potheads, and even folks who took "cold medicine" have been handed
DUI's for failing the test.

You can tell if some one is "geeking" on coke or crank just by
watching them for ten mins. or so. (I'm sure you know what I mean.)

cliff snipped

n.
Yes indeed. However if you have an inner ear infection, you will often
fail the field sobriety test. God knows I conducted enough of them.

If you have any number of neurological diseases, you will also fail,
and will in many cases appear to be groked.

Only blood or **** testing can be used to make the case of consumption
and imparement, and only then based on human averages.

Gunner


Agreed however the **** test should only be used after one fails the
sobrity test, my opinion of course.

But I must admitt that I drug test my employees, but my workmans
policy states that I have to.

How "secure" are your tests? My son used to occasionally volunteer
his clean pee to his friends.
Sue

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:49:31 GMT
in misc.survivalism :

Bull****, there is to a test to see if one is impared or not. I forget
what the cops call it, but they do it everytime the think some one is
****ed up behind the wheel. Oh yeah....It's call the sobrity test, you
know walk the line put your finger on your nose that sort of
thing....It is not just for testing drunks. Many pill poppers
potheads, and even folks who took "cold medicine" have been handed
DUI's for failing the test.

You can tell if some one is "geeking" on coke or crank just by
watching them for ten mins. or so. (I'm sure you know what I mean.)

cliff snipped

n.
Yes indeed. However if you have an inner ear infection, you will often
fail the field sobriety test. God knows I conducted enough of them.

If you have any number of neurological diseases, you will also fail,
and will in many cases appear to be groked.

Only blood or **** testing can be used to make the case of consumption
and imparement, and only then based on human averages.

Field test are good for "field test" to check impartment. They are
also based on "rules of thumb" and the center of the bell curve. Outlier,
like those with various medical conditions, don't match up with the
expectations. Had a friend in college, an artist. Really quite good,
(save he was colorblind, tended to draw grass using an orange pencil), but
he had a constant tremor in his hands. How he could draw a straight line
I've no idea, but the rest of the time he trembled like he'd had a couple
pots of coffee too much.

Gunner

--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:51:35 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:49:31 GMT
in misc.survivalism :

Bull****, there is to a test to see if one is impared or not. I forget
what the cops call it, but they do it everytime the think some one is
****ed up behind the wheel. Oh yeah....It's call the sobrity test, you
know walk the line put your finger on your nose that sort of
thing....It is not just for testing drunks. Many pill poppers
potheads, and even folks who took "cold medicine" have been handed
DUI's for failing the test.

You can tell if some one is "geeking" on coke or crank just by
watching them for ten mins. or so. (I'm sure you know what I mean.)

cliff snipped

n.
Yes indeed. However if you have an inner ear infection, you will often
fail the field sobriety test. God knows I conducted enough of them.

If you have any number of neurological diseases, you will also fail,
and will in many cases appear to be groked.

Only blood or **** testing can be used to make the case of consumption
and imparement, and only then based on human averages.

Field test are good for "field test" to check impartment. They are
also based on "rules of thumb" and the center of the bell curve. Outlier,
like those with various medical conditions, don't match up with the
expectations. Had a friend in college, an artist. Really quite good,
(save he was colorblind, tended to draw grass using an orange pencil), but
he had a constant tremor in his hands. How he could draw a straight line
I've no idea, but the rest of the time he trembled like he'd had a couple
pots of coffee too much.


Exactly. While a field test gives the officer probable cause to arrest
you for suspicion of being under the influence, when you are booked,
you will be tested by machine or blood test. (I strongly suggest you
ask for the blood test btw..far less likelyhood of error or the
officer "adjusting" the BA to put you over the legal limit)

A buddy ****ed off a cop one night. Hed had NOTHING to drink. When
arrested, the officer claimed he had a BA of .09, which put him into
the intoxicated catagory.

Friend demanded a blood test and was refused. So immediately upon his
6 hour hold release, he went to a hospital, and had himself blood
tested.

When going to court, he was able to demonstrate to the judge that
there were Zero amounts of alcohol in his blood stream. Then he
pressed charges against the arresting officer and the department. He
won of course and paid off his mortgage, and bought a nice little
house and some acreage 200 miles away and lives a life of quiet
retirement.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:51:35 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


If you have any number of neurological diseases, you will also fail,
and will in many cases appear to be groked.

Only blood or **** testing can be used to make the case of consumption
and imparement, and only then based on human averages.

Field test are good for "field test" to check impartment. They are
also based on "rules of thumb" and the center of the bell curve. Outlier,
like those with various medical conditions, don't match up with the
expectations. Had a friend in college, an artist. Really quite good,
(save he was colorblind, tended to draw grass using an orange pencil), but
he had a constant tremor in his hands. How he could draw a straight line
I've no idea, but the rest of the time he trembled like he'd had a couple
pots of coffee too much.


oh oh..obvious sign of over usage of methamphetamine or withdrawal
from opiates or long term usage of alcohol.

Lets stand him on the side of a dark road then shine a Streamlight
into his eyes...Geeze... pin points..ayup....a meth user for sure...

Chuckle

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

Yes indeed. However if you have an inner ear infection, you will often
fail the field sobriety test. God knows I conducted enough of them.

If you have any number of neurological diseases, you will also fail,
and will in many cases appear to be groked.

And you should not be operating equipment which can endanger other
people's lives, since you're not actually functioning. I really don't
give a crap if the pilot of my flight is drunk, sleep deprived, sick,
taking prescription drugs legally, taking prescription drugs illegally,
or taking illegal drugs. If he shows up to work and cannot function, I
want him grounded beforehand.

--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:59:40 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Theres a local plumbing company which advertises on the radio "we'll
seen a trained experience, drug free employee" to your location If you
want to work for such a company, give us a call, otherwise, go work for
someone else.

On the one hand, I don't like mandatory drug testing, as I don't do
drugs. OTOH, it does mean I'm working with other people similarly
inclined.

Why aren't you posting to a plumbing group then?
Winger's Disease?

What's wrong with being an honest plumber?
--
Cliff