re: Failed a random drug test at work today

quote:

---

Unless he works for a federal agency there's a high likelihood he didn't break the law.

---

You'd be surprised how few Civilian Agencies even test. One of the side effects of powerful unions.

Oh, I know the drill. I said I eat one a couple nights a week, but I’ve actually not been eating one that often the past month or so. I’ve had 2 or 3 5mg ones over the past month.

I do have to do a follow up one in a month. I had one gummy left tonight so I ate it to remove the temptation. I’ll be clean in a month. Supposedly the lab folks will be back on site on 3/27, so really more than a month.

The weed thing is silly unless you are like operating heavy machinery.

Half the people you work with are prob on meds to keep them from shooting up the office.

quote:

---

Unless he works for a federal agency there's a high likelihood he didn't break the law.

---

Very likely wrong. Possession of pot or gummies with more than a minimal amount of THC is against federal law. The fact that it might not be against the local state's law doesn't change that--there's this little thing called the Supremacy Clause (Wiki). You may think it's bullshtuff that the feds can regulate simple possession of THC gummies, and I agree, but then we need to get Wickard v.Filburn (Wiki) overturned.

quote:

---

but then we need to get Wickard v.Filburn (Wiki) overturned.

---

The fact that "small government conservatives" simultaneously vehemently opposed a "living, breathing document" interpretation of the Constitution yet swallow hook, line, and sinker the fact that we needed a constitutional amendment to enact alcohol prohibition but don't need one for narcotics prohibition blows my fricking mind.

quote:

---

Real subtle my boss is a woman brag.

---

Exactly what I was gonna say.

quote:

---

quote:

---

but then we need to get Wickard v.Filburn (Wiki) overturned.

---

The fact that "small government conservatives" simultaneously vehemently opposed a "living, breathing document" interpretation of the Constitution yet swallow hook, line, and sinker the fact that we needed a constitutional amendment to enact alcohol prohibition but don't need one for narcotics prohibition blows my f[lip]ing mind.

---

I hear you. Three thoughts on all that:

(1) "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." - Ralph Emerson

(2) 'Democrats want to regulate business. Republicans want to regular sex. Basically, each wants to regulate the other.' - somebody, forget who

(3) The Louisiana Constitution of 1974 said that "the Legislature shall define and provide for forced heirship" and "the Legislature shall define and suppress gambling". When the Legislature cut back on forced heirship, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional under the state Constitution, and a constitutional amendment was required. When the Legislature started allowing gambling, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that it was okay; do you remember, 'it's not gambling, it's just gaming'?

[ETA - I have the actual quote and the source for #2]
"Liberals want to regulate business activity but not sexual conduct, while conservatives want precisely the opposite. In short, each group wants to regulate the other." - James D. Gordon III, "How Not to Succeed in Law School", 100 Yale L.J. 1679, 1699 n. 31 (1991)

quote:

---

but youre probably not even forklift certified based on your drug addiction

---

quote:

---

so not sure why they do randoms.

---

I deal with a lot of construction companies and they do it for insurance reasons.

One customer “randomly” tested the same nerd estimator his entire time there. They knew he did nothing wrong and did not want to risk anything.