Remember posts about making "WEED" legal???

[Windwalker]

So much for "no harmful effects from smoking a joint".

Latest research says that smoking weed hinders the immune system, and promotes virtually all types of cancer. Didn't get to see any numbers as to how much your chances are increased, but it's more than just a few points. I didn't understand the mechanism behind it either. Seems that cannibinoids (?) increase the production of immune cells and somehow, that increases your risk.

We ban "agent orange", and a number of other things so the public doesn't get any contact with them (God forbid that we should have any contact with asbestos. I mean, you can still have 20 to 30 good years after asbestos), but we still want to make a joint legal? What is it? We want to select the agent that gives us a very expensive doctor and hospital bill for cancer?

[RostyC]

I don't believe it.

What about Willie Nelson or Keith Richards................ still kicken.

[Kentla93]

So much for "no harmful effects from smoking a joint".

Latest research says that smoking weed hinders the immune system, and promotes virtually all types of cancer. Didn't get to see any numbers as to how much your chances are increased, but it's more than just a few points. I didn't understand the mechanism behind it either. Seems that cannibinoids (?) increase the production of immune cells and somehow, that increases your risk.

We ban "agent orange", and a number of other things so the public doesn't get any contact with them (God forbid that we should have any contact with asbestos. I mean, you can still have 20 to 30 good years after asbestos), but we still want to make a joint legal? What is it? We want to select the agent that gives us a very expensive doctor and hospital bill for cancer?

Too Funny!!!!
It's a good thing that alcohol & tabaco are good for you, There are not enough words to express the good effects these two drugs smilulants have on the human body yet they are legal? Legalizing pot is no more of a danger then these two substances, the reason it is not being made legal (YET) in my opinion is that there are two many black market dealers making way to much money and are putting up the cash to fight legalization it puts a damper on their business as well as it would in states that legalize medical marijuana.
It is big business and it is just around the corner when legalization will happend then it will be regulated just like tabaco and alcohol, allowing our government to mis handle the funds coming in and continuing the vicious cycle of humanity. Legalization will in no way stop the weak at heart individual who is unable to know when enough is enough (everything in moderation with a little common sense)

timberwolf

[Jackrabbit379]

I don't know much about weed, other than it smells funny. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what it is, when you can smell it.
It can't be good for ya. Besides, helping with eyesite. Or something..
I think you can get it legally at California.
Rosty, Willie has been trying to get that stuff legalized for years. And yes... he's still pickin and grinnin.

[Windwalker]

Rosty, Willie has been trying to get that stuff legalized for years. And yes... he's still pickin and grinnin.

Of course, without the "weed", he might not be grinnin quite as much. Reality might hit him in the face.

[Roadhog]

This is stronger!

World’s hottest pepper is ‘hot enough to strip paint’ - Yahoo! News

[Jackrabbit379]

Of course, without the "weed", he might not be grinnin quite as much. Reality might hit him in the face.

I'm sure the grass has something to do with him staying in the business for so many years.
That's a lot of grass.

[Syncrosonix]

smokin' weed til mah mutha***kin' eyes bleed!

[RostyC]

What happened to Syncro?

[Roadhog]

.... Ass'ange is massing cyber attacks all over our stinkeen Capitalist Regime.

Ironic if he accidentally got one of his True Believers.

[golfhobo]

.... Ass'ange is massing cyber attacks all over our stinkeen Capitalist Regime.

Ironic if he accidentally got one of his True Believers.

Laughed so hard I cried!

[338-Dark-Knights]

Ok, for the record, I have not been here long - I'd expect an open debate, but ALL I WANT IS THE FACTS - no name calling plz. I'm NOT here to debate the legalities of cannabis or liquor/beer or prescriptions that are known to affect your reasoning and/or ability to OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY (including four-wheelers). I AM a strong advocate AGAINST DWI/DUI of any type. I'm also a firm believer in knowing your tolerance levels - not guessing what's good for the goose...

I've been very active in my research into a trucking career. I've only seen less than about four threads pertaining to this particular subject - so I chose this thread because of it's recent activity and closely matched subject and it has some members that I have followed and hold there opinion to be closer to the truth of matters regarding this profession. (I encourage those board members that have posted here to get anyone that they feel is of considerable knowledge/standing member to weigh in as well; the more the merrier.) I am not going to let today's outcome discourage my endeavor - in fact I've only d/l about four of the eight follow-on training guides (last night I was bewildered by logging the traditional 'paper' way trying to wrap my head around 11hr and 14hr restart rules with split sleeper/off duty time), but never the less, I have yet to fill even the bottom of my bucket.

In respect to my family (first), and my self, and truckers everywhere, I have been most honest with my recruiters, however I did notice some of you have tried to warn others of scams that some of the 'mills' pull - so I decided to take interest.

Applying to CRE, I was thorough with background history - and explained that I have used in the past year in my online application, and also listing a 'dismissed' case against me for possession of paraphernalia (is/has NOT been the occurrence of questioning for which I need assistance). The only other citation I've received is for disorderly conduct - not federal - and had no probation/parole limitations as I completed the C.S. directly following my conviction; Everywhere I've applied has told me that this will never affect my application. The possession charge, AGAIN, dismissed, also holds no ties to withholding my application - so long as I am upfront and provide all necessary paperwork to attach with my application(s) - thus far. What is catching me is my use within the last year (approx. two months ago). Why I'm posting this is because I have noticed, with CRE (who told me to wait till one year of non-use has passed and recontact them), they accepted my application at first, even after I tried to bring up the use within the past year (at one point during many phone calls last week), my comment was almost pushed to the side by the recruiter jumping to conclusions and redirecting my question to answer about the possession charge (which they had already cleared). At a later date within the same week I attempted to mention it again, among filling additional 1099 (and W-2) for employment verification since some of the business I have worked for are now closed. Again - pushed aside to quick thinking I was referencing my prior charge which was dismissed. Today, finally asking the right set of questions, I find that had I not asked - I might have been one of the lucky few to end up in SLC with no bus ticket back. Now I'm not saying it's the recruiter's, or for that matter CRE's, fault - however I do feel a bit 'rubbed' here. I've been COMPLETELY honest. It in black and white on their OWN forms that I submitted through their application process; HOW DO YOU ACCEPT ME ONE WEEK AND THEN WITHIN THE SAME MONTH - WHOPS, WE WERE GOING TO BUT, NO. Ok, so maybe a bit of it is the recruiter's oversight, but I had to ask specifically: 'If I'm accepted to orientation where you comply with DOT regs. and check for *** using a urine sample, nothing will show because I have not used in the past two + months. Do I need some form or letterhead from you stating that, if, a hair follicle is preformed, that I will have a positive for *** and still be eligible for enrollment even though I have no intention of using and will pass any further urine testing with in a six month period, and there after, I will pass any hair or urine test performed without hesitation?' Let the river paddles come out! ABOUT FACE!! hmmm...

I've read a little into the 'lawyer lingo' from the administration governing these things ... something about 'Standing down' a driver/operator who fails a test, somehow I don't think it applies to my situation since I'm not currently holding a CDL. Also, what about '(5) With respect to any employee who violated a DOT drug and alcohol regulation, documentation of the employee's successful completion of DOT return-to-duty requirements (including follow-up tests). If the previous employer does not have information about the return-do-duty process (e.g., an employer who did not hire an employee who tested positive on a pre-employment test), you must seek to obtain this information from the employee.' - (is this me??) or is it talking about prior employers having DOT requirements? I should note again - I do not even have my permit yet and I'm applying to companies who have training programs for their company (cause I'm a broke - and no I didn't spend it all on 'drugs')

What are my concerns: 1) does this affect my DAC (I'm guessing no since I have not been anywhere), or can they use my phone interview / application to a disadvantage to further companies that I apply? (even though I'm being honest with them too - already had another company tell me three years since last use of ***) AND 2)What amount of interest will they have in me if I do reapply after the waiting period as elapsed now that they have this info? (My guess is if they do want me, I'll be more likely for 'random' testing - fine by me since I'm not using anyway) ALSO 3)If accepted and a false is recorded (being that I've made it known prior to the false that I have used and there should be no reason for a positive result), and I have the split sample reviewed, what are the chances I'll still face additional problems like OOS up to termination? AND LASTLY 4) What, if any, companies hire on (with or without provisions for disclosure or additional testing) with this sort of thing without the waiting period? Granted, cannabis hasn't come close to having it's prohibition ended and less are turning a deaf ear to it's 'supposed' side-affects and looking at its real science; which of course with moderation (like anything else - you have a different chemical composition and will be 'tolerant' to things differently than the next human) and good counsel (i.e. a 'real' set of ph.ds) - noting everything is not for everyone - some things with good intended use don't last forever (not even three to four weeks :hint: )

Yes, btw, I've made the choices - though again I don't expect you to agree with them - just looking for answers.
Thanks in advance.

[ilikeike]

The good news is that I just heard it's easier to get hired by the TSA than it is at most trucking companies. The bad news is that your admission to using has given any prospective employer all the reason they need to move your app into the "not in this lifetime" pile. If they've said they'll consider you a little further down the road, try again later.

Swift hired an admitted meth user who had . . just like you . . mended her ways. She was later involved in a wreck resulting in a fatality. Her post accident drug screen revealed trace amounts of meth. It was never established that she was under it's influence at the time of the crash. Swift paid $27 million to the heirs of her victim. Swift now regrets hiring a "reformed" user and wishes they had their $27 million back.

Am I getting through to you?

It's a business thing and nothing personal but your history introduces extra liability into the equation. Companies can't risk extra liability. Was your recruiter a turd? Sure sounds like it to me. Be glad you didn't find that out in SLC.

As for the rest of your questions, no, your recent application problems won't follow you around. England might have checked to see if you had a DAC file but I doubt they would have created one. Unless/until you have a CDL or flunk a drug screen, DOT doesn't even know you exist.

I haven't smoked pot since I've had my CDL. I'm pro pot, pro decriminalization and I'm hopeful that advances in screening technology will allow me to smoke again. I'm not trying to make this an advocacy post. I do want to make it clear that I'm not a hypocrite.

[Windwalker]

388-Dark-Knights, one of the things you are up against is the fact that companies like Werner have had drivers go on rampage with 18-wheels. Not that long ago in Spokane, for example. The fact that you used in the past suggests that you may be less resistant to use in the future. Regardless what your current intentions are, we all have a cloudy crystal ball about the future, and tend to go by "probability". Just as, today, someone that has never used tobacco products is less likely to start using any in the future. Like someone that has never been an alcoholic is less likely to "fall off the wagon" and become one in the future. The fact that you have used within the last 12 months suggests that you are more likely to use again in the future. That's what you are fighting.

I'm not sure if DAC starts a record on you as soon as you get a CDL or if that waits till you start driving for someone. I know my wife had a DAC record 2 months after she started driving (in '98), and something that happened years earlier (back in '92) was on it. I would suggest you contact DAC and check for a record. See if they know about you and how much. And, if so, how much of the information is accurate.

[golfhobo]

Windwalker said:

So much for "no harmful effects from smoking a joint".

Um.... is there a LINK here somewhere so I can KNOW what you are talking about?

Latest research says that smoking weed hinders the immune system, and promotes virtually all types of cancer.

Without a link, this just sounds like more FoxNews or Hannity "spin."

Didn't get to see any numbers as to how much your chances are increased, but it's more than just a few points.

Yep... OBVIOUSLY a "news report" on foxnews!

I didn't understand the mechanism behind it either. Seems that cannibinoids (?) increase the production of immune cells and somehow, that increases your risk.

Could be true. Same thing happens when you "over take" anti-biotics! (and SOME vitamins and supplements.)

We ban "agent orange", and a number of other things so the public doesn't get any contact with them

Yes, to keep "non-combattants" from suffering the effects.... AND because it was killing our OWN troops after being exposed to it!

(God forbid that we should have any contact with asbestos. I mean, you can still have 20 to 30 good years after asbestos),

Agent Orange was a "defoliant" with NO OTHER purpose but to eradicate the "cover" in subtropical climates that served to "hide" the enemy. It was a "biological weapon" of sorts. We deployed before we studied the SCIENCE.

Asbestos, on the other hand, was a scientific breakthrough in insulation for the GOOD of people.... which we ALSO deployed before we understood the SCIENCE!

but we still want to make a joint legal?

YEP! Cannabis is a NATURAL plant put here by GOD (if you believe in him) to make our lives less stressful! (same goes for Peyote and Coca leaves... but that's another argument.)

Any GOOD Conservative would abhor LAWS restricting our FREEDOM to partake of God's great offerings!

What is it? We want to select the agent that gives us a very expensive doctor and hospital bill for cancer?

YEAH! That's about it! We want the FREEDOM to "CHOOSE" our own poison (or lifestyle.) IF the government is gonna SCREW UP and create cancer causing agents that we TRUSTINGLY "consume," (or subject our military to) then we ought to have the freedom to CHOOSE to take a certain, or KNOWN risk, with our own lives and health!

Go ahead and BAN smoking weed in public cuz it might give someone ELSE cancer through our "secondary smoke," or because you don't like the SMELL, or whatever.... but.... in the "SANCTUARY" of my own home....

BUTT THE FRUCK OUT!!!

[Windwalker]

You know... It's really funny, but for all I hear and read in defense of making WEED legal, I've had the chance (nearly every day) to talk to someone that uses it. Down here, it seems to be more popular than beer (and that's really popular). Just talk to them, and you realize they have an intelligence level somewhere about half of those that do not use it. As far as I'm concerned (as a result of living down here with all this going on), you can take all the "crack-heads", "pot-heads", "Pill-Poppers", and "suds-heads", put them all in the same leaky basket, and throw them all in the ocean. You won't be missing much without them.

[SarahB]

The Connecticut Senate barely approved a bill earlier this week to decriminalize having modest quantities of weed. New York has a similar bill which tries to fix a loophole from an earlier decriminalization law. Even those who support the New York bill have doubts as to its ability to pass before end of the period. I found this here: N.Y. and Connecticut lawmakers seek to decriminalize marijuana, newstype.com.