Fozzy in order to ratify a TREATY which NAFTA is it takes 2/3's majority vote in both houses to get it passed. So now who are you going to blame it was your presidents Regan and Bush Sr who neogotiated the dang thing to begin with now your DECIDER Bush Jr is letting the MEXICAN truckers run up here. Clinton was at least smart enough to listen to the Teamsters and the saftey groups and not allow the Mexican trucks up here Bush however has no brain in his head it seems.

But, not ALL "clean and sober" drivers are GOOD drivers. Which would you rather share the road with? A guy who takes a few tokes when home on the weekend, getting a buzz for a few hours, and then shows up for work sober and rested, with good driving skills..... or one who never smokes a joint, but can't drive an 80k pound missile worth a damn?

I don't care WHAT you do on your "hometime," as long as you can drive safely. No one here, or on any other thread, has suggested that he/she should be allowed to DRIVE while "high."

Some of you guys should take a "chill pill!" Oh no! Wait..... that might affect your DRIVING 2 days later! :roll:

It all boils down to trust. Can the company trust you to be on the road after failing a drug test? They don't know if you failed your drug test because you smoked two days or two hours ago. The only way to have a more scientific way to determine the amount of pot in your system is to do a blood draw.

Now, would you as a non-drug using driver want to gey poked with a needle every time you have a pre-hire or random test done? All so someone who smokes pot can drive? No thanks.

I can see your point, Greg. But, I just don't agree with the situation as it is. We can put a man on the moon but we CAN'T come up with a better test?

Can you "trust" a driver who inhaled an 8ball 3 days ago, but is clean now? How about the guy who drinks like a fish while at home? You either trust that they don't do it on the road, or you don't. Pot stays in your system for 30 days. If you smoked a joint 3 weeks ago, was OFF DUTY for those 3 weeks, and showed up clean and sober, you can't be TRUSTED to stay clean on the road?

As for getting poked with a needle.... if you don't job hop too much, and if a random only occurs once or twice a year.... I wouldn't cry over getting poked with a needle. That's a whole lot easier than having to pee on command! :lol:

Would I do this so someone who SHOULD BE within his 9th Ammendment rights can smoke a little pot on his off duty time? Sure would!

Don't think that ALL drivers out there on the road are clean and sober JUST because they can no longer smoke pot when off duty. Many take pills to keep them going. Many are hungover. Some are actually under the influence of alcohol. Of course, I don't condone ANY of that!

I'm only maintaining that the focus should be on what condition you are in WHEN you get under the wheel. If you cannot prove that smoking a joint 3 days or 30 days PRIOR to driving affects my abilities when I get under the wheel, then I don't believe you should be able to REGULATE my offduty time.

I don't question that driving a CMV should be considered somewhat more dangerous than driving a POV, but who actually causes most accidents? And is there any requirement for a POV operator to submit to a UA before he gets under the wheel? NO. When he causes an accident, he is tested to determine his condition AT THAT TIME.

If we grounded every trucker because we couldn't "TRUST" him to be running legal logs, or getting the required sleep.... where would we be then? I don't think TRUST is the issue. I believe the issue should be "condition." An officer can prove you were "driving while impaired" EVEN if you don't fail a roadside breathilyzer... based on a coordination test. Therefore, it seems to me that the deciding factor is "condition." However, I don't believe ANYONE has ever been convicted of DWI (even concerning a controlled substance) based solely on the appearnace of THC in his blood system. Sounds like a double standard to me.

I'm not a Pothead! I just believe it should be somewhat "decriminalized." If a trucker is allowed to drink while off duty, I just don't see how smoking pot is so different. And yes, there are tests that will show elevated alcohol use over the last 30 days. Why isn't THIS a "TRUST" issue?

Someone can be convisted of THC levels. It happened in Las Vegas, NV about eight years ago. A woman mowed down six juveniles picking up trash alond the side of the highway. All six died. She has attempted to appeal the THC evidence many time but has failed thus far. The other problem is if someone causes and accident with significant injuries, how can you determine if they were competent? That's where LEO's fall back to blood content.

I don't think pot is a huge deal. However I am adamantly against it being legalized. Only because it's one more thing to impair drivers. Enough people are killed from alcohol, do we really need another legal item that impairs people? Of course I think people who take impairing prescriptions on a daily basis should have their licenses revoked too. I saw too may horrific vehicle collisions in EMS caused by booze and drugs, both legal and illegal.

I figured you'd pick up on that. And that helps prove my point. Yes, levels of THC CAN be detected. The problem is that the current regs allow such a LOW level as being "illegal" that one cannot have the same freedom to smoke a bit when off duty as one can have to drink when off duty. If they can determine the THC levels, they should be able to delineate between a low level (indicating use several days ago) from a HIGH level (indicating use PROXIMATE to driving.)

If it's only "one more thing to impair drivers" then why is it treated differently than all other substances?

Revoke a license because someone uses a LEGAL impairing drug? Come on. They are warned about it's affects. Some are affected by it, others aren't. It's a LEGAL prescription.... and you want to REVOKE their license because they need to take it? How about revoking a license for talking on a cellphone? It is JUST as much an "impairment." Where do we draw the line?

You say you worked accidents as an EMS? It sounded like alcohol was involved in MOST of them. Alcohol added to ANY drug is a medical catastrophe! Is it the prescription drug or the alcohol that is the problem?

I repeat that smoking a bud days before driving has NO effect on your abilities at the time. You, yourself, indicate that many more accidents are caused by prescription drugs... and THEN mostly when combined with alcohol. So... it is the CONDITION of the driver at the time that is relevant! NOT the drugs (legal or illegal.)

And, if an accident occurs, even if a driver passes a roadside coordination test, the cops can test him for other drugs. And THC levels CAN be registered and delineated between MAXIMUM (and impairing) versus minimal (exclusatory.)

They say that they are moving towards a "hair test" because it can determine if a driver/person has smoked within the last month or so. Okay.... can it determine if he smoked a few hours PRIOR to the test? If so.... well and good. If NOT, it should be "inadmissible." However, if it can tell how long ago the pot was smoked.... and the log shows the driver off duty during that time, WHY should it be a valid reason for revoking his CDL?

The only reason I suggest that people with impairing meds be, at the very least monitored, is because after they are taking the meds they become accustomed. They can no longer at times tell if they are impaired. In addition to that, the drugs themselves can impair reasoning ability. Just like drunks who drive. They reason that they can drive just fine like every other time they drive under the influence. You would be amazed at the number of patients I have transported to the ER who were under the influence who were in complete denial that they were impaired.

One lady I transported hit a parked semi and was adamant that she wasn't even intoxicated. But she blew a .28 on scene. Even after she blew that result she still denied ever drinking.

We received a call of a unresponsive person in a vehicle on a major street. We arrived on scene and pounded on the window until he finally woke up. He denied any drugs or alcohol. Said he was tired because he worked a long shift. He answered all of our questions appropriately and claimed he was almost home. We had no reason to legally detain him and the police were not there yet. So he got back into his car to leave. We went back into our ambulance and made a u-turn and got behind him. He was already slumped over again. We got out again and woke him up. We took his keys. After numerous questions he finally said that he had taken some Valium but that it normally didn't affect him. The cops took him for driving while intoxicated.


Yes, drugs and alcohol have been the cause of numerous accidents I've responded to. But meds have also been the lone cause as have alcohol.

These are just a couple of examples. I've got a lot more. While working EMS in Las Vegas, you see it all when it comes to drugs and alcohol.

The responsible drinker, pot smoker, heroin addict, pill popper, meth head, crack head, etc., will not always think or rationalize as clearly as someone who's sober.

Back to testing for pot. Bottom line is if you test positive for an illegal drug, you have just told your employer that you buy and consume an illegal substance. What is the employer supposed to say about that? What does an employer say to a jury in a civil suit when one of their drivers kills someone and was legally impaired on pot, and when that same driver tested positive once before?

It all comes down to liability and the truck company, and especially the insurance company, doesn't want it. Will pot ever be legalized? Doubtful. Because the it opens the floodgates to lots of other drugs to be legalized.

And before people say tax it and sell it. I've seen where people have been killed over a beer. Yes, a beer. I've seen someone killed trying to get money to buy booze. We can legalize it, but drunks and addicts still will victimize others to obtain money to fuel their habit. Sad, but true.

Golfhobo, thanks for the intelligent conversation. Lately, some people on the board have reverted to name calling and insults, instead of flowing opinions back and forth. :wink:

Change my mind in the post I had posted...

Greq said:

I don't argue your point about liability for the carrier or insurance company. It is, after all, still an illegal substance. But the liability is not really different for a "legal" drug.

There are many legal drugs that could have the same impairing ability (including alcohol.) Yet, one cannot lose his CDL for taking them if they are prescribed and known about by the company.

All your examples, even the one about the valium, are STILL indicative ONLY of the "condition" of the driver at the time. As you said, it was obvious to all of you that he was impaired by SOMETHING - at the TIME he got behind the wheel.

I guess I just feel a bit strongly about the 4th Ammendment, the way YOU do about the 2nd. What a person does on his OWN time, should be no one else's business - unless he is harming another person such as pedophilia.

I, too, enjoy our cordial 'debates.' But then...... I'M an idiot! :wink: