This is the posting that had me remove my blog for a while. I have since edited it...and hopefully it will keep the powers that be away.....
My Friend Mary...Wanna..
I notice that prop 19 in California may not only decriminalize marijuana but also legalizes the growing and producing of cannibus. It also allows the government to tax said recreational drug. I suppose California is in such a bad financial state that the government needs the extra cash it assumes this will generate.
Massachusetts has already decriminalized it.
The USA is sounding more and more like B.C. all the time.
What are my thoughts on this? Well, those who are my age I am sure that at one time or another have "inhaled".......or eaten that brownie - at least once. (Ok. Except maybe my friend Jan) Especially in this province well known for it's "B.C. Bud".
Which brings me to this funny story - Or maybe not so funny:
I was preparing to work in Washington state approximately 10 years ago. I transferred my license from California to WA state and then applied at a Nurse Agency, I had to go to Seattle, write a plethora of exams and then - submit to a drug test.
Now, in B.C. there is no regular or initial drug testing required for any nursing personnel. I know some occupations here do, but not nursing. Actually - that's interesting, come to think of it.
Anyway.
I gave the typical sample for testing. The gal did her thing, then squinted carefully at the results. Apparently it came up "equivocal". I looked over her shoulder, oblivious to what the interpretation meant. Since it was my first time (drug testing) I wasn't sure of the problem. Or the results.
"Hmm? What does that mean?"
"TCH" she said
"Does that mean I am positive?"
"Well, not really, sort of - borderline"
I laughed. Thought it was funny. A joke. There was absolutely no way. My husband even laughs at me because I don't recognize the smell of that funny smoke. "Whew....there's a skunk around here...."
Luckily the girl shrugged it off and said - " Oh well, I guess it's OK....."
I must have sounded naive enough. Which I was.
Then I thought of where I was on the weekend prior to the testing. Could it have been affected by inhaling second hand smoke? Most resources say no. HOWEVER. They DO say they wouldn't rule it out completely if it was inhaled in great abundance second hand.
I happened to be out the evening before at a bar for a drink with my then husband. There was heavy smoke in the air - being that this was before the outright ban of smoking in public areas. Some of it was that funny smoke. Or should I say - most of it.
From what I understand.....if one is in an enclosed area (which I was) and it was filled with so much smoke that the eyes were bothered by the smoke (which they were) there is a possibility of registering positive (which I wasn't). Testing is dependent on the "threshold" for positive.
That makes sense. "B.C. bud" is in abundance here. It is the provinces' unofficial number one industry and export. It is openly used. Police don't even bother with you if they see you smoking a joint, as long as you look like a reasonably law abiding citizen and give them no cause.
And - It wasn't as if I had "flunked" the test, after all. It was just equivocal. And definitely I know I haven't touched the stuff lately. I am in need of every brain cell I can corner and corral. I am not wasting one synapse needlessly.
Then I came upon this test kit site that claims there can be false positives for Marijuana if you take these drugs: Aleve, Ibuprofen, Ketoprofen, Promethazine, Riboflavin, Marinol and if you happen to have a kidney infection, liver disease or diabetes. Ya, any one of the first four, I could have taken.
But - gone were the good ol' days when we would have Baileys in our coffee in the am at the nurses station while the girls lit up their cigarettes - when we would go out all night and come to work in the same clothes we left in - all smokey.......but now ? Not a chance. I don't even drink a glass of wine 24 hours before a shift never mind sneak a toke - ever.
And what about the legalization of MJ?
I think in the past convictions for one ounce and under has created a criminal record for a lot of people who did stupid things when they were younger and now regret having a permanent history that shadows them 50 years later. This is unfortunate and can be tragic (almost kept my husband from immigrating to Canada from the USA!) and I don't think this lapse of judgement should be held against them.
I see a lot more abuse with alcohol than I do with MJ. Definitely there is more violence associated with alcohol abuse than with MJ.
I don't advocate it for underage groups. I don't advocate it in public places similar to the regulations for cigarettes and alcohol. I don't advocate its abuse in the same way alcohol is now abused ie. - I don't condone operating vehicles or going to work under the influence of anything.
I do see that it is medically useful in some cases, and in fact I remember to giving it out in pill form (nabilone) for nausea back in the early 1980s. I can see that the decriminalization will free police time that is spent on one-ounce-cases so it can concentrate on the more serious crimes. There is no point in clogging up the courts/justice system with minor things like this - never mind the expense involved.
Yet, what message does it send?
Are we heading down that steep and rocky slope of flagrant drug use?
Coming from a province that has typically a long history of shrugging and turning the other way when MJ is in use.....I am not shocked by the introduction of these laws and removal of criminalization. Even my parents, who are law abiding, very strict religious people (church 3 times a week!) are pro-decriminalization - and these are people who adamantly speak up against drinking beer or hard alcohol (a glass of wine is fine though!) and won't step into an actual Government Liquor Store.
It will be interesting to see what happens this November in California.
Massachusetts has already decriminalized it.
The USA is sounding more and more like B.C. all the time.
What are my thoughts on this? Well, those who are my age I am sure that at one time or another have "inhaled".......or eaten that brownie - at least once. (Ok. Except maybe my friend Jan) Especially in this province well known for it's "B.C. Bud".
Which brings me to this funny story - Or maybe not so funny:
I was preparing to work in Washington state approximately 10 years ago. I transferred my license from California to WA state and then applied at a Nurse Agency, I had to go to Seattle, write a plethora of exams and then - submit to a drug test.
Now, in B.C. there is no regular or initial drug testing required for any nursing personnel. I know some occupations here do, but not nursing. Actually - that's interesting, come to think of it.
Anyway.
I gave the typical sample for testing. The gal did her thing, then squinted carefully at the results. Apparently it came up "equivocal". I looked over her shoulder, oblivious to what the interpretation meant. Since it was my first time (drug testing) I wasn't sure of the problem. Or the results.
"Hmm? What does that mean?"
"TCH" she said
"Does that mean I am positive?"
"Well, not really, sort of - borderline"
I laughed. Thought it was funny. A joke. There was absolutely no way. My husband even laughs at me because I don't recognize the smell of that funny smoke. "Whew....there's a skunk around here...."
Luckily the girl shrugged it off and said - " Oh well, I guess it's OK....."
I must have sounded naive enough. Which I was.
Then I thought of where I was on the weekend prior to the testing. Could it have been affected by inhaling second hand smoke? Most resources say no. HOWEVER. They DO say they wouldn't rule it out completely if it was inhaled in great abundance second hand.
I happened to be out the evening before at a bar for a drink with my then husband. There was heavy smoke in the air - being that this was before the outright ban of smoking in public areas. Some of it was that funny smoke. Or should I say - most of it.
From what I understand.....if one is in an enclosed area (which I was) and it was filled with so much smoke that the eyes were bothered by the smoke (which they were) there is a possibility of registering positive (which I wasn't). Testing is dependent on the "threshold" for positive.
That makes sense. "B.C. bud" is in abundance here. It is the provinces' unofficial number one industry and export. It is openly used. Police don't even bother with you if they see you smoking a joint, as long as you look like a reasonably law abiding citizen and give them no cause.
And - It wasn't as if I had "flunked" the test, after all. It was just equivocal. And definitely I know I haven't touched the stuff lately. I am in need of every brain cell I can corner and corral. I am not wasting one synapse needlessly.
Then I came upon this test kit site that claims there can be false positives for Marijuana if you take these drugs: Aleve, Ibuprofen, Ketoprofen, Promethazine, Riboflavin, Marinol and if you happen to have a kidney infection, liver disease or diabetes. Ya, any one of the first four, I could have taken.
But - gone were the good ol' days when we would have Baileys in our coffee in the am at the nurses station while the girls lit up their cigarettes - when we would go out all night and come to work in the same clothes we left in - all smokey.......but now ? Not a chance. I don't even drink a glass of wine 24 hours before a shift never mind sneak a toke - ever.
And what about the legalization of MJ?
I think in the past convictions for one ounce and under has created a criminal record for a lot of people who did stupid things when they were younger and now regret having a permanent history that shadows them 50 years later. This is unfortunate and can be tragic (almost kept my husband from immigrating to Canada from the USA!) and I don't think this lapse of judgement should be held against them.
I see a lot more abuse with alcohol than I do with MJ. Definitely there is more violence associated with alcohol abuse than with MJ.
I don't advocate it for underage groups. I don't advocate it in public places similar to the regulations for cigarettes and alcohol. I don't advocate its abuse in the same way alcohol is now abused ie. - I don't condone operating vehicles or going to work under the influence of anything.
I do see that it is medically useful in some cases, and in fact I remember to giving it out in pill form (nabilone) for nausea back in the early 1980s. I can see that the decriminalization will free police time that is spent on one-ounce-cases so it can concentrate on the more serious crimes. There is no point in clogging up the courts/justice system with minor things like this - never mind the expense involved.
Yet, what message does it send?
Are we heading down that steep and rocky slope of flagrant drug use?
Coming from a province that has typically a long history of shrugging and turning the other way when MJ is in use.....I am not shocked by the introduction of these laws and removal of criminalization. Even my parents, who are law abiding, very strict religious people (church 3 times a week!) are pro-decriminalization - and these are people who adamantly speak up against drinking beer or hard alcohol (a glass of wine is fine though!) and won't step into an actual Government Liquor Store.
It will be interesting to see what happens this November in California.
0 comments:
Post a Comment