Getting high on the job
#1
Tower Defense and Aerospace Factory Workers Party at Lunch

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (WJBK) - We all pray for the safety of the brave men and women of the military. They put their lives on the line every day. But wait until you see some of the people that are building parts right here at home for their armored vehicles.

There's a plant in Detroit called Tower Defense and Aerospace. The name itself gives you an idea what they do inside, but it's what we caught them doing outside during their lunch break that will shock you.



Must be a Detroit thing.
Reply
#2
I wonder how much these clowns are paid? Maybe not so much? Obviously they are not being drug tested and quite often that's a tip off that the company is cutting what ever corners they can.
I know of a mill in rural CP. I don't know but I think it's still running.They pay very low wages and they do not drug test so guess what kind of loser workers they end up with.

Must be a Detroit thing. not really
Reply
#3
(11-28-2011, 12:55 PM)tvguy Wrote: I wonder how much these clowns are paid? Maybe not so much? Obviously they are not being drug tested and quite often that's a tip off that the company is cutting what ever corners they can.
I know of a mill in rural CP. I don't know but I think it's still running.They pay very low wages and they do not drug test so guess what kind of loser workers they end up with.

The foolishness of this argument is shown by the fact that the list of ''Greatest Guitarist'' is also a list of the greatest drug users and clearly shows that concentration, dexterity and attention to detail is unimpaired.

Reply
#4
That terrible, was that guy drinking alcohol, that can really effect your performance.
Reply
#5
(11-28-2011, 01:03 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(11-28-2011, 12:55 PM)tvguy Wrote: I wonder how much these clowns are paid? Maybe not so much? Obviously they are not being drug tested and quite often that's a tip off that the company is cutting what ever corners they can.
I know of a mill in rural CP. I don't know but I think it's still running.They pay very low wages and they do not drug test so guess what kind of loser workers they end up with.

The foolishness of this argument is shown by the fact that the list of ''Greatest Guitarist'' is also a list of the greatest drug users and clearly shows that concentration, dexterity and attention to detail is unimpaired.

If You are unimpaired when you smoke weedLaughingLaughing You must buy some really crappy stuffLaughing
I seriously doubt that very many of these famous guitarist are high when they perform. I know I had a friend who saw Tom petty once and the idiot was so stoned he couldn't remember the words to his own songs.
Sure drug use is common among musicians so what? That sure as hell does not mean concentration, dexterity and attention to detail is unimpaired. I know better. I am a guitar player and I have played high on weed and straight.

Sure a player can play and song great when he is high but that doesn't mean he is not impaired. It just means that because of thousands of hours of practice he cal play good REGARDLESS of being high.

Any that is a lot different than a man at work performing many different tasks.

I had a fellow worker return from lunch stoned on weed. A few minutes later he was pushing a scaffold I was on top of . This moron started talking to someone else, forgot what he was doing while he was pushing and failed to notice that 20 feet above he was ramming me in to some heating ducts and practically knocking me off the top off the scaffold.







Reply
#6
(11-28-2011, 01:08 PM)chuck white Wrote: That terrible, was that guy drinking alcohol, that can really effect your performance.

Actually as far as the alcohol, unless you drink too much it doesn't affect your performance.
Reply
#7
That can easily be disproven with the easiest of internet searches.
Reply
#8
(11-28-2011, 02:28 PM)PonderThis Wrote: That can easily be disproven with the easiest of internet searches.

Well first of all you need to define what kind of "performance" you think is affected by drinking one beer.
Yes I imagine a person is affected some by one drink but that depends on some variables and my point was, are most people who had one beer at lunch significantly impaired.
I doubt it.
Reply
#9
I've hired people, and I'd far prefer personally that they smoked a joint at lunch as opposed to having had that beer. Besides, one beer too easily becomes three.
Reply
#10
(11-28-2011, 01:03 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(11-28-2011, 12:55 PM)tvguy Wrote: I wonder how much these clowns are paid? Maybe not so much? Obviously they are not being drug tested and quite often that's a tip off that the company is cutting what ever corners they can.
I know of a mill in rural CP. I don't know but I think it's still running.They pay very low wages and they do not drug test so guess what kind of loser workers they end up with.

The foolishness of this argument is shown by the fact that the list of ''Greatest Guitarist'' is also a list of the greatest drug users and clearly shows that concentration, dexterity and attention to detail is unimpaired.

A flawed opinion piece in Rolling Stone is your basis for disproving that drug use affects job performance? Really?Dry

Why don't you ask those guys to work on your car next time Leonard. Or go smoke a blunt and have a six pack with your accountant before they do your taxes.

Because after all, it's only our service members' lives at stake.......
Reply
#11
(11-28-2011, 04:32 PM)BeerMe Wrote:
(11-28-2011, 01:03 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(11-28-2011, 12:55 PM)tvguy Wrote: I wonder how much these clowns are paid? Maybe not so much? Obviously they are not being drug tested and quite often that's a tip off that the company is cutting what ever corners they can.
I know of a mill in rural CP. I don't know but I think it's still running.They pay very low wages and they do not drug test so guess what kind of loser workers they end up with.

The foolishness of this argument is shown by the fact that the list of ''Greatest Guitarist'' is also a list of the greatest drug users and clearly shows that concentration, dexterity and attention to detail is unimpaired.

A flawed opinion piece in Rolling Stone is your basis for disproving that drug use affects job performance? Really?Dry

Why don't you ask those guys to work on your car next time Leonard. Or go smoke a blunt and have a six pack with your accountant before they do your taxes.

Because after all, it's only our service members' lives at stake.......

But to Leonard (and Ponder), our Service Members' are evil murderous assholes who deserve to die, so that would explain their attitude. Well, that and the fact that they too are usually stoned.
Reply
#12
I don't think employees (no matter who they work for or what their job entails) should be smoking dope, drinking booze, popping pills, etc., etc. before or during work.
Reply
#13
(11-28-2011, 06:03 PM)Scrapper Wrote: I don't think employees (no matter who they work for or what their job entails) should be smoking dope, drinking booze, popping pills, etc., etc. before or during work.
Well, with the exception of the booze the other is medicine. The instructions on my pill bottle say to take them as neccessary. Sorry doctors orders. Wink

And I think that it depends on what you are doing as to whether you can do your job well. The argument that drugs affect work performance gets a big so what from me. For example: I know a medical marijuana guy that takes his meds daily and as needed who also gets the best work review of his 44 man department. Another example: If I can out perform that Republican malcontent BeerMe when I'm high and he is not, I think we might need to send BeerMe another letter of Expectation. jk Beerme.Big Grin If you are not doing something that requires you to be very attentive, then your work performance should be the criteria to determine efficiency.
Reply
#14
I always liked when a band arrived at the opening stages of innebriation, on meter, and in choral union. It's never better than that. But, only for a few minutes. It's like you're listening to a pack of dopers.
Reply
#15
(11-28-2011, 04:28 PM)PonderThis Wrote: I've hired people, and I'd far prefer personally that they smoked a joint at lunch as opposed to having had that beer. Besides, one beer too easily becomes three.

I have found through the years that alcoholics and smack heads are the most untrustworthy.

The smack because of the money needed for a fix and the dunks because drinkers and brain damage.

Pot on the other hand seems to have properties that help fight off lung cancer, go figure.

Reply
#16
(11-28-2011, 08:00 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(11-28-2011, 04:28 PM)PonderThis Wrote: I've hired people, and I'd far prefer personally that they smoked a joint at lunch as opposed to having had that beer. Besides, one beer too easily becomes three.

I have found through the years that alcoholics and smack heads are the most untrustworthy.

The smack because of the money needed for a fix and the dunks because drinkers and brain damage.

Pot on the other hand seems to have properties that help fight off lung cancer, go figure.

Pot only has one legitimate medical use. It has NO properties that "fight" lung cancer. It it useful in giving cancer patients an appetite during treatments, which could in turn help them combat the disease by increasing their strength. Food = Health.

And again, nice signature. Out of context, but appropriate words to be associated with you.
Reply
#17
(11-28-2011, 04:28 PM)PonderThis Wrote: I've hired people, and I'd far prefer personally that they smoked a joint at lunch as opposed to having had that beer. Besides, one beer too easily becomes three.

Well if you are used to working with dopers who am I to argue with you. I think the idea that somehow a person that just smoked a joint is somehow more capable to work someone who had a beer is IDIOTIC.

Call a cop or the DMV and ask them who is more capable to drive a motor vehicle.

Never mind just smoke some weed and keep dreaming.
Reply
#18
Down here it seems everyone thinks it is cool to fire up before leaving the car for what ever. Doors open windows open even around campus.
Reply
#19
I had a cop tell me , that he could spot the pot heads by the way they drove. Always right at the speed limit, used their turn signals , came to full stops. left lots of room in front of them. Paranoia will do that to you.
Reply
#20
(11-28-2011, 08:41 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-28-2011, 04:28 PM)PonderThis Wrote: I've hired people, and I'd far prefer personally that they smoked a joint at lunch as opposed to having had that beer. Besides, one beer too easily becomes three.

Well if you are used to working with dopers who am I to argue with you. I think the idea that somehow a person that just smoked a joint is somehow more capable to work someone who had a beer is IDIOTIC.

Call a cop or the DMV and ask them who is more capable to drive a motor vehicle.

Never mind just smoke some weed and keep dreaming.

Here's summaries of several studies on exactly this issue:

“At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.

To date ..., seven studies using culpability analysis have been reported, involving a total of 7,934 drivers. Alcohol was detected as the only drug in 1,785 drivers, and together with cannabis in 390 drivers. Cannabis was detected in 684 drivers, and in 294 of these it was the only drug detected.

... The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. … [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.”

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

“Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

“This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.

… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

“Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:

1. There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2. The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3. It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

“In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.

With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

“Intoxication with cannabis leads to a slight impairment of psychomotor … function. … [However,] the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator. This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take great risks and drive more aggressively.”

REFERENCE: UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. London: United Kingdom. Chapter 4: Section 4.7.

“The evidence suggests that marijuana presents a real, but secondary safety risk; and that alcohol is the leading drug-related accident risk factor.”

REFERENCES: D. Gieringer. 1988. Marijuana, driving, and accident safety. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 93-101.

CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES

“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”

REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.

… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”

REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.

“Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.

… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”

REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.

ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES

“Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.

… THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”

REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.

“This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O’Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.

TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)

DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES

“Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.

In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.”

REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

TABULATED SUMMARY OF SIMULATOR STUDIES OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000) http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-...c-evidence
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)