That said, it’s absolutely unconscionable that it’s against the law for people like Prosser to seek what relief they can from marijuana.

I would probably have to agree, if it was clear that marijuana was the only substance capable of bringing a sufficient level of relief. The fact the woman killed herself while using marijuana calls into question its effectiveness, doesn't it? And can we really rule out the possibility that some other form of pain relief might have been equally or more effective?

I have heard the opinion expressed by persons more knowledgeable about medicine than myself that American doctors are not as competent as they should be at pain relief. This is a problem, but it's unclear to me that marijuana is the answer.

The difference between alcohol and MJ is that alcohol leaves the system quickly, MJ and other drugs (depending on just how far you support taking legalization) do not.

Marijuana has no measurable effects within a few hours after use. Nicotine also remains in the system for nearly a week after use though also not with any measurable impairment.

Where is this stat coming from? Got a link to this study?

No, just personal experience. I know the effects and after effects of both. I am not aware of studies on the relative effects, but alcohol is used by far more people and that is not likely to change. Add to this, the after effects of alcohol are far more severe** and I am reasonable certain of my assertion. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Do you think it would remain the same, if MJ was legalized? Or do you think you would see an increase in use?

There might be a slight increase in use, but I doubt that there would be much long term effect on usage. Where I live marijuana (weed and hash) are legal as are (for the moment) mushrooms and usage by the local population is not appreciably higher than where I have lived in the US*. I have not seen anyone working stoned though some have come back to the lab after a couple of beers.

The reality is that drug use of any kind can lead to problems on the job.

True, and if they do the employer has recourse whether or not the drug is legal.

Broadly legalizing drugs will likely see that increase.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I doubt the effect would be measurable.

I don't think employers should be required to hire or keep employees that use drugs.

If it interferes with their work there should be consequences regardless of the legality of the drug. If it does not interfere with their work why should they be penalized?

* The tourists, particularly British and Americans, use considerably more.
** Interact with anyone the day after getting falling down drunk, and someone the day after getting too stoned to leave the sofa and the differences will be obvious to you. Typically both will be lethargic, but one will also be dehydrated, nauseous, achy and unable to be at all productive, the other will simply require a little extra motivation. During my college days I knew many people who woke up drunk the next day, I have yet to meet someone who woke up stoned.
If the usage of either was mild to moderate there will not likely be any detectable effect of either the next day unless the alcohol was cheap.

The difference between alcohol and MJ is that alcohol leaves the system quickly, MJ and other drugs (depending on just how far you support taking legalization) do not.

Also, alcohol impairment is easy to measure. Drug impairment not neccessarily so easy.

All of the problems you listed are more severe for alcohol when compared to similar use of marijuana*. There is far more loss of productivity due to alcohol than due to marijuana particularly when day after effects are included in the calculation.

Where is this stat coming from? Got a link to this study?
Do you think it would remain the same, if MJ was legalized? Or do you think you would see an increase in use?

The reality is that drug use of any kind can lead to problems on the job. Broadly legalizing drugs will likely see that increase. I don't think employers should be required to hire or keep employees that use drugs. They are the ones who get sued, when things go wrong, they are the ones who experience loss, when things go wrong.

So none are you suggesting that if MJ or other illegal drugs are legalized that they should be legalized for minors?

Most who advocate legalization think there should be age restrictions like those for cigarettes and alcohol. The irony of our current system is that in many places it is easier for minors to get marijuana and other illicit drugs than it is for them to get alcohol.

Because companies shouldn't be required to hire and accept the risk of having impaired employees on the job.

Why do you think a casual marijuana smoker is more likely to use on the job than a casual drinker?
Should employers be allowed to fire employees for drinking alcohol? All of the problems you listed are more severe for alcohol when compared to similar use of marijuana*. There is far more loss of productivity due to alcohol than due to marijuana particularly when day after effects are included in the calculation.
If alcohol, marijuana, depression, or anything else is interfering with ones performance on the job that should be addressed. Whether that is addressed by treatment or termination should be up to the employer or employer and employee together.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Says Marijuana Not a Drug

That depends on your definition of drug. By most reasonable definitions marijuana is, or at least contains, a drug(s). THC and the various other active cannabinoids certainly chemically "affect the structure or function of the body." Then again so do many things that people use on a daily basis. I know a great many people who are seemingly unable to start their day without a caffeine fix.

* By similar use I mean achieving a similar level of high for a similar length of time.

Report: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Says Marijuana Not a Drug

My view is, well duh. I use alcohol, and brew beer, which in 1930 would make me a criminal. I know that the end of Prohibition helped bring America out of the Depression. I do not use MJ, but I know folks that do, and I don't think any of them are committing violent crimes. On the other hand, if the drug was meth, from what little I've seen about meth (and personal experiences with theft), I'd be very much against it.

I just saw this as a headline looking at another article off Drudge, not that I don't go to Fox, just as I go to the other media.

But see we have a legal definition that is measurable of impairment.

If you mean the breath alcohol content, then no we don't have a reliable definition. We have voodoo science,

But we do have common law ways to measure impairment, steady gait, speech, eye brightness and other SFST that can tell us if a person who has used Marijuana is impaired. In fact most states use exactly these clues to determine whether to further test these individuals for ability to work machinery like a car.

Let’s be clear here: Despite the sensationalism of this slanted story (”Without the relief that marijuana delivered to her, Robin Prosser killed herself”) Prosser did not kill herself because the government wouldn’t let her have marijuana; she did so because her disease robbed her of her livelihood and had her in indescribable pain for the last quarter century.

You don't think having to deal with the legal system like a common criminal {piss tests, court supervision} didn't take a toll on someone barely hanging on with a chronic disease as it was.

Why?

Because companies shouldn't be required to hire and accept the risk of having impaired employees on the job.

If a bus driver is MJ impaired it isn't the driver who is going to get sued it is the school district that hired him.

If a teacher is impaired and a child is injured or harmed, the district gets sued not the teacher.

If a factory has repeated accidents their insurance goes up, they may be fined by various agencies etc.

I think employers should be able to say thanks but no thanks. Currently they can easily do so on the basis that the substances are illegal, but if legalized they may have to put potentially impaired employees on the job.

My problem is that I think saying "if you choose to use these drugs at all, we won't be hiring you" can and should be a legitimate reason to hire or fire people.

Why?

Field sobriety tests aren't scientific in the sense that you seem to be suggesting, Grewgills, and in many jurisdictions are not accepted as proof of DWI.

They were sufficient evidence for alcohol impairment prior to the acceptance of breathalyzer evidence in courts. It does seem though that it should be possible to devise a test to determine if marijuana has been recently smoked.

Nope but then there are easy ways to measure impairment-and several of these are non subjective ways (breathalizer and blood tests with a legally defined limit for what constitutes impairment).

My problem is that I think saying "if you choose to use these drugs at all, we won't be hiring you" can and should be a legitimate reason to hire or fire people. I am not so sure, with legalization this would be allowed to be the case-especially for jobs where the government employs people-but many government jobs involve major safety issues or major responsibility.

I am not convinced a field sobriety test is the most subjective way to measure impairment while under the influence. For one thing, some drugs may not impair reflexes but may impair judgement-just because my child's teacher can still touch her finger on her nose, that doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't have her judgement impaired.

Some drugs cause irratic behaviors in people-not exactly the kind of person I want in charge of my children.

My point is that there are some real issues that come with legalization-just because drugs are legal, that doesn't mean society will turn into perfect utopia where nobody does dangerous or dumb things, and at the very least I think employers should be able to decide just what kinds of risks they want to take with who they hire and I think drug use alone should be a reason to fire-because unlike with alcohol, there to date isn't a easy and objective way to measure immediate use or immediate impairment.