Recreational Cannabis will be legal in Vancouver in a little over 18days, and in anticipation of that eventuality they had to decide how it would apply to police officers in their own time / when not working. And in an amazing example of common sense lining up with laws and rules, the police board decided to treat Cannabis use just like they do Alcohol...

As long as Officer CanadaMan (or woman) shows up for work ready to work and in a condition to do so, they can smoke or otherwise ingest cannabis on their off time just like they'd have a drink or three. How unbelievably refreshing, coming from a government entity, much less a law enforcement entity. Humanity isn't as doomed as some think.

Article...

How will they know if they are "ready to work and in a condition to do so"?

Not busting your balls here, I'm just curious if they've developed some means of testing it.

Humanity is pretty much doomed, but this is certainly an encouraging development.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
How will they know if they are "ready to work and in a condition to do so"?

Not busting your balls here, I'm just curious if they've developed some means of testing it.

I'm not sure, honestly.

But I suspect it'll be much like they do with alcohol... it's not like they're giving officers a mandatory and preemptive breathalyzer test each Monday morning when they come back to work from a weekend off, they are treated as innocent by default (as it should be) and then people look for odd behavior and speech and whatnot, and if a particular officer isn't looking or acting sober and fit to work *then* they send them home, make them take a test, write them up, or do whatever they'd do if Officer Friendly came to work still a bit drunk after a long night of partying and was somehow demonstrably still under the influence.

I've no doubt the alcohol version of this - showing up to work a bit still affected - has happened a kabillion times in all industries, including Law Enforcement, for hundreds of years. And the world doesn't crumble. It mostly sorts it out just fine. Pot is no different, in this regard, and certainly isn't any more dangerous. Frankly, I don't want any of them working the streets while under the influence of anything, so I'm not even remotely condoning that sort of thing, only that Vancouver seems to at least have the brains and decency to treat pot as no worse nor meaningfully different from our old friend Alcohol.

Individual Liberty is what's more important, and this is a clear shift in that direction.

anyone else see the irony in this. If we partake in marijuana we become a prohibited person that cannot purchase firearms nor obtain a CHL/LTC yet the cops there can smoke if they choose and be in possession of their issued duty gun.

Yet any equipment operator will be fired for peeing hot. Or is that different in Canada as well?

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Pot is no different, in this regard, and certainly isn't any more dangerous.

Problem is, we don't know that it isn't more dangerous. Pot is different. Alcohol is ingested and metabolized in a predictable fashion. In X number of hours it's gone. THC is lipid soluble and stored in fat to be released in an unpredictable fashion. I agree that more than likely, the rate at which it is released is very unlikely to have any psychoactive effects, but how do we know? Bottom line is...we don't.

If and when someone comes up with a definitive way to determine "intoxication", I'll be more inclined to be OK with this, and legalization as a whole. But until then? Nope.

quote:

Originally posted by roadkill:
anyone else see the irony in this. If we partake in marijuana we become a prohibited person that cannot purchase firearms nor obtain a CHL/LTC yet the cops there can smoke if they choose and be in possession of their issued duty gun.

You do realize Vancouver is in a different country, right?

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:

quote:

Originally posted by roadkill:
anyone else see the irony in this. If we partake in marijuana we become a prohibited person that cannot purchase firearms nor obtain a CHL/LTC yet the cops there can smoke if they choose and be in possession of their issued duty gun.

You do realize Vancouver is in a different country, right?

I see that now. Was thinking Washington when posted.

The whole world is going to pot!

Its all about being "prepared for duty" In the event of a shooting, or a serious patrol car crash, will a blood test be ordered? And at what level of pot will be considered "prepared for duty"?
Unless there is a standard, such as with alcohol at .08, what's the determining factor for fitness?
VPD is in for a fun ride with this when it goes sour.

Personally, I'm OK with roadkilll's original response. He wrote "there" in the appropriate place, which, to me, inferred that he was stating a different location (or country).

And, while I do not use pot myself (I never inhaled,.....OK maybe a little bit about 35+ years ago).... I have no problem in other's use of cannabis. This is why I have a small investment in a Canadian marijuana company. So far, this investment has done very well. I can't wait for recreational marijuana to become legal in Canada in October, because this company has set themselves up for a large introduction to the "recreational" market...

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Pot is no different, in this regard, and certainly isn't any more dangerous.

Problem is, we don't know that it isn't more dangerous. Pot is different. Alcohol is ingested and metabolized in a predictable fashion. In X number of hours it's gone. THC is lipid soluble and stored in fat to be released in an unpredictable fashion. I agree that more than likely, the rate at which it is released is very unlikely to have any psychoactive effects, but how do we know? Bottom line is...we don't.

If and when someone comes up with a definitive way to determine "intoxication", I'll be more inclined to be OK with this, and legalization as a whole. But until then? Nope.

You've probably already lost that battle, politically, so it's likely a moot point.

And, yes we do (know that it isn't more dangerous). Just about any random asshole (me, you, the clerk at your local grocery store, literally any non retarded adult human) can suss this out for themselves in week's time just by trying both. On top of which untold tens of millions, hundreds maybe, of people worldwide have been enjoying Cannabis for far longer than you and I have even lived, in all walks of life, and yet the number of incidents from use are astonishingly low, tiny even... Whatever the current math is, it's not only not more dangerous than alcohol, it's materially less dangerous, and measurably so - whether the metric is vehicle accidents, suicides, overdose, liver failure, and countless others.

And sure, THC is indeed hanging around in fat cells a while (days) after use, any person who has had weed more than a time or three knows and can tell you that they aren't feeling shit hours later. There's certainly no residual effect that could manifest in a tangible, measurable, material manner/amount. People wish, I'm sure, but no.

You're free to have your fears and concerns, of course, objections too, but the fears and concerns are simply unfounded, if we're all being objective and intellectually honest.

It's been way too popular to way too many for way to long to have let that slip by unnoticed.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Its all about being "prepared for duty" In the event of a shooting, or a serious patrol car crash, will a blood test be ordered? And at what level of pot will be considered "prepared for duty"?
Unless there is a standard, such as with alcohol at .08, what's the determining factor for fitness?
VPD is in for a fun ride with this when it goes sour.

I agree. It's going to be an interesting challenge for this scenario. But I recall jljones (clearly not a weed advocate) writing about how confident he is and was in their field tests and training that he and they can spot someone "under the influence" as well as they can for alcohol in other field sobriety tests, that it simply isn't that hard to test for general impairment even without scientific lab test, and if that's good enough to land someone in jail over drinking I think it ought to suffice for weed, too. After all, it is "impairment" that actually matters, and BAC tests aren't any better at testing for impairment than a field test, as a BAC isn't testing for impairment at all.

The lack of a BAC equivalent for THC isn't the problem, the BAC test as a standard is. Impairment matters, and it varies person to person. We need to focus on and improve our ability to test for impairment, whether from alcohol or weed or stress or bath salts, which substance was never the point. Impairment is.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Pot is no different, in this regard, and certainly isn't any more dangerous.

Problem is, we don't know that it isn't more dangerous. Pot is different. Alcohol is ingested and metabolized in a predictable fashion. In X number of hours it's gone. THC is lipid soluble and stored in fat to be released in an unpredictable fashion. I agree that more than likely, the rate at which it is released is very unlikely to have any psychoactive effects, but how do we know? Bottom line is...we don't.

If and when someone comes up with a definitive way to determine "intoxication", I'll be more inclined to be OK with this, and legalization as a whole. But until then? Nope.

You've probably already lost that battle, politically, so it's likely a moot point.

And, yes we do (know that it isn't more dangerous). Just about any random asshole (me, you, the clerk at your local grocery store, literally any non retarded adult human) can suss this out for themselves in week's time just by trying both. On top of which untold tens of millions, hundreds maybe, of people worldwide have been enjoying Cannabis for far longer than you and I have even lived, in all walks of life, and yet the number of incidents from use are astonishingly low, tiny even... Whatever the current math is, it's not only not more dangerous than alcohol, it's materially less dangerous, and measurably so - whether the metric is vehicle accidents, suicides, overdose, liver failure, and countless others.

And sure, THC is indeed hanging around in fat cells a while (days) after use, any person who has had weed more than a time or three knows and can tell you that they aren't feeling shit hours later. There's certainly no residual effect that could manifest in a tangible, measurable, material manner/amount. People wish, I'm sure, but no.

You're free to have your fears and concerns, of course, objections too, but the fears and concerns are simply unfounded, if we're all being objective and intellectually honest.

It's been way too popular to way too many for way to long to have let that slip by unnoticed.

Mj in all it's forms have been used for multiple millennia. It's not exactly a secret what it is and what it does to those that use it.
<rant>
Just like any other old time drug, and MANY folks continue to think of "alcohol and drugs" as two separate things.
ALCOHOL IS A DRUG. It is every bit as deadly, life ruining and toxic as any other drug.
Even people who use what are commonly thought of as " real drugs" often think of them as separate things.
<rant off>

If a Vancouver cop shows up to work baked, he better have brought enough doughnuts for everyone.

quote:

. But I recall jljones (clearly not a weed advocate) writing about how confident he is and was in their field tests and training that he and they can spot someone "under the influence" as well as they can for alcohol in other field sobriety tests,

I recall this as well, and it helped change my view of legalization in the US. My concern was sharing the road with intoxicated people who couldn't be detected, and jljones statement made me feel much better.

Luckily this is unlikely to happen in the USA for a long time -- until some Federal laws change.

That said, does anyone know how long a cop recruit in the USA has to be pot-free before he/she can apply for employment to be a cop? Is it different for Fed cops as opposed to local/County/State cops?

This is going to play well during a trial following a police-involved shooting.

Those who advocate unlimited use of marajuana: do you feel the same about your pilot using? Your surgeon?

I don't think it's a good idea. Lawmen have a dangerous & difficult job as it is without weed in the equation. Handling a weapon,high speed pursuit, chasing criminals is dangerous enough straight up sober.

I was just a few weeks ago in AK, and Vancouver. In AK people were smoking it on street corners. That seem strange, but how many time I have walked around major U.S. cities and seen people dinning outdoors with alcohol? No different. The effects of marijuana have been know for years, how long it stays in the body. From experience when I was younger, I can say I was never high the next day after smoking marijuana. I have been to several states where it is legal, but not yet legal in my state, but will be I believe within a year. Until then, I will not participate.