Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Chuckie finally found an issue where he believes in States’ Rights! This is a real tweet.

93henfan wrote:Chuckie finally found an issue where he believes in States’ Rights! This is a real tweet.

I'm on board.

93henfan wrote:Chuckie finally found an issue where he believes in States’ Rights! This is a real tweet.

Hey Chuck, now do guns...and abortion...and gay marriage...and a whole host of other items you want the feds making decisions about...

Col Hogan wrote:

93henfan wrote:Chuckie finally found an issue where he believes in States’ Rights! This is a real tweet.

Hey Chuck, now do guns...and abortion...and gay marriage...and a whole host of other items you want the feds making decisions about...

Nobody likes Chuck...
poor guy

Maybe a thread on the larger issue is needed, but I'm interested to see how the whole CA/CO/WA pot experiment works out. Me and Seattlegriz had a discussion about it last year when I was out there regarding the right to consume pot legally by the state and how that translates to the workplace.

My point is if a person drinks on a Friday night and comes into work on Monday the alcohol has largely metabolized and there should be little to nothing showing up in a random drug screen. In the same scenario with pot and the person could test positive for a week or two. Assuming a zero tolerance work environment people could be getting fired while not even technically under the influence.

I'm not a pot consumer, so I really don't care. I am interested to see how that whole thing will play out in the courts moving forward.

Ibanez wrote:

93henfan wrote:Chuckie finally found an issue where he believes in States’ Rights! This is a real tweet.

I'm on board.

Sure, aren’t we all who believe in States’ Rights and the Constitution?

As pointed out by Col H, this is the first time he’s ever supported not imposing his will on us all at the f crap level. He is, of course, the author of the “Assault” Weapons Ban.

ASUG8 wrote:Maybe a thread on the larger issue is needed, but I'm interested to see how the whole CA/CO/WA pot experiment works out. Me and Seattlegriz had a discussion about it last year when I was out there regarding the right to consume pot legally by the state and how that translates to the workplace.

My point is if a person drinks on a Friday night and comes into work on Monday the alcohol has largely metabolized and there should be little to nothing showing up in a random drug screen. In the same scenario with pot and the person could test positive for a week or two. Assuming a zero tolerance work environment people could be getting fired while not even technically under the influence.

I'm not a pot consumer, so I really don't care. I am interested to see how that whole thing will play out in the courts moving forward.

Right to work states...
If you test positive you're fired (The end)

93henfan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I'm on board.

Sure, aren’t we all who believe in States’ Rights and the Constitution?

As pointed out by Col H, this is the first time he’s ever supported not imposing his will on us all at the f crap level. He is, of course, the author of the “Assault” Weapons Ban.

“Federal” autocorrected to “f crap”?

That too is rich.

ASUG8 wrote:Maybe a thread on the larger issue is needed, but I'm interested to see how the whole CA/CO/WA pot experiment works out. Me and Seattlegriz had a discussion about it last year when I was out there regarding the right to consume pot legally by the state and how that translates to the workplace.

My point is if a person drinks on a Friday night and comes into work on Monday the alcohol has largely metabolized and there should be little to nothing showing up in a random drug screen. In the same scenario with pot and the person could test positive for a week or two. Assuming a zero tolerance work environment people could be getting fired while not even technically under the influence.

I'm not a pot consumer, so I really don't care. I am interested to see how that whole thing will play out in the courts moving forward.

Rationally, you would assume it would come down to the level of THC in your blood - similar to the .08% BAC. There is surely a a limit which we can agree is considered intoxication and anything less than that limit would be legal. I know a lot of people that simply toke a little bit each evening just to relax.

They don't do it to get the munchies and spend hours watching Full House and Red Green (not that i've ever done that... )


EDIT: In Colorado the legal limit is 5 nanograms.

Also- i'm not sure of the science but I found this on a lawyers website:

There seems to be a difference in chronic marijuana users, which have THC in their body for a longer period of time, and more light or recreational users, which can have the THC metabolite leave the body within 8 hours.

https://www.expertlawfirm.com/dui-level ... alifornia/



All of that could be b/s but my point is that i'm sure there are studies or this is a study in progress trying to figure out the legal limit. Of course - it depends on the person, their level of use and how they use weed (vape, smoke,eat)

93henfan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Sure, aren’t we all who believe in States’ Rights and the Constitution?

As pointed out by Col H, this is the first time he’s ever supported not imposing his will on us all at the f crap level. He is, of course, the author of the “Assault” Weapons Ban.

“Federal” autocorrected to “f crap”?

That too is rich.

I know you were using the colloquial.

Schumer 10x bigger idiot/asshole than Trump.

Chizzang wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Maybe a thread on the larger issue is needed, but I'm interested to see how the whole CA/CO/WA pot experiment works out. Me and Seattlegriz had a discussion about it last year when I was out there regarding the right to consume pot legally by the state and how that translates to the workplace.

My point is if a person drinks on a Friday night and comes into work on Monday the alcohol has largely metabolized and there should be little to nothing showing up in a random drug screen. In the same scenario with pot and the person could test positive for a week or two. Assuming a zero tolerance work environment people could be getting fired while not even technically under the influence.

I'm not a pot consumer, so I really don't care. I am interested to see how that whole thing will play out in the courts moving forward.

Right to work states...
If you test positive you're fired (The end)

“Right to work” is clever branding...like “Clean Skies Initiative” and “Enduring Freedom.”

89Hen wrote:Schumer 10x bigger idiot/asshole than Trump.

Yeah - but that's like saying a 1 ton sack of shit is bigger than a .9999 ton sack of shit.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Right to work states...
If you test positive you're fired (The end)

“Right to work” is clever branding...like “Clean Skies Initiative” and “Enduring Freedom.”

Everyone uses clever branding - there's a reason why the Pro-Life and the Pro-Choice groups don't call themselves the Anti-Women or Pro-Murder groups respectively. Didn't test well in focus groups.

1 time I agree with Chuckie.

Article 1/Section 8 of the Constitution spells out what powers are granted to the federal govt.
10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

James Madison, The Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce;…The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

States should be able to:
-Set their own laws on drugs- States’ rights. Fed has no business saying states can’t legalize marijuana. States rights
-Set their own laws on marriage (including gay marriage). Fed had no business passing a defense of marriage act, nor forcing gay marriage on the states. States’ rights.
-Set their own laws on abortion. Fed govt has no business saying states can or can’t outlaw/restrict abortion. Nothing to do with religion. States’ rights.
-Set their own minimum wage laws. Fed govt have no business forcing a fed minimum wage on the states. States’ rights.
-Set their own drinking age. Fed govt has no business forcing a drinking age of 21 on the states. States’ Rights.
-Set their own laws on abortion. States’ rights.

Since the 1930s the Commerce Clause being used as the primary source for the massive regulatory expansion of the federal government. Many of the Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew how expansive the fed govts powers have become and how it has usurped power from the states in ways the Founding Fathers never intended.

States should not be able to have more restrictive gun laws than the fed govt due to the 2nd Amendment. NOT states’ rights.

Chizzang wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Maybe a thread on the larger issue is needed, but I'm interested to see how the whole CA/CO/WA pot experiment works out. Me and Seattlegriz had a discussion about it last year when I was out there regarding the right to consume pot legally by the state and how that translates to the workplace.

My point is if a person drinks on a Friday night and comes into work on Monday the alcohol has largely metabolized and there should be little to nothing showing up in a random drug screen. In the same scenario with pot and the person could test positive for a week or two. Assuming a zero tolerance work environment people could be getting fired while not even technically under the influence.

I'm not a pot consumer, so I really don't care. I am interested to see how that whole thing will play out in the courts moving forward.

Right to work states...
If you test positive you're fired (The end)

How long will it take before drug tests advance enough to tell the difference? There are stoner lab rats around the country working on this as I type.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Right to work states...
If you test positive you're fired (The end)

“Right to work” is clever branding...like “Clean Skies Initiative” and “Enduring Freedom.”

And "common sense gun laws"

Ibanez wrote:

89Hen wrote:Schumer 10x bigger idiot/asshole than Trump.

Yeah - but that's like saying a 1 ton sack of shit is bigger than a .9999 ton sack of shit.

6.93

89Hen wrote:Schumer 10x bigger idiot/asshole than Trump.

That's a tough call actually

Imagine if somebody as snarky and sh!tty and petty as Schumer were elected President...?
Oh wait... We've got one already (The Donald)

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote:Schumer 10x bigger idiot/asshole than Trump.

That's a tough call actually

IMO difference is there are plenty of people on the right who do not like Trump, but very few on the left who will admit Chuckie is easily the biggest roadblock to bipartisanship in DC.

So maybe the effect of Schumer being a dick is what's 10x worse IMO.

Ibanez wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Maybe a thread on the larger issue is needed, but I'm interested to see how the whole CA/CO/WA pot experiment works out. Me and Seattlegriz had a discussion about it last year when I was out there regarding the right to consume pot legally by the state and how that translates to the workplace.

My point is if a person drinks on a Friday night and comes into work on Monday the alcohol has largely metabolized and there should be little to nothing showing up in a random drug screen. In the same scenario with pot and the person could test positive for a week or two. Assuming a zero tolerance work environment people could be getting fired while not even technically under the influence.

I'm not a pot consumer, so I really don't care. I am interested to see how that whole thing will play out in the courts moving forward.

Rationally, you would assume it would come down to the level of THC in your blood - similar to the .08% BAC. There is surely a a limit which we can agree is considered intoxication and anything less than that limit would be legal. I know a lot of people that simply toke a little bit each evening just to relax.

They don't do it to get the munchies and spend hours watching Full House and Red Green (not that i've ever done that... )


EDIT: In Colorado the legal limit is 5 nanograms.

Also- i'm not sure of the science but I found this on a lawyers website:

There seems to be a difference in chronic marijuana users, which have THC in their body for a longer period of time, and more light or recreational users, which can have the THC metabolite leave the body within 8 hours.

https://www.expertlawfirm.com/dui-level ... alifornia/



All of that could be b/s but my point is that i'm sure there are studies or this is a study in progress trying to figure out the legal limit. Of course - it depends on the person, their level of use and how they use weed (vape, smoke,eat)

You're science is good. It's simply stating that chronic users tend to have THC stored in the system, where as a person who only tries it now and then would be clean very quickly after usage.

5ng is pretty damn low. 50 is usually the threshold to screen for a positive...then it goes off to a more sensitive test to see if it still is above that threshold (screen and confirm).