New USCG drug testing?

Does anybody know if the coast guard is working on a new drug test? As pot has been decriminalized in MA, CO, and WA, they ought to be.

Actually there are considering rewriting the books on marijuana testing to reflect the current shift in our society…Seriously??? WILL NEVER HAPPEN! For good reason-I don’t want to be anywhere near a boat with people that have THC in their system. We trust each other with our lives. Why would you want to jeopardize that ? Keep your tree smoking to yourself.

Seriously doubt the CG would change anything. It is still illegal federally.

[QUOTE=AL-in-NY;144346]Does anybody know if the coast guard is working on a new drug test? As pot has been decriminalized in MA, CO, and WA, they ought to be.[/QUOTE]

I heard they were going to require hair test which will show alcohol and all other drug use within 30-180 days. :wink:

[QUOTE=AL-in-NY;144346]Does anybody know if the coast guard is working on a new drug test? As pot has been decriminalized in MA, CO, and WA, they ought to be.[/QUOTE]
Rolling on the floor laughing out loud.

The lack of understanding of how THC effects the body is the true problem. I would worry more about the person that drank the night before his crew change then the guy who smoked a joint 30 days ago on his off time, We should applaud states that stand up for their sovereign rights and don’t let Washington dictate how they govern themselves. That all being said I agree that for us it will never happen. But drink yourself into an early grave all you want on your off time. In 24hrs no one will care and you can come to work without issue. Hell, get yourself a nice cocaine habit while your at it. In 96 hours your good to go as we’ll. but yes stay away from that tree smoking.

Coast Guard is federal, weed is illegal in the eyes of the federal government… See the connection?

[QUOTE=AL-in-NY;144346][Is] the coast guard… working on a new drug test? As pot has been decriminalized in MA, CO, and WA, they ought to be.[/QUOTE]

No. --------------

[QUOTE=beekerbetter;144524]…We should applaud states that stand up for their sovereign rights and don’t let Washington dictate how they govern themselves…[/QUOTE]

See Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and [I]Gibbons v. Ogden[/I], 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

[QUOTE=jdcavo;144536]

See Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and [I]Gibbons v. Ogden[/I], 22 U.S. 1 (1824).[/QUOTE]

That’s a good one,Daniel Webster and Robert Fulton

[QUOTE=AL-in-NY;144346]Does anybody know if the coast guard is working on a new drug test? As pot has been decriminalized in MA, CO, and WA, they ought to be.[/QUOTE]

Killer “first post”!!!

Would have been even better if you asked if you will be issued joints while working as a DPO.

lolz! My company went so far as to issue a memo basically saying you’re a fucking idiot if you think just because a state legalized it anything will change.

We’re not special, it’s still illegal for airline pilots and truck drivers. Even if it were decriminalized on a federal level it’d still be illegal for us to use most of the time because it’d prbly pop up if you were tested for being currently under the influence.

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;144551]We’re not special, it’s still illegal for airline pilots and truck drivers. Even if it were decriminalized on a federal level it’d still be illegal for us to use most of the time because it’d prbly pop up if you were tested for being currently under the influence.[/QUOTE]

It wouldn’t even matter if it were Federally legalized. The company itself has the ability to drug test if it so chooses, even if their operation has nothing to do with any type of USDOT / USCG regs or anything else that falls under some kind of regulations be it state or federal. I saw 2 guys get fired at Helix for shooting up steriods.

As long as their process is not harassing or discriminating against employees or applicants, the courts are not going to allow a bunch of lawsuits in state X or federal circuit courts because somebody got fired or denied employment due to the employer not wanting an addict / user of any kind bagging groceries, delivering newspapers, whatever. The states and private entities are allowed to adopt stricter standards than Federal govt as long as they do not put undue burden, discriminate against, etc. on the people /clients /customers. Just look at Class III weapons legislation from state to state. Is somebody really being suppressed or harassed or discriminated against b/c they can’t buy automatic weapons in HI or NY but they can in FL and NE? Nope.

Alcohol consumption or possession of same abd US flag vessels is not against USCG/DOT rules/regs. Their are much finer points to it, obviously. But if a company, say any OSV operator or GOM outfit, says no alcohol on our vessels, period… nothing anybody can do about it. Their boat, their policy, and no one is being treated unfairly or being discriminated against.

Johnny C, great point! Operators are allowed to set stricter rules. And I would hope they all do go beyond compliance.

Even if pot was legal the companies couldn’t afford to let the employee smoke a joint I’ve seen how much a normal deck hand can eat when they are bored just imagine if they smoked a joint the boat would run out of food and stores in a matter of days. The cost of feed the crew would easily double!!!

In the era of the forming of our constitution cannibas was legal, in fact there where no drug laws. It was not until 1970 that our modern drug laws took effect. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Controlled Substance Act of 1970)-

While I value my license and will not risk it, I still believe that it’s ridiculous to punish people for smoking or ingesting a plant during their off time, especially one that is legal in their state.

In the United States of America, our government is split between two sovereigns: one at the Federal level and one at the State level. The Federal government represents the unified interest of the entire country, whereas each State government, of course, represents only itself. The Constitution dictates that our Federal government is a government of limited powers, meaning that each action that it takes or law that it writes must be tied to a specific provision in the Constitution; if it’s not spelled out in the Constitution, then it cannot act. The States, on the other hand, are governments of almost unlimited powers, meaning that they can take whatever actions they want and write whatever laws they want, so long as those actions or laws are not specifically reserved for the Federal government in the Constitution or prohibited by the Constitution itself. This concept is embodied in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and forms the basis for the common phrase “States’ Rights.” As a final point on the law, the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, foresaw that there may come a time when the two governments may bump heads. In such an event, the 2 governments need to know which of them has the last word. Thanks to the Founding Fathers, we have an answer to that question: The Supremacy Clause. It is a clause in the Constitution that basically says that whenever there’s a conflict between the two governments, Federal law trumps State law every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[QUOTE=beekerbetter;144561]In the era of the forming of our constitution cannibas was legal, in fact there where no drug laws. It was not until 1970 that our modern drug laws took effect. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Controlled Substance Act of 1970)-

While I value my license and will not risk it, I still believe that it’s ridiculous to punish people for smoking or ingesting a plant during their off time, especially one that is legal in their state.

In the United States of America, our government is split between two sovereigns: one at the Federal level and one at the State level. The Federal government represents the unified interest of the entire country, whereas each State government, of course, represents only itself. The Constitution dictates that our Federal government is a government of limited powers, meaning that each action that it takes or law that it writes must be tied to a specific provision in the Constitution; if it’s not spelled out in the Constitution, then it cannot act. The States, on the other hand, are governments of almost unlimited powers, meaning that they can take whatever actions they want and write whatever laws they want, so long as those actions or laws are not specifically reserved for the Federal government in the Constitution or prohibited by the Constitution itself. This concept is embodied in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and forms the basis for the common phrase “States’ Rights.” As a final point on the law, the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, foresaw that there may come a time when the two governments may bump heads. In such an event, the 2 governments need to know which of them has the last word. Thanks to the Founding Fathers, we have an answer to that question: The Supremacy Clause. It is a clause in the Constitution that basically says that whenever there’s a conflict between the two governments, Federal law trumps State law every day of the week and twice on Sunday.[/QUOTE]

I fully encourage any and all US mariners to go ahead and light up, snort up, and shoot up. By all means, please. With fewer qualified, legal mariners it will only increase demand and wages for those of us who value the idea of steady paychecks and employabiity / marketability over what we would like to do on vacation.

I happily get myself in to drunken stupors and therefore stupid situations while at home without having to worry about the next piss test, physical, whatever.

Where I can send your weed???

I refer you, sir, to The Constitution Article 1, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power […] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

There was no provision, specifically allowing for the creation of a Federal Bank. Because of the “Elastic Clause”, we were able to have one. I would argue, as anyone throughout history that sees the constitution as an elastic document, that if it is not specifically PROHIBITED in the constitution then it is allowed.

Johnny, I’ve said twice that I don’t risk my license. Me and my kind? Guess we can’t even have an opinion about the subject.

Anyway I’m done with this subject. Drink up cap!

[QUOTE=beekerbetter;144569]Johnny, I’ve said twice that I don’t risk my license. Me and my kind? Guess we can’t even have an opinion about the subject.

Anyway I’m done with this subject. Drink up cap![/QUOTE]

my apologies, sincerely. I went back and edited, (after re-reading your post) , but apparently not before your reply.