girlfisher

Active Member
This piece comes from the National Safety Council. I googled "Is Marijuana Addictive" which revealed an entire page of articles similar to the one below.

I don't want to go to Google war but, at the same time, I want to steer clear from my own, anecdotal, observations coming from an educator. My views on how young people have been affected by pot will never change. That said, I want to know how adults are truly affected on the highway and in the work place.

This thread has taught me quite a bit from both sides and I do not want to see it die. No forum rules have been violated, and for the most part, the discourse has been quite civil.

© Copyright 2019 National Safety Council - All rights reserved.
Cannabis Controversy

Christine Clearwater, president of Drug-free Solutions Group, specializes in substance abuse prevention in the workplace. In a webinar for the National Safety Council, she says marijuana legalization should not lead to more lenient employer drug policies. The highly politicized battle over marijuana laws can drown out statistics employers should be aware of:

  • Car crashes involving marijuana went up 300% between 2010 and 2013, and they continue to rise as more states legalize the drug
  • Marijuana is 10 to 20 times stronger today than it was in the 1960s and '70s
  • Marijuana is an addictive drug

Clearwater says employers must put moral, legal and ethical concerns aside when drafting policies around marijuana. These are business decisions, and important ones at that.
How Does Marijuana Use Impact Job Safety?

THC in marijuana affects depth perception, reaction time, coordination and other motor skills, and it creates sensory distortion. For someone operating machinery, driving a forklift or delivering products in a vehicle, these effects can be deadly.

According to a study reported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more industrial accidents, 85% more injuries and 75% greater absenteeism compared to those who tested negative. Also impacting the bottom line are:

  • Decreased productivity
  • Increased worker compensation and unemployment compensation claims
  • High turnover
  • Lawsuits

Clearwater says employers can expect to spend about $7,000 per year on an employee who abuses drugs – and that does not include unemployment claims or legal action. About one out of six employees has a substance abuse problem; in a company with 500 employees, that's nearly $600,000 a year. Employers must decide how they want to positions themselves as an organization, she says.
 

tkww

Member

I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Well...

Look, I don't know where the NIDA or NSC is getting their info. But in a country where we can't get seem to get anything resembling accurate information on gun deaths, police shootings, opoiod use, etc. I find it fascinating that they have such a clear picture of marijuana use, employer costs, etc. If the absurdity of that alone doesn't leave you suspicious, perhaps--and I'm sorry if this sounds harsh--education shouldn't be you profession.
 

girlfisher

Active Member
this seems like it might not be a quality we want in our "educators". if you've got views that can't change about something real, they can't possibly be based in fact. perhaps they are based in a subjective experience?
Mr. dflett68: I believe you have unfairly taken that sentence out of context. I have seen students suffer, academically, because of substance abuse and that view will never change. Caring about these kids is a character trait I want to see in all educators. I am retired and you need not worry about me. I would suggest you switch your laser vision toward the new generation of teachers who admit to partaking.
 

girlfisher

Active Member
I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Well...

Look, I don't know where the NIDA or NSC is getting their info. But in a country where we can't get seem to get anything resembling accurate information on gun deaths, police shootings, opoiod use, etc. I find it fascinating that they have such a clear picture of marijuana use, employer costs, etc. If the absurdity of that alone doesn't leave you suspicious, perhaps--and I'm sorry if this sounds harsh--education shouldn't be you profession.
I totally agree with your second sentence. Other posters to this thread have posted statistics without reference. I have simply posted opposing data with reference. I find it interesting that you and the previous poster jump right to the same conclusion when faced with someone with an opposing viewpoint. "If you don't agree with my viewpoint you should not be in that profession". Are you really listening to yourself, when you make that kind of comment?
 

dflett68

WFF Supporter
Mr. dflett68: I believe you have unfairly taken that sentence out of context. I have seen students suffer, academically, because of substance abuse and that view will never change. Caring about these kids is a character trait I want to see in all educators. I am retired and you need not worry about me. I would suggest you switch your laser vision toward the new generation of teachers who admit to partaking.
that's a subjective, anecdotal experience and i'm very glad you feel passion and compassion around it. i'm sorry if my comment came off as an ad hominem attack on you as an educator - that wouldn't be fair and i didn't intend it. i don't think a rigid, inflexible attitude toward knowing is conducive to curiosity, learning, or teaching. so while i stand by my statement, i think you're justified in saying i took it a little out of context (a little), and i certainly don't mean to say you weren't a good educator.
 

Dustin Bise

reformed hot-spotter
According to a study reported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse,

© Copyright 2019 National Safety Council - All rights reserved.
Cannabis Controversy

Christine Clearwater, president of Drug-free Solutions Group, specializes in substance abuse prevention in the workplace. I

look at who wrote these things and what there bias is before taking any of the above as gospel. Statistics are often worthless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS

dflett68

WFF Supporter
Kinda a BS move in my opinion going after what kind of teacher @girlfisher is/was to the two dudes above posting. Not cool. You can voice disagreeing and have a debate without sinking to that level.

hold up. i said it's not a quality we want in an educator. i didn't say she was a bad educator, i called out one trait that undercuts curiosity and learning. she referenced her profession in the discussion for relevance, and since my interest in the discussion is mostly about withholding judgement on topics not yet well understood by science (i don't imbibe myself), it was a relevant point that jumped off the page for me. if you want your kids taught by people who are done learning, more power to you.
 

Buzzy

Active Member
I totally agree with your second sentence. Other posters to this thread have posted statistics without reference. I have simply posted opposing data with reference. I find it interesting that you and the previous poster jump right to the same conclusion when faced with someone with an opposing viewpoint. "If you don't agree with my viewpoint you should not be in that profession". Are you really listening to yourself, when you make that kind of comment?

I think its fair to say that whatever issue one is discussing, there's opposing "documentation" to the subject at hand. Can the documentation be slanted as @tkww suggests? Sure. Every day, all the time. Probably why I don't watch the news much anymore.

Regardless of pro-pot or not, I find it hard to argue with some of the data (or arguments?) @girlfisher provided. For example, THC affects motor skills, reaction time? Surely "getting stoned" (getting high - whatever the PC term for "under the influence" is) affects these attributes. Toking up and driving? Bad.

Oh, same argument for alcohol.
 

girlfisher

Active Member
I take no research as gospel. Those are your words not mine. I chose this particular article because it came from, what I see as science and research. I assume you agree with science and research but disagree with the author I chose and find them biased. OK, like oil companies denying climate change, I get it. Please tell me the bias you see with this author.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top