[HN Gopher] Amazon's answer to delivery driver shortage: Pot smo...
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon's answer to delivery driver shortage: Pot smokers
Author : numo16
Score : 63 points
Date : 2021-09-03 12:12 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.latimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com)
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| Well I am all in favor of legalizeing, but there is side effect:
| those who are smoking in public, cigarette but especially pot,
| must have harsh consequence. I go to some place in US and it is
| stinking everywhere on public streets. People can not force
| everybody to inhale their drug fume only because they want their
| high.
|
| Edit for clarifying: maybe a $200 fine is good point for
| starting, go up to $500 with repeating. I also think many smoker
| drop cigarette butts and we need greater fine for that if it will
| stop.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| If by "harsh consequences" you mean a $20 fine for smoking
| pot/cigarettes/cigars in a crowded public places I guess maybe.
| If you're proposing locking people up that seems a bit extreme.
| pitched wrote:
| Just out of curiosity and this isn't meant to be mean, but,
| what kind of harsh consequence do you think would be
| appropriate for imposing that smell?
| koheripbal wrote:
| Not gp, but I think a fine is pretty reasonable.
|
| Jogging in the park and inhaling pot constantly is getting
| really annoying. I know a number of families that moved to
| the burbs, and one of the reasons they voiced is the sharp
| increase is pot smell/smoke in the kids' playgrounds.
| wordsarelies wrote:
| This is no doubt an unintended consequence of city
| ordinances/state laws that require you be X feet away from
| others. Where the fuck-else can you go other than a public
| place if you live in the city and have no yard?
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Joggers in parks are also annoying. Run in the woods,
| forest.
| tartoran wrote:
| Where do you draw the line though? Body odor isn't pleasant
| neither is bad breath or alcohol breath. Are you suggesting
| a fine for those as well?
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Harsh? Like caning, or what?
|
| Do you fart in public? Should your butt be plugged in public
| too?
| deadbunny wrote:
| Hey, we wouldn't have to stand around outside if the busybodies
| hadn't stopped us lighting up in bars.
| hughrr wrote:
| I'm with you on the fines. It's about as pleasant as snooting
| up someone else's bowel contents on a train.
|
| It is antisocial behaviour, has a health impact and needs to
| have a consequence.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Hopefully somebody introduces this. Weed stinks and people who
| smoke it outdoors are as much a nuisance as people who smoke
| cigarettes. Both should be legal but banned from any public
| places.
| ralfn wrote:
| To be consistent we would have to ban cars for the same
| reason too. At least near where people live or work.
| threatofrain wrote:
| No, cars and cigarettes are known to cause far more
| substantial health effects to those around. By what
| instinct does one find oneself tempted to compare bad smell
| to cancer and asthma?
| cassianoleal wrote:
| Also many perfumes and colognes. Some can be incredibly
| overwhelming.
| canti wrote:
| As marijuana becomes increasingly legalized, I'm not sure why any
| company would continue to test for it, other than maybe using
| saliva tests to make sure workers aren't getting high on the job.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| From a safety point of view, it's difficult to test for
| marijuana intoxication. There's a simple test any employer
| could do to test whether their forklift driver is drunk right
| now. The best a marijuana simple marijuana test can do is
| whether you've had it in the past few days.
| canti wrote:
| You make a decent point. This is why I mentioned a saliva
| test, but in truth I'm not sure how effective it is.
| Anecdotally, I can tell you I once smoked at night before bed
| and passed a saliva test the next morning.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| I believe they do that for police roadside tests in
| Australia. From what I can gather they have a rather bad
| reputation for not correlating very well with intoxication.
|
| BAC is a well understood thing to measure, but marijuana
| testing seems pretty unreliable to me. I've read
| conflicting reports about how strongly TCH found on a
| saliva swap correlates to actual intoxication, and I don't
| believe there's been much scientific investigation done to
| determine what levels of intoxication are safe for what
| activities. As the primary customers of these products are
| law enforcement, and private sector "rules enforcement",
| I'll remain skeptical of them until somebody manages to
| convince me otherwise.
| southpawflo wrote:
| after all, what's the difference between a drunk driver and a
| stoner driver?
|
| the drunk driver runs the red light, and the stoner keeps waiting
| for the stop sign to turn green!
| jack_riminton wrote:
| I wonder if they'll eventually introduce some sort of sobriety or
| reaction-time test on their phone apps to see if you're in a
| state to drive
| neonate wrote:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20210903083804/https://www.latime...
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I'm guessing they can do this because they're big enough to push
| back on insurance requirements.
|
| The drug testing requirement for delivery drivers isn't
| necessarily a moral imperative from management. It's a condition
| of their insurance requirements. The article touches on this:
|
| > Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants,
| concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the
| many states where weed use remains illegal.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| Or perhaps they are underwriting their own insurance. Once
| companies get big enough, it makes more sense for them to hold
| onto the premiums themselves and just pay an insurance company
| to administer the paperwork.
| BEEdwards wrote:
| Other places that don't' drug test and you'll probably be paid
| better and not work in sweatshop like conditions - most office
| jobs...
| hughrr wrote:
| I can't wait for Amazon to deliver a van through my fence.
| paulie4542 wrote:
| Or some kids crossing a street.
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| It's a good thing they screen applicants to make sure none of
| them have used alcohol in the last month. Imagine -- hiring
| someone who _drinks alcohol_ for a driving job. The
| irresponsibility would be truly unthinkable.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Rationality has left the building.
| richrichardsson wrote:
| Why don't you want to think of the children?
| tartoran wrote:
| How about not feeding children with junk food at school
| cafeterias? How about providing them with real education
| rather than learning to pass tests? How about not priming
| and bombarding children with advertising? The list goes
| on, there's a lot of work to do.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Why don't you want to think of the most realistic risks
| to children, but choose to perpetrate stereotypes and
| myths based on 19th century racist propaganda?
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| I was continuing the facetiousness :/
| [deleted]
| sp332 wrote:
| There's a difference between recreational use and driving under
| the influence.
| hughrr wrote:
| I haven't met someone who knows that yet.
| sp332 wrote:
| You haven't _noticed_ meeting the ones who do.
| hughrr wrote:
| But statistically the number of people who don't know is
| enough to cause untold despair, injury, death and
| sadness. So fuck anyone for having the self propelled
| arrogance to make that decision on behalf of victims.
| Horticulture wrote:
| Right, because anybody who consumes cannabis must be doing it
| all the time and willing to drive under the influence.
| hughrr wrote:
| Some do. The guy who left his car upside down in my front
| garden after rolling the car through my fence ended up being
| prosecuted for it.
| tartoran wrote:
| Good. I'm not condoning driving while the influence but why
| should we put the occasional, the one puffer before going
| to bed or the responsible pot smoker in the same box with
| the irresponsible abusers?
| samizdis wrote:
| I'm not sure how one might reliably assess/assert impairment for
| a cannabis user. Traces can last for weeks and result in positive
| tests (blood analysis), even if the user isn't remotely stoned at
| the time. Don't know whether there's a breath test nowadays that
| indicates use in the past n hours, which might give a better idea
| of likely impairment.
| nmstoker wrote:
| It's not an idea I've explored seriously in any depth, but it
| seems like testing for capabilities required for a specific
| task might be a way to go here over actual drug tests.
|
| Thus if it's determined that people need a certain reaction
| time to drive safely, that could be one thing tested.
|
| Clearly setting the levels and the particular capabilities
| might well be contentious, but by aligning the test(s) with
| what's needed for the task it's fairer and in certain ways more
| robust: for instance, you could be under the threshold for
| alcohol/cannabis but if you combine that with legal medicines
| that cause drowsiness or simply happen to be extremely sleep
| deprived, you might pass a traditional test but the combined
| effects would lead one to fail a capability test.
|
| It also helps in other ways too, such as fairly treating older
| people - you might be a sharp 75 year old and yet come up
| against some age limit. This let's you continue so long as you
| maintain the capabilities. Then if things start to change it's
| clear and takes some of the awkwardness out of the discussion
| about whether one is still fit for a job.
|
| Of course the risk is that people are pseudoscientific or
| arbitrary in setting the capabilities to a level that doesn't
| align. We've all seen the unrealistic hiring prerequisites that
| managers ask for if left to decide (must have ten years
| experience of XYZ!) In the wrong hands these could be used
| unfairly (eg setting totally unrealistic levels precisely to
| screen out groups they don't want).
| cwkoss wrote:
| "Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the
| risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased
| after marijuana use13--in a few cases, the risk doubled or
| more than doubled.14-16 However, a large case-control study
| conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety
| Administration found no significant increased crash risk
| attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers' age,
| gender, race, and presence of alcohol."
|
| from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-
| reports/mari...
|
| I wonder how much marijuana actually contributes to crashes.
| I think people can certainly get too high to drive, but
| unlike alcohol which lowers inhibitions, being 'too high'
| could even increase inhibitions somewhat (more anxiety,
| paranoia), so I'd expect people too high to drive are much
| less likely to get behind the wheel than drunk people. I
| certainly buy that 0.1% BAC + marijuana is probably worse
| than 0.1% BAC alone, but I'm curious what a just legal limit
| would be in comparison to 0.08% BAC regulations. What BTHCC
| produces equivalent impairment to 0.08% BAC, and how does
| that interact with THC tolerance?
|
| Are people who consume thc multiple times per day worse
| drivers than people who never consume thc, when both groups
| are sober? I'd imagine there is a tolerance effect where
| stoned frequent-users are better drivers than stoned
| infrequent-users.
|
| Would be interesting to try to make a cabinet arcade-style
| driving game that would accurately predict actual-road
| driving ability. Could even be used as a tool to demonstrate
| the dangers of drunk driving by putting it into bars and
| letting people try when above the legal limit (definitely
| some dangers of giving people good scores when they perform
| well while drunk though...)
| indymike wrote:
| My company fixes recruiting process and software problems. Hats
| off to Amazon for this. I probably have the pot smoker
| conversation about once a month, usually with a 50-something or
| older executive that is running a factory short-staffed.
|
| Pot is radioactive for many employers because insurance discounts
| and employment regulations are stuck in the "Refer Madness" era
| (Refer Madness was a propaganda film about the dangers of pot).
| So, employers face two surprises: increasing liability, workers
| comp and other insurance AND potentially, "hi we're from a
| government agency and under regulation XYZ 202 sub paragraph
| 293888 you need to drug test and immediately fire those that
| flunk or we will fine you. Have a happy day!"
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > 50-something or older executive
|
| Do you mean to imply or assume that 50-somethings are
| unfamiliar with marijuana? It was already common for Baby
| Boomers, who are older than that.
|
| What happens is that open-minded, pot-smoking 20-somethings
| think 50-somethings are close-minded and ignorant. Then 30
| years later many of those 20-somethings are the exact same as
| their predecessors. Instead of dismissing the older generation,
| the 20-somethings might consider how they will avoid that fate.
| mLuby wrote:
| > My company fixes recruiting process and software problems.
| Hats off to Amazon for this. I probably have the pot smoker
| conversation about once a month, usually with a 50-something
| or older executive that is running a factory short-staffed.
|
| Reading between the lines, the exec is _trying_ to hire more
| workers for their factory, and wants to know if they can
| _stop_ testing for marijuana so they 'll be able to hire more
| workers. To which the poster, who has recurring experience
| with this issue, must (unfortunately) recommend against it
| because of the reasons they enumerate.
|
| Or maybe it was just a close-minded, ignorant ageist comment.
| Better to assume positive intent though.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I asked, I didn't assume anything.
| jack_riminton wrote:
| Some of the comments are assuming that all those who smoke pot
| are irresponsible or unable to do a job if they do smoke pot
| (this includes people who may only smoke at weekends/parties btw)
| samstave wrote:
| Some of the smartest people I have worked with smoked pot daily
| and before work. one is a head of engineering at netflix,
| another a head of IT at a big firm...
|
| some of the highest performers I have ever worked with, and pot
| was a daily for them.
| abledon wrote:
| i think for a small % pot will have a positive impact, but in
| general there is a reason it is considered a recreational
| drug. If you put 1000 linux kernel developers in a stadium,
| do they do better work sober, or if the stadium is hotboxed
| with some exotic kush. (maybe 5%, 10% see gains... but does
| the majority receive buffs to their concentration, analytical
| skills and memory?)
|
| Maybe the question has a different outcome if you're
| measuring a stadium full of Designers with Adobe Illustrator
| open, trying to brainstorm how a logo looks?
| bjourne wrote:
| And many top politicians, business executives, authors,
| producers, and musicians were alcoholics. Your claim of
| having met high performing pot smokers is meaningless.
| [deleted]
| hughrr wrote:
| A larger portion of them are from experience of hiring and
| being around people who smoke it. I would not employ someone
| who does because of those people. I have horror stories a mile
| long.
|
| I know this is unpopular on internet news sites but I assure
| you that your social reputation isn't that great if you smoke
| the stuff generally and that's not going to change because of
| the propensity of people to be unreliable or dicks. The only
| thing that's faulty is your perception of it.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Hmm. This is a tough one. Do you think those people come off
| unreliable because they use cannabis, or would it be more
| likely that they, for example, suffer from a(n undiagnosed)
| medical condition such as PTSD or ADHD, which tend to make
| them a bit unreliable at times, but which cannabis treats so
| that the person is in fact more reliable when constantly
| high?
| hughrr wrote:
| I knew some of them before they started using it. It's
| almost entirely the cannabis. Including the dude now in
| psychiatric care after it kicked his schizophrenia hard.
|
| Everyone was promoted it as harmless. It's not. I'm seeing
| lives wrecked.
|
| And yes I know alcohol is bad. But I see less long term
| damage from that as most people seem to grow out of
| alcoholism I have know. Cannabis not so much - it becomes
| the primary thing they live for and around. All
| conversation ends up on it.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| I think your viewpoint might be biased -- do you know any
| people who haven't had their lives wrecked because of
| cannabis?
|
| Is cannabis legal where you live? Criminality causes
| stress and paranoia.
|
| Are you living in a heavily Christian environment? Asking
| because in heavily religious environments, schizophrenia
| with religious illusions often occurs as a result of
| internal conflict between sin-programming and self-
| perception.
|
| Is cannabis socially accepted or are people forced to
| choose between cannabis and other people? Social
| exclusion has in some studies been ranked more stressful
| than getting raped, so some sort of social PTSD can be
| expected to develop in these kind of environments to
| those who get excluded.
| hughrr wrote:
| I am in my late 40s. Most of the proponents are a lot
| younger. They haven't seen the impact it has on them
| until they get older. That's not bias.
|
| As for other points I'm an atheist with zero religious
| values at all. I have used it myself as well. And I'm in
| a country in a city where no one gives a crap. I'm about
| as unbiased as you can get.
|
| As for sins, I'm a pretty big fan of them as whole.
|
| The issue here is with the perception that it is harmless
| which it is definitely not.
| wordsarelies wrote:
| Do something that alters your baseline consciousness long
| enough and it becomes your baseline. Doing anything over
| a long period of time with regularity will change you.
|
| You have definitely met pot smokers who have, and do live
| perfectly normal lives because their baseline is better.
| You probably have no idea who they are.
| hughrr wrote:
| My nose says otherwise.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| It is also very possible for cannabis to be an
| improvement to the baseline. There are many, many people
| who could not function in society and work for their
| living without cannabis, be it due to MS-related
| spasticity, PTSD-related hypervigilance, ADHD-related
| need for stimulation, autoimmune-related inflammation,
| difficult to treat eating disorders such as anorexia and
| ARFID, or just plain old chronic pain -- and about about
| it not working for pain, it does work for some, why
| should they be denied?
| crazy_horse wrote:
| There are lots of people you don't know that smoke pot
| regularly and you can't tell. I promise you.
| tartoran wrote:
| Yes there are but they probably aren't very high, they're
| most likely toking as in slightly buzzed if we were
| comparing it alcohol. I guess you'd notice drunk people and
| you'd notice very high pot smokers. But would you mind a
| coworker having a glass of wine for lunch?
|
| There are long term pot smokers whose intake is very large
| but whose tolerance has risen such that when they consume
| they're quite functional. They are usually easy to spot
| though...
| oxymoran wrote:
| And also clearly have never been high enough to realize that
| they are more likely to be super paranoid and going 10 miles
| under the speed limit than driving through a fence or running
| over children. It's not at all comparable to being drunk.
| bserge wrote:
| No, please. I've seen high driving first hand several times.
| Once after the guy literally told me "it doesn't affect me at
| all". Proceeded to drive over the kerb and get into the wrong
| lane.
|
| It is _very_ comparable to being drunk. Some people _can_ in
| fact handle it, many cannot and severely overestimate their
| abilities.
| fhood wrote:
| tbf it's possible he was just a crap driver. Either way,
| while I would never recommend it, I think it is misleading
| to call it "very comparable". Anecdotally I would say that
| cannabis impairs quick decision making, and reaction time
| while driving, and possibly also makes the driver more
| prone to distraction but I am less sure about that one.
| Alcohol does both of the first two things, and to a much
| greater extent, while also obliterating fine motor control,
| as well as impacting judgement and perception of speed
| among other things.
|
| So in my completely anecdotal opinion, weed bad, alcohol
| worse were driving is concerned.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| hughrr wrote:
| That's bullshit. Someone rolled their car into my front
| garden at 70+ mph in a 30 mph limit on it.
|
| The only good thing was it was at 3AM so there was no one
| around on a normally busy street to get wiped out.
|
| And your whole attitude of irrational justification of it
| says you're probably not capable of making a rational
| judgement about whether or not you should drive.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Anecdote is not data.
| hughrr wrote:
| That's also bullshit. This went into the stats here. Thus
| is data.
| haswell wrote:
| Since when is asking for data considered bullshit? So
| far, you've only provided anecdotes.
|
| I assume you know what the parent comment meant when
| talking about "data".
|
| Don't get me wrong - no one should drive while impaired,
| period. But offering anecdotes in lieu of data is
| generally not helpful.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| It was 3 AM, they were drunk
| hughrr wrote:
| No they weren't. Apologists everywhere.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Your comment is an equally bad generalization.
|
| It's easy to get distracted and then focus on that
| distraction while high. That's not conducive to safe driving.
| We don't want people mindlessly blowing through an
| intersection because they were fixating on how the wind was
| making the tarp on the truck in front of them flutter.
| JshWright wrote:
| Driving high is still driving impaired. The failure modes may
| be different, but that doesn't mean someone who is high is
| safe to drive.
|
| I'm not sure what the point of your comment is though, as I
| don't think anyone is suggesting that these drivers will
| actually be high while driving. Rather, they are people that
| use marijuana recreationally and would test positive for THC,
| disqualifying them from many jobs (despite the fact that
| urine THC levels do not corelate with how "high" someone is).
| wordsarelies wrote:
| Driving high is like driving as a grandma.
|
| You're hyper vigilant, looking everywhere, your reactions
| are delayed a little such as that of an 60 year old person,
| and you're definitely listening to speed "limit" as the
| maximum, and not as the average.
| bserge wrote:
| Yes that third one is a huge problem.
| batch12 wrote:
| When high, you are impaired and shouldn't be driving.
| Period.
| crazy_horse wrote:
| I don't disagree but being high is not a singular,
| impaired state.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Decades of exposure to intentionally misleading propaganda is
| difficult to ignore. It becomes a part of the worldview, making
| it hard to even think outside that box.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| True. But some part of that propaganda is from pot smokers
| themselves. Some enjoy the image of the laid-back happy
| carefree pothead. Their cult leaders (used to be) Cheech and
| Chong.
|
| Maybe they've just bought in to someone elses' worldview. But
| I don't think so.
| ralfn wrote:
| There are a lot more people that do or have smoked pot,
| than those who base their identity on it. The cults were
| always a minority.
|
| It's like the difference between a commuter on bike here in
| the Netherlands (more than 30% of all trips) vs the handful
| of cyclists in spandex with some fragile unsafe bike
| wanking about how light their bike is.
|
| One is a cult, where it becomes part of someone's identity,
| one is just person trying to get to work.
|
| We should have the discipline to realize that the people
| carrying the flag of anything are the least likely to be
| true representatives of the thing.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| I'm willing to bet that the annoyance meme of spandex
| cyclists is intentionally amplified, possibly even
| created, by marketing agencies working for oil and car
| companies.
|
| I'm also willing to bet that Cheech & Chong et al. are
| manifestations of a similarly forced meme, with many
| industries funding the various "lazy brainless stoners".
|
| The exact same pattern can be found from nicotine vapes
| (the entire "vape nation" annoyance meme was definitely a
| graft), and probably a lot of other things.
|
| The point seems to be to control people socially by
| associating their habits with annoying qualities and
| fictional negative outcomes, superficially supported by
| anecdotes represented as scientific truth.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| Well no, there are serious health risk associated with weed.
| Maybe alcohol have them too, yes both deserve legality, but
| this is not to say it is "safe", especially in young.
| dls2016 wrote:
| "Maybe" alcohol has health consequences? Like 95,000 deaths
| per year?
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| Absolutely, i more made reference to how when somebody
| mention health impact of weed somebody else say
| "whatabout alcohol unhealthiness" as though it is
| relevant.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Of course it is relevant. Many of those 95,000 annual
| deaths would be preventable if a good variety of quality
| cannabis was more widely available and its use was more
| socially acceptable.
|
| I also believe such a paradigm shift would largely
| eradicate domestic violence.
| crazy_horse wrote:
| I had a grandfather die of alcoholism. I'd much rather
| smoke pot than drink alcohol and long term it's almost
| certainly safer from what we can tell.
|
| It's also hard to be productive drinking but pot can have
| the opposite effect.
| kodah wrote:
| There are health risks associated with THC:
|
| - the possibility of psychosis or schizophrenia in people
| 16-35 (https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/resources/
| Cannabis...)
|
| - the same risk that inhaling any combustible has
|
| - overeating
|
| - cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (https://www.cedars-
| sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-con...)
|
| For some people the benefits outweigh the risks, especially
| when practiced in moderation.
| jack_riminton wrote:
| True. Once things become 'cultural facts' they're hard to
| change. Another is explaining remote work to older
| generations, a lot of them just can't equate it to 'real
| work'
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| One more is explaining age discrimination to youngsters.
|
| Especially over the damn zoom time video since they don't
| show up for work.
| mazamats wrote:
| Age discrimination goes both ways, it's not just 40+
| workers that experience it
| ctvo wrote:
| You're on a tech focus site here.
|
| Age discrimination almost certainly goes one way in these
| cases. That's if you're above 40, and looking to join an
| early stage start-up, you'll find you're often not a
| culture fit.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| I agree.
| [deleted]
| tyingq wrote:
| We don't regulate alcohol use, and it's quite a lot more
| destructive for some. I don't get the specific puritanism for
| pot.
|
| Edit: Regulate as in drug testing for past use in an employment
| context, like what the story is talking about.
| phh wrote:
| I think you have it upside-down. It's tobacco and alcohol
| that have special treatment, not pot.
|
| My main guess for that special treatment is merely that
| tobacco and alcohol were global when we started taking care
| about global health issues, so we left them, but banned any
| newcomer
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| There are plenty of psychoactive substances on the shelves
| of any major supermarket and most of the stuff is
| completely unregulated.
|
| How is coffee different from tobacco? How is nutmeg or
| saffron different from drugs? How about artificial
| flavonoid--xanthine concoctions such as Red Bull?
| Cederfjard wrote:
| > How is coffee different from tobacco?
|
| The difference in effect on health is severe, for one?
| There's room for more nuance than "both of these are
| psychoactive substances".
| bjourne wrote:
| But we do regulate alcohol use... Severely...
| tyingq wrote:
| I did clarify with the edit.
| josefresco wrote:
| I'm not aware of many jobs that "drug" test for _any_ use
| of alcohol. Yet with cannabis this is considered
| acceptable.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Cannabis is a Schedule I drug. Alcohol is not.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Breathalyzers tests are a thing you know.
|
| And I don't know if companies do it but I know that
| monitoring Gamma GT levels of suspected alcoholics is a
| thing. It is a problem for those who have naturally elevated
| levels btw.
|
| What is unfortunate is that we don't have a good test for
| cannabis-related impairment. It is quite reliable for alcohol
| BAC is easy to test and correlates with impairment, but for
| cannabis, you don't really know if a person is completely
| stoned or if he has sobered up.
|
| But yeah, cannabis use is less tolerated than alcohol use,
| cultural reasons I guess. Plus, it is really difficult to
| control alcohol since pretty much anyone can turn staple food
| into alcohol at home.
| tyingq wrote:
| Yeah, I tried to cover that with "past use". They care if
| you're drunk at work. Which is different from pot, where
| many workplaces care if you're high at home.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >We don't regulate alcohol use,
|
| Yes we do. And it's a cash cow for the government so we're
| unlikely to stop anytime soon.
| jack_riminton wrote:
| Which country are you in?
|
| Alcohol is one of the most highly regulated substances on the
| planet.
|
| Also, no puritanism here, just facts about how people can use
| pot and remain completely in control (again, worth pointing
| out that someone can fail a pot drug test if they smoked it
| weeks ago)
| tyingq wrote:
| Meaning most people can drink alcohol without fear of being
| tested for past use in a work context. We don't regulate it
| in the workplace the way we regulate pot use.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| I dunno. Background checks include DUIs.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Every alcohol consumer has a DUI? Maybe in Wisconsin, but
| not in general
| selestify wrote:
| You don't get a DUI just for being drunk on the couch on
| the weekend, you have to also be operating a vehicle
| while drunk. Which is what the parent comment was talking
| about -- it's not regulated in the same way that pot
| usage is.
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| I'm keeping my camera ready for when Snoop Dogg brings me my
| package.
| jack_riminton wrote:
| When did HN start having such low quality comments?
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| What sort of intellectual dialog and witty repartee did you
| expect? I'm pretty sure that the guy at Amazon who decided to
| hire the potheads isn't going to win a Nobel.
| jack_riminton wrote:
| A debate about drug classification? An insight with data or
| maybe even an intelligent anecdote about the travails of
| hiring in modern day USA?
|
| Your comment wouldn't even get points on Reddit, it might
| get a "lol" on twitter
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Agreed. I see almost no intellectual curiosity and learn
| little these days. I'm only here because I hope it might
| change again.
| paulcole wrote:
| People who live in glass houses and all.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28338633
| wutbrodo wrote:
| I'm genuinely confused by this comment. Can you explain why
| you think speculation about the hardware costs of Waymo
| robotaxi is at all related to a complaint about silly jokes
| on HN?
| new_guy wrote:
| How about just having decent working conditions and paying a
| living wage? Amazon is cancer.
| missedthecue wrote:
| $15/hr is what populist politicians have been calling a living
| wage. What do you think they should pay?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Those are also good ideas, but you don't have to exclude pot
| smokers in order to implement them.
| honksillet wrote:
| One underappreciated aspect of this. They will ignore marijuana
| at time of hire. But they will absolutely test you if there is
| ever an accident or if you are injured at work (even if you just
| strain your back picking up a heavy object) before you see an
| occupational health doctor. If you come back positive in the
| course of injury, they won't cover your workers compensation
| bills. They'll fire you (for being intoxicated) and you'll have
| to cover your own medical expenses without access to workers comp
| coverage or the emoyee health plan (because you've been fired).
| bserge wrote:
| Take full advantage of the system. Smart. These people might
| never suffer no matter what changes, unless maybe there's some
| sort of purge.
| drewg123 wrote:
| _boost the number of job applicants by as much as 400%_
|
| Anybody else think they meant 420% ?
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| Damn, I always forget that drug testing is still a thing.
|
| If you were under the impression that Amazon & other companies
| are actually screening for cannabis use, you should realize that
| in any legal state they basically did everything they could to
| make sure their employees would not test positive. It's extremely
| hard to find people that would work minimum wage and are
| completely weed/drug free - especially if you need young,
| physically fit workers. Having higher turnover because you have
| to fire people after a while because of a drug test just means
| you have less experienced drivers.
|
| It's funny that, as the article points out, school bus driver
| jobs would outbid Amazon since that means that schools are having
| the same issue but really have no choice when it comes to drug
| testing and are generally more restrictive.
| outside1234 wrote:
| This company is just a nightmare. Seriously, do we really need
| more folks that smoke pot on the road?
| batch12 wrote:
| > Seriously, do we really need more folks that smoke pot on the
| road?
|
| Who cares if they smoke pot when not working. We don't need
| high/impaired people on the road.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| The hell kind of comment is this? Would you ask, "Do we really
| need more folks who drink beer on the road?"
|
| As long as they're not high/drunk when they're working, what's
| the issue?
| Shadonototro wrote:
| drug addicts who are willing to work like slaves with crappy
| salary only because they are so high to even reason about it
|
| not to mention the security risk
|
| nice society!
| jack_riminton wrote:
| Pot smokers are worlds apart from 'drug addicts', which i
| presume you're equating with opiates or other highly physically
| addictive substances
| Shadonototro wrote:
| yeap, so MURICA can legalize it first, secures the market,
| lobby "allies" into legalizing too, so it can become a global
| giant
|
| can't you see already the propaganda, the pro-'canabis' all
| around the world?
|
| a drug is a drug, my dear friend
|
| i seen many "pot" smoker in high school, they couldn't even
| concentrate properly during tests, they all failed miserable
| at society
|
| look, some even are being grabbed by amazon because nobody
| wants to work like a slave anymore, only pot smokers! who
| would have guessed!
| jack_riminton wrote:
| A 'drug' is whatever the law dictates is a 'drug'
|
| There's no reason why alcohol shouldn't be considered more
| dangerous than pot, especially considering the amount of
| road deaths it causes
| the_only_law wrote:
| > a drug is a drug, my dear friend
|
| Surely then, there's no difference between ibuprofen and
| fentanyl. After all, a drug is a drug.
| Shadonototro wrote:
| yeap, that is why they specifically say:
|
| > Ibuprofen can cause blurred vision, drowsiness, and
| dizziness. Do not drive or operate heavy machinery until
| you know how ibuprofen affects you
| Shadonototro wrote:
| i got downvoted for specifying a fact, i now understand
| why certain things gets to the frontpage ;)
| recursive wrote:
| And now you're getting downvoted for passive-aggressively
| complaining about downvotes. You can get downvoted for
| almost anything if you work at it.
| Shadonototro wrote:
| that's democracy right; 2 people get to choose what is
| the truth and what deserve to be hidden or censored
|
| propaganda is fine, as long as portfolio grows
| the_only_law wrote:
| Sounds like we need to start piss testing workers to make
| sure we aren't hiring any ibuprofen junkies then.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > a drug is a drug, my dear friend
|
| I don't think even you believe this, unless you're willing
| to bite the bullet of alcohol and coffee prohibition?
| They're the most central, widely-used drugs in the world,
| and after all, "a drug is a drug".
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| What an archaic and backwards viewpoint. Any state in the
| US where pot is legal, you can find plenty of responsible
| weed users, the same way you can find people who drink
| alcohol responsibly anywhere.
| Shadonototro wrote:
| show me your portfolio ;)
| black_13 wrote:
| Recruit the undead
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| The money quote:
|
| _Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants,
| concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the
| many states where weed use remains illegal. [...]
|
| "If one of my drivers crashes and kills someone and tests
| positive for marijuana, that's my problem, not Amazon's," said
| one_
|
| Amazon is just looking out for Number One and to hell with their
| so-called "partners." This isn't anything new.
|
| If I were an ADA prosecuting such a case, I'd charge Amazon as a
| co-conspirator.
| tyrfing wrote:
| One large brown delivery company also rarely drug tests. Drivers
| of school buses, semi trucks, and similar have federally mandated
| drug testing, non-CDL delivery drivers don't. Particularly when
| liability is transferred to contractors, the surprising part is
| that this wasn't the encouraged policy from the start.
|
| Also, any shortage is entirely self inflicted from offering poor
| wages.
| loudmax wrote:
| Amazon's delivery time targets are more likely to cause accidents
| than employing pot smokers. As long as their drivers are sober
| while they're driving, what they do on their own time shouldn't
| be a problem. What's likely to cause accidents is incentivizing
| drivers to ignore stop signs and run red lights so they can meet
| their delivery target metrics.
| mynegation wrote:
| Of course Amazon is watching out for their business interest, but
| they are doing the morally right thing here.
|
| I do not smoke anything as a personal preference and do not enjoy
| when second-hand smoke and smell affects me but I support
| legalization for the simple reason that criminalization of
| marijuana and stigmatization of pot smokers is much much worse.
| ffhhj wrote:
| Something I learned from a pot smoker: they sometimes mix it
| with other drugs for higher effects.
| zardo wrote:
| Sometimes I mix cannabis with more dangerous drugs like
| alcohol.
| Ms-J wrote:
| And what is your point?
|
| Everyone has the right to enjoy substances as she/he wants.
| bserge wrote:
| No way bruh, you should publish these findings!
| oblib wrote:
| Someone stuffing crack in a joint is not a "pot smoker".
| They're a crackhead using pot to burn their crack.
| crazy_horse wrote:
| Yes, add caffeine...
|
| Hippie speedball.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| I regularly mix cannabis with a super potent CNS depressant
| that I buy from a shifty young woman dressed as a waitress in
| my local bar.
| ChefboyOG wrote:
| Does CNN know about this?
| oblib wrote:
| I wouldn't work for Amazon even if they gave me weed to smoke.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-03 23:02 UTC)