I-49 in Arkansas

[edwaleni]

Colorado has an active THC field analyzer for DWUI cases.  After cannabis was made legal CHP started getting reports of excessively slow drivers on I-25 between Denver and Boulder.

For those who think you can avoid a THC toxicity test, most states permit a blood or saliva draw for DWUI.

Technically, all they need is a hair sample and they can tell if you have ingested THC in the past 30 days.

Sales of artificial genitalia with a urine holding sac are at all time highs, mostly for people who have to perform frequent/regular pee tests and need to pass.

Everyone has a choice. If intake is more important than a paycheck, by all means partake.

Now back to our regular programming on I-49

[vdeane]

Technically, all they need is a hair sample and they can tell if you have ingested THC in the past 30 days.

How does knowing someone ingested THC in the past 30 days tell you anything about whether they're high right now (which realistically would need to be proven for a DUI conviction)?

When what employees do off the clock affects their job performance and safety (e.g., drinking or getting high before their start time), it very much matters.  So, drug screenings at the workplace are highly appropriate.

That said, those that desire to work baked have various other professions they could pursue.

But still, it only matters if they're drunk or high at work (and therefore on the clock).  Employers shouldn't have a right to care what employees do if it doesn't affect work.  And that company that says "if any workers have to get screened, they all do" is especially ridiculous.

[Rothman]

Technically, all they need is a hair sample and they can tell if you have ingested THC in the past 30 days.

How does knowing someone ingested THC in the past 30 days tell you anything about whether they're high right now (which realistically would need to be proven for a DUI conviction)?

When what employees do off the clock affects their job performance and safety (e.g., drinking or getting high before their start time), it very much matters.  So, drug screenings at the workplace are highly appropriate.

That said, those that desire to work baked have various other professions they could pursue.

But still, it only matters if they're drunk or high at work (and therefore on the clock).  Employers shouldn't have a right to care what employees do if it doesn't affect work.  And that company that says "if any workers have to get screened, they all do" is especially ridiculous.

I am all for prescreenings of everyone rather than finding out after an incident someone had done a good job covering up their impaired state.

[bugo]

Which is why the KCS routing goes that way as railroads are far more grade sensitive.  So, Poteau has gotten as much road as it's ever going to get despite its being the same size as Greenwood, AR.

Poteau is getting a 4 lane OK 112, and the stretch of US 59 west of Spiro is being 4 laned, which will connect Poteau with I-40 west. Hopefully, a 4 lane between Heavener and Poteau will eventually happen.

[bugo]

I'd rather our truck drivers not have drug or alcohol issues...

Smoking a joint after work is not a "drug issue". The actual issue is the fact that they test for a mostly benign substance that stays in the system for months after all effects from the substance have long subsided.

[Scott5114]

Technically, all they need is a hair sample and they can tell if you have ingested THC in the past 30 days.

How does knowing someone ingested THC in the past 30 days tell you anything about whether they're high right now (which realistically would need to be proven for a DUI conviction)?

When what employees do off the clock affects their job performance and safety (e.g., drinking or getting high before their start time), it very much matters.  So, drug screenings at the workplace are highly appropriate.

That said, those that desire to work baked have various other professions they could pursue.

But still, it only matters if they're drunk or high at work (and therefore on the clock).  Employers shouldn't have a right to care what employees do if it doesn't affect work.  And that company that says "if any workers have to get screened, they all do" is especially ridiculous.

I am all for prescreenings of everyone rather than finding out after an incident someone had done a good job covering up their impaired state.

Might be justified for positions where a fuck-up means someone might actually get hurt, but it shouldn't be allowed just because Jerry the retail manager gets a power boner at the thought of controlling his cashiers' lives 24/7.

[bugo]

I agree completely. A decade + ago the model was amphetamines and Vicodin. Neither conducive to safe driving.

Actually, that is false, or at least it isn't true all the time. Amphetamines can make some drivers drive better, especially if they have ADHD. They help drivers concentrate on the road, and pay more attention to driving. Plus they help wake you up.

[Rothman]

Technically, all they need is a hair sample and they can tell if you have ingested THC in the past 30 days.

How does knowing someone ingested THC in the past 30 days tell you anything about whether they're high right now (which realistically would need to be proven for a DUI conviction)?

When what employees do off the clock affects their job performance and safety (e.g., drinking or getting high before their start time), it very much matters.  So, drug screenings at the workplace are highly appropriate.

That said, those that desire to work baked have various other professions they could pursue.

But still, it only matters if they're drunk or high at work (and therefore on the clock).  Employers shouldn't have a right to care what employees do if it doesn't affect work.  And that company that says "if any workers have to get screened, they all do" is especially ridiculous.

I am all for prescreenings of everyone rather than finding out after an incident someone had done a good job covering up their impaired state.

Might be justified for positions where a fuck-up means someone might actually get hurt, but it shouldn't be allowed just because Jerry the retail manager gets a power boner at the thought of controlling his cashiers' lives 24/7.

This I agree with.

[Bobby5280]

Keep in mind that you do live in a state with state-licensed medical marijuana. People with a medical marijuana card range from people who use it from time to time as needed (as I do, for insomnia) to people whose quality of life is greatly negatively impacted without it (my wife, who has chronic migraine so bad that before she was on cannabis she usually missed work one or two days a week).

We've been seeing the issue of applicants walking off due to the drug/alcohol policy long before marijuana was legalized on a medical basis.

Our sign company doesn't have the random screening policy in place just to be puritanical jerks over drinking and drug use. We have to comply with federal law. Nation-wide, anyone with a CDL has to be clean and sober, able to pass a drug/alcohol screening. A state can legalize marijuana on a medical or recreational basis, but that still does not change the situation with federal regulations for people who drive big rig trucks, crane trucks, school buses, etc.

Years ago our company only required employees who drove the crane trucks to be subject to drug/alcohol screenings. It turned into a pretty big morale problem. Anyone who operated a crane truck was held to one standard while everyone else could do whatever they wanted. Some staff members quit over the situation.

Colorado has an active THC field analyzer for DWUI cases.  After cannabis was made legal CHP started getting reports of excessively slow drivers on I-25 between Denver and Boulder.

Lawton has an epidemic of excessively slow drivers. What I consider excessively slow is 15-20mph under the posted speed limit. Some of the problem could be drug use. Some other cases are elderly drivers who no longer have the cognitive skills to drive with the flow of traffic. And we have plenty of others on the road who are just assholes who enjoy obstructing the flow of traffic.

Sales of artificial genitalia with a urine holding sac are at all time highs, mostly for people who have to perform frequent/regular pee tests and need to pass.

One of my former co-workers was busted trying smuggle someone else's pee into Allied Labs during a random screening. He didn't count on them doing a temperature check of the sample. Even fake "junk" with a sac holding another urine sample isn't going to work all that accurately for keeping the sample at a correct temperature. People operating the labs are aware of the various schemes people use to bring pee from someone else into the building.

Smoking a joint after work is not a "drug issue". The actual issue is the fact that they test for a mostly benign substance that stays in the system for months after all effects from the substance have long subsided.

Smoking a joint after work is a pretty big legal problem if that worker is operating a potentially dangerous piece of machinery, such as a big rig truck, and is involved in an accident where other people are hurt or killed. It's 100% likely that worker will be drug tested as part of the accident investigation. If his piss test comes back hot then the lawyers are going to have one hell of a field day suing the crap out of the company. If the employer is a small business the legal action may put it completely out of business and all of its workers out of their jobs.

[Scott5114]

Our sign company doesn't have the random screening policy in place just to be puritanical jerks over drinking and drug use. We have to comply with federal law.

Federal law can be unjust. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it should be.

Years ago our company only required employees who drove the crane trucks to be subject to drug/alcohol screenings. It turned into a pretty big morale problem. Anyone who operated a crane truck was held to one standard while everyone else could do whatever they wanted. Some staff members quit over the situation.

It sounds like your coworkers are babies. In a company of any size, different job titles have different responsibilities and different expectations. At the casino, the security guards were allowed to carry tasers or even guns, and the cashiers like me weren't. They also had to be CLEET certified and we didn't, though. And the cashiers had to take a more thorough certification on money-laundering law than the housekeepers did. Everyone understood this to be fair because all of us had different job responsibilities.

If crane man didn't like that he had to get drug tested and the graphic designer didn't, he should transfer to the graphic designer position when it comes open.

[bugo]

The laws need to change. The problem isn't with weed, its with the law.

[Plutonic Panda]

We clearly don't have to comply with federal law given the fact that we don't, we tax it, and violate federal so that argument is thrown out the window. There is nothing wrong with smoking a joint after work regardless of what your profession is. Get with the times!

[jbnv]

We clearly don't have to comply with federal law given the fact that we don't, we tax it, and violate federal so that argument is thrown out the window. There is nothing wrong with smoking a joint after work regardless of what your profession is. Get with the times!

I'd love to watch you tell your employer that.

[silverback1065]

can we talk about roads and not weed? 

[MikieTimT]

can we talk about roads and not weed? 

Please!  I don't care about it one way or the other as long as matter doesn't try to occupy space already occupied by other matter.

[J N Winkler]

This is a gentle suggestion that the ins and outs of workplace alcohol and drug testing and its effects on safety, including on the roads, are much broader than I-49 in Arkansas and deserve their own thread.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone think any of us will see a completed Interstate 49 between New Orleans, LA and Kansas City, MO within our lifetimes? Considering how long it will take to complete 49 between Interstates 30 and 40, and how slowly the upgrades are coming to US 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans, I would say no.

[Bobby5280]

Does anyone think any of us will see a completed Interstate 49 between New Orleans, LA and Kansas City, MO within our lifetimes? Considering how long it will take to complete 49 between Interstates 30 and 40, and how slowly the upgrades are coming to US 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans, I would say no.

My own guess is it will take another 10 years just to get I-49 completed in the Fort Smith area. That guess is based on how long it took for the Belle Vista Bypass to be completed. It may take another 30 years after that to get it built down to Texarkana. That is unless the federal and state governments re-vamp how they go about building highways.

I-49 South between Lafayette and New Orleans could actually get completed faster. The toughest part is getting through Lafayette and the clutter South of it. I figure that portion may be done in 10 years, barring any last minute curve balls get thrown. But it will be another 20 or so years for I-49 to be completed to the West Bank Expressway. Funny thing: the West Bank Expressway is getting close to 40 years old. Much of it will have to be re-built in the not so distant future.

I don't know what to think about the Shreveport ICC. It could get done before the end of this decade if the opposition got out of the way.

Federal law can be unjust. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it should be.

Our company cannot disregard the law regardless if we are or are not in favor of it. Add to that the fact the United States is home to the majority of the world's attorneys. One figure I saw was that the US has 70% of the world's lawyers. They're all out there trying to make a living, looking for people and businesses to sue.

Every freaking night on our local evening news the station airs commercials from 3 or more law firms asking viewers if they've been in an accident with a commercial truck. Given this reality our company must do its best to cover its ass. If that means random screening all employees to make sure anyone driving a crane truck is clean then so be it. We cannot change our policies until the laws change and the courtroom situation changes. It doesn't look like that will happen any time soon. If anything, I figure more regulations and laws will be piled on to add to the burden. All it takes is one high profile accident involving a truck and the driver doing something he shouldn't have been doing.

It sounds like your coworkers are babies.

No, not really. They just figure it's bull$#!+ if they have to comply to one standard and another co-worker can do drugs at home or even come to work drunk or high and not be subject to any scrutiny.

[US71]

Does anyone think any of us will see a completed Interstate 49 between New Orleans, LA and Kansas City, MO within our lifetimes? Considering how long it will take to complete 49 between Interstates 30 and 40, and how slowly the upgrades are coming to US 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans, I would say no.

Whose lifetime? Yours, maybe. Mine, probably not.

[Plutonic Panda]

No, not really. They just figure it's bull$#!+ if they have to comply to one standard and another co-worker can do drugs at home or even come to work drunk or high and not be subject to any scrutiny.

Except no one is advocating for allowing coworkers to come into work drunk or high.

[Bobby5280]

It's still a double standard. The legal situation with truck/bus drivers having to abstain entirely from drugs is not going to change until truly reliable methods are developed to determine how high someone is at the time of an accident or arrest. We're not there yet, particularly for anything that will stand up in court.

[NE2]

Many of the same employers that fire you for being high make you show up when you're sick to the point of vomiting. Man flu is a hell of a drug.

[jbnv]

Does anyone think any of us will see a completed Interstate 49 between New Orleans, LA and Kansas City, MO within our lifetimes? Considering how long it will take to complete 49 between Interstates 30 and 40, and how slowly the upgrades are coming to US 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans, I would say no.

It could get done if the Louisiana and Arkansas Congressional delegations would grow a pair and demand that infrastructure bills fund actual specific projects, not just block grants to states. I've commented on the infrastructure money in the Louisiana I-49 threads so I won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that we're giving the states these big piles of money and trusting them to spend it responsibly. That's trust I don't have in the Louisiana Legislature.

[MikieTimT]

Does anyone think any of us will see a completed Interstate 49 between New Orleans, LA and Kansas City, MO within our lifetimes? Considering how long it will take to complete 49 between Interstates 30 and 40, and how slowly the upgrades are coming to US 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans, I would say no.

It could get done if the Louisiana and Arkansas Congressional delegations would grow a pair and demand that infrastructure bills fund actual specific projects, not just block grants to states. I've commented on the infrastructure money in the Louisiana I-49 threads so I won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that we're giving the states these big piles of money and trusting them to spend it responsibly. That's trust I don't have in the Louisiana Legislature.

Otherwise, Arkansas would just blow 45% of anything on Little Rock with probably 20% on NWA and 10% on NEA with the remainder of the state getting the scraps.

[Tomahawkin]

Downtown Little Rock is dead? What the hell happened there? It seems like NWA will continue to attract new residents from the left coast and Texas. IMO, Little Rock isn't as attractive a place to move to in comparison to NWA. It wasn't like that 30+ years ago