Katherine Mangu-Ward | October 25, 2007
The
bad kids in the back of the bus are now getting blamed for the
bad grown-up in the front of the bus' drug test results.
A Bradenton bus driver might be losing her job for failing a urine test, which showed that she had smoked marijuana. And she's blaming the students.
Rosemary Pevy says that any marijuana in her system could only have come from students who were smoking at the bus stop or on her bus.
Kicker:
Pevy has not been driving for the school district since the failed drug test, which resulted from her involvement in a traffic accident.
In other news, the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case is being turned into a major motion picture.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Unfortunately for this bus driver the WODs won't swallow the
bilge water over second hand smoke the quaff over at the War On
Truth Tobacco. Sitting in rooms filled with smoke so
dense you can't see from one end to the other for hours a a time
doesn't expose you to a fraction of one drag inhaled directly into
your lungs.
In other news, the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case is being turned into a
major motion picture TV movie for the 9 PM Thursday
slot.
Corrected it for you.
My sister is tested regularly; she works in the liquor distribution industry. They swab her cheek. She told me that in order to test positive, she'd have to spend 4 hours in a closet full of non-stop smoking potheads. My reply -- what a wonderful place to be!
In other news, the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case is being turned
into a major motion picture TV movie for the 9 PM
Thursday slot.
I always figured they'd put it on SciFi, with a big CGI'd supreme
court justice unearthed by unwary villagers in a remote Alaska
town, picking off the townsfolk one by one. I can just see the ads
"Alitosaurus! A SciFi original movie, this Saturday at 9, on the
Most Dangerous Night of Television®"
I prefer Soul Coughing's Bus To Beelzebub, which seems quite appropriate for this story.
Rosemary Pevy says that any marijuana in her system could
only have come from students who were smoking at the bus stop or on
her bus.
I know this is kind of obvious, but...
She lets the students smoke pot on the bus?!?
She must have gone to the O.J. Simpson Institute for Stupid
Alibis.
Has the concept of "positive" been set at a specific ppm or does
"positive" move with the improved sensitivity of the tests? The
reason that this is relevant is that while the closet full of
potheads may have been necessary 10 years ago, maybe the bus full
of potheads is enough today.
I think that it is more likely that she deliberately ingested it
herself or she unwittingly ate some of Alice B's brownies, but
someday the tests are going to be sensitive enough to easily detect
second hand exposure. Does anybody trust the drug warriors to set a
ppm level so that the tests don't register "positive" for
environmental exposure?
She lets the students smoke pot on the bus?!?
Considering what it's like on most school buses, I can appreciate
the kids' need for something to help them relax and the drivers'
willingness to allow anything which will calm the little sobs
down.
She lets the students smoke pot on the bus?!?
"Has the concept of "positive" been set at a specific ppm or
does "positive" move with the improved sensitivity of the tests?
The reason that this is relevant is that while the closet full of
potheads may have been necessary 10 years ago, maybe the bus full
of potheads is enough today."
It's not a positive/negative test. It's more like parts-per-million
with a pre-determined number of parts considered to be okay.
She is almost certainly lying. The tests aren't that sensitive.
And if she were telling the truth, it would mean that there was a
hell of a lot of pot smoking going on on her bus, which
gets her out of the frying pan and into the other, larger, hotter
frying pan.
I sincerely hope she didn't come up with this defense under the
advice of an attorney.
Rimfax,
The problem with where to set the ppm isn't about secondhand smoke,
it's that you can pop positive two weeks after getting high. But
that's where the WOD has taken us. If you've ever ever ever, even
once, smoked a joint, then you can't be trusted to drive our
precious children, or go to college. You can be trusted to carry an
M-16 and fire artillery. You can even be President, but only if you
didn't inhale.
"If you've ever ever ever, even once, smoked a joint, then you
can't be trusted to drive our precious children, or go to college.
You can be trusted to carry an M-16 and fire artillery."
Which is why my friend (name redacted) choses to work for
European-based companies. No piss tests.
Depending on your metabolism and the amount of body fat you have. You can test positive for THC if you smoked within a month, sometimes more. This means that if someone gets in an accident and then tests positive for THC because they smoked weeks ago, they can be charged with DUI. that's where those crazy statistics about how many accidents are caused by marijuana come from. 1 in 3 people smoke weed, so 1 in three accidents are caused by weed. Perfect drug warrior logic.
The bus driver is correct in blaming 'the children', though not
how she's making it out to be. Drug warriors are always saying the
WOD is necessary for 'the children'. She is being oppressed due to
a drug war policy. Therefore, she is being oppressed because of
'the children'.
Lying to protect yourself from drug war bullshit is the right thing
to do. Too bad her lie wasn't good enough.
I'm considering making a citizen's arrest of the previous poster
for impersonating the President. He is Commander-in-Chief, so it's
like impersonating a general, but not sure how I can make an arrest
online.
If I were her, I would get a prescription for medical marijuana
ASAP. She must have something wrong with her that a little pot
could alleviate.
I know they were smoking weed. I saw them doing it when I went to one of them to buy my crack.
I'm glad the wonderful phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" will be around a little while longer.
I'm considering making a citizen's arrest of the previous
poster for impersonating the President. He is Commander-in-Chief,
so it's like impersonating a general, but not sure how I can make
an arrest online.
You get him to open
this link.
Then read him his rights.
No possibility of a false positive on the test?
Nah. Crime labs and drug testing firms are like the pontiff.
Infallible.
i was kinda hopin' this would go more like "man the kids were so crazy i had to smoke weed just to calm down."
. . . or go to college. You can be trusted to carry an M-16 and
fire artillery. You can even be President, but only if you didn't
inhale.
Today you could only be President.
This is the result of people NOT STANDING UP AND REFUSING to
take these total invasions of privacy. I know people need a job,
but what is your honor and dignity worth? Some job, which may be
outsourced a month or year from now? When are people going to say
enough of this bs?
The war on some drugs is the new inquisition on the bad ol' hippies
for ruining the Vietnam War and having such a great time during the
70's. In your face drug warriors, you will never win and the 70's
were freakin' awesome.
Sitting in rooms filled with smoke so dense you
can't see from one end to the other for hours a a time
doesn't expose you to a fraction of one drag
inhaled directly into your lungs.
Warren, when you are sneering at the hyperbole of anti-smoking
activists, you might want to be a bit less hyperbolic
Some job, which may be outsourced a month or year from
now
where are they going to outsource driving a schoolbus to?
rooms filled with smoke so dense you can't see from one end to
the other
parse, for some that's not really hyperbole
rooms filled with smoke so dense you can't see from one end
to the other
parse, for some that's not really hyperbole
jgray, do you really think if you sat in such a room for hours, you
wouldn't be exposed to a fraction of one drag inhaled directly?
(Think about the meaning of the word "fraction" before you
answer.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245