Let us just say you are somehow different. That could be possible, and I do not want to question your experience. So great! You are not impaired.

That is simply not helpful or viable from a policy point of view.

When we regulate, we need legal tests and policy applicable to people in a very broad sense, or what we get is a mess that does us no real good.

I have known exceptions to the rule myself. People who can perform having had booze, pot, other drugs.

Always hard to tell whether their baseline, sober capability is exceptional enough to present normally with drugs on board, or their response to the drug is simply different.

Fair? I think so.

And those people can manage their use, function and pass tests too. Cannabis users cannot and that is a problem we have no easy answers to right now.

Sadly, being the exception to the rule really does us all no good when it comes to policy.

Fact is, barring very few people, using THC impairs that user.

Benadryl does the same thing, and in my State people can get a DUI on Benadryl. Sadly, they can also get one being a little too tired and having failed a THC test because they hit a binger last weekend too.

This is all a difficult problem to solve.

It should deffo be off Schedule 1

However, even a full federal legalization would leave us with the testing dilemma I described above. That might be one reason it is still on schedule.

But, say Feds went full legal. Workers comp would still be a big issue because they cannot determine fault, and best case would charge employers accordingly, meaning most would continue their harsh policy, leaving us right where this discussion started.

Opiates, booze, other things flush out and are testable in ways cannabis just is not. And that is a major league policy problem.