RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition

RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/22/2011 8:31:34 PM)
Obama must continue all profit centers and the 'war on drugs' is a very good, perpetual war, so...perpetual profits. The nation with the world's largest population behind bars (dominated by small drug users) will become the world's largest private for-profit jailer and may already be just that. Imagine that great free-market [sic] incentive. Soon, anybody...everybody will be targeted.

tazzygirl -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/22/2011 8:49:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: outhere69 Legalization won't help much if employers still ban it. Very good point.

DarkSteven -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/22/2011 9:08:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine First off, Obomba - the hypocritical former pot-smoker - needs to stop arresting sick people that are using it. This bill, like the hundreds of other similar proposals introduced before it, is going no where. Actually, Obama ordered the DEA to consider marijuana use to be its absolute last priority in states where its use is legal, in November 2009. That set off an overnight exploding industry in Colorado. Our idiot legislators managed to pass enough laws (HB 1284) that most of the legal growing has gone illegal again since. Obama has opened the door, but didn't stay consistent with it.

SternSkipper -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/22/2011 9:17:43 PM)
quote: Legalization won't help much if employers still ban it. Oh, I doubt that... tell me how they are penalizing people who imbibe legal substances such as alcohol.

tazzygirl -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/22/2011 9:26:02 PM)
I think they may be referring to the length of time it remains in your system as opposed to alcohol. Get popped with a drug test at work and you are out the door if its against their policy.

provfivetine -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/22/2011 9:56:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine First off, Obomba - the hypocritical former pot-smoker - needs to stop arresting sick people that are using it. This bill, like the hundreds of other similar proposals introduced before it, is going no where. Actually, Obama ordered the DEA to consider marijuana use to be its absolute last priority in states where its use is legal, in November 2009. That set off an overnight exploding industry in Colorado. Our idiot legislators managed to pass enough laws (HB 1284) that most of the legal growing has gone illegal again since. Obama has opened the door, but didn't stay consistent with it. Yes, this is correct. I understand that part of the blame lies with Eric Holder on this issue. However, when considering the power of executive order, I think it is okay to blame Obama for the re-occurring raids - since they could stop instantaneously at his say so.

Termyn8or -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/22/2011 10:13:38 PM)
"First off, Obomba - the hypocritical former pot-smoker - needs to stop arresting sick people that are using it. " Who is sick ? My crowd ? Wanna rumble ? What's more the cops around here are so fucking tired of pot busts that they won't even touch you for less than a pound. What federal jurisdiction ? If nobody makes the phone call, it means shit. Get it straight folks, goddamn almost everything you do is against the law somehow. Live with it, adapt. I don't give a shit what any law says because it is a moot point unless they find out, and they won't find out unless they want to find out. While you were discussing this, what else did they do ? How much did they steal that fifteen minutes ? How much more wealth have they sucked out of your very being during that time ? T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/22/2011 10:18:29 PM)
"Oh, I doubt that... tell me how they are penalizing people who imbibe legal substances such as alcohol." Don't be ignorant. You are clear of alcohol the next day unless you really overdid. Cocaine in three days, heroin in a few days. Those drugs make some people untrustable. They will steal to get it. The only reason they test for cannibas is because they can and it fits their money pile building strategy. Very few people would even consider stealing to get it, almost nobody gets violent on it. It does not make someone wreckless driving unless they are an airhead already. But they can detect it and make money because of that. T^T

Kana -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/22/2011 10:18:42 PM)
"Det. Ellis Carver: What he means to say is that we are effective deterrent in the war on drugs when we are on the street. Det. Thomas Hauk: Fucking motherfuckers up. Det. Ellis Carver: Indeed. Det. Thomas Hauk: Fuck the paperwork. Collect bodies, split heads. Det. Ellis Carver: Split 'em wide. Det. Thomas Hauk: The Western District way. Det. Ellis Carver: A'ight. Shakima Greggs: You rogue motherfuckers kill me. Fighting the war on drugs, one brutality case at a time. Det. Ellis Carver: You can't even call this shit a war. Det. Thomas Hauk: Why not? Det. Ellis Carver: Wars end." The Wire "How do you declare war on your own family?" Traffic

imperatrixx -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/23/2011 1:22:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: Legalization won't help much if employers still ban it. Oh, I doubt that... tell me how they are penalizing people who imbibe legal substances such as alcohol. I don't think employers can prevent people from using marijuana, I think they can just forbid them from using marijuana at work. Sort of like how they can fire you for showing up to work drunk but can't fire you for getting drunk on the weekend if it doesn't affect your employment with them.

tazzygirl -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/23/2011 1:40:04 AM)
Just as they can forbid someone from showing up at work drunk, they can forbid someone from showing up under the influence of marijuana. Same as with narcotics. They are prescribed, and legal, but if you are "intoxicated" from them on the job, you can be fired.

imperatrixx -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/23/2011 3:07:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Just as they can forbid someone from showing up at work drunk, they can forbid someone from showing up under the influence of marijuana. Same as with narcotics. They are prescribed, and legal, but if you are "intoxicated" from them on the job, you can be fired. That's exactly what I said.

LaTigresse -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/23/2011 4:10:34 AM)
I will not fire someone for using either. I will fire someone for being under the influence, while the company is paying them for their time.

flcouple2009 -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/23/2011 4:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Just as they can forbid someone from showing up at work drunk, they can forbid someone from showing up under the influence of marijuana. Same as with narcotics. They are prescribed, and legal, but if you are "intoxicated" from them on the job, you can be fired. But remember it was in CA where the court upheld the right of the employer to fire someone for failing a drug test even though they had an RX. If I remember right that person only failed the test but was not accused of being high at work/

DarkSteven -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/23/2011 5:18:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Just as they can forbid someone from showing up at work drunk, they can forbid someone from showing up under the influence of marijuana. Same as with narcotics. They are prescribed, and legal, but if you are "intoxicated" from them on the job, you can be fired. But remember it was in CA where the court upheld the right of the employer to fire someone for failing a drug test even though they had an RX. If I remember right that person only failed the test but was not accused of being high at work/ Happened in Michigan as well. Part of the problem is that there are legal levels of alcohol past which you are considered drunk, and below which you are considered fine. There are no such levels with marijuana, so there is a zero tolerance policy.

hot4bondage -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/23/2011 6:58:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Just as they can forbid someone from showing up at work drunk, they can forbid someone from showing up under the influence of marijuana. Same as with narcotics. They are prescribed, and legal, but if you are "intoxicated" from them on the job, you can be fired. But remember it was in CA where the court upheld the right of the employer to fire someone for failing a drug test even though they had an RX. If I remember right that person only failed the test but was not accused of being high at work/ Happened in Michigan as well. Part of the problem is that there are legal levels of alcohol past which you are considered drunk, and below which you are considered fine. There are no such levels with marijuana, so there is a zero tolerance policy. Yep. The Walmart case. Another reason why urine/blood/hair/saliva tests are bogus. If the concern is impairment, test for impairment. The are a number of ways to gauge hand/eye coordination, for example.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/23/2011 4:56:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Just as they can forbid someone from showing up at work drunk, they can forbid someone from showing up under the influence of marijuana. Same as with narcotics. They are prescribed, and legal, but if you are "intoxicated" from them on the job, you can be fired. and should be. No reason non-medical use wouldnt be the same as alcohol. There is also a big risk for litigation under ADEA which would be even greater if medical use were legalized on the Federal level.

Edwynn -> RE: New Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition (6/23/2011 8:21:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx I don't think employers can prevent people from using marijuana, I think they can just forbid them from using marijuana at work. Sort of like how they can fire you for showing up to work drunk but can't fire you for getting drunk on the weekend if it doesn't affect your employment with them. A private enterprise can tell you what you can or can't do (in the US), as long as gender or race are not involved, being that employment with any particular company is voluntary. The home hardware store Lowes implemented a policy of no-smoking employees some years ago, meaning non-smokers, period. I recall some legal challenge to it at the time, but the company won the case with out much struggle. Just as some companies allow you to die your hair green and others don't. As pointed out earlier, one can get blitzed on alcohol on Friday and Saturday and still test clean on Monday. Tobacco or MJ can be tested for weeks after use. I suppose a few small companies would have no issue with what goes on in personal time, likely the few who don't test for 'drugs' now. But I'm not sure if IBM or GE would be willing to withstand the headline; "GE hands the bong to employees!" No different than the paint-by-the-numbers requirement for a BA or BS when the job could be well done by any half-thinking person with an Associate's degree, or even less. It's all about putting on the good face re 'standards.' Fill-in-the-blank PR, so to speak.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125