Prop 19 (marijuana) debate. The stupid, it burns.

[Stan Shmenge]

From an AP article:

"If the price drops, more people are going to buy it. Low-income people are going to buy marijuana instead of buying food, which happens with substance abusers," said Pleasant Hill police Chief Pete Dunbar, who also speaks for the California Police Chiefs' Association, one of many law enforcement groups against the measure.

As a result, he said, legalizing marijuana would only encourage the cycle of theft and violence driven by people who need money to buy drugs.

So, Chief Dumbar, you are actually saying that cheaper weed will make people stop eating. Then, presumably because they have the munchies, and are broke from all the pot they bought at a discount, they will go out and steal. Are you f'ing serious? If this is the best that the opposition can do...

Can anyone here make any kind of cogent argument against this measure? Because for sure folks like Chief Dumbass haven't been able to do it.

The measure is now predicted to pass, so I guess Chief Dumbar and his donut eating cronies will have to find actual criminals to catch. The horror.

Link

[Baboonanza]

But if it's cheaper won't they have to steal less?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Baboonanza

But if it's cheaper won't they have to steal less?

Think of Chief Dunbar, in this setting, as a labor-union spokesman.

[Morgenstern]

The polls seem to be indicating that this measure has a chance of passing.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/calif...e-gain-in-poll

[kaylasdad99]

I work for the USPS. Once this passes, I wonder if the bosses will insist that the union allow drug testing on a more frequent basis.

[Yookeroo]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

The polls seem to be indicating that this measure has a chance of passing.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/calif...e-gain-in-poll

If the The Broudus Effect is real, it looks like it really could pass.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

I work for the USPS. Once this passes, I wonder if the bosses will insist that the union allow drug testing on a more frequent basis.

I'd settle for heightened monitoring of package-tampering.

[kaylasdad99]

Not sure I catch your drift, here...

[Baboonanza]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

I work for the USPS. Once this passes, I wonder if the bosses will insist that the union allow drug testing on a more frequent basis.

I don't see why a company should be able to able to test for legal substance use outside of work hours. Unless you're using heavy machinery or driving a train or something there is absolutely no reason to allow it.

[appleciders]

Marijuana use will not be legal in California if 19 passes- it merely won't be against state laws. It's still going to be against federal law to possess it. Unless federal law states only that it's illegal to buy, sell, or transport it, not to use it, I suspect that federal employees like postal workers will still face sanctions if they use.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Baboonanza

I don't see why a company should be able to able to test for legal substance use outside of work hours. Unless you're using heavy machinery or driving a train or something there is absolutely no reason to allow it.

Presumably, regardless of the [quasi-]legality of using it outside the workplace, employers would still want to prohibit working while under the influence. Is there currently a test for marijuana intoxication, as opposed to simply having THC in one's system?

In the past, one of the obstacles against marijuana legalization that I've heard thrown up is that there's no practical way for police to determine a driver's intoxication level, as they can for alcohol with a breathalyzer. Assuming that hasn't changed, and there is nothing in place similar to blood alcohol limits for DUI, what are the legal implications of working or driving while stoned?

(And although some may staunchly disagree, assume for a moment that it is possible for one to be "too stoned to drive," or that there exists a level of intoxication where driving reflexes are impaired.)

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Not sure I catch your drift, here...

Just thinking that postal workers working the package line in a legal-pot state might be tempted to, you know . . . reseal certain damaged-in-shipping packages . . .

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Stan Shmenge

So, Chief Dumbar, you are actually saying that cheaper weed will make people stop eating.

This is a GOOD thing.
Americans are far too fat as is.
Perhaps legalizing Marijuana can help us eliminate this national scourge?

[DanBlather]

I had a long discussion with little Dan about this the other day. My concern is that if the Justice Dept allows the open sale of marijuana in CA, then it strengthens the resolve of other states to overrule what they see as bad federal laws. This could range from prayer in schools to abortion restrictions. How would you justify sending in federal marshals to enforce an injunction against teacher-led prayer in school while letting stores openly advertise a federally banned substance?

[Morgenstern]

I don't see how you got from legalized marijuana to teachers leading prayer in public schools Dan. It's not like the law will force anyone to use marijuana if they choose not to.

[Dogzilla]

Originally Posted by Stan Shmenge

From an AP article:

So, Chief Dumbar, you are actually saying that cheaper weed will make people stop eating. Then, presumably because they have the munchies, and are broke from all the pot they bought at a discount, they will go out and steal. Are you f'ing serious? If this is the best that the opposition can do...

Can anyone here make any kind of cogent argument against this measure? Because for sure folks like Chief Dumbass haven't been able to do it.

The measure is now predicted to pass, so I guess Chief Dumbar and his donut eating cronies will have to find actual criminals to catch. The horror.

Link

That's just hilarious. Some people think all drugs = heroin. So I'll be so broke from buying that $60 quarter bag that I'll have to steal my Cheeto's and M&Ms. Do these morons realize that a quarter ounce of pot is a LOT and would last your average stoner longer than a weekend? It's not like coke, where you get a tiny little gram for $100 and it's gone in 15 minutes and so is your high. Coke is horribly uneconomical. Nobody starves to death and turns into a life of crime from buying weed. If that were the case, you'd see college students ripping off 7-11s about every ten minutes in this country.

[BrainGlutton]

"Cocaine is just nature's way of telling you you have too much money."

-- Richard Pryor

[Llama Llogophile]

Originally Posted by appleciders

Marijuana use will not be legal in California if 19 passes- it merely won't be against state laws. It's still going to be against federal law to possess it.

As I mentioned in another thread, I fully expect the usual suspects who scream about states' rights when guns are involved to embrace legalization of pot on the same grounds.

Any time now...

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Baboonanza

I don't see why a company should be able to able to test for legal substance use outside of work hours. Unless you're using heavy machinery or driving a train or something there is absolutely no reason to allow it.

The employer has the right to have people working for it that are not impaired. Pot does not leave the system as fast as alcohol does. Someone can get drunk on Friday night and show up to work Monday morning functional. Not so with pot, which can take up to 30 days to clear out of one's system.

[filling_pages]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

The employer has the right to have people working for it that are not impaired. Pot does not leave the system as fast as alcohol does. Someone can get drunk on Friday night and show up to work Monday morning functional. Not so with pot, which can take up to 30 days to clear out of one's system.

I, for one, would like to see a cite that getting high Friday night will leave you still high on Monday. Also, can you hook me up with your dealer? Because you must be getting some amazing shit.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

The employer has the right to have people working for it that are not impaired. Pot does not leave the system as fast as alcohol does. Someone can get drunk on Friday night and show up to work Monday morning functional. Not so with pot, which can take up to 30 days to clear out of one's system.

Only in the sense that it remains detectable that long in a urine test. Believe me, if you get high Friday night you will have come down by Saturday morning.

Errrr, so I've been told.

[Mr Smashy]

Originally Posted by Mach Tuck

As I mentioned in another thread, I fully expect the usual suspects who scream about states' rights when guns are involved to embrace legalization of pot on the same grounds.

Any time now...

Count me in as one of those suspects.

There's about as much authority in the Constitution granted the Feds to make drugs illegal as there is to make abortion legal. In other words, none.

It should be up to the states. Not that it can't screw up your life, as that right wing rag the New York Times will tell you.

But it's not the Government's job to save us from ourselves. Let Darwinism run its course.

Interestingly, it doesn't seem to qualify, really, as a gateway drug, at least no more than cigarettes and alcohol do. Not that that matters constitutionally, IMHO.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

The employer has the right to have people working for it that are not impaired. Pot does not leave the system as fast as alcohol does. Someone can get drunk on Friday night and show up to work Monday morning functional. Not so with pot, which can take up to 30 days to clear out of one's system.

Which was precisely the reason for my question upthread. THC in detectable in one's system long, long after the effects have worn off. In your scenario, the Monday-morning worker will be, in all likelihood, completely sober and unimpaired, and yet would fail a drug test. Ironically, if he'd dropped acid or taken ecstasy, cocaine, or even heroin, there's a good chance he'd pass with flying colors.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

The employer has the right to have people working for it that are not impaired.

Can you show me where in the constitution that employers are granted that right?
AFAICMO, it's not enumerated anywhere, and has no organic connection to the original intent of the founding fathers.

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

The employer has the right to have people working for it that are not impaired. Pot does not leave the system as fast as alcohol does. Someone can get drunk on Friday night and show up to work Monday morning functional. Not so with pot, which can take up to 30 days to clear out of one's system.

I'm not sure you understand how marijuana works. It can still be tested for a month or so later, because the metabolites are still in your system. The high typically lasts an hour or so (and maybe another hour or so after that to get back to 100% sober...I wouldn't suggest doing on your lunch break). Even the best weed in the world, smoked in amazing amounts, will still return the user to baseline in 4-6 hours or so.

[Mr Smashy]

Originally Posted by Squink

Can you show me where in the constitution that employers are granted that right?
AFAICMO, it's not enumerated anywhere, and has no organic connection to the original intent of the founding fathers.

Why does it have to be mentioned in the Constitution? That document is meant to (primarily) talk to the relationship between people and their government.

Now, if one wanted to they could continue the recent (bullshit) trend of elasticizing the Commerce Clause, that drugged workers produce less or faulty or dangerous stuff, and therefore what they make could end up being sold in another state that damages the people of that state, and therefore the Feds could regulate such interstate commerce.... and in fact that clause has been stretched worse recently....

But even with a less liberal interpretation of that clause (I didn't know you were a conservative ), in any case it's clearly not forbidden. Ergo, employers can do what they want wrt dope smokers.

[Dogzilla]

Originally Posted by Joey P

I'm not sure you understand how marijuana works. It can still be tested for a month or so later, because the metabolites are still in your system. The high typically lasts an hour or so (and maybe another hour or so after that to get back to 100% sober...I wouldn't suggest doing on your lunch break). Even the best weed in the world, smoked in amazing amounts, will still return the user to baseline in 4-6 hours or so.

I'm not sure you do, either.

THC is fat-soluble, so it takes a while for all that to leech out of your system. Frequent, daily smokers may still test hot after 30 days. However, the half-life is not 30 days. (I believe "half-life" refers to the amount of time it takes for half of the dosage to leave your system.) If you went to a New Year's Eve party and took a toke off a joint at a party, you would probably not still test positive 30 days later. Maybe 3 days, but I think after 4-5 days, you'd only have negligible amounts still in your system. The 30-day rule refers to people who smoke every day and are continually adding THC to their fat stores. The less you smoke, the less lead time you need to pass a drug test.

I'm not a fan of drug testing as a condition for all employment. People who drive, operate heavy machinery (including airplanes), or do things like neurosurgery should probably be required by their employers to test drug free. People who sit at a desk and do not interact with the general public, I don't care if they are stoned at work. But I don't want my brain surgeon to blaze one up before cutting into my skull, obviously. That said, I don't care if the brain surgeon hits the bong when she's off duty and not likely to be called in to cut into somebody's brain. And the problem with employer drug screening is that the weed can stay in your system long enough to test positive, even though you might have smoked days ago.

[Shodan]

I haven't followed this at all - is this more "medical marijuana (wink wink)" or actual "if you want to get baked we don't care" stuff? I am hoping for the latter and that the rest of the states follow suit.

Regards,
Shodan

[Morgenstern]

@ Shodan.
Prop 19 (if it passes) will allow an individual over 21, to personally possess, process, share or transport not more than one ounce solely for that persons personal use and not for sale. Also, possession of tools etc. for growing will be legal. Cultivation is legal as long as the "growing area" is no more than 25 sq ft.

As I read the prop, those who sell will have to qualify under the law as sellers. Also contained in the prop. is a prohibition against consuming when minors are present.

I'm reading the voter information material and trying to paraphrase the three full pages of small print. l

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I haven't followed this at all - is this more "medical marijuana (wink wink)" or actual "if you want to get baked we don't care" stuff? I am hoping for the latter and that the rest of the states follow suit.

Same here, although residing as I do in one of the three holdout states with no (off-premises) Sunday beer sales, I'm not holding my toke in expectation of a Pot in the Box in my neighborhood anytime soon. Or in my lifetime.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Mr Smashy

Why does it have to be mentioned in the Constitution? That document is meant to (primarily) talk to the relationship between people and their government.

No, it isn't. It is primarily to lay out the structure and functions of the government. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought, remember.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

@ Shodan.
Prop 19 (if it passes) will allow an individual over 21, to personally possess, process, share or transport not more than one ounce solely for that persons personal use and not for sale. Also, possession of tools etc. for growing will be legal. Cultivation is legal as long as the "growing area" is no more than 25 sq ft.

As I read the prop, those who sell will have to qualify under the law as sellers. Also contained in the prop. is a prohibition against consuming when minors are present.

I'm reading the voter information material and trying to paraphrase the three full pages of small print. l

Could you legally smoke it in public?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

But I don't want my brain surgeon to blaze one up before cutting into my skull, obviously.

Ah, yeah, remember that ad?

"*puff* . . . Now [hee-hee], let's see if I can still make a straight line!"

[Morgenstern]

In public.... No.
Nor can you sell it unless you're licensed and permitted to sell it (whatever that requires)
You can not consume it in a public place.
Can't Smoke in a car, boat or aircraft while it is being operated or while it "impairs the operator."
Anyone employed by a seller, handling, etc., must be 21+

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

@ Shodan.
Prop 19 (if it passes) will allow an individual over 21, to personally possess, process, share or transport not more than one ounce solely for that persons personal use and not for sale. Also, possession of tools etc. for growing will be legal. Cultivation is legal as long as the "growing area" is no more than 25 sq ft.

As I read the prop, those who sell will have to qualify under the law as sellers. Also contained in the prop. is a prohibition against consuming when minors are present.

I'm reading the voter information material and trying to paraphrase the three full pages of small print. l

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

In public.... No.
Nor can you sell it unless you're licensed and permitted to sell it (whatever that requires)
You can not consume it in a public place.
Can't Smoke in a car, boat or aircraft while it is being operated or while it "impairs the operator."
Anyone employed by a seller, handling, etc., must be 21+

Hm. Jeez, I kinda assumed all that was the law in California now.

[Dahnlor]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Hm. Jeez, I kinda assumed all that was the law in California now.

I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that the current rules for dispensaries would still apply. I see the main difference being that you won't need a doctor's "recommendation" in order to be allowed to buy/possess it.

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

I'm not sure you do, either.

THC is fat-soluble, so it takes a while for all that to leech out of your system. Frequent, daily smokers may still test hot after 30 days. However, the half-life is not 30 days. (I believe "half-life" refers to the amount of time it takes for half of the dosage to leave your system.) If you went to a New Year's Eve party and took a toke off a joint at a party, you would probably not still test positive 30 days later. Maybe 3 days, but I think after 4-5 days, you'd only have negligible amounts still in your system. The 30-day rule refers to people who smoke every day and are continually adding THC to their fat stores. The less you smoke, the less lead time you need to pass a drug test.

Oh, I understand that. Clothahump said "Someone can get drunk on Friday night and show up to work Monday morning functional. Not so with pot, which can take up to 30 days to clear out of one's system." He implied that if someone smokes pot on Friday night, come Monday morning they will still not be functional. I was just explaining that on Monday morning they will still test positive for THC, but they won't be high anymore.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

@ Shodan.
Prop 19 (if it passes) will allow an individual over 21, to personally possess, process, share or transport not more than one ounce solely for that persons personal use and not for sale. Also, possession of tools etc. for growing will be legal. Cultivation is legal as long as the "growing area" is no more than 25 sq ft.

As I read the prop, those who sell will have to qualify under the law as sellers. Also contained in the prop. is a prohibition against consuming when minors are present.

I'm reading the voter information material and trying to paraphrase the three full pages of small print. l

Thanks.

That goes about three quarters of the way far enough, IME. Perhaps after a few years when the world doesn't come to an end because the Dread Killer Weed^TM is legalized, the rest of the country can come to its senses and we can concentrate on stuff that is actually dangerous.

Regards,
Shodan

[Chronos]

I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that the current rules for dispensaries would still apply. I see the main difference being that you won't need a doctor's "recommendation" in order to be allowed to buy/possess it.

From what I understand, you should also have scare-quoted "doctor", too. As in, the list of people who could "prescribe" medical marijuana was far greater than just doctors.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Joey P

I was just explaining that on Monday morning they will still test positive for THC, but they won't be high anymore.

Nitpick: they'll test positive for metabolites of THC, not THC itself. There is no more THC in your system, as that is metabolized during the time you're high into other compounds which are what the test tests for. Once you're no longer buzzed, there's no more THC (or, actually, vice versa- once there's no more THC, your buzz goes away). AFAIK, there is no direct test for THC, which would allow us to test for very recent use and, arguably, for impairment...other than a desire for peanut butter and cheese sandwiches with a side of Funyons.

[Mr Smashy]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

No, it isn't. It is primarily to lay out the structure and functions of the government. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought, remember.

OK, fair enough, but WTF does that have to do with how a private company wants to screen potential employees?

Edit to add: there is still an awful lot in the main body about how Gov interacts w/citizens, wrt taxation/direct taxes/apportionment, all the 'common welfare' stuff, etc

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Nitpick: they'll test positive for metabolites of THC, not THC itself. There is no more THC in your system, as that is metabolized during the time you're high into other compounds which are what the test tests for.

That's actually what I said in post 25, but then when I re-explained myself, I felt it would be easier to leave that part out.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Chronos

From what I understand, you should also have scare-quoted "doctor", too. As in, the list of people who could "prescribe" medical marijuana was far greater than just doctors.

Incorrect. Only actual medical doctors can prescribe medical mj. Around here they'll do it for $99 cash and a cursory examination which is no more than an interview.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Mr Smashy

OK, fair enough, but WTF does that have to do with how a private company wants to screen potential employees?

The point is that no company has a constitutional right to do so -- a right set above and beyond the reach of the ordinary legislative process -- lacking an express grant/reservation of such right in the BoR. Therefore, while the federal government's authority vel non to regulate in that field does perhaps present a constitutional question under the "enumerated powers" clause, a state government's authority does not. States have plenary sovereignty encompassing the whole of the state police power; they may do whatever is not expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution or by their own state constitution.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by hajario

Incorrect. Only actual medical doctors can prescribe medical mj. Around here they'll do it for $99 cash and a cursory examination which is no more than an interview.

Does a bad mood qualify as a prescribable condition?

Because it should.

I recall one stand-up comic's comment: "If weed goes up against Prozac, Prozac is gonna lose."

[Mr Smashy]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The point is that no company has a constitutional right to do so -- a right set above and beyond the reach of the ordinary legislative process -- lacking an express grant/reservation of such right in the BoR. Therefore, while the federal government's authority vel non to regulate in that field does perhaps present a constitutional question under the "enumerated powers" clause, a state government's authority does not. States have plenary sovereignty encompassing the whole of the state police power; they may do whatever is not expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution or by their own state constitution.

Go read Squink's post #24 again. Clearly Sq is under the impression that, if it isn't in the constitution, then a company shouldn't be allowed to do it.

My point is, that's not what that document is for. Assuming we're talking about the US Constitution of course. And Squink did mention the Founding Fathers, so that's what I assumed we were discussing.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Mr Smashy

Go read Squink's post #24 again. Clearly Sq is under the impression that, if it isn't in the constitution, then a company shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Not at all, I was wondering where clothahump put the genesis of this oddly specific right of corporations which he asserted.
Seems to me that congress could greatly curtail drug testing by private corps without running into any serious constitutional issue. It's not a 'corporate right', it's just how things are done at present.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Does a bad mood qualify as a prescribable condition?

Because it should.

Probably. I honestly don't think that the docs give a shit. Just tell them that you get migraines and nothing else works. If you don't like that, try back pain. If you're a female you can tell them that it's for menstrual cramps.

Maybe mood swings would work too. Basically what really works is the $99.

[Mr Smashy]

Originally Posted by Squink

Not at all, I was wondering where clothahump put the genesis of this oddly specific right of corporations which he asserted.
Seems to me that congress could greatly curtail drug testing by private corps without running into any serious constitutional issue. It's not a 'corporate right', it's just how things are done at present.

OK, one more time.

a) yes Congress could pass a law forbidding discrimination against would-be employees (or renters, or whatever) due to drug use. Obviously they've done something similar w/race, religion (thanks to those Republicans passing the Civil Rights Act!)

b) they haven't done that, nor will they do it in my lifetime, or my kids' I bet

c) there's nothing in the constitution that would either allow or deny such discrimination

d) so the constitution is about as relevent to this conversation as a McDonalds Happy Meal placemat

Your post clearly implied that some right needs to be granted (to a corporation?) in order for the company to do something. While Clothahump used the word 'right' first, you're the one who brought the constitution into the discussion. Obviously there are other kinds/aspects of 'rights'. I have the right to walk down the street, not eat my vegetables, etc.... none of those are in the constitution either.

Don't thank me, pay it forward. Happy to help.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Mr Smashy

OK, one more time.

There was a first time?
Where did clothy anwer my question?
I don't think he'll invoke Jesus, and I don't think he's stupid enough to claim rights are nothing more than 'usual practices' as you seem to be suggesting.
So on what does he base the corporate rights he asserts?
Bill of rights is a pretty popular answer for such things, but is it his answer?
I'd like to know.
Sadly Mr Smashy, you cannot answer for him.

-------------------

Originally Posted by hajaro

Only actual medical doctors can prescribe medical mj. Around here they'll do it for $99 cash and a cursory examination which is no more than an interview.

The CA Medical Assn looks to be favoring Prop 19, so extreme cynicism with respect to the financial motives of the medical profession is probably unwarranted here.