The article said he was driving at over a 100 and he claimed to have fallen asleep. No way he could have lost control and lied about falling asleep.:rolleyes:
No timeline mentioned.
From here.
It’s interesting that “fell asleep” was the part you fixate on rather than “stoned”.
I’m not saying that this one accident means marijuana should be illegal. It should be legalized. I’m saying that it needs to be legalized on a federal level instead of through nullification, and I’m rebutting the idea that marijuana is never ever dangerous.
I live in a state that has legalized marijuana. But I still can’t use it, even if I wanted to, because federal law allows my employer to conduct random drug tests on employees at any time for any reason, and it allows them to summarily fire anyone who tests positive for having used marijuana (and as I’m sure you know, all a positive UA for marijuana means is that you had it in your system sometime within the past few weeks or months, not that you’re high right now.) There are hundreds of thousands of other people in this and other states who are in the same situation as me who are disserved by laws at the state level legalizing something which the federal government deems illegal, and that (among other reasons) is why this piecemeal approach to legalization is a bad idea.
Right now, the best plan is for states petition Congress for a constitutional convention to legalize marijuana. When it gets up to about 25 states Congress will legalize it.
Maybe, but it seems a very good point nonetheless. Sure, at issue-level the differences are obvious: marijuana is an over-vilified plant, the legalization of which deals a hard blow to cartels & a black market–GOOD, marriage equality harms no one–GOOD, accessible healthcare for everyone is really nice–room for debate, someone is picking up the financial slack.
But in principle, when states choose to ignore their federal master, the master’s next move is to admit everything going back to the Bill of Rights are just guidelines, or it can crack down and assert its authority + 1.
A good way to describe pot is “the least dangerous recreational inebriant, even less so than alcohol”. But that doesn’t mean it’s without risk. Pot can impair your judgment, it can aggravate latent mental illness among predisposed persons, it can cause to you make bad decisions, it can make you more likely to simply fall and injure yourself. Just because it’s safer than alcohol doesn’t mean you can ignore the dangers that do exist.
That won’t change if the federal government legalizes marijuana. Unless you have an employment contract forbidding drug tests, or you live in Montana, your employer is free to demand drug tests and fire you if you test positive for marijuana, even if it is legal by state and federal statute.
If you’ve ever witnessed the driving skills of anyone over 80 or under 15, then you know that an excessively cautious driver doesn’t make the road safer for anyone except himself, when he’s the only one on the road.
All the more reason for reform at the federal level.
Explain. Even if it is legal at the federal level, you can be fired.
Unless that law is also changed at the federal level.
Maybe not. Alcohol levels in the blood correlate well with intoxication. Drug tests for pot give positive results long after a person sobers up, making the test as it is today all but useless in determining if someone is actually under the influence. Even if it becomes legal there are many occupations that are not conducive to intoxication, and therefore testing for pot would still be reasonable and permissible.
Legalizing marijuana is more likely to happen than a federal law that nullifies at-will employment.
So your answer to people who want to legally smoke marijuana and have a job is “sucks to be you”?
No, you are free to work for any employer who does not test for marijuana.
So “I got mine, sucks to be you”.
Some reformist you are.
We must obey the law. Someone said that.
Exactly. So reform the law the right way and go through Congress to legalize marijuana in a comprehensive way that protects the rights of workers, instead of trying to nullify the Constitution piecemeal in a way that protects almost nobody.
Unfortunately, you can’t repeal the Tenth Amendment with legislation:
So you can’t pass a federal law that prevents a state from passing an “at-will employment” law. You have to pass an Amendment, and that probably isn’t going to happen.
Employers can refuse to hire tobacco smokers, except where states protect smokers as if they were an oppressed minority(Kentucky does this, while not protecting gays). If that’s legal, then marijuana smokers do not deserve any protection either.
Now perhaps if there was a way to detect immediate intoxication as you can do with alcohol, that would be different. Then if someone appears to be baked at work, you can do a breathalyzer or something and fire their asses if they test positive. But if you can’t tell if a marijuana user is sharp enough to work in a fair and objective way, then it’s consistent with public safety to bar all marijuana users from jobs where the employer judges that it would be desirable to do so.
Legalizing marijuana would be a mistake: marijuana, alcohol and cigarettes are a greater health threat than alcohol and cigarettes alone. That marijuana is less dangerous than the other 2 isn’t especially relevant.
Legalize pot and you will see the awesome powers of capitalism devoted to the task of intoxicating the public. Yeah, just like booze. Advertising, marketing and efficient distribution push product. Absent meaningful campaign finance reform, regulators and legislators will end up in the pockets of Big Pot, just as they are in the pockets of the booze and cigarette industries.
I advocate harm reduction. In this instance that implies decriminalization. Like the Netherlands, for example. I haven’t read the text of the CA initiative, but I am skeptical about whether it has sufficient safeguards. It’s a ballot initiative after all.