I was only aware of the (commercial) cultivation licening. Thanks.
I guess it’s all hunky-dorey unless you’re one of the overwhelming majority of Coloradans whose employers still have the unilateral right to fire them if they test positive for marijuana on a random drug screening.
Given that now makes no sense - unless someone is directly under the influence - given consumption is now legal in the state, it can only be a matter of time before the validity of that is tested in court: In Co, the entire premise does now look to be undermined.
It might also be nice to have some general human rights legislation in the US, but maybe that’s still too pinko.
Well, some places have been apparently pushing a no-nicotine policy and drug testing employees for it and firing them if the drug test comes back positive. I guess if that’s legal, they can keep doing it this way.
But there’s also the issue of any federally-involved agency. Construction has a lot of OSHA and MSHA rules. The USDOT has ultimate say in what DOT-registered drivers can do. And I think that the federal links into employment pervades a lot of work places.
Yeah, but that’s too much like work.
Colorado is an “employment at-will” state, which means an employer can fire an employee for any reason other than disability, race, creed, color, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, and ancestry.
Musing a little here (hope that’s ok in a debate thread), but it seems to me that 2016 will be the first presidential election where federal marijuana policy will be an issue where the candidates will be facing an electorate demanding a very different answer than in times past.
Past candidates couldn’t get into trouble announcing their opposition to legalization and then moving on to (understandably) bigger issues. But with more and more states closely observing the experiments in Colorado and Washington (at least those states with moderate/liberal populations), the prez candidates may need the support of an electorate that is accustomed to, or wishing for, even more relaxed federal policies.
It’s hard to imagine a conservative candidate having a reasonable hope of winning important swing states with a message of turning back the clock on drug policy.
Not really. Most people grew up having Drugs Are Bad, M’kay hammered into their heads. 2013 wasthe first year in which a national majority supported legalization - and that poll doesn’t distinguish between medicinal and recreational use. It takes time for that to become something more than pressing 1 on a phone.
Does the gay marriage example lend itself in any way …
Well once 37 states have legalized it, couldn’t they vote for a Constitutional Convention and push through an amendment legalizing it? Not a hell of a lot the Feds could do under those circumstances.
The pigs (by which I mean, law enforcement agencies that profit from drug busts) will squeal like hell all the way down the road, as marijuana is a cheap and easy source of revenue to them. The for-profit prison pigs will do the same. Look for some major malarkey as both groups have plenty of money and contacts with the state legislatures.
Honest police wouldn’t care to be profiting from marijuana sales, we’ll find out just how many of them there are.
Do you think the impetus would be strong enough to create a constitutional convention for marijuana? Even if 37 states legalize it I don’t see a lot of political push to make it a part of the constitution. Maybe I’m undergauging demand?
Be careful what you wish for. You can’t hold a CC for just one issue. You’ll open the whole deal up for change. Get ready for prayer in school, tighter restrictions on abortion, and whole slew of other popular issues to get encoded in the US Constitution.
If 37 of the states legalize it the feds will do so without the need for a constitutional convention or amendment.
John, your warning is well taken, but I suspect that as RNATB says, the feds will cave once legalization reaches 37 states – probably well before then – because they are the absolute LAST people who would want a constitutional convention. It has the potential to upset so many apple carts the money guys will go “legalize it, NOW you idiots!” to both parties, which as they are owned by the money guys, will cave pronto.
As for the appetite for a CC, hell once you have it legalized in 37 states, there’ll be a whole lot of money and influence calling for a move to get the feds to open up those other markets. And the CC is the most direct, powerful threat they have. As John Mace points out, there are a whole host of people who would like to change the Constitution … I for example, am MUCH more interested in an amendment to get money out of politics (such as the one at wolfpac.com) than I am interest in marijuana legalization. Hell, I’d go with school prayer (nobody ever pays attention to the damned Pledge of Allegiance, why would a school prayer be any different?) if it meant getting money out of politics. And you know how popular THAT would be with the money guys.
So I think the mere THREAT of a constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana would be enough to send the Congress scurrying to the drafting tables and turning out a truly bipartisan bill.
As for the
Probably so, but I doubt they have any worry of a CC being called. It’s hard to imagine enough people wanting that who would be willing to open up that can of worms. As flawed as the US constitution is, I hate to think of what it might look like if we tried to “fix” the whole thing today. Instead of 4 pages, it would be 4,000.
It probably should be.
Spoken as a true lawyer! 
Actually, the opposite: think of how many pages just current SCOTUS constitutional jurisprudence fills. You want to start over?
I honestly have no idea what that last post means, but to compare jurisprudence to the constitution is pretty meaningless. No one would need to include all the background stuff one finds in a judicial opinion in a document like the constitution.
Apples and oranges.