My friend was a commercial pilot who liked going to jam band music festivals. He obviously abstained from weed. He claimed that his “random” tests were always his first day back after a festival weekend.
Sounds like a Dead show!! Probably flunk most drug tests just for walking past the venue.
Carpinteria greenhouses used to grow world class orchids, roses, and all sorts of other flowers.
The temptation to shift to the higher profit has been enormous, many of the old local nurseries have sold their leases or land to the new industry. Many “mom and pop” cannabis growers also have stopped, the downward pressure on prices has crimped their lifestyle I guess? Still quite a valuable commodity at $500 /lb tho…!!! Cartel grows in the forest still seem to understand that. National legalization would help stop some of that. Hopefully
All true. I live in Santa Barbara. I drive past the Carp greenhouses all the time. It’s similar in parts of Lompoc. I have a few acquaintances who were medium level growers who quit the business once the large interests took over.
That’s sort of the flip side of what is happening with cannabis sales actually.
States can always restrict more than the Federal government can (look at gun laws for an example), but just because something is legal under state law, it doesn’t negate any existing Federal illegality.
So it was perfectly fine for states to further restrict alcohol sales, etc… because it was just restricting further. What’s happening with cannabis sales is that for a long time, cannabis laws were pretty much in tandem at the state/federal level, so the majority of the effort and resources to enforce those laws came from the states, not the Feds. Now in many states, they’ve chosen to make cannabis legal, so they’re no longer spending any effort or resources going after it. Which leaves the Feds in something of a bind, in that they don’t have the manpower to enforce their own laws.
This is due to the Drug Free Workplace act of 1988. Basically anyone who does business with the federal government must have a drug free workplace program in place. This covers a surprising number of business. From food services to the electic company. If you do business with the federal government you must have a program in place.
The rules for having a drug free workplace program are variable. Some companies go overboard to cover all the bases and some do the minimum.
I just finished working 12 years for a government contractor, working on a federal government base, and I was drug tested before I was hired. And never again, not random, not with cause, no body ever got tested again. If you were on their radar to be terminated they would find some other reasons that could be documented before they ever called you in for a drug test.
The exceptions that I am aware of were a couple of people who showed up for work clearly fucked up. Even then the center director, the head of security, HR and their managers were all involved in order to make sure all the bases were covered.
There was the Canadian Olympic medalist who flunked his drug test but claimed it was because he was at a party a week before and pot smoke was thick in the room.
I still don’t understand why it’s a banned substance anyway - It’s not like it makes people strong, focused and energetic (from what I’ve heard).
Most likely because it’s illegal in much of the world.
(hijack) Effects vary based on strains and amount used. New industrial Indica strains, harvested in 3 months, are not really grown for energy or focus, more for “kicks your butt” aka “couch lock”.
. Older land race Sativas, were known for focus and to “give you legs”
Quite a bit of argument surrounding this subject in the cannabis growing world.
Why the hell is marijuana a Schedule 1 narcotic, anyway? Is it just to put Black men in prison?
African Americans, Latinxs and hippies/leftists.
I mean, they do anger everyone’s blood with that jazz music.
Not my view, but rather the view of 1920’s - 30’s States and Congress.
But even legal drugs, the excuse why they are banned is that they are stimulants which give the athlete an edge on non-drugged athletes. (Every so often you read about some athlete flunking a drug test because they took a cold medicine or something). Or, they unnaturally(?) improve the muscles or other physical attributes.
Well this is in Factual Questions, but this answer is essentially correct, if not factually correct.
That’s not far from the truth as far as being one of the underlying motivations. This goes back to one Harry Anslinger, a virulent racist who was once assistant commissioner for the Bureau of Prohibition; with the end of Prohibition, he became an anti-drug (and especially an anti-marijuana) crusader, and eventually commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, predecessor of the DEA. His campaign to demonize marijuana was particularly energized by the fact that Black musicians were disproportionate users of it. One of his most infamous quips: “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men”.
This is the kind of sordid history that’s been responsible for the misclassification of cannabis and the criminal prosecution of so many young people over the years for simple possession.
Scheduling is based on three things:
-
Accepted medical use - while widely used for its supposed medicinal purposes, the Feds say there is no accepted medical use. This is certainly open to debate. The problem with any Schedule I drug is that is is difficult/impossible to get approval and funding to do research without running into potential legal problems. Its a Catch 22. You can’t research the stuff if its flat out illegal to even possess it.
-
The likelihood that the drug will be abused. I’m not sure where the line is between use and abuse. I guess any use of a drug for kicks or pleasure would be considered abuse.
-
The likelihood that such abuse would lead to dependence or addiction. I don’t know if weed dependence (probably?) or addiction is actually a thing.
It seems to me alcohol would fit nicely into the Schedule I category. Even more so than cannabis. Nicotine, too. Both are far more harmful to individuals and society than weed or LSD but there you have it.
It’s hard for me to wrap my head around this, but two comments:
- Someone said it is hard to make States enforce Federal law. Actually, it’s not so hard. The Federal Government will simply cut off that State’s Federal funding because money talks.
- Someone mentioned the ICC. As an aside, I don’t get that, either. People talk of international law. But, I thought there was no such thing as international law. No country is going to tell another country what they can and cannot do. At best, is there an honor code among many countries?
I believe that ICC in this context is about the Interstate Commence Commission that regulates trade that crosses state boundaries, which the Federal government has domain. The main legal point being that the Constitution doesn’t give the Federal Government the right to intercede in activities that don’t cross state lines, which makes the enforcement of Federal laws in an activity that doesn’t involve interaction between two states as unconstitutional. The Federal government doesn’t want to go there.
Cutting off funding would also get challenged by the states in Federal court and would most likely end up in the Supreme Court. Again, the Federal government doesn’t want to go there because there is a good chance they would lose.
As I just looked up the ICC, myself…the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission ceased to exist in 1996; the regulatory functions which it still had at that point are now handled by other agencies, primarily the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) and Federal Railroad Administration.
Ah! My mistake. I Googled ICC and the first hit was “The International Criminal Court”! Just a bad coincidence sending me off in the wrong direction. My bad! /face slaps/ 
That’s a pretty big hammer to use in this case. It could be done, but that would require Congress, which includes the representatives from the majority of states that allow marijuana, to vote directly against their constituents’ interests. So, there’s nothing simple about it.