# Prop 19 (marijuana) debate. The stupid, it burns. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 28, 2010, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336 "2010-09-28T09:33:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/41 "2010-09-30T19:54:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@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. 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 ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/42 "2010-09-30T19:56:01Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > > [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/43 "2010-09-30T19:59:23Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/44 "2010-09-30T21:04:36Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > > [@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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/45 "2010-09-30T21:10:36Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > > [@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. 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/46 "2010-09-30T21:28:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/47 "2010-09-30T21:43:11Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/48 "2010-09-30T21:48:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/49 "2010-09-30T23:52:19Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/50 "2010-10-01T01:07:49Z")
> [@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. * * * [QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] The [CA Medical Assn looks to be favoring Prop 19](http://www.opposingviews.com/i/ca-medical-association-marijuana-ban-failed-public-health-policy), so extreme cynicism with respect to the financial motives of the medical profession is probably unwarranted here. ---
**Author:** ![blondebear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blondebear/32/1022_2.png) [@blondebear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blondebear)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/51 "2010-10-01T01:23:51Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Maybe mood swings would work too. Basically what really works is the $99. A friend of mine got his for insomnia, and it only cost $50 (they were handing out coupons at a recent Cannabis Convention). The evaluation lasted less than 5 minutes. I’m positive that the doctors who staff those hemp conventions go home with sizable paychecks. Still, doctors can be pro-marijuana just like anyone else. If they personally consider weed as benign and potentially helpful, why wouldn’t they offer a recommendation? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/52 "2010-10-01T01:27:29Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [QUOTE=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](http://www.opposingviews.com/i/ca-medical-association-marijuana-ban-failed-public-health-policy), so extreme cynicism with respect to the financial motives of the medical profession is probably unwarranted here. [/QUOTE] What does one thing have to do with the other? I favor Prop 19 too. I gathered signatures for the original medical mj proposition here in CA. I agree with the CA Medical Assn. That said, every account I have ever heard about someone getting screened, and there have been dozens, said that the whole thing was a bunch of bullshit. One of those people was my girlfriend while we were driving away from her appointment. My comments were with regard to the motives of a very, very small percentage of doctors who make a living giving out these prescriptions not to the financial motives of the entire profession. My cynicism is not the least bit unwarranted. It should be totally legal and I have thought that for decades. For now it is only legal if there is a true medical need. I think that it is very conservative to say that no more than 10% of the people with prescriptions have a true medical need and the prescribing doctors damn well know it. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/53 "2010-10-01T01:32:25Z")
> [@blondebear](#): > > > [@hajario](#): > > > > Maybe mood swings would work too. Basically what really works is the $99. > > A friend of mine got his for insomnia, and it only cost $50 (they were handing out coupons at a recent Cannabis Convention). The evaluation lasted less than 5 minutes. > > I’m positive that the doctors who staff those hemp conventions go home with sizable paychecks. Still, doctors can be pro-marijuana just like anyone else. If they personally consider weed as benign and potentially helpful, why wouldn’t they offer a recommendation? Why not indeed? It’s fine with me. I paid for my girlfriend’s appointment as part of her birthday present and then drove her to the dispensary. Let’s just be honest about it. The medical evaluation is, in the lion’s share of the cases, a sham. Anyone can walk in and claim to get headaches and it’s all done. There are people who really need it. I truly believe that. There just aren’t that many of them. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/54 "2010-10-01T03:51:03Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > My comments were with regard to the motives of a very, very small percentage of doctors who make a living giving out these prescriptions not to the financial motives of the entire profession. My cynicism is not the least bit unwarranted. Sure, and the position of the medical association backs up the idea that it’s just a small minority of doctors cashing in. ---
**Author:** ![Aversin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@Aversin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aversin)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/55 "2010-10-01T15:55:50Z")
I saw a couple people earlier in the thread asking about short-term testing to marijuana use. Saliva tests have been around for years, with mixed reviews. I’ve heard they can only detect recent use (4-5 hours), and I’ve heard they can detect up to a few days use, it probably all depends on the cleanliness of a persons mouth. An interesting read on the subject (warning PDF file): [http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/10\_03.pdf](http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/10_03.pdf). Erowid has a section dicussing this, their table lists 12-24 hours as the detection time. Erowid however mentions on a seperate page “In the past few years, new technologies have been developed which allow for saliva testing for the presence of Cannabis (THC). We do not currently have information about what the detection period is for these tests.” [http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing\_info1.shtml#duration](http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing_info1.shtml#duration) So I think the answer is: If current technology is not capable of detecting recent (IE less than 24 hours) marijuana use, it could be in short order with a little research. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/56 "2010-10-04T01:00:53Z")
Too bad we can’t even enact Medical Marijuana in Minnesota. Emmer, the Republican Candidate and two time DUI offender, is of course, completely opposed. Dayton, the Democratic Candidate, is a complete pussy and has said that he won’t support any Medical Marijuana bill that is opposed by Law Enforcement. Well DUH! Of course it will be! Don’tcha know that people will be burning down their apartment buildings growing the stuff unsafely? (As the Chief of Police of Burnsville, where I used to live, once claimed) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/57 "2010-10-04T01:07:20Z")
[Cannabis laws in Ann Arbor, Michigan - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_laws_in_Ann_Arbor,_Michigan) The lax rules of marijuana in Ann Arbor have not caused any catastrophe. The antis are wrong if it is any kind of example. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/58 "2010-10-04T01:38:06Z")
> [@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. An afterthought that some states required promise of before signing. [ > [@](#): > > In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” ]([http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html)) In other words, the Anti-Federalists (of which there were many) would not sign the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. Some afterthought. ---
**Author:** ![MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MPB_in_Salt_Lake)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/59 "2010-10-06T22:49:30Z")
I saw today that the latest poll is showing the “No On 19” vote is about 10 points ahead of the pro 19 vote, which seems to be the exact opposite of the polls from just last month… Any California Dopers have a feel for what the voters are likely to do? ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336/60 "2010-10-06T22:59:39Z")
> [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](#): > > Any California Dopers have a feel for what the voters are likely to do? I can tell you what _I’m_ likely to do. I’m going to go home today after class and fill out the mail-in ballot that just arrived yesterday and vote yes on 19! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-19-marijuana-debate-the-stupid-it-burns/555336.md?page=4)