|
Yeah, but that's $600K of resources that can be used for possibly better things than loving people over for using pot.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Kenshin posted:Yeah, I'm really confused about this. I wish it was merely concern-trolling but I think people are genuinely not even thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
frest posted:I assure you it's not concern trolling, and I'm not specifically talking about pre-employment testing either. I work in an industry with mandatory random screening and pre-employment screening. You should be able to judge the sobriety of somebody by behavior, sure, but what if you've never worked with the person before and they're going to be operating dangerous or heavy machinery? The primary test I've had is a piss test which doesn't really distinguish between intoxicated-at-work or outside-work use. I wasn't aware of a blood test, that's why I asked. How do you know the person has had a full night sleep and is well rested enough to perform their duties safely? When you hop in you car each day, how do you know that all other drivers are completely unimpaired? How do you know your new coworker isn't going to bust out their phone to text their smoking hot girlfriend in the middle of operating heavy machinery that probably needs his full attention? You don't. This law creates no risks that didn't already exist before. Caffeine intoxication is an actual thing, people get hosed up on nutmeg, huffing and numerous other substances but when it comes to cannabis everyone suddenly goes into panic mode and starts talking about collecting peoples urine and bogeymen (which is totally loving bizarre if you give it even the slightest bit of thought). quote:Does workplace testing improve workplace safety? KingEup fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
KingEup posted:How do you know the person has had a full night sleep and is well rested enough to perform their duties safely? The difference being that there weren't posts in the thread stating they wanted non-discrimination laws for hiring and workplace stuff about sleeping, nutmeg, or caffeine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Everywhere else, including one handling loan and insurance information, didn't require it. Meanwhile, at my current job we keep beer in the fridge. The last job I had, the drug test went like this: "Here, have a hit of this poo poo and tell me what you think." Sadly, the gig went less than 2 years but it was fuckin' great while it lasted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
You know now that a few days have passed, I am back to my normal pessimistic self. So here is what I think will happen. This is actually going to a be a blip on the radar and in 2-4 years it will be illegal again. The media is going to spin this so hard and in 2 years the nation will be disgusted with pot. They will drum up every negative story for months and never mention a single loving benefit. The powerful will never give up marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Xeom posted:You know now that a few days have passed, I am back to my normal pessimistic self. I'm having similar worries. The Netherlands make for a depressing narrative about cannabis prohibition ever truly ending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
Xeom posted:You know now that a few days have passed, I am back to my normal pessimistic self. Until the powerful make money off marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
frest posted:The difference being that there weren't posts in the thread stating they wanted non-discrimination laws for hiring and workplace stuff about sleeping, nutmeg, or caffeine. There is no need for non-discrimination laws for those things. It would never occur to an employer that, because I am a recreational caffeine drinker, I might chug a dozen 5 hour energies on the job. Amarkov fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Xeom posted:You know now that a few days have passed, I am back to my normal pessimistic self. Evil always triumphs over good. This is the proper mindset to have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:It would never occur to an employer that, because I am a recreational caffeine drinker, I might chug a dozen 5 hour energies on the job. Well now it will, thanks for cluing everybody in. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
cloudy music posted:Evil always triumphs over good. This is the proper mindset to have. Historically its true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Historically its stupid and pulled out of your rear end, America loves the gently caress out of weed. This will only expand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Do people actually think companies like the big tobacco producers don't have plans for how to hit a marijuana market the second it gets legalized by the Feds? People in power might hate weed but they also hated alcohol and prohibition died as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
frest posted:The difference being that there weren't posts in the thread stating they wanted non-discrimination laws for hiring and workplace stuff about sleeping, nutmeg, or caffeine. No one is fighting for your right to get blazed and operate a crane. We're talking about what the crane operator does on Saturday afternoon while watching football.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Here is my prediction and people can make fun of me if they want. There is a reason I think it will work out differently than alcohol prohibition and that's because the media we have today. Two pronged attack, one from the federal government, and one from the national media. My guess is that the Obama administration will come down hard on this. But on top of that, the media will go in lock step with them.Everything bad that happens will be drummed up for months and months. While all the positive effects will almost never be discussed.The propaganda machine will spin into action now that they know they have something serious to fear. Marijuana is going to be under constant assault in the coming months. Every new negative study done will be hailed, and the dozens of positives studies done along with it will never be talked about. Any crime that happens around marijuana will instantly be attributed to marijuana. These cases will be screamed from the roof tops, statistics about actual crime be damned. I am guessing by the time the media is done the national average for people OK with marijuana will drop considerably. And given enough time, the states will scratch off legalization, and we will return to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Xeom posted:Here is my prediction and people can make fun of me if they want. I think this is all a bit pessimistic. Obama is not facing re-election and has way more important things to care about. Also, it's likely there will be a new attorney general, and it's hard to think that whoever is his replacement will crackdown as hard as Holder did. Also, the media has been surprisingly cool with the whole legalization thing so far. I think that's a good sign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Do people actually think companies like the big tobacco producers don't have plans for how to hit a marijuana market the second it gets legalized by the Feds? People in power might hate weed but they also hated alcohol and prohibition died as well. The tobacco industry are in the business of growing and selling tobacco. I fail to see why they're anymore likely to start selling cannabis than any other agribusiness other than the fact they already have rollng machines (which are already in use rolling tobacco).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
KingEup posted:The tobacco industry are in the business of growing and selling tobacco. I fail to see why they're anymore likely to start selling cannabis than any other agribusiness other than the fact they already have rollng machines (which are already in use rolling tobacco). I'm pretty sure the tobacco industry have their hands in a lot more than tobacco products, unless my bluebox has nicotine in it  . It would make sense for them to try and get in on the ground floor in the new industry in order to diversify.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
Xeom posted:Here is my prediction and people can make fun of me if they want. Really? I think the opposite will happen, but for the same reason. The existence of the internet (and to an extent, the ubiquity of smartphones) means that anyone can instantly verify claims about marijuana, or anything really. If someone tries to tell a teenager today that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine, they can click on google or wikipedia or countless other sites to check and see if that's correct. Before the internet, all kinds of bullshit was totally accepted as fact. Things that you can easily disprove with a single search, like LSD containing strychnine or ecstasy making holes in your brain. Now that we have a generation that's been weaned on wikipedia-backed research papers, combatting misinformation is easier than ever. Just tell the guy spreading factoid rumors to double-check his poo poo online.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I'm pretty sure the tobacco industry have their hands in a lot more than tobacco products Yes, I've read Barbarians at the Gate too. Why do you think the tobacco industry will be specifically interested in cannabis? Delta-Wye posted:It would make sense for them to try and get in on the ground floor in the new industry in order to diversify. Diversification does not always make business sense. KingEup fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
KingEup posted:The tobacco industry are in the business of growing and selling tobacco. I fail to see why they're anymore likely to start selling cannabis than any other agribusiness other than the fact they already have rollng machines (which are already in use rolling tobacco). Two reasons: - Fewer and fewer people are smoking every day. - They have the infrastructure necessary to manufacture, package, and distribute marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:Two reasons: Global cigarette consumption is increasing quote:
So do companies that manufacture tea and numerous other agribusinesses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Global cigarette consumption is increasing And the US is where weed is getting legalized (on top of like, the Netherlands and one other country). Not decriminalized but straight up legalized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:US cigarette usage is decreasing. Weed isn't legal in the Netherlands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Global cigarette consumption is increasing As Gentoo said it's decreasing in the U.S. And really? Do Tea companies have the infrastructure to roll joints, package them in packs/cartons, and have a well established distribution network to convenience stores, gas stations, and liquor stores? I'm not saying it's guaranteed that they will hop on (and full federal legalization is absolutely necessary first), but there is no other industry that could do it as easily as big tobacco. And I really don't see why they wouldn't, it's a multi billion market and they would be fools to not take advantage of it. Diversifying isn't good for every company in every instance, yes. But can you name one good reason why this wouldn't be good for big tobacco? Butt Soup Barnes fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
I don't get the resistance to the assertion. If marijuana has a full federal legalization go through, who would likely be the first makers of mass produced jazz cigarettes? Phillip Morris or Lorillard, pick one, 99% chance, right?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
There's also the PR aspect. Tobacco companies are already hated, so there's nothing for them to lose, whereas other companies might not want to be associated with marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
ThirdReichNRoll posted:There's also the PR aspect. Tobacco companies are already hated, so there's nothing for them to lose, whereas other companies might not want to be associated with marijuana. Its also a chance to boost cigarette sales via tobacco/cannabis mix spliffs. I would be absolutely floored if I learned that PM wasn't already making moves to be the official supplier of the state licensed stores in Washington.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
I'd bet no national company will get involved unless its legalized at the federal level. There's too much risk of hassles with the government. If you were CEO of Philip Morris, would you take the chance of the DEA busting you for distribution because they decided not to recognize Washington's legalization that day? The federal government could put a lot of pressure on companies to stay out of the business. What I'd imagine happens is states that legalize see some small to medium home-grown businesses spring up, and if there's federal legalization, the big consumer products companies swoop in and buy them up. (And then coastal hipsters start ridiculously overpriced "artisanal" brands.) As far as Philip Morris itself goes, they're owned by Altria, which is PM's attempt to diversify themselves. They also own a bunch of wines and used to own Kraft. It's not crazy that they'd end up buying a weed brand or six if it was legal, but I doubt there'd be much operational overlap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:I'd bet no national company will get involved unless its legalized at the federal level. There's too much risk of hassles with the government. If you were CEO of Philip Morris, would you take the chance of the DEA busting you for distribution because they decided not to recognize Washington's legalization that day? The federal government could put a lot of pressure on companies to stay out of the business. I agree with this after some consideration. There are already issues with banks not wanting to handle money from medical marijuana as they are bound to follow federal law, so it would make sense for a national corporation to at least present themselves as steering clear of the issue until its resolved federally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Colorado reps are seeking to give Colorado and Washington exemption from Federal pot prohibition laws.quote:In the wake of this week’s historic vote to legalize marijuana in Colorado, the state’s three Democratic U.S. House members are drafting legislation aimed at easing the tension between the new state law and longstanding federal prohibition of the drug. I find this really promising, although forcing the feds hand this early may be a mistake. I really feel that the future of marijuana legalization depends on how much money it brings the state. If the revenues are high enough, I can definitely see lawmakers looking at legalization differently. An interesting link in the original article showed that in 2011 Barney Frank introduced a bill that aimed to end marijuana prohibition completely. The bill had 20 cosponsors which included members of the House from both Washington and Colorado. The bill went nowhere but with the developments in both Washington and Colorado a new attempt may have larger success.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
Spaseman posted:Colorado reps are seeking to give Colorado and Washington exemption from Federal pot prohibition laws. quote:“When state and federal laws conflict on marijuana, Ed thinks states should get a waiver. I'd really hate to see this idea applied to things other than marijuana, like civil rights policy or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
Xeom posted:Here is my prediction and people can make fun of me if they want. I sincerely doubt this is how it will play out. Weed is basically legal in Northern California right now with huge outdoor grow ops mostly ignored by the local police and feds. Medical MJ has been expanding state to state for years now. What you are saying will happen should already be happening, and it is to some extent but the public isn't buying it and people are mostly pissed when the feds run raids in states that have decriminalized pot for medical reasons. Pot is entrenched in our culture now. Its shown favorably in music, movies, and even TV. People who talk about pot being dangerous are pretty much laughed at and ignored and the most negative cultural impression most people have of pot use is the burn-out stoner stereotype, more a loveable buffoon than a sketchy drug addict. Most of the country may not be ready to legalize just yet, but no one is terrified of pot like they are of meth and heroin. There aren't any scare tactics that the media can really effectively use anymore and the feds don't have the manpower to do much more than harass a small fraction of the trade. Your prediction is certainly possible because the US is a poo poo country run by poo poo people but I don't think it's likely. Couple of other things: Bob Ferguson, the incoming state attorney general, said he could not predict the federal response. "I'm 100 percent looking forward to defending the will of the people and will defend it vigorously." Three CO members of the House are trying to pass bills to exempt states that legalize pot from the Controlled Substances Act. I doubt very much this will go anywhere but awesome nonetheless. efb on the CO reps thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
I agree with Xandu...as much as I like the idea of this law in particular, I shudder to think of what kind of precedent it sets. It basically completely reverses the supremacy clause and states that state laws trump federal laws (at least regarding marijuana).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:I agree with Xandu...as much as I like the idea of this law in particular, I shudder to think of what kind of precedent it sets. It basically completely reverses the supremacy clause and states that state laws trump federal laws (at least regarding marijuana). Does it do that though? What if the controlled substances act is modified to read that 'cannabis is a controlled substance in those states that have not voted to make it legal'. The state law isn't trumping federal law in that case. The controlled substances act would be setting a default condition for states that have not addressed the cannabis issues themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
One thing legalization legislation has going for it is its unlikely to become a partisan wedge issue. Conservatives love their tough-on-crime thing, but there are enough libertarians and states-rights types on the right that I doubt the right will come out really strongly against it. Xandu makes a good point, but what the representatives are proposing is new federal legislation; it does not, in principle, erode the supremacy of federal law. However, it could set an uncomfortable precedent for adding opt-outs to laws that should be uniform. Of course they can't touch the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
I think we need an uptight old white person in the presidential chair to get some real federal reefer reform; in the same way only Nixon could go to China.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:I agree with Xandu...as much as I like the idea of this law in particular, I shudder to think of what kind of precedent it sets. It basically completely reverses the supremacy clause and states that state laws trump federal laws (at least regarding marijuana). I'm hardly a lawyer but I think there is a big difference between the Controlled Substances Act and the Civil Rights Act. What the CO Reps are doing, if I understand it right, is putting a bill to Congress to write waivers for drug scheduling. It wouldn't be a states vs fed rights issue at that point, just a waiver. Kind of like how Vermont is trying to get a waiver for ACA because they are implementing a state-wide UHC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Does it do that though? What if the controlled substances act is modified to read that 'cannabis is a controlled substance in those states that have not voted to make it legal'. The state law isn't trumping federal law in that case. The controlled substances act would be setting a default condition for states that have not addressed the cannabis issues themselves. That's a good point, one that I thought of right after posting my reply. Here's hoping the legislation is crafted in that way, as I feel like that might also have a higher chance of passing. I also can't wait to see how the "state's rights!!!!" Tea Partiers justify their inevitable opposition to this bill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:22
|
|