|
Yeah, the east has generally tried to actually enforce the medical part of medical marijuana and severely limits what it can be prescribed for. The list in CT was pretty short I believe, cancer, glaucoma, later stages of HIV, a few other things I believe.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Yeah, the east has generally tried to actually enforce the medical part of medical marijuana and severely limits what it can be prescribed for. The list in CT was pretty short I believe, cancer, glaucoma, later stages of HIV, a few other things I believe. The one guy in CT I know with a medical card only has it because of a still undetermined brain issue that causes randomly placed and chronic severe pain. He only got it after months of applying for it, they take it serious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This. This so hard. Once CO releases a budget that shows all the money weed brought them, every state with a budget problem will be racing to legalize it. I imagine it will be a domino effect much like a state lottery was decades back. Also, I'm really curious if, just like gambling, would legalized use not be a perfect thing for indian reservations to adopt; is there something that would prohibit them from going that route? Purely selfish reasons mind you, cause Oklahoma is just a short drive away for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I imagine it will be a domino effect much like a state lottery was decades back. Also, I'm really curious if, just like gambling, would legalized use not be a perfect thing for indian reservations to adopt; is there something that would prohibit them from going that route? Purely selfish reasons mind you, cause Oklahoma is just a short drive away for me. When you're gambling on indian land, the money you take out of the casino is legal and legally obtained. If you go to indian land to buy weed, a cop would be well within his rights to bust you for having weed the second you cross the border.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:When you're gambling on indian land, the money you take out of the casino is legal and legally obtained. If you go to indian land to buy weed, a cop would be well within his rights to bust you for having weed the second you cross the border. Yeah I get that, cause that's the same as Colorado, you can't take it across state lines. But I'm thinking there is something more that interferes with their ability to open coffee shops or allow sales inside the casinos that I just don't know about. Of course it's not really inviting to think of a 3+ hour drive just to get a buzz and then turn around and drive back but, I've never understand people doing the same thing just to satisfy their urge to loose money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Let me ask this, as the "bad guy" so to speak. My employer asked me the other day, in terms of states passing this, and since I do the drug testing as the safety coordinator for the company, what if an employee goes out of state to a state that allows this, uses it, then comes to work within the 30 or so days that its in his system? Just curious in terms of random testing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
TenTonHammer posted:Let me ask this, as the "bad guy" so to speak. My employer asked me the other day, in terms of states passing this, and since I do the drug testing as the safety coordinator for the company, what if an employee goes out of state to a state that allows this, uses it, then comes to work within the 30 or so days that its in his system? Just curious in terms of random testing. Well, that's pretty much up to your employer, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
TenTonHammer posted:Let me ask this, as the "bad guy" so to speak. My employer asked me the other day, in terms of states passing this, and since I do the drug testing as the safety coordinator for the company, what if an employee goes out of state to a state that allows this, uses it, then comes to work within the 30 or so days that its in his system? Just curious in terms of random testing. Then they might fail the drug test. Marijuana being legal doesn't mean companies can't drug test for it and exclude employees over it, it just makes it less likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
TenTonHammer posted:Let me ask this, as the "bad guy" so to speak. My employer asked me the other day, in terms of states passing this, and since I do the drug testing as the safety coordinator for the company, what if an employee goes out of state to a state that allows this, uses it, then comes to work within the 30 or so days that its in his system? Just curious. Drug testing in general should be largely done away with. Unless your job involves operating heavy machinery or perhaps piloting a plane, it's not your employer's business whether you like to smoke weed or smoke meth, so long as it doesn't affect your performance at work (and you don't come to work hosed up). That said, I imagine it would be up to the discretion of the employer whether or not they decide to take action on the employee if he fails the test, especially if they are aware that he went to a state where it was legalized. But this whole "it's legal here adn not there" thing is gonna have to get resolved pretty quickly, and I can only hope that they just pass a Federal law legalizing pot in every state before we have to wait for all fifty to pass legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:But this whole "it's legal here adn not there" thing is gonna have to get resolved pretty quickly, No it doesn't. It's 2013 and there are still many dry counties, and as I said, a company can test and exclude legal substances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:No it doesn't. It's 2013 and there are still many dry counties, and as I said, a company can test and exclude legal substances. But...but that'd be so LAME.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
TenTonHammer posted:Let me ask this, as the "bad guy" so to speak. My employer asked me the other day, in terms of states passing this, and since I do the drug testing as the safety coordinator for the company, what if an employee goes out of state to a state that allows this, uses it, then comes to work within the 30 or so days that its in his system? Just curious in terms of random testing. You're probably much better equipped to handle this in terms of information at your disposal, but drug use tests aren't something that's legal because the drugs are illegal. If you were an employer and wanted to forbid your employees from drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco, you're perfectly within your rights to do so and ask those employees to submit to drug testing to ensure that. Just as you're free to not do drug tests and hire people who do use drugs. It's not exactly a new thing, since there were already destinations people could go to in order to enjoy recreational marijuana legally (Amsterdam), it's just now there's such a location much closer to most US-based people. If your company wants to give people a pass, they can. If they don't want to, they don't have to. The only thing that might worth considering is the company's insurance policy. From a previous employer I learned that one of the things really pushing employer drug tests is basically insurers, who would offer companies lower rates for needed insurance if they add a drug testing clause to their employment policies. If your company has taken such a discount, you may be required to stand against allowing that use to keep the discount.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:No it doesn't. It's 2013 and there are still many dry counties, and as I said, a company can test and exclude legal substances. It is? I must have imagined that New Year's party. (  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
President Ark posted:It is? I must have imagined that New Year's party. gently caress Well then correction, it's 2014 and there are still dry counties 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:You're probably much better equipped to handle this in terms of information at your disposal, but drug use tests aren't something that's legal because the drugs are illegal. If you were an employer and wanted to forbid your employees from drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco, you're perfectly within your rights to do so and ask those employees to submit to drug testing to ensure that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
If you want to smoke pot on your off hours, get a non-governmental job in an IT-related field. Half my co-workers smoke and openly talk about it, no one cares.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Drug testing in general should be largely done away with. Unless your job involves operating heavy machinery or perhaps piloting a plane, it's not your employer's business whether you like to smoke weed or smoke meth, so long as it doesn't affect your performance at work (and you don't come to work hosed up). That said, I imagine it would be up to the discretion of the employer whether or not they decide to take action on the employee if he fails the test, especially if they are aware that he went to a state where it was legalized. And that is the point of me asking, we are an industrial construction company, which does include operation of heavy equipment, high risk aerial work, etc. But we have already had one employee fail a drug test and caused a little ruckus about it saying that, in his own words, "This is 2013, I should be able to smoke dope. If I went to another state where it's legal, I'll have OSHA up your rear end". Which I know is an idle threat, but still, if they call OSHA, you are looking at a compliance officer showing up to question the legitimacy of the claim, etc etc, wasted time due to a pissed off ex employee. Be nice if there was wording in stone on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Mrit posted:If you want to smoke pot on your off hours, get a non-governmental job in an IT-related field. Half my co-workers smoke and openly talk about it, no one cares. Too true. IT field doesn't give a gently caress as long as you don't show up to work high (and even then, for low-level user support, they don't really care either.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
TenTonHammer posted:And that is the point of me asking, we are an industrial construction company, which does include operation of heavy equipment, high risk aerial work, etc. But we have already had one employee fail a drug test and caused a little ruckus about it saying that, in his own words, "This is 2013, I should be able to smoke dope. If I went to another state where it's legal, I'll have OSHA up your rear end". Which I know is an idle threat, but still, if they call OSHA, you are looking at a compliance officer showing up to question the legitimacy of the claim, etc etc, wasted time due to a pissed off ex employee. Be nice if there was wording in stone on this. Employers can fire you for caffeine use if they wanted. If your job drug tests(and if you are in transportation, construction, or anything else physical they probably do) don't smoke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
There is no wording in stone on this because private employers are not required by any law to test their employees for substances. You need to coordinate with your boss and figure out what your company's policy is going to be regarding this, no one here is going to be able to help you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Employers can fire you for caffeine use if they wanted. This shouldn't be allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
I have been on job sites that have banned energy drinks before, but nothing full on caffeine related.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
EightBit posted:You can grow low quality weed outside with little energy investment: you can't make meth of any quality without a decent amount of heat, enough to where police can accurately target cooks by looking for excessive energy use. Shake-n-bake cook method can produce up to 1 gram of meth and can be done anywhere you can store a two-liter soda bottle. Hence the stories of people getting caught for shoplifting who turn out to have cooks going in their purses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I imagine it will be a domino effect much like a state lottery was decades back. Also, I'm really curious if, just like gambling, would legalized use not be a perfect thing for indian reservations to adopt; is there something that would prohibit them from going that route? Purely selfish reasons mind you, cause Oklahoma is just a short drive away for me. They are restricted by federal laws, any gambling/religious drug use etc, is because of a federal exception. I don't think a federal exception for retail drugs would be approved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Shake-n-bake cook method can produce up to 1 gram of meth and can be done anywhere you can store a two-liter soda bottle. Hence the stories of people getting caught for shoplifting who turn out to have cooks going in their purses. That's amazing. I am literally amazed at this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
TenTonHammer posted:I have been on job sites that have banned energy drinks before, but nothing full on caffeine related. No one is *actually* going to test for caffeine. Its to prove a point: legality means nothing, you can be fired for anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
TenTonHammer posted:I have been on job sites that have banned energy drinks before, but nothing full on caffeine related. Well banning energy drinks isn't really more reasonable than just banning caffiene. It'd be pretty much like banning drinking wine in your offtimes but not banning drinking beer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Well banning energy drinks isn't really more reasonable than just banning caffiene. It'd be pretty much like banning drinking wine in your offtimes but not banning drinking beer. I'd argue that most companies should really have to fight a bit to earn the power to dictate to you how you must live your life, certainly your life off-the-clock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
TenTonHammer posted:And that is the point of me asking, we are an industrial construction company, which does include operation of heavy equipment, high risk aerial work, etc. But we have already had one employee fail a drug test and caused a little ruckus about it saying that, in his own words, "This is 2013, I should be able to smoke dope. If I went to another state where it's legal, I'll have OSHA up your rear end". Which I know is an idle threat, but still, if they call OSHA, you are looking at a compliance officer showing up to question the legitimacy of the claim, etc etc, wasted time due to a pissed off ex employee. Be nice if there was wording in stone on this. If you're the one making this decision for your employer then you need to tell your employer to spend the money and get a real life legal opinion from a qualified labor lawyer in your area/state, preferably from a large firm that will still be around for the next few years until this poo poo gets sorted out in the courts and will actually stand behind their opinion and defend it if they have to. Then you actually have something to hang your hat on if you have are faced with this issue down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:I'd argue that most companies should really have to fight a bit to earn the power to dictate to you how you must live your life, certainly your life off-the-clock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
That's a pretty poor example, harassing coworkers off work property is illegal anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Mrit posted:If you want to smoke pot on your off hours, get a non-governmental job in an IT-related field. Half my co-workers smoke and openly talk about it, no one cares. Neither of my government jobs ever tested, and one involved teaching in a public school. I only ever got tested for minimum wage retail jobs, like pushing grocery carts. Drug testing is mostly just a tool to mess with the lower class and low wage work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:I feel like you must have a much broader or much narrower argument than you are presenting here. Private employers currently exist and and currently make hiring and firing powers. We already have a variety of rules restricting on how they go about hiring and firing, and it's pretty clear that employers should have some sort of power to dictate how you live your life (no harassing fellow employees off work seems like a plausible example). If you want to argue that employers hiring/firing powers should be more limited than it already is, you need either a class of behaviors that employers can't consider when hiring or firing (off work drug use in this case), or a class of behaviors which are the only behaviors that employers can consider (job performance). The reason this is important is because your post looks a lot more broad than drug use, but if you are arguing that employers should have cause for firing, you've neglected to define what cause constitutes. Hm. This is more to consider. Um... Well, I mean, basically, yeah, you should be allowed to do whatever drugs you want. Your employer should only care if it directly affects your performance, and should only be allowed to actually test you for drug use if the job very specifically can only be performed sober or where many lives are at stake (like, piloting a plane). Drug-use is so pervasive and comes in so many varieties of forms that most anti-drug rules set up by employers don't seem to do much but keep a lot of people out of the work force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:I'd argue that most companies should really have to fight a bit to earn the power to dictate to you how you must live your life, certainly your life off-the-clock. Yea, "at-will employment" is a scourge of working people. Get fired for wearing an ugly tie! For liking the wrong sports team! For smoking a joint at home! For, after legalization, smoking the wrong brand of joint at home!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
While I'm glad that CO has legalized weed, I'm not sure what kind of impact it's going to have the prison population. Especially since the current legal market can't match the volume of the black market. There are already retail stores out of weed, and while i'm sure a lot of the demand is because of novelty, eventually people are going to call their old dealer up and get most of their weed that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
I'm also skeptical that legalizing marijuana will actually affect the prison population over the long term, because our justice system is a sham and it's economically and politically necessary to imprison more people than the height of the GULAG period to keep things running smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:While I'm glad that CO has legalized weed, I'm not sure what kind of impact it's going to have the prison population. Especially since the current legal market can't match the volume of the black market. There are already retail stores out of weed, and while i'm sure a lot of the demand is because of novelty, eventually people are going to call their old dealer up and get most of their weed that way. Hahahaha, yea no. The appeal of going to a store that has all the strains listed on the wall with set prices will outweigh waiting for a call from a dealer where he tells you he's got the "best stuff" but refuses to give you any more info. (At least, I assume, I've never used a dealer, this is just based on my talks with weed users in non-legal states) The demand was just overwhelming in the first few days (as to be expected.) Weed is crazy easy to grow, they will just start growing more and supply will quickly meet the increased demand. The black market for weed in CO will wither away and die very soon. The only people who would hit up a dealer instead of go to a store are people who live extremely far away from stores, but even that won't be a big issue after the retail weed spreads throughout the state. I'm starting to sense that you don't know much about weed or the people who smoke it. ETA: Oh, yea, and they wouldn't be busted anyway so thanks for Chicken Littling about an imaginary concern. Thanks to showbiz_liz for reminding me. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jan 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:I'm also skeptical that legalizing marijuana will actually affect the prison population over the long term, because our justice system is a sham and it's economically and politically necessary to imprison more people than the height of the GULAG period to keep things running smoothly. Or private prisons could just raise their rates per prisoner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:While I'm glad that CO has legalized weed, I'm not sure what kind of impact it's going to have the prison population. Especially since the current legal market can't match the volume of the black market. There are already retail stores out of weed, and while i'm sure a lot of the demand is because of novelty, eventually people are going to call their old dealer up and get most of their weed that way. Even if that happened, no one could be busted for possession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Or private prisons could just raise their rates per prisoner. Seriously, gotta get an amendment for this. In fact, we should probably put more safeguards against imprisonment in general. We're pretty happy to throw you into jail for a long-rear end time, if we don't shoot you first (or do both!)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:51
|
|