Drug legalization thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

hayden.: Sep 11, 2007; here's a goat on a pig or something

Is it a bad argument to advocate corporate drug testing because they don't want to hire someone who uses illegal drugs and, in their opinion, is very likely to make other poor life choices and risks? I don't agree with it but it seems like they should be allowed to if they want, no one is forcing them to take a drug test.

hayden. fucked around with this message at 03:00 on May 28, 2014

# ? May 28, 2014 02:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:48

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

hayden. posted:

I'm not suggesting every drug user is irresponsible and makes bad choices, but it's overwhelmingly the case. Less so for marijuana, but as a company it seems like you have to make a stance against all or none otherwise you'd appear to be saying pot is okay (which you might, but in something as sensitive as hiring it's a bad idea to say publicly).

You realize you are calling the vast majority of the population irresponsible people who make bad choices, right? Which, sure, I mean, that's true. But if companies limited themselves to people who didn't make bad choices or who avoided drugs completely, they are probably gonna have a bad time finding decent employees. Those who avoid drugs tend to have their problems too.

So you do what most do, and accept the employees who use drugs but don't let it impact their work, or for whom the impact is minimal.

# ? May 28, 2014 03:00

hayden.: Sep 11, 2007; here's a goat on a pig or something

You quoted before my edit because I wanted to make it clear that isn't my opinion, but the opinion many managers I've met have had.

I think the reality is that yes, the majority of people try an illegal drug some point in their life, but the vast majority are not going to fail a drug test at any given time, especially during a time when they're looking for a job. When you have a huge pool of talent to choose from, have three good candidates, and one of them failed - why not go for the other two?

Again, just asking the question, not my opinion.

# ? May 28, 2014 03:02

thekeeshman: Feb 21, 2007

hayden. posted:

You quoted before my edit because I wanted to make it clear that isn't my opinion, but the opinion many managers I've met have had.

I think the reality is that yes, the majority of people try an illegal drug some point in their life, but the vast majority are not going to fail a drug test at any given time, especially during a time when they're looking for a job.

The problem is that weed, which is the least harmful illegal drug, is also the one that sticks around in your system for the longest. So sure, if you can't stay off smack for a week so you can get clean enough to pass a test you probably won't be a productive employee. But it can take months for weed to clear your system if you're a regular smoker, and if you suddenly find yourself out of work and need to start job hunting unexpectedly that can be a real problem, and it really won't say anything about how good a worker you'll be.

# ? May 28, 2014 03:07

LuciferMorningstar: Aug 12, 2012; VIDEO GAME MODIFICATION IS TOTALLY THE SAME THING AS A FEMALE'S BODY AND CLONING SAID MODIFICATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS RAPE, GUYS!!!!!!!

hayden. posted:

You quoted before my edit because I wanted to make it clear that isn't my opinion, but the opinion many managers I've met have had.

I think the reality is that yes, the majority of people try an illegal drug some point in their life, but the vast majority are not going to fail a drug test at any given time, especially during a time when they're looking for a job. When you have a huge pool of talent to choose from, have three good candidates, and one of them failed - why not go for the other two?

Again, just asking the question, not my opinion.

Because that doesn't involve much critical thought on the part of the individual doing the hiring? I guess if you've got two perfectly equal candidates and a drug test is all that separates them, you could use that as a rationale, but what's the underlying reasoning? Failing a drug test alone doesn't necessarily mean anything. Would that same employer discriminate on the basis of tobacco or alcohol consumption? Why or why not? What is it that a drug test tells an employer about a potential employee?

You mention responsibility as a potential issue, but aren't there other ways to make those evaluations? As someone who is a drug user and has a pretty solid academic record, if a potential employer tells me that he can tell I'm irresponsible or immoral or whatever because I can't pass a drug test, I'll probably kindly invite said employer to go gently caress himself. And like the above poster noted, a lot of the drugs that are more associated with negative stuff clear out of your system faster, so in reality, a drug test tells you very, very little about a person. If someone is hopelessly addicted and irresponsible, you'll probably be able to figure that out without a drug test.

E: The real question is this: What does a drug test tell you about someone? I'd argue that it doesn't tell you much at all.

# ? May 28, 2014 03:26

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

hayden. posted:

Is it a bad argument to advocate corporate drug testing because they don't want to hire someone who uses illegal drugs and, in their opinion, is very likely to make other poor life choices and risks? I don't agree with it but it seems like they should be allowed to if they want, no one is forcing them to take a drug test.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_L6luWXsZ1gC&lpg=PA86&vq=drug%20testing&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2350080

Why is it wrong to test employees for STIs? If they test positive for HIV or syphilis doesn't this indicate they are likely to make other poor choices?

KingEup fucked around with this message at 03:59 on May 28, 2014

# ? May 28, 2014 03:54

Star Man: Jun 1, 2008; There's a star maaaaaan
Over the rainbow

Inspector Hound posted:

A few pages back there was a poster who got turned down for a budtender job at a dispensary for not smoking, but that's seems like an obvious one.

That would be me. But I am starting a job with that company as a trimmer on June 2. I was told that non-canabis users are not unheard of in the business and there are plenty of them that are just there for a job, which is how I see it. I've worked at gas stations before and sold cigarettes and chew but the desire to use it myself never came up and I expect that it'll be the same with cannabis.

# ? May 28, 2014 04:44

Freakazoid_: Jul 5, 2013; Buglord

hayden. posted:

Is it a bad argument to advocate corporate drug testing because they don't want to hire someone who uses illegal drugs and, in their opinion, is very likely to make other poor life choices and risks? I don't agree with it but it seems like they should be allowed to if they want, no one is forcing them to take a drug test.

I'm pretty sure corporations test for drug use because the federal government doesn't like drug users, not because Poor Choice A will always lead to Poor Choice B.

So yes, it's a bad argument.

# ? May 28, 2014 07:19

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

KingEup posted:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_L6luWXsZ1gC&lpg=PA86&vq=drug%20testing&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2350080

Why is it wrong to test employees for STIs? If they test positive for HIV or syphilis doesn't this indicate they are likely to make other poor choices?

First off, gently caress you.

You don't know how they got HIV or some other infection. It could have been from a bad needle or contamination accident outside of their control (or hey, maybe they were raped and got an STI that way!). Then you say the solution is to make it harder for them to get a job.

That is not a solution.

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 16:40 on May 28, 2014

# ? May 28, 2014 16:37

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

TheRamblingSoul posted:

First off, gently caress you.

You don't know how they got HIV or some other infection. It could have been from a bad needle or contamination accident outside of their control (or hey, maybe they were raped and got an STI that way!). Then you say the solution is to make it harder for them to get a job.

That is not a solution.

I think that was his point.

# ? May 28, 2014 16:41

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

TheRamblingSoul posted:

First off, gently caress you.

You don't know how they got HIV or some other infection. It could have been from a bad needle or contamination accident outside of their control (or hey, maybe they were raped and got an STI that way!). Then you say the solution is to make it harder for them to get a job.

That is not a solution.

you've saved the day again from this dreadful wrongthinker

# ? May 28, 2014 16:53

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

"First off, gently caress you" is a very valid and poignant way to begin a rebuttal in debate.

# ? May 28, 2014 17:06

down with slavery: Dec 23, 2013; STOP QUOTING MY POSTS SO PEOPLE THAT AREN'T IDIOTS DON'T HAVE TO READ MY FUCKING TERRIBLE OPINIONS THANKS

TheRamblingSoul posted:

You don't know how they got HIV or some other infection. It could have been from a bad needle or contamination accident outside of their control

This can happen with drug tests too fyi

The real reason that "drug tests" (the ones that scan for everything) are pointless is because using weed while not at work has a terrible correlation with being a poo poo employee, much like off-hours alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine consumption. I'd love to see some data that suggests otherwise.

down with slavery fucked around with this message at 17:10 on May 28, 2014

# ? May 28, 2014 17:08

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 22 hours!

hayden. posted:

You quoted before my edit because I wanted to make it clear that isn't my opinion, but the opinion many managers I've met have had.

Opinions managers have are frequently lovely, which is why there are a bunch of laws about things they're not allowed to consider before making hiring/firing decisions. Many think that women are worse workers because they may choose to bear or care for pesky kids, others might think that minority employees are less competent or bad for business. Yet others would just arbitrarily exclude anyone who might need a disability accommodated because it's too much trouble.

The idea that managers make only pragmatic decisions based on business reasons is hopeful but counterfactual. Perhaps worse, sometimes business decisions that are accurate because people generally can have terrible opinions (let's say a business-owner in the South not hiring minorities for customer-facing positions) can result in bad societal outcomes (making it harder for minorities to find work), so disallowing a manager's opinion on certain matters can be a valid policy tool.

So what it comes back to is whether employees should have a right to privacy regarding their personal drug use. If you agree with that, it doesn't matter what opinions managers may or may not have.

# ? May 28, 2014 17:15

LuciferMorningstar: Aug 12, 2012; VIDEO GAME MODIFICATION IS TOTALLY THE SAME THING AS A FEMALE'S BODY AND CLONING SAID MODIFICATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS RAPE, GUYS!!!!!!!

Mr. Nice! posted:

"First off, gently caress you" is a very valid and poignant way to begin a rebuttal in debate.

Sometimes it really is the most appropriate response.

# ? May 28, 2014 17:22

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

I concur. I believe the first to use it in formal debate was when Lincoln delivered his first rebuttal to Stephen Douglas.

# ? May 28, 2014 17:39

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

TheRamblingSoul posted:

First off, gently caress you.

You don't know how they got HIV or some other infection. It could have been from a bad needle or contamination accident outside of their control (or hey, maybe they were raped and got an STI that way!). Then you say the solution is to make it harder for them to get a job.

That is not a solution.

Yeah, look man, I was actually trying to make the point that screening for illegal drug use is a bad idea. I had thought with those two links I included it would have been pretty clear.

# ? May 28, 2014 22:15

Ulf: Jul 15, 2001; FOUR COLORS
ONE LOVE; Nap Ghost

A glimpse at the sordid underworld of legal marijuana: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/27/5740568/colorados-director-of-pot-enforcement-thinks-legalization-is-going

Director of Enforcement, Colorado Department of Revenue posted:

From our standpoint, the biggest challenge has been the timelines that were built into Amendment 64. They're pretty aggressive for us in terms of having to put all the regulations and the requirements in place. One example is last year we had to have rules adopted by July 1, and the legislative process didn't conclude until the end of May, which left us about 30 days to put together the regulations for retail marijuana.

So pretty aggressive timeline there. The way that we did it is we adopted emergency rules July 1, and then we went through a more thoughtful process with permanent rule making where we pulled together working groups so we had representatives from all the different stakeholders.

Another example of a tight time frame for us: built into the constitutional amendment was that we had to take licensing action on any business application within 90 days of receipt. That's, again, a pretty aggressive timeline, but we've been able to really develop processes that work for us. Thus far we've not had any one single application that hasn't met that constitutional requirement.

Legislative subcommittees: Not even once.

Seriously though this article helps refocus me from "What is Washington's deal" to "Oh it was just Colorado being incredibly quick" instead.

# ? May 29, 2014 01:01

LuciferMorningstar: Aug 12, 2012; VIDEO GAME MODIFICATION IS TOTALLY THE SAME THING AS A FEMALE'S BODY AND CLONING SAID MODIFICATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS RAPE, GUYS!!!!!!!

Ulf posted:

A glimpse at the sordid underworld of legal marijuana: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/27/5740568/colorados-director-of-pot-enforcement-thinks-legalization-is-going

Legislative subcommittees: Not even once.

Seriously though this article helps refocus me from "What is Washington's deal" to "Oh it was just Colorado being incredibly quick" instead.

It's not just Colorado being quick, it's Colorado being smart, I think. People saw they had to move quickly, and instead of using their institutional powers to slow things down or whatever, they asked "How can we cope with what we've been given?" Honestly, adopting emergency rules and then revising them seems pretty brilliant and I love the approach. Make some broad, sensible strokes first, then revise later, and continue revising as the situation develops.

# ? May 29, 2014 01:27

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

LuciferMorningstar posted:

Make some broad, sensible strokes first, then revise later, and continue revising as the situation develops.

I believe that's called governing, and I'm told there are still legislative and executive departments in some places in the world that do it on occasion.

# ? May 29, 2014 04:09

LuciferMorningstar: Aug 12, 2012; VIDEO GAME MODIFICATION IS TOTALLY THE SAME THING AS A FEMALE'S BODY AND CLONING SAID MODIFICATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS RAPE, GUYS!!!!!!!

KernelSlanders posted:

I believe that's called governing, and I'm told there are still legislative and executive departments in some places in the world that do it on occasion.

If only it were consistent...

# ? May 29, 2014 04:19

Spergin Morlock: Aug 8, 2009

LuciferMorningstar posted:

If only it were consistent...

If only the participants had everyone's good in mind rather than just that of special interests, even if those interests are legitimate.

# ? May 29, 2014 06:17

AYC: Mar 9, 2014; Ask me how I smoke weed, watch hentai, everyday and how it's unfair that governments limits my ability to do this. Also ask me why I have to write in green text in order for my posts to stand out.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/30/house-votes-halt-federal-meddling-medical-marijuan/

House votes to end Medical Marijuana prosecutions by the federal government.

# ? May 30, 2014 15:34

Mirthless: Mar 27, 2011; by the sex ghost

AYC posted:

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/30/house-votes-halt-federal-meddling-medical-marijuan/

House votes to end Medical Marijuana prosecutions by the federal government.

I kept saying "Which house?" over and over again in my head trying to figure out what state this was about and then I realized it was federal. That's a pretty big step in the right direction, right?

And the house of all places. Don't these things usually languish and die in committee?

# ? May 30, 2014 16:15

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Mirthless posted:

I kept saying "Which house?" over and over again in my head trying to figure out what state this was about and then I realized it was federal. That's a pretty big step in the right direction, right?

And the house of all places. Don't these things usually languish and die in committee?

This could potentially be one of those lame duck session bills that the Senate passes as it would possibly effect them in the 2014 race.

# ? May 30, 2014 16:21

Frabba: May 30, 2008; Investing in chewy toy futures

Mirthless posted:

I kept saying "Which house?" over and over again in my head trying to figure out what state this was about and then I realized it was federal. That's a pretty big step in the right direction, right?

And the house of all places. Don't these things usually languish and die in committee?

That this is coming out of the house with bipartisan support is absolutely huge. I'm honestly amazed.

# ? May 30, 2014 16:29

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Frabba posted:

That this is coming out of the house with bipartisan support is absolutely huge. I'm honestly amazed.

On to the Senate where ideas go to die. Didn't the House just vote with overwhelming bipartisan support to reign in the NSA? I don't think either bill is going anywhere, but I'm nonetheless hopeful.

# ? May 30, 2014 16:37

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Well Harry Reid is on record supporting MMJ while he also supports the NSA, so I think this has better prospects. That said most national politicians still have awful opinions on the drug war and I'm pretty drat surprised even this tiny step happened.

# ? May 30, 2014 16:46

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

If it got through the House then it'll get through the Senate. The optics of federally prosecuting MMJ patients/growers have always been terrible, I don't see Obama or Reid willingly putting the Democrats in a bear trap of "well, we Republicans tried to stop Obama but he just won't leave those poor sick folks alone!"

# ? May 30, 2014 17:08

Prosopagnosiac: May 19, 2007; One of us! One of us! Aqua Buddha! Aqua Buddha! One of us!

Yeah it has the potential to make a difference. But assuming, charitably, that it does pass and get signed into law, wouldn't the DEA be able to take it to court on federal supremacy grounds? Any of our legal eagles know about precedent with regard to a law demanding non enforcement?

# ? May 30, 2014 18:12

Mirthless: Mar 27, 2011; by the sex ghost

Prosopagnosiac posted:

Yeah it has the potential to make a difference. But assuming, charitably, that it does pass and get signed into law, wouldn't the DEA be able to take it to court on federal supremacy grounds? Any of our legal eagles know about precedent with regard to a law demanding non enforcement?

I think it would be pretty dumb for a federal agency to take the federal government to federal court over a federal agency overstepping or understepping it's bounds of enforcement.

I also think that it would be pretty visibly dumb to everyone involved if that happened. Like, career-ending stupid. I don't see it happening.

Mirthless fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 30, 2014

# ? May 30, 2014 18:13

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Prosopagnosiac posted:

Yeah it has the potential to make a difference. But assuming, charitably, that it does pass and get signed into law, wouldn't the DEA be able to take it to court on federal supremacy grounds? Any of our legal eagles know about precedent with regard to a law demanding non enforcement?

Here is the law:

quote:

Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

The way it's worded is clearly as a funding bill and as such is constitutional.

(the DEA is part of the DOJ)

# ? May 30, 2014 18:16

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

computer parts posted:

Here is the law:

The way it's worded is clearly as a funding bill and as such is constitutional.

(the DEA is part of the DOJ)

Why were we(CT) not included :colbert:

# ? May 30, 2014 18:51

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Amused to Death posted:

Why were we(CT) not included

MN was left out too as our MMJ law went into effect yesterday, although it's so incredibly watered down and restrictive that we probably wouldn't have been a target of the DEA anyways.

# ? May 30, 2014 19:29

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

MaxxBot posted:

MN was left out too as our MMJ law went into effect yesterday, although it's so incredibly watered down and restrictive that we probably wouldn't have been a target of the DEA anyways.

MI is also missing from the list. What a weird bill.

# ? May 31, 2014 09:25

Teriyaki Hairpiece: Dec 29, 2006; I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.

Delaware was left out, too, but our situation is kind of hosed up.

# ? May 31, 2014 09:44

Teriyaki Hairpiece: Dec 29, 2006; I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.

Speaking of Delaware..

quote:

Delawareans could legally possess up to an ounce of marijuana for "personal use" under new legislation backed by Democratic lawmakers in both chambers of the General Assembly.

The legislation would set the minimum age for marijuana possession at 21 and would only impose a $100 civil fine on anyone found consuming marijuana in a public place, including streets, parks and sidewalks.

Under current Delaware law, possession of small amounts of marijuana is currently prosecuted as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and fines of up to $1,150.

Rep. Helene Keeley, a Wilmington Democrat, is sponsoring the bill. The measure could be difficult to move through the Legislature with just a month left in the current session, but at least 14 other Democratic lawmakers have joined Keeley as co-sponsors. No Republicans were listed as sponsors on Thursday.

"This is to start dialogue," Keeley said. "I think that society is evolving just like it evolved when it came to same sex marriage," Keeley said.

Sen. Bryan Townsend, a Newark Democrat and co-sponsor of the legislation, called the measure the "first step" in the direction of full legalization and regulation of marijuana sales.

"So many people's entry into the criminal justice system involves possession or use of very small amounts of marijuana," Townsend said. "There are very serious drugs, we need to treat people's addictions and we need to penalize drug dealers. In my mind, marijuana is not in the same grouping as a lot of the drugs we need to be focusing our efforts on."

Republicans, who are in the minority in both chambers of the General Assembly, are likely to oppose the effort.

"I don't believe we need to legalize marijuana," said Senate Minority Leader Gary Simpson, R-Milford, calling marijuana a "pathway to greater drug use. There was some merit, I thought, to marijuana for medical use for people that are sick. But as far as recreational marijuana, I just don't think we need to go down that path right now. I think my caucus members would feel the same way."

The marijuana proposal comes after a March poll showed more than two-thirds of Delawareans supported the removal of criminal penalties for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, with criminal penalties replaced by civil fines. The poll was commissioned by the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group, and conducted by Public Policy Polling.

If passed, the measure would place Delaware among the most liberal states on marijuana policy. Eighteen states have eliminated jail time for first-time possession of small amounts of marijuana, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, though some still impose criminal penalties for repeat offenders.

Maryland lawmakers approved decriminalization legislation this year that imposes $100 fines on anyone found possessing less than 10 grams of marijuana, with mandatory drug education for third-time offenders.

"It is time to stop branding people as criminals for using marijuana, and marking them with a criminal conviction that can derail dreams by making it difficult to get a job, education or housing," said Robert Capecchi, deputy director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This sensible measure would allow police to focus on serious crimes instead of people who choose a substance that is safer than alcohol."

Gov. Jack Markell has said he would not support a move toward full legalization of marijuana, but a spokesman for the governor said he is "willing to discuss" changes that would eliminate criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of the drug.

Markell signed legislation in 2011 legalizing marijuana for medical purposes but delayed the program under threats from the federal government. The state recently took bids from seven companies to operate its first medical marijuana dispensary.

Kelly Bachman, a spokeswoman for the governor, said Markell had not seen specifics of the bill on Thursday and has not discussed the measure with Keeley.

"He has expressed interest in ongoing dialogue regarding changing the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana," Bachman said, "and this bill provides another opportunity to do so. He looks forward to those conversations."

Probably won't happen.

# ? May 31, 2014 09:52

Beaters: Jun 28, 2004; SOWING SEEDS
OF MISERY SINCE 1937
FRYING LIKE A FRITO
IN THE SKILLET
OF HADES
SINCE 1975

AZ would seem to be missing, too. We have a functioning MMJ program up and running, too, for several years now.

# ? May 31, 2014 15:38

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Beaters posted:

AZ would seem to be missing, too. We have a functioning MMJ program up and running, too, for several years now.

Well I got that from Wikipedia and it's apparently been submitted 7 times so it's possible they changed the wording slightly.

# ? May 31, 2014 16:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:48

Pryor on Fire: May 14, 2013; they don't know all alien abduction experiences can be explained by people thinking saving private ryan was a documentary

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/after-5-months-of-sales-colorado-sees-the-downside-of-a-legal-high.html

quote:

�I think, by any measure, the experience of Colorado has not been a good one unless you�re in the marijuana business,� said Kevin A. Sabet, executive director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalization. �We�ve seen lives damaged. We�ve seen deaths directly attributed to marijuana legalization. We�ve seen marijuana slipping through Colorado�s borders. We�ve seen marijuana getting into the hands of kids.�

Sheriff Adam Hayward of Deuel County, Neb., said he was locking up more people for marijuana-related offenses. �It�s kind of a free-for-all,� he said. �The state or the federal government needs to step up and do something.�

Criminal marijuana cases in Colorado plunged by 65 percent in 2013, the first full year of legalization for personal recreational use, but the police in some areas have been writing dozens of tickets to crack down on public marijuana smokers. Police and fire officials across the state have been contending with a sharp rise in home explosions, as people try to cook hashish oil over butane flames. And despite a galaxy of legal, regulated marijuana stores across the state, prosecutors say a dangerous illicit market persists.

In February, for example, in the Denver suburb of Aurora, a 17-year-old planning to rob an out-of-state marijuana buyer instead accidentally shot and killed his girlfriend, law enforcement officials said.

�Why break into a house to steal a TV or a computer that you have to fence when you can steal mounds of cash or marijuana, which is like liquid?� said George Brauchler, the district attorney who oversees Aurora. �That�s the kind of stuff we�re starting to become more aware of.�

In March, the state logged what appeared to be its first death directly tied to legal recreational marijuana when a 19-year-old African exchange student, Levy Thamba Pongi, plunged to his death in Denver. He and three other students had driven from their college in Wyoming to sample Colorado�s newly legal wares. Mr. Pongi ate marijuana-infused cookies, began acting wildly and leapt from a hotel balcony, officials said; the medical examiner�s office said marijuana intoxication had made a �significant� contribution to the accident.

# ? Jun 2, 2014 02:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

«‹›266 »