|
Our favourite cannabis legalization skeptic Prof Kleiman has decided that the telling peoole about the racist origin of cannabis prohibtion isn't a good argument against prohibition: http://marijuanalegalization.about.com/od/RelatedIssues/fl/Racism-and-Reefer-Madness.htm Nevermind the fact that the majority of people probably still think cannabis was banned 'for a good reason or the gubmint wouldn't have done it'.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:
Why does every single loving law always have to be regressive as gently caress to poor and/or black people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Why does every single loving law always have to be regressive as gently caress to poor and/or black people? Which parts? The public housing part? That's not DC's choice, the public housing is federal and residents could lose their subsidized unit if they smoke there. Or did you mean the smoking outside part because minorities are less likely to have outdoor private property? Or the "only six mature plants even if the house has 3+ adults" is unfair because minorities are more likely to have more than two adults in a residence?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
I meant the public housing thing. But if it's a federal thing from HUD then yea it would be irresponsible for DC not to disclose that, it's still lovely of course. No Public smoking is lovely too but not specifically for regressive reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Dattserberg posted:Thanks for posting this. I had actually come to ask if there was any movement in Michigan. Yeah, I'm actually fairly positive it will pass but I still can't help but think the republican clown car in Lansing will do whatever they possibly can to gently caress things over. TapThatForwardAssist you are doing great work, thanks 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
It's silly that DC isn't allowing sales, but it makes for an interesting social experiment. I'm curious to see what the unintended side effects are. The idea of states rights as laboratories is growing on me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
OniPanda posted:Yeah, I'm actually fairly positive it will pass but I still can't help but think the republican clown car in Lansing will do whatever they possibly can to gently caress things over. I don't think businesses will ever be forced into allowing their employees to use legalized marijuana, much like how they're not forced into letting people smoke tobacco (and indeed they can fire you if they find out you do it, even off time). computer parts fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Does this thread also track marijuana legalization in Canada? I'm always surprised to learn the US is ahead of Canada in this regard, given how much weed is consumed in Canada. Legislation is probably less likely in Canada and will definitely be slower. It's straight up not going to happen with the current government because their whole platform is being tough on crime. But even if the Conservatives lose the next election legalisation will be slow. There's a few reasons for that. For one, criminal law is an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction; there are no provincial criminal laws. So the whole country has legalise all at once. That obviously makes things slower. I suspect BC for instance would support legalisation but you obviously also have more conservative areas of the country (really everywhere rural) that don't. The jurisdictional thing also blocks the experimentation you see in the US where most states can watch what's happening in Washington and Colorado. There's also no voter initiatives process federally in Canada. I thought they were illegal altogether but apparently BC does allow for initiatives. If it does happen the feds would probably negotiate the process with the provinces because, I suspect, once weed is legalised it'd be a provincial area of jurisdiction. Gleri fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
If marijuana is not criminalized federally and it is prescribed by a doctor, it may not be possible to fire you for off-hours consumption. Even on the clock really, if you aren't prevented from doing your job reasonably. You can take a Percocet in the morning if directed by your doctor, after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If marijuana is not criminalized federally and it is prescribed by a doctor, it may not be possible to fire you for off-hours consumption. Even on the clock really, if you aren't prevented from doing your job reasonably. You can take a Percocet in the morning if directed by your doctor, after all. Medical is an exception, but i doubt that it's impossible to make non-smoking versions of marijuana that have the same (or similar, if reduced in potency) medical effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't think businesses will ever be forced into allowing their employees to use legalized marijuana, much like how they're not forced into letting people smoke tobacco (and indeed they can fire you if they find out you do it, even off time). Actually, several states including New York and Colorado explicitly ban employers from retaliating against employees for legal activities they engage in off the clock. So far, this hasn't been applied to cannabis in Colorado because it's illegal federally, but there's no reason it can't eventually be the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Actually, several states including New York and Colorado explicitly ban employers from retaliating against employees for legal activities they engage in off the clock. So far, this hasn't been applied to cannabis in Colorado because it's illegal federally, but there's no reason it can't eventually be the case. I can guarantee it won't be a thing federally, state laws are up for grabs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:It's silly that DC isn't allowing sales, but it makes for an interesting social experiment. I'm curious to see what the unintended side effects are. The idea of states rights as laboratories is growing on me. It's not by choice: a bug/feature of initiatives in DC is that a public initiative cannot impose any financial burden on the City Council, other than just taking up man-hours. Since a full commercialization would require hiring extra personnel to cover special zoning, hiring/adding personnel for a Marijuana Control Board, etc., they couldn't include that in the initiative. An early draft of 71 actually got struck down because it said something about legalizing and having some classes for youth to explain why they shouldn't smoke underage even if it's legal, and the Council said "nope, classes cost money, can't do that in an initiative". 71 was passed with the full intent/expectation that the Council would then make their own legislative moves to allow commercial sales, having clear political mandate/cover granted by popular initiative. That was exactly the intent, multiple councilmen said they were standing by to start forming a commercial process as soon as it passed, and prospective new mayors had said that they wouldn't allow full legalization to kick in until the commercial framework was set into place. However, certain rear end-hats in Congress put the "DC can't spend money on weed legislation" into the Cromnibus budget in December, and so DC is legally blocked from setting up any commercial structure. Those that added that clause are shouting that DC can't do any of the legalization stuff despite it having been voted in, but DC is taking the stance that since 71 was voted in over a month before the Cromnibus, it's already been "enacted" and all these other steps are just finishing touches to a done-deal. So right now everyone's watching intently to see if parts of Congress try to attack DC when it announces legal weed on Thursday; in theory they could prosecute the mayor and Council for "spending federal money" (hint: all DC money is federal) on something they've been ordered not to spend money on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Making it legal to do everything but sell it is mind blowing to me. Taxation is probably the biggest selling point (as far as government is concerned) and I can't believe that an elected official would forego that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If marijuana is not criminalized federally and it is prescribed by a doctor, it may not be possible to fire you for off-hours consumption. Even on the clock really, if you aren't prevented from doing your job reasonably. You can take a Percocet in the morning if directed by your doctor, after all. Businesses can fire you for any reason with no recourse. Cannabis/drug law tie heavily into labor rights. In pretty much every other country, drug testing is outlawed as a violation of privacy. If we want to achieve true drug legalization, we have to ban drug testing for every occupation except ones that affect public safety (pilots, construction, EMTs, etc).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Businesses can fire you for any reason with no recourse. Cannabis/drug law tie heavily into labor rights. In pretty much every other country, drug testing is outlawed as a violation of privacy. If we want to achieve true drug legalization, we have to ban drug testing for every occupation except ones that affect public safety (pilots, construction, EMTs, etc). Even for safety-related professions, we need to get rid of drug testing and replace it with intoxication tests. There are plenty of drugs(like alcohol, MDPV, Spice, etc.) that don't show up on drug tests but can cause serious threats to public safety when used by those operating heavy machinery. Have workers randomly tested for that, not whether or not there are any cannabis metabolites in their system from two weeks prior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Businesses can fire you for any reason with no recourse. Cannabis/drug law tie heavily into labor rights. In pretty much every other country, drug testing is outlawed as a violation of privacy. If we want to achieve true drug legalization, we have to ban drug testing for every occupation except ones that affect public safety (pilots, construction, EMTs, etc). Employment drug tests generally are an issue, but when it comes to prescribed medicines there are ADA protections. If the FDA accepted medicinal marijuana and you had a prescription, you could not be legally fired for testing positive - same as if you were taking prescription opiates or benzodiazepines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Sure, but cannabis is recommended by doctors and not prescribed. That could change in the future, but it wouldn't preclude pre-employment drug testing which is still a major privacy violation and essentially tantamount to punitive action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
GOP threatening to send DC mayor to jail  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/233778-republican-threatens-dc-mayor-with-jail-over-marijuana-law
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If marijuana is not criminalized federally and it is prescribed by a doctor, it may not be possible to fire you for off-hours consumption. Even on the clock really, if you aren't prevented from doing your job reasonably. You can take a Percocet in the morning if directed by your doctor, after all. You ain't gonna get medical marijuana for being tired when straight up legal recreational weed is a major thing for a while. "Medical" places will probably start only prescribing it for actual need. So for most people who want it, they're not going to be covered by medical protection. Chalets the Baka posted:Sure, but cannabis is recommended by doctors and not prescribed. That could change in the future, but it wouldn't preclude pre-employment drug testing which is still a major privacy violation and essentially tantamount to punitive action. Yes, Dr. Feelgood who recommends it to a guy for the illness of "not getting high" is going to go away. But there will be actual prescription of it to cancer patients and the like once there's federal legalization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You ain't gonna get medical marijuana for being tired when straight up legal recreational weed is a major thing for a while. "Medical" places will probably start only prescribing it for actual need. as far as I'm concerned, stuff like carpal tunnel is "actual need", and at least for the moment, doctors in WA/CO agree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:GOP threatening to send DC mayor to jail Seems like mayors with criminal records do pretty well in DC so this might be a good campaign move on the mayor's part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:as far as I'm concerned, stuff like carpal tunnel is "actual need", and at least for the moment, doctors in WA/CO agree. There are way less people with carpal tunnel then were getting "medical" stuff in Colorado before weed was straight legalized.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Making it legal to do everything but sell it is mind blowing to me. Taxation is probably the biggest selling point (as far as government is concerned) and I can't believe that an elected official would forego that. For the fifth time or whatever: DC public initiatives can only change laws, they cannot vote new budgets/structures into being. The people voted to legalize marijuana, the DC City Council was ready to launch a licensing/stores/taxation scheme, but the Republicans tried to throw a wrench in the works and arguably ended up allowing legalization through accidentally but accurately preventing further steps such as commercial sales. Basically nobody seriously wanted DC to have legalization without commercialization (well, some people like that on an ideological level but it wasn't the intent), this more just kinda blundered into place during a political clusterfuck. A handful of noisy House Republicans wanted no changes made to weed laws, the city overall wanted legalization and commercial sales, and instead we're kinda stuck in the middle. Tim Raines IRL posted:GOP threatening to send DC mayor to jail As hilarious as that would've been, Chaffetz and them are already saying "we're not going to do that, but somebody should". Plus the hilarity of radical Republicans begging Eric Holder, of all people, to do their bidding. It's just precious. I'm too involved in this to look at it objectively, but the optics on this look terrible for the Republicans trying to block this. Even if they are technically completely correct (which I grant is a possibility), the average person hearing about this in the news nationawide doesn't know anything about DC Home Rule technicalities, they just see Congress trying to block a legalization voted in by 70% of voters, and threatening to send a pretty black woman to jail. Plus Chaffetz has said the ridiculous words And there are very severe consequences for violating this provision. You can go to prison for this. We’re not playing a little game here. All he has to do is tack on a "young lady" and he's the archetypal ball-busting principal of any high school comedy of the last four decades. A handful of Republicans are being noisy about this, and no matter how right they are they're starting to look petulant and whiny, and making big threats while demanding the Executive "do something about this". Given that even within their own party there's a lot of disagreement on this issue, this does not look good for party unity. Hell, if you check the Free Republic thread, hardcore Tea Partiers are against them on this. This is approaching buttcoin-level prospects for laughs going up, Up, UP! In other news, Adam Eidinger, head of the DCMJ campaign, is making plans to reopen his hemp business that the DC government shut down in 2012 for paraphernalia charges and whatnot. And he's flat-out telling folks in the media that if they hadn't hosed with his store, he wouldn't have had the time and passion to go change the laws. I'm just finding this whole shindig endlessly amusing, and am looking forward to crashing CPAC tomorrow to go talk the campaign up. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Even for safety-related professions, we need to get rid of drug testing and replace it with intoxication tests. There are plenty of drugs(like alcohol, MDPV, Spice, etc.) that don't show up on drug tests but can cause serious threats to public safety when used by those operating heavy machinery. Have workers randomly tested for that, not whether or not there are any cannabis metabolites in their system from two weeks prior. This is great, thanks for bringing up these points. Spice can absolutely be terrifyingly bad, and cause bath salts-like freakouts. Public endangerment via intoxication is the crime to fight, not household usage. And that applies to everything, IMO. That's where drug warriors get things mixed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, Dr. Feelgood who recommends it to a guy for the illness of "not getting high" is going to go away. But there will be actual prescription of it to cancer patients and the like once there's federal legalization. Right, but pre-employment drug testing for everyone else would still be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
For states that have their own medical exchanges for insurance, how much leeway do they have to cover medicinal weed? Is that something they can force onto insurance companies or no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Less than three hours until DC is legal! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Businesses can fire you for any reason with no recourse. Cannabis/drug law tie heavily into labor rights. In pretty much every other country, drug testing is outlawed as a violation of privacy. If we want to achieve true drug legalization, we have to ban drug testing for every occupation except ones that affect public safety (pilots, construction, EMTs, etc). Yeah you won't be fired for that, you'll be fired for a "time card error" or just because.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
site posted:For states that have their own medical exchanges for insurance, how much leeway do they have to cover medicinal weed? Is that something they can force onto insurance companies or no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not covered because them paying for it could get them in federal trouble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
How are u posted:Less than three hours until DC is legal! How high are u
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Looking out my window in DC, and it's mass hysteria. The skies even look angry, and it's dark despite it being noon. I saw a owl kill a hawk over Meridian Park, and over at Georgetown's equestrian club, tame horses broke their stalls and began eating each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
I infiltrated CPAC to talk up DC's brand-new legalization, and attend the debate between the ex-Governor of New Mexico (pro-pot) and some killjoy woman. A lot of the folks I chatted with were supportive of DC legalization, and happily accepted stickers, flyers that are perforated to make filter tips, and Capitol Hemp rolling papers. And DCMJ posted my photo on their Twitter: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Looking out my window in DC, and it's mass hysteria. The skies even look angry, and it's dark despite it being noon. I saw a owl kill a hawk over Meridian Park, and over at Georgetown's equestrian club, tame horses broke their stalls and began eating each other. There's no such thing as a tame horse on cannabis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
First pictures from Washington starting to trickle in: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
I was murdered on my way to work today because of marijuana this has gone too far we need to make it illegal again
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
KingEup posted:First pictures from Washington starting to trickle in:
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
KingEup posted:First pictures from Washington starting to trickle in: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't think businesses will ever be forced into allowing their employees to use legalized marijuana, much like how they're not forced into letting people smoke tobacco (and indeed they can fire you if they find out you do it, even off time). While this is true, it's true regardless since Michigan is an at will state. It's also more that it's a national corporation and the wording says specifically that since is federally illegal that's what they're going by. I'm not sure what they will do when it becomes federally legal, but I'm holding out hope that they will change it to since its federally legal, it's ok to do in your off time but show up high and you're shitcanned. At the very least, if doctors are allowed to prescribe it, there shouldn't be an issue if I get randomly drug tested. This is all of course conjecture and I'm not really sure how anything will go when cannabis gets descheduled, but being unscheduled and nonprescription I have to think it would be treated the same as the other unscheduled and nonprescribed intoxicants, which is probably wishful thinking yeah. I'm still really excited/anxious for what will happen after 2016. Assuming everybody that already has something on the docket passes it, that will put a sizable chunk of the country with fully legal weed and/or medical weed and public opinion is on legalization's side. Republicans will almost surely still control the house, and may still control the senate, but there are already congressional republicans who are coming out in favor of legalizing or at least leaving it up to the states. I also think that the candidates in 2016 will be pressured to say something about the issue with its popularity, the failure of the drug war, and the number of states moving on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 12:26
|
|