they'll still try to bust people but california already grows a majority of their own ganj. the federal government's authority to continue prosecuting stems from the argument that even though it's a black market, growing your own weed interferes with pot that may have been purchased from out of state, hence affecting interstate commerceThis is just for the state, right? So technically Californians would have to grow their own because wouldn't the DEA shut down outside trade of the crop from other states that do not abide?
the aclu will be licking their chops for that case
I can't wait to hear about all my idiot friends at camp pendleton who get snagged for tokin in the barracks and try to argue their way out of itWouldn't it just work the same as alcohol works? Don't show up for work drunk or high and you are good. I guess federal jobs are different, but just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do it. We still make choices.
the aclu will be licking their chops for that case
Cali's passing this law will be, and only can be, a stepping stone at this point for what eventually should happen. You won't see any major changes in federal law or even in California law if it passes, but you will see lots of press. it'll be the jumping off points for a number of other states (I can see everyplace west of the mississippi river work to pass their own prop 19 bill within the next 6 years) to do the same. Once you have a large percentage of the states pushing this, then you will finally see the gov't be pressured to relent. But not until then. There is still a long way to go.
Assuming it passes. If it fails, in California, it'll set back the legalization effort by at least 5 years.
I don't worry about it. I have a buddy in CO who's licensed to grow medical, and somehow it magically appears out here in Florida. Weird, I know.
Companies have laid off regular smokers if they have well defined in their handbook that they don't employ smokers.
they band smoking here for employees for a minute in the 90's. aclu stepped in I believe. I don't think it's legal to discriminate against cig smokers.
they band smoking here for employees for a minute in the 90's. aclu stepped in I believe. I don't think it's legal to discriminate against cig smokers.
I know a ton of company's that do not allow smoking at work or at home. Most of them went to a non smoking policy and offered quit classes to the employees and gave a solid date that you had to be stopped or you would be let go.
This is just for the state, right? So technically Californians would have to grow their own because wouldn't the DEA shut down outside trade of the crop from other states that do not abide?
really? that's bizarre. I didn't think that would be even remotely legal. what's next? ban employees from eating cereal? seems overly harsh and arbitrary.
really? that's bizarre. I didn't think that would be even remotely legal. what's next? ban employees from eating cereal? seems overly harsh and arbitrary.
If cereal had the fatality rate and history of raising everyone's insurance cost then they could be. Plus statistically smokers tend to take more days off and take more breaks through out the workday. I don't agree with it but I can see the reasoning. If you had a known history of huffing gasoline they'd probably fire you too.
it's still invasive of one's private life which I find highly sketchy. why stop there? ban alcohol for its bad effects and don't hire gays because they might get aids.
the difference that you can drink in moderation and be gay without any negative health effects
there is never a time when a cigarette isn't resulting in negative health effects.
it's still invasive of one's private life which I find highly sketchy. why stop there? ban alcohol for its bad effects and don't hire gays because they might get aids.