Ontopic Proposition 19

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
323
kansas city
If you are high at work, you'll get punished the same as if you were drink at work. So whats the big deal?
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Like was said before, marijuana will still be an illegal drug via federal laws. So a company can still have a policy against illegal drug users.. I personally would never run a company that way. I would only judge people on their performance.
 

Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski

Ready for some Heroin
Oct 15, 2004
40,828
5,890
723
Robin Hood Country
Not read the whole thread (am in a rush) but I watched Super High Me recently about the legal medical marijuana in California and it basically says state law doesn't matter, the feds can come in at any point and overrule it and you go to federal prison so even if this was a state law you could be arrested under federal law. I think. Not sure if anybody else has said this.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,988
443
298
42
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.

They do. My mom is a school bus driver. If she is caught a work with enough alcohol in her system to have been in cough medicine the night before, she could lose her commercial license and therefore her job. She can't have a drink late at night before work the next day. You have to be 0.0 at all times at work, even first thing in the morning.

It's the employer's prerogative to make the tolerance level 0.0 for nicotine in your system, too.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
Not read the whole thread (am in a rush) but I watched Super High Me recently about the legal medical marijuana in California and it basically says state law doesn't matter, the feds can come in at any point and overrule it and you go to federal prison so even if this was a state law you could be arrested under federal law. I think. Not sure if anybody else has said this.

yes :p
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,158
1,597
923
Bull. Shit. No one can breathe smoke for 75 years with "no" ill effects.

you're right, I'm lying. he quit about about 10 years ago. he's 85 and healthy as a horse. drinks scotch every day, eats bacon with every breakfast, and eats steak or pork for almost every dinner.
 

Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski

Ready for some Heroin
Oct 15, 2004
40,828
5,890
723
Robin Hood Country

So I see. Repeatedly. Unless any other states jump on board this sounds like a full on failure then. Sucks that federal laws override state laws when you think you're doing something legal etc but I suppose in a way we have the same situation here with European Law having supremacy over our laws, except they don't send in their own officers to enforce it etc.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
So I see. Repeatedly. Unless any other states jump on board this sounds like a full on failure then. Sucks that federal laws override state laws when you think you're doing something legal etc but I suppose in a way we have the same situation here with European Law having supremacy over our laws, except they don't send in their own officers to enforce it etc.
duke had it right in saying that this is a stepping stone to other states doing the same

can't expect it to happen overnight. it took decades for weed to become as illegal as it is today, changing that isn't going to be instant
 

Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski

Ready for some Heroin
Oct 15, 2004
40,828
5,890
723
Robin Hood Country
I kind of get the big deal, but I don't. This is capitalism people, this is a golden opportunity so why not fucking take it? More drunks take up space and money in the emergency room than ever would from weed, tax on weed would probably be much higher than tax on alcohol is. We're talking about billions of pounds worth of debt and marijuana would be a huge contribution towards cutting that debt. Money is money at the end of the day, the government taxes things much dirtier than marijuana, it's not a moral thing imo.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
I kind of get the big deal, but I don't. This is capitalism people, this is a golden opportunity so why not fucking take it? More drunks take up space and money in the emergency room than ever would from weed, tax on weed would probably be much higher than tax on alcohol is. We're talking about billions of pounds worth of debt and marijuana would be a huge contribution towards cutting that debt. Money is money at the end of the day, the government taxes things much dirtier than marijuana, it's not a moral thing imo.
because the anti-pot industry is big and currently has a lot of people employed

and some people genuinely believe that it should be kept illegal for either moral reasons (retarded) or because they think it's going to make crime worse (also retarded given contradictory evidence)
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,158
1,597
923
big pharma is probably the largest saboteur of the efforts one can only imagine. they stand to lose quite a lot.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
71,609
23,329
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
duke had it right in saying that this is a stepping stone to other states doing the same

can't expect it to happen overnight. it took decades for weed to become as illegal as it is today, changing that isn't going to be instant

It won't pass 'interstate commerce' because weed grown in California legally is indistinguishable from weed grown illegally elsewhere. Let me see if I can find the court case about it...
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
Not read the whole thread (am in a rush) but I watched Super High Me recently about the legal medical marijuana in California and it basically says state law doesn't matter, the feds can come in at any point and overrule it and you go to federal prison so even if this was a state law you could be arrested under federal law. I think. Not sure if anybody else has said this.

Yes, but the AG said back in 2009 he won't be pursuing any marijuana cases in CA on federal charges unless it was something blatant and egregious.