CA to Vote Legalizing Pot in November Ballot...

[101lifts2]

Which way will I vote...decisions...decisions...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2010/03/if_california_legalizes_pot_wi.html

If California legalizes pot, will D.C. follow?
If they aren't already, elected officials in the District should be keeping close tabs on this year's election in California.

On Wednesday, advocates for legalizing marijuana officially secured enough signatures to put a referendum on the California ballot this November asking voters to legalize and tax pot.

And, judging by recent legislation in the District, what starts in California often eventually makes it way to the left-leaning District.

San Francisco's decision in 2007 to ban plastic bags, for example, was one impetus for the District's recently enacted bag tax. And San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome launched the modern same-sex marriage movement when he issued marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004 -- long before the District took up the issue.




And California voters approved a referendum allowing for the medical use of marijuana in 1996 - two years before voters in the District approved a similar referendum. The District's medical marijuana law is only now being implemented because it was tied up for years on Capitol Hill.

But if California voters approve the legalization of marijuana - which remains an if, because polls show a potentially close election - how long will it be before pro-pot advocates seek to petition a similar measure onto the ballot in the District?

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, estimates it would be six years or less before the marijuana legalization debate makes its way to the District.

"California, like it or not, really pushes American politics and business in one direction or another," said St. Pierre, noting the issue is also expected to soon land on the ballot in Nevada and Oregon. "I am going to guess four to six years after the citizens of California pass something like this, there is either an initiative here or the city council takes it up."

Already, D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) has been grumbling publicly that some of the District's drug laws need to be reformed because too many residents are being locked up for drug possession. But Council member David A. Catania (I-At large), the chairman of the Committee on Health, and other council members have made it clear they do not want the medical marijuana legislation pending before the council to spiral into a debate over outright legalization.

A Washington Post poll conducted in January found District residents were split on whether they supported legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Forty-six percent of residents favored the idea, but 48 percent opposed.

But while 60 percent of whites supported legalizing marijuana, only 37 percent of African-Americans felt that way, largely due to strong opposition among older black women.

A debate over marijuana legalization wouldn't be entirely new terrain for the District. In 1977, the city council approved legislation to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of the drug. But then Mayor Walter E. Washington vetoed the measure, citing the possible effects the law would have on city youths.

And even if legalization advocates won a referendum over the issue in the District, Congress would ultimately have the power to block it from taking place.

It's hard to see Congress staying out of that debate. But who would have guessed six years ago that the debate over whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District would have been such a snooze this year on Capitol Hill?

--Tim Craig

[nhgunnut]

This needs to be done at a national level. I am tired of spending tax dollars to by breakfast for stoners to stupid not to get repeatedly arrested.

[Inferno]

I don't care either way, but I wonder if they will still test for civil service jobs (police/fire)

[Captain Morgan]

I don't care either way, but I wonder if they will still test for civil service jobs (police/fire)

Oh, I'm sure they will. Thing with pot is that it's not like alcohol as far as how long it stays in your system for testing. It doesn't fuck you up as long as alcohol, but it will show up in tests for a lot longer. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if more companies start testing for it and it's still against policy to smoke it.

Although, weird thing about my job is that it doesn't test for drugs, at all. I have a government job and was never tested. Kind of surprising, really, considering what I do. Doesn't matter, though, I haven't smoked in years.

[goof2]

Oh, I'm sure they will. Thing with pot is that it's not like alcohol as far as how long it stays in your system for testing. It doesn't fuck you up as long as alcohol, but it will show up in tests for a lot longer. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if more companies start testing for it and it's still against policy to smoke it.

Although, weird thing about my job is that it doesn't test for drugs, at all. I have a government job and was never tested. Kind of surprising, really, considering what I do. Doesn't matter, though, I haven't smoked in years.

I agree. For people who like to smoke I have a feeling legalization will fall short of the utopia they imagine. I doubt most employers would give a shit but I suspect workers comp. insurance providers will ultimately be the ones who control the policies of employers.

[Kaneman]

I have a feeling its not going to pass this time around, still a lot of fear concerning Marijuana and it murderous effects.

Around here though, there are fewer employers drug screening. I didn't have to test for my last two jobs actually (both were auto finance corporations) , and two of my buddies who recently got corporate jobs didn't have to test either. I think goof has a point regarding workers comp ins, or even auto/health/home, etc. etc, but it hasn't happened with alcohol and I don't think it will with marijuana once it is legalized or decriminalized either.

I could be wrong though, people are some evil motherfuckers.

[Mrs. Colleen]

I hope it goes through...this state is fucked and we need the money. :lol:

[Captain Morgan]

I hope it goes through...this state is fucked and we need the money. :lol:

Shit, this country is fucked and we need the money! ;)

[Mrs. Colleen]

Shit, this country is fucked and we need the money! ;)

Also true!

[101lifts2]

I agree. For people who like to smoke I have a feeling legalization will fall short of the utopia they imagine. I doubt most employers would give a shit but I suspect workers comp. insurance providers will ultimately be the ones who control the policies of employers.

Yep...this is true. I think alot of companies won't allow it (at least not on company time), but I seriously doubt they are going to start testing for it unless they get some huge ass discount from insurance providers.

[Dave]

This needs to be done at a national level. I am tired of spending tax dollars to by breakfast for stoners to stupid not to get repeatedly arrested.

like you'd get the money back if they hadn't been arrested.

[Kaneman]

Newsweek

By Jessica Bennett | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Mar 26, 2010

In downtown Oakland, there is a nine-block area that locals call "Oaksterdam." Nestled among what was once a rash of vacant storefronts, it's a kind of pot utopia where everything moves just a little bit more slowly than the outside world. Here, where medical marijuana is legal, you'll find the Blue Sky Coffeeshop, a pot dispensary where getting an actual cup of Joe takes 20 minutes but picking up a sack of Purple Kush wrapped neatly in a brown sack takes about five. There's the Bulldog Cafe, a lounge with a not-so-secret back room where the haze-induced sounds of Dark Side of the Moon seep through thick smoke. There's a glass-blowing shop where bongs are the art of choice, and, of course, there's the fabled Oaksterdam University, a pot school operated by a man named Richard Lee.

At 47, Lee is a kind of unofficial Buddha to the pro-pot movement. He has transformed a neighborhood and brought thriving new businesses to Oakland's downtown. Now, as the sponsor of an initiative that was approved this week by the California secretary of state—to appear on November's ballot—Lee hopes the rest of California will join Oakland as a kind of trailblazer in the fight for marijuana legalization. If approved by voters, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act would make California the first state in the nation to make pot legal, allowing Californians 21 and older to grow and possess up to an ounce. And in much the same way Oakland has embraced the medical-marijuana industry, the law would pave the way for local jurisdictions to tax and regulate the marijuana trade—a concept that, with the California state government billions in the red, even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said should be up "for debate." "People are no longer outraged by the idea of legalization," former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown wrote in a recent op-ed. "And truth be told, there is just too much money to be made both by the people who grow marijuana and the cities and counties that would be able to tax it."
Click here to find out more!

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron has estimated that the cost to the country of cannabis prohibition is $13 billion annually, with an additional $7 billion lost in potential tax revenue. With that in mind, Oakland voters became the first in the nation earlier this year to enact a special cannabis excise tax—$18 for every $1,000 grossed—that the city believes will generate up to $1 million this year. Lee hopes legalizing marijuana on a state level would do the same, only on a much larger scale. "The reality," he says, "is that we're creating jobs, improving the city, filling empty store spaces, and when people come [here] they can see that."

California has allowed for medical-marijuana use since 1996. But "medical" is something of an open joke in the state, where anyone over age 18 with a doctor's note—easy to get for ailments like anxiety or cramps, if you're willing to pay—can obtain an ID card allowing access to any of the state's hundreds of dispensaries, or pot shops. "You can basically get a doctor's recommendation for anything," one dispensary worker told NEWSWEEK. Federal law, of course, still forbids the cultivation and possession of marijuana. It was banned, over the objections of the American Medical Association, in 1937. But in February of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder stunned critics when he announced that the Department of Justice would cease raiding medical-marijuana dispensaries (in California and elsewhere) that had been authorized under state law. Obama's newly appointed drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, has since condemned legalization, in a speech to police chiefs in San Jose earlier this month.

You'd think it might make California users nervous—except that the drug czar does not have the legal authority to enforce drug laws. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy did not return NEWSWEEK's calls for comment, but experts say the reality is that the federal government doesn't have the resources, or the desire, to go after each and every Californian who is operating within their local laws. Federal punishment for marijuana possession of up to an ounce is harsh: up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Under California law, the same crime is a misdemeanor—subject to a measly $100 fine. "We already have the Justice Department saying they're not going to interfere with practices that are in compliance with state law," says Paul Armentano, the deputy director of NORML, a pro-pot lobbying group. "That statement was made in reference to medical marijuana, but there's no reason to think the approach to recreational use would be any different."

The arguments against the passage of this kind of law are easy to list: that it glamorizes pot use, promotes a gateway drug, leads to abuse. And though studies show the health effects of marijuana are fairly mild in comparison to drugs like heroin, cocaine, or even alcohol, there are still risks to its consumption. Heavy pot users are more likely to be in car accidents; there have been some reports of it causing problems in respiration and fetal development. And, as the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, put it recently, there are a number of medical professionals, and many parents, who worry that the drug's increased potency over the years has heightened the risk of addiction. "It's certainly true that this is not your grandfather's pot," says Mark Kleiman, a drug-policy expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Opponents of the initiative, including California's Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is seeking the governorship, and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a Democrat who is running to replace Brown as attorney general, are gearing up for a fight. But Lee has pledged to use $1 million of his own funds from his various thriving businesses in Oaksterdam, and he has put together a highly organized group of allies, including former Clinton White House consultant Chris Lehane. It's also possible he'll tap multibillionaire investor George Soros and George Zimmer, the head of the Men's Wearhouse chain of clothing stores, who have donated to efforts to relax drug laws in the past.

The vote will be the second time in nearly 40 years that Californians have had the chance to decide the issue of legalization; the first one was Proposition 19 in 1972 (it failed). But much has changed since then, in both legal regulation and cultural attitudes. Thirteen states now allow medical marijuana, and a number of cities, such as Oakland and Seattle, have passed measures making prosecution of adult pot use the lowest law-enforcement priority. In April, an ABC/Washington Post survey showed that 46 percent of Americans support legalization measures, up from 22 percent in 1997. And in California, a recent Field Poll showed that 56 percent are already on board to legalize and tax the drug. This month, NORML launched a national ad campaign that will appear in the center of Times Square, declaring "Money Can Grow on Trees!" And everyone from the president to the most successful Olympic athlete in recent history (Michael Phelps) has talked about smoking it at one point or another. "This is a new world," says Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at University of California, Berkeley, and the coauthor of Drug War Heresies. "If you'd have asked me four years ago whether we'd be having this debate today, I can't say I would have predicted it." We'll see if California voters will agree.

Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/235480

© 2010

[Homeslice]

Coulda sworn that whatever California does sucks, at least according to this site.

[Apoc]

I agree. For people who like to smoke I have a feeling legalization will fall short of the utopia they imagine. I doubt most employers would give a shit but I suspect workers comp. insurance providers will ultimately be the ones who control the policies of employers.

Once something is legal, you cant fire someone for doing it. Companies cant make a policy saying a worker cant drink at home, nor would they be able to with Marijauna.

Company policies still have to be in line with the law, up on this side of the border at least.

If its a complete legalization, and not just decriminalization, then the governement will have to come up with a surefire way of finding out if someone is currently impaired. This creates a major problem, because im not sure theres an actual way to do that with pot. How do you tell how stoned someone is when they are out driving? You cant just leave it go, and say 'No, its fine, drive high all you want'. So im not sure how to deal with that.

[Captain Morgan]

Once something is legal, you cant fire someone for doing it. Companies cant make a policy saying a worker cant drink at home, nor would they be able to with Marijauna.

Company policies still have to be in line with the law, up on this side of the border at least.

If its a complete legalization, and not just decriminalization, then the governement will have to come up with a surefire way of finding out if someone is currently impaired. This creates a major problem, because im not sure theres an actual way to do that with pot. How do you tell how stoned someone is when they are out driving? You cant just leave it go, and say 'No, its fine, drive high all you want'. So im not sure how to deal with that.

Which was sort of my point, but I didn't quite put it into words very well. When alcohol is in your system, it shows up on a test and you're considered impaired at certain levels. THC stays in your system for weeks, even if you only smoke it on one day. There is no real way (that I know of) to test for THC that was used a couple hours ago. Sure, you can test people's reactions, but some people are just slow no matter what. I would think some employers would simply have a "no THC" policy, regardless of legality, since there is no way to know how recently it was used. Some employers have a "no alcohol within x number hours prior to work" policy, but that's something that can be tested.

[Apoc]

Which was sort of my point, but I didn't quite put it into words very well. When alcohol is in your system, it shows up on a test and you're considered impaired at certain levels. THC stays in your system for weeks, even if you only smoke it on one day. There is no real way (that I know of) to test for THC that was used a couple hours ago. Sure, you can test people's reactions, but some people are just slow no matter what. I would think some employers would simply have a "no THC" policy, regardless of legality, since there is no way to know how recently it was used. Some employers have a "no alcohol within x number hours prior to work" policy, but that's something that can be tested.



But again, theres legal problems in prohibiting someone from doing something thats illegal on their own time. Thats what I meant when I said 'policy has to be in line with the law'...

You cant have a policy that dissalows people from doing legal things on their own time. If you give companies that power, whats next? No smoking cigs on your time? No riding motorcycles on your time?

Punishing someone for doing something legal. That opens up a whole new slew of lawsuits.

[sherri_chickie]

Companies can make rules that a person can not come to work if they have used alcohol ( or pot in this case) within a certain time frame of their shift. Pilots can't drink within 12 hours of a flight.

[Captain Morgan]

You cant have a policy that dissalows people from doing legal things on their own time. If you give companies that power, whats next? No smoking cigs on your time? No riding motorcycles on your time?

Punishing someone for doing something legal. That opens up a whole new slew of lawsuits.

A lot of pro athletes are not allowed to ride motorcycles...

[Apoc]

A lot of pro athletes are not allowed to ride motorcycles...

Thats different though, its an agreed upon contract, for a set time, for millions of dollars. Those athletes are willingly giving up that right. Very few people out there working are on signed individual contracts, thats a bit different.

[Apoc]

Companies can make rules that a person can not come to work if they have used alcohol ( or pot in this case) within a certain time frame of their shift. Pilots can't drink within 12 hours of a flight.

We realize that. But twelve hours is resonable, and its for safety reasons. No pot 12 hours before work would be the same. But punshing someone who smoked a joint at home 3 weeks ago, when its legal? Its a different situation.

[Captain Morgan]

Companies can make rules that a person can not come to work if they have used alcohol ( or pot in this case) within a certain time frame of their shift. Pilots can't drink within 12 hours of a flight.

We realize that. But twelve hours is resonable, and its for safety reasons. No pot 12 hours before work would be the same. But punshing someone who smoked a joint at home 3 weeks ago, when its legal? Its a different situation.

And herein lies the problem. Right now, it's not possible to test for THC based on "recency of use" as it is with alcohol, so companies can ban the use of it by their employees. See below...

A lot of pro athletes are not allowed to ride motorcycles...

Thats different though, its an agreed upon contract, for a set time, for millions of dollars. Those athletes are willingly giving up that right. Very few people out there working are on signed individual contracts, thats a bit different.

When you go to work for a company, you agree to their "rules and policies," which in and of itself is accepting a contract. You agree to work for them and abide by their rules, they agree to pay you for that work.

Carrying a gun is completely legal, with the exception of certain establishments. However, companies (that are not within the range of said establishments) can ban firearms on their property completely, regardless of the legality of carrying. You can't even have a gun in your car on company property. Don't give me the "private property" speech, because I'll just come back with, "if they're allowed to ban something that is legal from being possessed on their property, they can also ban use of certain things on their property." It's completely legal to have alcohol in your car, if the container is unopened, but it's illegal to have alcohol in your car on company property. Since THC cannot be tested for recency, a company can easily, and lawfully, say that you can't use it if you want to work for them. They don't know how long ago you used it, but since you tested positive, they can assume you used it today. Therefore, it's banned if you want to work for them. It's well within their rights to do so, just as you're well within your rights to tell them you won't work for them if that's their policy.

Shit, I can tell you that I don't want you in my house with shoes on. You might not have walked through dirt for three weeks in that pair of shoes, but I'm still allowed to say you can't come in my house with shoes on, even though it's not against the law to wear shoes. I agree to let you come in if you agree to take your shoes off. It's a contract, even though it's verbal. Just like a company can agree to let you work for them only if you agree you won't smoke pot. It's a contract, even if it's only for $15,000 a year, instead of $1 million a year.

[Apoc]

And herein lies the problem. Right now, it's not possible to test for THC based on "recency of use" as it is with alcohol, so companies can ban the use of it by their employees. See below...





When you go to work for a company, you agree to their "rules and policies," which in and of itself is accepting a contract. You agree to work for them and abide by their rules, they agree to pay you for that work.

Carrying a gun is completely legal, with the exception of certain establishments. However, companies (that are not within the range of said establishments) can ban firearms on their property completely, regardless of the legality of carrying. You can't even have a gun in your car on company property. Don't give me the "private property" speech, because I'll just come back with, "if they're allowed to ban something that is legal from being possessed on their property, they can also ban use of certain things on their property." It's completely legal to have alcohol in your car, if the container is unopened, but it's illegal to have alcohol in your car on company property. Since THC cannot be tested for recency, a company can easily, and lawfully, say that you can't use it if you want to work for them. They don't know how long ago you used it, but since you tested positive, they can assume you used it today. Therefore, it's banned if you want to work for them. It's well within their rights to do so, just as you're well within your rights to tell them you won't work for them if that's their policy.

Shit, I can tell you that I don't want you in my house with shoes on. You might not have walked through dirt for three weeks in that pair of shoes, but I'm still allowed to say you can't come in my house with shoes on, even though it's not against the law to wear shoes. I agree to let you come in if you agree to take your shoes off. It's a contract, even though it's verbal. Just like a company can agree to let you work for them only if you agree you won't smoke pot. It's a contract, even if it's only for $15,000 a year, instead of $1 million a year.

But noone is arguing that they cant have all the rules they want, AT WORK. No guns, no drugs, no booze, no black socks, no scratching your nuts. You are at work, you abide by their rules. Im not questioning their ability to limit what you can and cant do at work, im questioning their ability to stop you from doing those things at home.

[Captain Morgan]

But noone is arguing that they cant have all the rules they want, AT WORK. No guns, no drugs, no booze, no black socks, no scratching your nuts. You are at work, you abide by their rules. Im not questioning their ability to limit what you can and cant do at work, im questioning their ability to stop you from doing those things at home.

I'm just saying that since it's impossible to test for recency of use, they can ban it's use entirely. Saying you can't drink alcohol for 12 hours prior to work is saying that you can't drink alcohol on your own time at your own house. Yes, the alcohol could still be in your system at work if you drink prior to work, even though you did it on your time. Pot might be out of your system in a few hours, but there isn't any way to test for it.

I actually think that you and I agree on the level of the inability to test for it. Where we disagree is whether or not companies can tell you that you can't do it at all. I think they're well within their rights to do so because they can't tell whether you used it 3 hours ago or 3 weeks ago. They can only tell that you've used it. Therefore, they ban it entirely. You agree to not use pot, at any time, and they agree to let you work for them. It's a contract, just the same as many professional athletes have a contract saying they won't ride a motorcycle. You sign off on their policies and you're agreeing to that contract, even though they're asking you not to do something that's completely legal, on your own time, away from work.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Now get on that HFCS thread and fill us in on the incorrect shit there! :D

[goof2]

Again, to agree with The Captain, employers cannot test for impairment, only use. I suspect employers will be able to prohibit use as a result. As I said earlier I also suspect employers will not even be the ones pushing for the prohibition. What liability or workers comp. insurance provider is going to want to write policies for companies where not only can employees be impaired at work but there is no way to test for that impairment?What employer who self insures is going to want to take that same risk?

[sherri_chickie]

I have no idea about when they can or can't test for pot, but I can see employers being able to say what you can and can't do, if you want to work for them, you have to follow their rules, otherwise you don't have to work for them. I have morality clauses in my contract, which I have to agree too.

[Apoc]

I have no idea about when they can or can't test for pot, but I can see employers being able to say what you can and can't do, if you want to work for them, you have to follow their rules, otherwise you don't have to work for them. I have morality clauses in my contract, which I have to agree too.

Theres nothing immoral about doing something legal. You cant be fired for drinking. But you could be fired for drinking around your students. There is no morality problem with smoking a joint at home, any more than there is with having a drink at home.

[Trip]

You cant have a policy that dissalows people from doing legal things on their own time. If you give companies that power, whats next? No smoking cigs on your time? No riding motorcycles on your time?

Oh yes they can if they write it into your employment agreement. They can put me "on call" status and I can't drink or travel more than 50 miles from my house along with other things.

[Trip]

I wonder if there is another testing method for it though. They are testing now to see if you do it period. I wonder if they can develop a new test to see if you are currently impaired by it.

[Apoc]

Oh yes they can if they write it into your employment agreement. They can put me "on call" status and I can't drink or travel more than 50 miles from my house along with other things.

Yes, because your on call, your technicly working.

[Trip]

Yes, because your on call, your technicly working.

It's a funny thing with that, I don't get any pay for it or anything else. I get paid overtime, I am not pure salary. They can put me in that status when they please. That means they can make certain employees in "pot free" status 24/7 as long as you are employed with the company if they write it in your employee agreement.

[goof2]

Theres nothing immoral about doing something legal. You cant be fired for drinking. But you could be fired for drinking around your students. There is no morality problem with smoking a joint at home, any more than there is with having a drink at home.

Teachers have been fired over pictures of them with alcohol being on facebook/myspace. What you can be fired for is a much longer list than what you can't be fired for.

[Captain Morgan]

Theres nothing immoral about doing something legal. You cant be fired for drinking. But you could be fired for drinking around your students. There is no morality problem with smoking a joint at home, any more than there is with having a drink at home.

Teachers have been fired over pictures of them with alcohol being on facebook/myspace. What you can be fired for is a much longer list than what you can't be fired for.

Was going to say the same thing. Teachers did things on their own time and got fired for it. Companies CAN tell you that you can't do something, regardless of the legality of that "thing." I really don't understand why that's so hard to believe. You agree to follow their rules when you work for them, even if those rules cover something that is completely legal on a federal or state level and you're doing it on your personal time. Employers can ban certain activities. It's a contract you agree to when you go to work for them.

[Smittie61984]

Once something is legal, you cant fire someone for doing it. Companies cant make a policy saying a worker cant drink at home, nor would they be able to with Marijauna.

Company policies still have to be in line with the law, up on this side of the border at least.


Not necesarrily. Carrying in Georgia was extended to being allowed to carry a gun into a place that serves alcohol (as long as you don't drink alcohol). A local bar/restaurant chain called Taco Mac made a policy not allowing clients with guns to enter. It can be argued that Taco Mac has no right to do that since they are considered a "public" establishment but I agree that any "public" restaurant is a privately owned establishment that can allow or deny anyone they want.

Same for employers. When you hire on to a company you enter into a contract that both you and the employer agree to voluntarily. If you are a pot smoker and in your contract it says you can not smoke pot then you can either not take the job, quit smoking, or take the job and if caught with it in your system get fired.

I think the prohibition on marijuana should be repealed (i hate the saying "legalize" because that means the government is giving you permission to do it) but it is not going to be California's or America's savior. It should also not be high on the list of give a shits at this moment.

[Kaneman]

Freedom should always be high on the list of give a shits.

[Smittie61984]

Freedom should always be high on the list of give a shits.

I think the government creating a law that forces a citizen to enter into a contract with another citizen/private business against their will is a bigger problem than letting ultimate frisbee players bring weed to a Dave Matthews concert.

I personally don't care what people do. If you want to drink gasoline and play with matches then have fun. But if you want to see how far the pot and drug issue will go then look at the progress the Libertarian party has made despite most people identify themselves with the Libertarian party.

[Kaneman]

I think the government creating a law that forces a citizen to enter into a contract with another citizen/private business against their will is a bigger problem than letting ultimate frisbee players bring weed to a Dave Matthews concert.

I personally don't care what people do. If you want to drink gasoline and play with matches then have fun. But if you want to see how far the pot and drug issue will go then look at the progress the Libertarian party has made despite most people identify themselves with the Libertarian party.

Yea I know your views on pot, or I know you're not really an anti-pot kinda guy. I'm of the thought that when a government systematically brainwashes its populace in the name of corporate profit using complete lies and proceeds to destroy thousands of lives based on those lies I consider reversing that policy of the highest possible order. There is much more to it than just bringing weed to a Dave Matthews concert. Prohibition of Marijuana taught the American Government that they could get away with anything as long as they used the right kind of propaganda, and we've (even those that will never see a joint in person) all suffered for it.

Don't get me wrong, Health Care is a "big fucking deal" and all...but the oppression resulting from Marijuana prohibition goes back 70 years. Not to mention the at least $10 billion a year that is spent enforcing archaic anti-pot laws, and the billions more that could be made in tax dollars.

[Trip]

Pot should be legal, companies should also be able to decide if you can keep your employment with them if you decide to partake in the legal weed.

I know I wouldn't feel comfortable doing my job with someone who is stoned.

[101lifts2]

I don't care either way, but I wonder if they will still test for civil service jobs (police/fire)

Why...ya worried?:lol

[101lifts2]

..... It should also not be high on the list of give a shits at this moment.

I'm sure it's going to be pretty high...:lol

[101lifts2]

.... I'm of the thought that when a government systematically brainwashes its populace in the name of corporate profit using complete lies and proceeds to destroy thousands of lives based on those lies I consider reversing that policy of the highest possible order. .....

You are not of the thought....you are of the truth. It just so happens that you see it in something that interests you. Think about all the propoganda shit the government spews and how many people in this country fall for the rhetoric because they do not do their research.

1. War on drugs.
2. War on terror.
3. War on global warming.
4. War on Health Care.

Most of government is no more than a money transfer scheme with little responsiblity. Therefore, we need to fight for EVERY right and fight for the lowest possible spending.

[Kaneman]

You are not of the thought....you are of the truth. It just so happens that you see it in something that interests you. Think about all the propoganda shit the government spews and how many people in this country fall for the rhetoric because they do not do their research.

1. War on drugs.
2. War on terror.
3. War on global warming.
4. War on Health Care.

Most of government is no more than a money transfer scheme with little responsiblity. Therefore, we need to fight for EVERY right and fight for the lowest possible spending.

Well said dude, well said.