04 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFI don't see it flying... it's still against federal law.
Couple of things. The authorities have got to be geared up to show no tolerance for driving under the influence and for it being available to minors.
I wonder if it's a last ditch effort to generate revenue here?
another thing, work place drug testing.. they say it can stay in your system for up to 30 days,, so how would employers work with it?
Right now if you are injured on the job, worker compensation mandates a drug test,,, they don't pay the claim if a positive comes up.
I just don't see this happening.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by Hugh GlassWell I certainly do not support anyone's "right" to be under the influence of cannabis in the workplace when they work for someone else. But traces remaining in one's system and being under the influence are not the same. Does whatever stays in one's system have any influence after 5 days, 10 days, 25 days , etc. ? There would have to be some hard science laid out in an legislation that legalizes its use.
another thing, work place drug testing.. they say it can stay in your system for up to 30 days,, so how would employers work with it?
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by Hugh GlassI thought "medical marijuana" was already legal in some states. Surely this means that these problems you mention already exist? The only difference would be dropping the requirement of a doctors prescription. So it moves from a prescription drug to a non-prescription drug.
I don't see it flying... it's still against federal law.
I wonder if it's a last ditch effort to generate revenue here?
another thing, work place drug testing.. they say it can stay in your system for up to 30 days,, so how would employers work with it?
Right now if you are injured on the job, worker compensation mandates a drug test,,, they don't pay the claim if a positive comes up.
I just don't see this happening.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the ballot is about allowing Oregonian farmers to grow and sell marijuana to the medical outlets, the legalise possession for the general public petition has been blocked due to not getting enough signatures.
I thought "medical marijuana" was already legal in some states. Surely this means that these problems you mention already exist? The only difference would be dropping the requirement of a doctors prescription. So it moves from a prescription drug to a non-prescription drug.
The Police here in the UK have been trialing road side tests for driving under the influence by using saliva swabs, I'm guessing, but perhaps it shows up in saliva for a much shorter period(perhaps short enough to be considered under the influence) than it does in the blood.
Generally I am pro legalising marijuana with safeguards concerning minimum age and anyone operating on me etc.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Presumably these rules should apply to any mind altering drugs legal or illegal. The rules should be the same for doctors, pilots, bus drivers etc whether the drug is alcohol, marijuana, sleeping pills or others. If it puts the safety of others at risk, that is what should be the focus, not the legality of the substance in question.
..... and anyone operating on me etc.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes but you still have to decide the mind altering substances that should be proscribed as acceptable and non acceptable. The fact that something is an illegal substance does not tell the story in terms of how mind altering it is, and vice versa.
Presumably these rules should apply to any mind altering drugs legal or illegal. The rules should be the same for doctors, pilots, bus drivers etc whether the drug is alcohol, marijuana, sleeping pills or others. If it puts the safety of others at risk, that is what should be the focus, not the legality of the substance in question.
Once it is generally legalised it still needs to be categorised in terms of it's potency, i.e in the UK it is not illegal to drink and drive, it is illegal to drink to much and drive.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by Hugh GlassThe pro side is it removes a black market commodity from the prohibited list, which will reduce crime. Clearly marijuana is something most Americans want to use, and there is as much hope for successful prohibition as there was with beer.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/marijuana_legalization_measure.html
This is apparently on our ballet this Nov.
Pros--Cons?
There are obviouus tangential issues. Drug testing is for prohibited drugs. Enforcement of DUI shouldn't be that big a change. After the fact, as in an accident, I can see problems due to the long retention of canabis in body tissue.
Many people smoke and drink at the same time. The abusers who are dangerous, are observable, and it ought to be clear by now that the law can't deter or prevent all bad outcomes.
It is something that will happen, whether this is the time or not, we'll see.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is including mine. There are holes in the law that you can drive a semi full of pot through. Still it is getting pot out of the black market, where it was probably responsible for more drug violence than heroin or cocaine.
I thought "medical marijuana" was already legal in some states. Surely this means that these problems you mention already exist? The only difference would be dropping the requirement of a doctors prescription. So it moves from a prescription drug to a non-prescription drug.
The same people use it, there is no carnage on the roads, and there is less incentive to sell the stuff to elementary school kids.
All in all, its not bad. There is an economic aspect as well. Farming the stuff can be profitable, even in an urban setting without a lot of land, although the hydrophonic "farms" will be too expensive, once the stuff can be grown openly.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt may be disturbing for you, but MDs are among the most common abusers of opiates. Duh, they have legal access. No law will stop all of this.
Presumably these rules should apply to any mind altering drugs legal or illegal. The rules should be the same for doctors, pilots, bus drivers etc whether the drug is alcohol, marijuana, sleeping pills or others. If it puts the safety of others at risk, that is what should be the focus, not the legality of the substance in question.
05 Sep 12
Originally posted by Hugh GlassI agree it is the federal law thing that is killer.
I don't see it flying... it's still against federal law.
I wonder if it's a last ditch effort to generate revenue here?
another thing, work place drug testing.. they say it can stay in your system for up to 30 days,, so how would employers work with it?
Right now if you are injured on the job, worker compensation mandates a drug test,,, they don't pay the claim if a positive comes up.
I just don't see this happening.
And while detectable in your system for up to 30 days (or even longer) with urinalysis, it can be detectable up to 90 days with hair analysis.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199164
05 Sep 12
Originally posted by Hugh GlassUntil the federal government changes its position, measures like these will be meaningless as to federal enforcement. But historically, the feds only take interest in very large commercial productions, and are often more concerned about the money laundering and lately the environmental impact of the large grows, particularly indoors where lots of diesel is involved.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/marijuana_legalization_measure.html
This is apparently on our ballet this Nov.
Pros--Cons?
What I would like to see is Barney Frank's bill pass, which would basically cease federal enforcement where individuals are in compliance with state laws. It might have an appeal to states rights conservatism.
05 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by KunsooThe states rights champions (e.g., Scalia, conservative politician x, etc.) are not always big on states rights when it comes to federal drug laws. Which is odd in some ways because seems within traditional police powers of the states. But I do agree that the feds have been the looking the other way, but just do not know for how long, as there has been rumor that the feds may be starting to crack down. Yet, I am no expert. I live in Texas.
Until the federal government changes its position, measures like these will be meaningless as to federal enforcement. But historically, the feds only take interest in very large commercial productions, and are often more concerned about the money laundering and lately the environmental impact of the large grows, particularly indoors where lots of diesel is i uals are in compliance with state laws. It might have an appeal to states rights conservatism.