Marijuana Legalized in Colorado and Washington

[Direckshun]

Sounds like a good thing.

Thoughts?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/colorado-and-washington-have-legalized-m?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29

Colorado and Washington Have Legalized Marijuana. What Now?
Jacob Sullum
Nov. 7, 2012 12:52 am

As Mike Riggs noted (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/06/colorado-has-legalized-recreational-use) earlier tonight, voters have approved marijuana legalization measures in Colorado and Washington—an unprecedented change that could help lead our country away from the unjust, cruel, and disastrous policy of using force to impose politicians' pharmacological tastes on the populace. The latest numbers show Colorado's Amendment 64 winning (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21941918/nation-watches-colorados-marijuana-legalization-vote) 53 percent of the vote, while an even larger majority, 56 percent, favored (http://seattletimes.com/flatpages/politics/2012-washington-election-results.html) Washington's Initiative 502. What happens now?

The elimination of penalties for possessing up to an ounce of marijuana (if you are 21 or older) takes effect right away in both states. But the provisions allowing commercial production and sale of cannabis for recreational use require regulations that will be written during the next year. The Washington Liquor Control Board has until December 1, 2013, to adopt regulations for marijuana growers, wholesalers, processors, and retailers. The deadline in Colorado, where cannabis businesses will be overseen by the state Department of Revenue, is July 1, 2013. Colorado's law (http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regulate-marijuana-alcohol-act-2012), unlike Washington's (http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502%20bookmarked.pdf), also allows home cultivation of up to six plants and nonprofit transfers of up to an ounce, so Colorado pot smokers will have an immediate state-legal source of marijuana.

How will the federal government react? Allow me to regurgitate some of what I said (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/02/what-happens-if-as-seems-likely-washingt) last week:

Marijuana will still be prohibited under federal law. But contrary to an argument (http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/06/former-dea-heads-repeat-their) made by opponents of Proposition 19, the California legalization initiative that lost by five percentage points in 2010, that does not mean the Supremacy Clause makes these measures unconstitutional. As Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars note in their new book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0199913730/reasonmagazineA/), "The Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws."

Even under national alcohol prohibition, which unlike the federal ban on marijuana was authorized by a constitutional amendment, states were free to go their own way. They could decline to pass their own versions of the Volstead Act (as Maryland did), repeal them (as a dozen states, including Colorado and Washington, did while the 18th Amendment was still in force), or simply refrain from prosecuting people under them (which was common in the wetter districts of the country). "The question is not whether a state could change its own laws," Caulkins et al. write. "Rather, the question is how the conflict with the continued federal prohibition would play out."

While the feds certainly can make trouble for any state that dares to legalize pot, there is a practical limit to what they can accomplish on their own. According to the FBI, there were about 750,000 marijuana arrests (http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/29/is-the-local-war-on-marijuana-ebbing) nationwide last year, the vast majority for possession. State and local police departments were responsible for something like 99 percent (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0328.pdf) of those arrests. It simply is not feasible for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—which has about 5,500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administration) special agents nationwide, compared to about 765,000 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2216) sworn personnel employed by state and local law enforcement agencies—to bust a significant percentage of people who grow pot for themselves and their friends (as Colorado’s initiative allows), let alone people who possess it for recreational use.

The DEA can raid state-legal pot shops, as it has done with medical marijuana dispensaries, but the number of potential targets will be considerably larger once the market officially expands to include recreational users. The Justice Department can use asset forfeiture as an intimidation tactic against landlords and threaten banks that accept deposits from pot businesses with money laundering charges. The Internal Revenue Service can make life difficult for pot sellers by disallowing their business expenses (but not, thanks to a tax law wrinkle (http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/06/us-tax-court-says-pot-is-deductible-for), their "cost of goods sold," which includes the cost of buying marijuana). The feds could even threaten state regulators with prosecution for handling marijuana or facilitating the trade, although that seems less likely, since it would provoke a direct confrontation with state officials. (Washington's initiative seeks to minimize this risk by assigning the task of testing marijuana for regulatory purposes to private, state-approved laboratories.) The one thing federal drug warriors cannot do, judging from their track record even when they have the full cooperation of state and local law enforcement agencies, is suppress the business entirely.

During the next few years the feds will confront the practical limits on their powers, even as they continue to defy the constititional limits (with help (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1454) from the Supreme Court). The experiments on which Colorado and Washington are embarking will be instructive for the entire country, not just in terms of drug policy, where new approaches are sorely needed, but also in terms of defining the boundary between state and federal power. No one would ever mistake Barack Obama, who broke (http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer) his promise to respect state laws allowing the medical use of marijuana, for a federalist. But during his second term circumstances may compel him to step back and let a few states try a little tolerance for a change.

[Direckshun]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/06/colorado_marijuana_legalization_initiative_clashes_between_states_and_feds.html

Begun, These Marijuana Wars Have
By Matthew Yglesias
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012, at 11:40 PM ET

The marijuana legalization initiative that seems to have passed today in Colorado (and a similar one that may well pass in Washington as well) is, I think, a bigger deal than people realize. Unlike jurisdictions that have "decriminalized" marijuana, this aims to create a genuine honest-to-God legal marijuana industry. It goes even beyond what the Netherlands has done, where small scale marijuana retailing is permitted but large-scale production and wholesaling is really existing in a gray area.

In principle, a true legal marijuana regime could be a totally revolutionary situation. Imagine amber waves of pot and big factories drying and packaging the joints just as in the heyday of the cigarette industry.

But before you buy land to start your marijuana farm, note that the drug is still illegal in the United States of America and that Colorado is one of the United States of America. Consequently, if you try to set up a large-scale pot business you're liable to get busted by the DEA. So expect a lot of clashes around this and a sticky situation for the Obama administration.

[HonestChieffan]

How will employers deal with this? Many have zero tolerance policies. If you operate machinery, drive a company car or truck the risks are too great. They pee tests will lead to a number of people getting canned and fast.....the consequences of this is a lot more complex than a lot of people want to understand .

[Brock]

How will employers deal with this? Many have zero tolerance policies. If you operate machinery, drive a company car or truck the risks are too great. They pee tests will lead to a number of people getting canned and fast.....the consequences of this is a lot more complex than a lot of people want to understand .

How about we just handle it the same way we do alcohol?

[listopencil]

How will employers deal with this? Many have zero tolerance policies. If you operate machinery, drive a company car or truck the risks are too great. They pee tests will lead to a number of people getting canned and fast.....the consequences of this is a lot more complex than a lot of people want to understand .

Right off the top of my head there is a Wal Mart warehouse in Loveland, Colorado. The company disapproves of mj use and will fire you if you fail a drug test, even in California with a medicinal card. I am going to be interested in how they (Wal Mart) handle this going forward.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Hittin teh road!

[Saul Good]

Right off the top of my head there is a Wal Mart warehouse in Loveland, Colorado. The company disapproves of mj use and will fire you if you fail a drug test, even in California with a medicinal card. I am going to be interested in how they (Wal Mart) handle this going forward.

I'm guessing they handle it the same way they always have.

[Fish]

Hittin teh road!

LMAO

Pick me up on the way?

[listopencil]

I'm guessing they handle it the same way they always have.

They may not be able to. In a state where pot is completely legal they might actually lose the lawsuit. It's a long shot. Wal Mart handles a shit ton of legal cases. But if they lose it could set up a change in the way they have to do business in other states.

[htismaqe]

Hittin teh road!

Not the only thing you will be hitting, I'm sure. ;)

[Amnorix]

How will employers deal with this? Many have zero tolerance policies. If you operate machinery, drive a company car or truck the risks are too great. They pee tests will lead to a number of people getting canned and fast.....the consequences of this is a lot more complex than a lot of people want to understand .


Many already do testing. They should continue, and it should be a fire-able offense. What's the issue?

[listopencil]

Many already do testing. They should continue, and it should be a fire-able offense. What's the issue?

The issue is that you can fail a drug test for marijuana long after the effects of the drug are over. So drug tests for pot in a state where usage is legal sets up a situation where someone can be fired for engaging in a legal activity that has no bearing on work performance.

[Amnorix]

FYI Mass yesterday passed a medical marijuana ballot initiative, becoming the 18th state to legalize mj for medical purposes.

[Amnorix]

The issue is that you can fail a drug test for marijuana long after the effects of the drug are over. So drug tests for pot in a state where usage is legal sets up a situation where someone can be fired for engaging in a legal activity that has no bearing on work performance.


Umm...tough shit? Don't know what else to say.

The NFL can punish players for having certain substances in their system even if it's a side effect of taking a perfectly legal over the counter drug or whatever. This is basically the same thing -- individuals need to know/understand their employer's policies and refrain from doing things that might get them fired.

[listopencil]

Umm...tough shit? Don't know what else to say.

The NFL can punish players for having certain substances in their system even if it's a side effect of taking a perfectly legal over the counter drug or whatever. This is basically the same thing -- individuals need to know/understand their employer's policies and refrain from doing things that might get them fired.

The drug rules for competitive sport are primarily designed to prevent unfair advantage from ingesting PED's as well as to enforce usage standards consistent with generally accepted law. There is a substantial difference.

[Saul Good]

The issue is that you can fail a drug test for marijuana long after the effects of the drug are over. So drug tests for pot in a state where usage is legal sets up a situation where someone can be fired for engaging in a legal activity that has no bearing on work performance.

That's the thing. It's still not legal. It is just as illegal at the federal level as it was before. There are plenty of other laws that are only enforced at the federal level.

[Amnorix]

The drug rules for competitive sport are primarily designed to prevent unfair advantage from ingesting PED's as well as to enforce usage standards consistent with generally accepted law. There is a substantial difference.


No really, there isn't. It's all about employers wanting to ensure that their employees have present a certain image in addition to being qualified. You can fire someone for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not a discriminatory reason (discriminatory relating to a protected class).

Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.

[Amnorix]

That's the thing. It's still not legal. It is just as illegal at the federal level as it was before. There are plenty of other laws that are only enforced at the federal level.


Right, but as a prior post points out, the vast majority of small time pot busts are done at the local/state level. Now they don't have to deal with all that if they don't want to, and the feds can't possibly deal with it.

[Saul Good]

Right, but as a prior post points out, the vast majority of small time pot busts are done at the local/state level. Now they don't have to deal with all that if they don't want to, and the feds can't possibly deal with it.

Correct. My point is that "you can't fire me for smoking weed because it's perfectly legal" is not a valid argument.

[KC native]

Right, but as a prior post points out, the vast majority of small time pot busts are done at the local/state level. Now they don't have to deal with all that if they don't want to, and the feds can't possibly deal with it.

Not replying to this post, but since you're a lawyer (and i know this isn't what you practice), what do you think the likelihood of a company or state arguing that federal marijuana prohibition abridges their interstate commerce thus nullifying federal law wrt marijuana?

[ClevelandBronco]

Right, but as a prior post points out, the vast majority of small time pot busts are done at the local/state level. Now they don't have to deal with all that if they don't want to, and the feds can't possibly deal with it.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Colorado. I would have preferred legalizing it outside of the Colorado Constitution, but as it stand now, Coloradans appear to have a Constitutional right to be stoned. Will it be an actively protected right and how will it be protected? That may be up to the courts.

[listopencil]

Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.


And there's the difference.

[HonestChieffan]

They may not be able to. In a state where pot is completely legal they might actually lose the lawsuit. It's a long shot. Wal Mart handles a shit ton of legal cases. But if they lose it could set up a change in the way they have to do business in other states.


If its a condition of employment and there are good reasons, they would not have much risk of losing IMHO. You cant have someone operate dangerous equipment, risk injury to self or others. It just is that simple.

[Saul Good]

And there's the difference.

No, there's really not. If you have an illegal substance in your system at work, you can be fired.

[L.A. Chieffan]

Reagan never wouldve let this happen. To borrow a phrase from one of the best players on the team, "I'm sickened and disgusted."

[listopencil]

That's the thing. It's still not legal. It is just as illegal at the federal level as it was before. There are plenty of other laws that are only enforced at the federal level.

True. I would imagine that that is what the Wal Mart lawyers are going to go with when the lawsuits start.

[ClevelandBronco]

No, there's really not. If you have an illegal substance in your system at work, you can be fired.

Colorado is a right to work state and you can be fired for an infinite list of reasons. However, we are no longer talking about an illegal substance.

[listopencil]

If its a condition of employment and there are good reasons, they would not have much risk of losing IMHO. You cant have someone operate dangerous equipment, risk injury to self or others. It just is that simple.

No, it isn't. It's fairly easy to test for inebriation. You can easily test positive for pot without being currently under the influence.

[Brock]

No, it isn't. It's fairly easy to test for inebriation. You can easily test positive for pot without being currently under the influence.

It doesn't matter. There are companies that refuse to hire tobacco users and fire them when they're caught too.

[Saul Good]

No, it isn't. It's fairly easy to test for inebriation. You can easily test positive for pot without being currently under the influence.

Doesn't matter if you are stoned. It only matters if it's in your system.

[Saul Good]

Colorado is a right to work state and you can be fired for an infinite list of reasons. However, we are no longer talking about an illegal substance.

1. It is still illegal.

2. Alcohol is legal, so what's your point

[listopencil]

Doesn't matter if you are stoned. It only matters if it's in your system.


Regarding work performance: Why would that be true? I understand your point from a legal vs. illegal perspective given Federal law.

[teedubya]

No really, there isn't. It's all about employers wanting to ensure that their employees have present a certain image in addition to being qualified. You can fire someone for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not a discriminatory reason (discriminatory relating to a protected class).

Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.

You've never smoked pot, so you REALLY have no idea what you're talking about here. :evil:

[ClevelandBronco]

1. It is still illegal.

2. Alcohol is legal, so what's your point

Alcohol use is not a specific right under the Colorado Constitution. Weed use is.

Reliable testing for THC inebriation is lacking.

Employers can still be sued for wrongful termination.

This is an entirely different can of worms for employers.

[Amnorix]

Correct. My point is that "you can't fire me for smoking weed because it's perfectly legal" is not a valid argument.



In most states, you can fire someone for ANY reason or NO reason, so long as it's not for an illegal reason.

You dyed your hair red? I hate redheads. YOU'RE fired. Completely legal.

(not that I've done employment law lately, but that's the general rule in employment-at-will states. You can quit for ANY reason, and you can be fired for ANY reason (so long as it's not discriminatory, and being a red-head isn't a protected class).

[Amnorix]

You've never smoked pot, so you REALLY have no idea what you're talking about here. :evil:


I admit that that probably reduces my sympathy levels, yes. :D

[Saul Good]

In most states, you can fire someone for ANY reason or NO reason, so long as it's not for an illegal reason.

You dyed your hair red? I hate redheads. YOU'RE fired. Completely legal.

(not that I've done employment law lately, but that's the general rule in employment-at-will states. You can quit for ANY reason, and you can be fired for ANY reason (so long as it's not discriminatory, and being a red-head isn't a protected class).

I agree.

[Saul Good]

Alcohol use is not a specific right under the Colorado Constitution. Weed use is.

Reliable testing for THC inebriation is lacking.

Employers can still be sued for wrongful termination.

This is an entirely different can of worms for employers.

It's no can of worms at all. Literally nothing has changed as far as they need to be concerned.

[ClevelandBronco]

It's no can of worms at all. Literally nothing has changed as far as they need to be concerned.

Until a couple of key issues are decided by the courts, I think you're talking about what the situation should be instead of what it will be.

[Bump]

No really, there isn't. It's all about employers wanting to ensure that their employees have present a certain image in addition to being qualified. You can fire someone for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not a discriminatory reason (discriminatory relating to a protected class).

Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.

I think it's about control. I would never work for a place that does drug tests, that means they want to control every aspect of your life. I'm not down for that at all.

[Brock]

I think it's about control. I would never work for a place that does drug tests, that means they want to control every aspect of your life. I'm not down for that at all.

Yeah, you'd do it if you needed a job or if the compensation was good enough.

[Donger]

I'm going to get some "pot" now that it's legal and consume it. I've been warned that I shouldn't try it (something about that I wouldn't be much fun stoned), but if you can't beat them, join them.

[Brock]

I'm going to get some "pot" now that it's legal and consume it. I've been warned that I shouldn't try it (something about that I wouldn't be much fun stoned), but if you can't beat them, join them.

Please be posting here while you do it. I want to see what you're like when you're interesting.

[Donger]

Please be posting here while you do it. I want to see what you're like when you're interesting.

I will do my best.

[listopencil]

I will do my best.


That would be great. I've never smoked pot and it would be fun to get your take on what it's like to be high.

[Contrarian]

As long as you have documentation to show that you are a grower, a medicinal user, a recreational user and you show that to your employer they can't do anything to you in the state of Washington. Projections on taxed weed sales is a boost of 1.7 million dollars a year to the state. I live here, I plan to grow my 6 plants and there is nothing my employer can do about it along as they are informed with documentation.

[Detoxing]

Question:

Lets say you grow a pound of weed out in in Denver and wanna mail it your friend out in Boulder.....can you send it USPS?

[Brock]

As long as you have documentation to show that you are a grower, a medicinal user, a recreational user and you show that to your employer they can't do anything to you in the state of Washington. Projections on taxed weed sales is a boost of 1.7 million dollars a year to the state. I live here, I plan to grow my 6 plants and there is nothing my employer can do about it along as they are informed with documentation.

1.7 Million? That sounds very, very low.

[Fish]

I think it's about control. I would never work for a place that does drug tests, that means they want to control every aspect of your life. I'm not down for that at all.

No it doesn't. Generally it's about safety, where being under the influence makes you a danger to yourself and others in the workplace.

You don't have to be paranoid about everything in life dude....

[listopencil]

As long as you have documentation to show that you are a grower, a medicinal user, a recreational user and you show that to your employer they can't do anything to you in the state of Washington.

There is a Wal Mart DC in Grandview, WA.

[Detoxing]

Question:

Lets say you grow a pound of weed out in in Denver and wanna mail it your friend out in Boulder.....can you send it USPS?

Ahem?

[teedubya]

Peyton Manning acquired 21 Papa John's franchise restaurants in the Denver area last week... what a bastard.

[listopencil]

Peyton Manning acquired 21 Papa John's franchise restaurants in the Denver area last week... what a bastard.


His anticipatory skills are widely acknowledged.

[listopencil]

Oh, by the way, before I go run some errands, you guys are slipping:


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k_WyUwNPOzQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[KC native]

Question:

Lets say you grow a pound of weed out in in Denver and wanna mail it your friend out in Boulder.....can you send it USPS?

I think this is the type of situatuion that will push the feds to end marijuana prohibition. Interstate commerce clause is where it will be overturned IMO.

[Johnny Vegas]

Question:

Lets say you grow a pound of weed out in in Denver and wanna mail it your friend out in Boulder.....can you send it USPS?

absolutely not. you can't mail alcohol.

[Bo's Pelini]

It's going to be really interesting to see how the Feds handle this. All of those people who were screaming states rights during the health care debate now will be looking good coming out of this.

[htismaqe]

Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.

I have no problem with private businesses hiring and firing whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.

But the hypocrisy in this statement (unintended, I'm sure) gets under my skin.

You don't get fired for DRINKING. You get fired for showing up to work DRUNK.

Yet you can get fired for smoking some weed while in vacation in Amsterdam 3 weeks ago because they might be able to detect a trace amount in your pee.

It's beyond stupid.

[DaFace]

I see how you guys are. Just ignore my thread. :sulk:

[Graystoke]

I have no problem with private businesses hiring and firing whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.

But the hypocrisy in this statement (unintended, I'm sure) gets under my skin.

You don't get fired for DRINKING. You get fired for showing up to work DRUNK.

Yet you can get fired for smoking some weed while in vacation in Amsterdam 3 weeks ago because they might be able to detect a trace amount in your pee.

It's beyond stupid.

Tell that to the Insurance Lobby and OSHA. I am sure they are talking with the Feds as we speak.

I honestly think Legalization is the way to go. I just am perplexed how they are going to handle the side issues such as:

CDL License and Operating under the Influence
Health Insurance Issues, (AKA how they handle Tobacco and what about that Second Hand Smoke? OH MY!)

[Johnny Vegas]

I have a great theory as to why its still illegal in this country federally. Think about it. The government spends more money eradicating cannabis than any other drug out there. The amount of man power and privatized prisons that are invested in the War on Drugs is enough proof to help this theory. The DEA, ATF, and FBI as well as prison complexes would have a lot of their workforce out of jobs and funding would dramatically decrease. Nobody wants to be out of a job and lose money. They'll fight it all the way to the end.

[Contrarian]

What it is all about in Washington is that there is big business in pot sales and the state reaps no benefit of it because it's not taxed. We have stores that you can go to and get great quality stuff for half the price you get on the street and sellers were making a huge profit. One dude I spoke to was bringing in at least 10k a day cash. Now that they have legalized it these sellers are going to be taxed heavily and many of the sellers were against this passing because it will take at least a thrid of their cash away from them.
Many will go underground and sell same as before. Quality may falter unless there are incentives in place for sellers in the market. but I like the law. It's easier and cheaper to invest and grow your own than going out and buying it. But you have a choice in the state to do either.
The cost projection I thought was low too but that is because the folks reporting that dont use or sell pot! HA! I know it will be much higher...pardon the pun. And when Washington state starts reaping those benefits other states will get in line, especially the whole west coast!

[Bump]

No it doesn't. Generally it's about safety, where being under the influence makes you a danger to yourself and others in the workplace.

You don't have to be paranoid about everything in life dude....

I understand you shouldn't go to work high. But if you aren't allowed to use it on your time away from work = control of you. I have never gone to work high, never. But I couldn't work at a place that does drug testing, because when it's time to relax and the day is over, I want some weed.

[Bump]

I have a great theory as to why its still illegal in this country federally. Think about it. The government spends more money eradicating cannabis than any other drug out there. The amount of man power and privatized prisons that are invested in the War on Drugs is enough proof to help this theory. The DEA, ATF, and FBI as well as prison complexes would have a lot of their workforce out of jobs and funding would dramatically decrease. Nobody wants to be out of a job and lose money. They'll fight it all the way to the end.

yup.

1. Big Pharma
2. Corporate Prisons
3. Police Unions

profit

[Saul Good]

What it is all about in Washington is that there is big business in pot sales and the state reaps no benefit of it because it's not taxed. We have stores that you can go to and get great quality stuff for half the price you get on the street and sellers were making a huge profit. One dude I spoke to was bringing in at least 10k a day cash. Now that they have legalized it these sellers are going to be taxed heavily and many of the sellers were against this passing because it will take at least a thrid of their cash away from them.
Many will go underground and sell same as before. Quality may falter unless there are incentives in place for sellers in the market. but I like the law. It's easier and cheaper to invest and grow your own than going out and buying it. But you have a choice in the state to do either.
The cost projection I thought was low too but that is because the folks reporting that dont use or sell pot! HA! I know it will be much higher...pardon the pun. And when Washington state starts reaping those benefits other states will get in line, especially the whole west coast!

It's not going underground to any substantial degree. You don't go to your local bootlegger for beer.

[DaFace]

Regarding the workplace debate going on here, this is specifically listed in the Colorado amendment:

(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.
(a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.

So basically, employers can still test for it if they want to. Is that fair? Probably not given the concerns about it staying in someone's system. But that's the way it goes - if an employer doesn't want you smoking, you either comply or find another job.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

1.7 Million? That sounds very, very low.

low population state.

[tooge]

I don't know about how the tests for pot in a persons system work, but perhaps a scale could be created like the one for alcohol. If you have X amount of pot in your blood/pee, then you are considered under the influence. If it is below that amount, you are not. Seems easy enough to me.

[Bump]

Regarding the workplace debate going on here, this is specifically listed in the Colorado amendment:



So basically, employers can still test for it if they want to. Is that fair? Probably not given the concerns about it staying in someone's system. But that's the way it goes - if an employer doesn't want you smoking, you either comply or find another job.

if you show up to work high, even I think you should be fired for sure. But it's not right to say they can't do it on their time off.

[Saul Good]

if you show up to work high, even I think you should be fired for sure. But it's not right to say they can't do it on their time off.

Smoke it all you want in your time off. Just don't have it in your system when you clock in.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Regarding the workplace debate going on here, this is specifically listed in the Colorado amendment:



So basically, employers can still test for it if they want to. Is that fair? Probably not given the concerns about it staying in someone's system. But that's the way it goes - if an employer doesn't want you smoking, you either comply or find another job.

I don't see it as unfair in principle. What is not fair, is that those same employers waive all responsibility to the community when the drug alcohol is used and abused outside of the premises. This is not only unfair, but unwise.

[Johnny Vegas]

I don't know about how the tests for pot in a persons system work, but perhaps a scale could be created like the one for alcohol. If you have X amount of pot in your blood/pee, then you are considered under the influence. If it is below that amount, you are not. Seems easy enough to me.

there is a cotton swab test that can determine how long ago you smoked by the level of thc in your saliva. It would take about a day or 2 tops of not smoking to not be found.

[htismaqe]

Tell that to the Insurance Lobby and OSHA. I am sure they are talking with the Feds as we speak.

I honestly think Legalization is the way to go. I just am perplexed how they are going to handle the side issues such as:

CDL License and Operating under the Influence
Health Insurance Issues, (AKA how they handle Tobacco and what about that Second Hand Smoke? OH MY!)

You evidently didn't read my post.

One can have detectable levels of THC in their urine for WEEKS, long after they are "under the influence". Hell, in their hair and fat cells, it can be retained for YEARS.

People ONLY get fired for consuming alcohol in their fucking CAR in the work PARKING LOT right before their shift.

People can get fired for lighting up a joint while on vacation in JAMAICA even though it was TWO MONTHS AGO.

I am absolutely NOT talking about showing up to work high, which SHOULD concern OSHA and the insurance industry. People who do that are irresponsible and stupid.

However, people who want to spark up in their own home on their own time and show up to work COMPLETLY SOBER should not be subject to the same scrutiny. It's utterly absurd.

[Contrarian]

I have a great theory as to why its still illegal in this country federally. Think about it. The government spends more money eradicating cannabis than any other drug out there. The amount of man power and privatized prisons that are invested in the War on Drugs is enough proof to help this theory. The DEA, ATF, and FBI as well as prison complexes would have a lot of their workforce out of jobs and funding would dramatically decrease. Nobody wants to be out of a job and lose money. They'll fight it all the way to the end.

Agreed.
It's such an old battle based on gateway drug propaganda by a controling government from a past era. They had to search out suppliers with fields and fields of the stuff and burn it down, stop people at the border and customs from bringing it in. Now you have people that can grow a few plants very well, high quality, and produce not only enough for themselves but also to line their pockets with some extra cash and still show up for work and do their job on a daily basis.
Hell Nike for example doesn't even have a drug policy and other companies are starting to follow suit. It's an inevitable that this change is going to come sooner rather than later.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

I don't know about how the tests for pot in a persons system work, but perhaps a scale could be created like the one for alcohol. If you have X amount of pot in your blood/pee, then you are considered under the influence. If it is below that amount, you are not. Seems easy enough to me.

you don't understand the science behind your statement. It is complex, and I'm no expert so I'll just leave it at "it doesn't work this way".

[Bump]

Smoke it all you want in your time off. Just don't have it in your system when you clock in.

it's detectable for like 2-4 weeks after use

[DaFace]

you don't understand the science behind your statement. It is complex, and I'm no expert so I'll just leave it at "it doesn't work this way".

I don't fully understand it either, but I know for sure it's tougher than a BAL test like a DUI. For whatever reason, it stays in your blood at reasonably high levels far after you are no longer "high" and it's difficult to define a cutoff in a way that would be an accurate predictor of impairment.

Or something like that.

[Contrarian]

It's not going underground to any substantial degree. You don't go to your local bootlegger for beer.

Every seller except for two in the store that I go to said that is what they would do if it passed. It's not like these guys are companies like Budweiser and Coors. These dudes ARE bootleggers with a free pass to peddle their product to the medicinal pot needy public.
Just so happens all you need to do to get a card is to go to a doctor that is pro marajuana and he'll sign you up for a number of reasons. Can't sleep or anxiety, can't eat loss of appetite, gout, previous injuries, joint pain or arthritis. STRESS!! I know someone who claimed he had stress from work and got a card.

[tooge]

you don't understand the science behind your statement. It is complex, and I'm no expert so I'll just leave it at "it doesn't work this way".

heh. I completely understand the science behind how THC is metabolized. What I'm saying is that since it is metabolized at a given rate (just like alcohol), and since that rate can be correlated to amounts remaining in different tissues and/or bodily fluids, then an amount should be able to be set that is considered "under the influence". I get that you can find it in fat cells a month after you use it. Bottom line is if you aren't under the influence of the THC, in a sense that it isn't impairing you, then it doesn't matter if you did it 2 days ago. Just like alcohol. don't be so dense.

[DaFace]

Every seller except for two in the store that I go to said that is what they would do if it passed. It's not like these guys are companies like Budweiser and Coors. These dudes ARE bootleggers with a free pass to peddle their product to the medicinal pot needy public.
Just so happens all you need to do to get a card is to go to a doctor that is pro marajuana and he'll sign you up for a number of reasons. Can't sleep or anxiety, can't eat loss of appetite, gout, previous injuries, joint pain or arthritis. STRESS!! I know someone who claimed he had stress from work and got a card.

That may be true in some cases, but I highly doubt it would be the norm. People can brew beer in their homes too, but that's not the typical way people buy it. It's just too much of a hassle.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Today, according to the Facebook page of KING 5 news, the prosecutor of King County (home of Seattle) has announced he is dropping all misdemeanor possession of marijuana charges due to the passage of I-502.

This is after the AG said they are ready to defend the voters rights to pass this initiative against the federal government. They have already started taking applications for distributors licenses, and this law takes effect Dec. 6th.

These guys aren't fucking around. What do you all think of Washington's proactive stance to this?

[vailpass]

Fed response come out yet?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Fed response come out yet?

Literally the only thing they've said is "The law has not changed".

That's it. So, for someone who wants to smoke, they're good. It's legal to have 1 oz of "usable marijuana" on your possession. I think the only people who have to worry are people who want to sell it. And they only have to worry about the Federal Government, not local police. This is on. Less than a month, this stuff is full on.

[vailpass]

Literally the only thing they've said is "The law has not changed".

That's it. So, for someone who wants to smoke, they're good. It's legal to have 1 oz of "usable marijuana" on your possession. I think the only people who have to worry are people who want to sell it. And they only have to worry about the Federal Government, not local police. This is on. Less than a month, this stuff is full on.

Intradasting. I'm not sure I fully accept that as the final Federal position on the matter given how they have been acting in California but I certainly have no evidence to the contrary.

Seems odd the administration would sue a state for enacting border security but look the other way over recreational mj use.

[DaFace]

Intradasting. I'm not sure I fully accept that as the final Federal position on the matter given how they have been acting in California but I certainly have no evidence to the contrary.

Seems odd the administration would sue a state for enacting border security but look the other way over recreational mj use.

Hickenlooper (Colorado Governor) apparently had a call with the US Attorney General today, but they're not releasing what he found out. At any rate, it doesn't sound like they're immediately going to sue the states over it. What that really ends up meaning is anyone's guess.

[dmahurin]

Hickenlooper (Colorado Governor) apparently had a call with the US Attorney General today, but they're not releasing what he found out. At any rate, it doesn't sound like they're immediately going to sue the states over it. What that really ends up meaning is anyone's guess.

The Feds want to see how much of the tax dollars they could rack up before they make up there mind.

[ClevelandBronco]

The Feds want to see how much of the tax dollars they could rack up before they make up there mind.

Colorado should be wondering whether it is in peril of losing some federal tax dollars unless they repeal the amendment. Such a move by the federal government to influence state law would not be unprecedented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

[ReynardMuldrake]

220 marijuana cases dismissed in King, Pierce counties [Washington]

UPDATE 3:03 p.m. King and Pierce County prosecutors are dismissing more than 220 misdemeanor marijuana cases in response to Tuesday’s vote to decriminalize small amounts of pot.

In King County, 175 cases are being dismissed involving people 21 and older and possession of one ounce or less. I-502 makes one ounce of marijuana legal on Dec. 6, but King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg decided to apply I-502 retroactively.

“Although the effective date of I-502 is not until December 6, there is no point in continuing to seek criminal penalties for conduct that will be legal next month,” Satterberg said in a statement.

The dismissed cases involved arrests in unincorporated King County, as well as the state highways and the University of Washington. About 40 of the cases had already been filed in court as criminal charges; those charges will be dismissed. Another 135 cases were pending charging decisions and will simply be returned to the arresting police agency.

Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said he was dismissing “about four dozen” pending cases where misdemeanor marijuana was the only offense. He said his staff was continuing to prosecute other cases where possession was secondary to a more serious charge, such as drunken driving.

“The people have spoken through this initiative,” said Lindquist. “And as a practical matter, I don’t think you could sell a simple marijuana case to a jury after this initiative passed.”

In an interview, Satterberg said his office would continue to prosecute marijuana possession above one ounce, allowing for “a buffer for those whose scales are less than accurate.” His office also charges felony possession — for people with more than 40 grams — although he said his staff routinely allows those defendants to plead down to a misdemeanor.

“I think when the people voted to change the policy, they weren’t focused on when the effective date of the new policy would be. They spoke loudly and clearly that we should not treat small amounts of marijuana as an offense,” he said.
I-502 campaign manager Alison Holcomb said she was “incredibly moved” by Satterberg’s announcement, which she said showed “incredible courage.”

The decision supports a prime argument I-502 made during the campaign. A study by a group of academics found there had been 241,000 misdemeanor marijuana possession cases in Washington over the past 25 years, 67,000 of them in the past five years. “If 502 hadn’t passed, we’d see the same amount of marijuana possession cases every year,” she said. “What makes a difference is changing the law.”
Satterberg is the first prosecutor to change charging policy after I-502, but other prosecutors are also considering these cases. Tom McBride of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys said his office “just starting to work through those issues.”

Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes has refused to prosecute misdemeanor possession cases since he took office.

Earlier this week, the chief criminal deputy prosecutor in Spokane County, Jack Driscoll, appeared to take a more conservative position. He told the Spokesman-Review that, even after Dec. 6, the only marijuana which was legal to possess was pot sold in the state-licensed stores called for in I-502. Those stores won’t be created for at least a year.

“The only thing that is legal is selling marijuana through those stores,” Driscoll said. “That will be regulated by the state. You can’t under this initiative have an ounce of marijuana that doesn’t come from a state-issued provider. You still can’t have black-market marijuana.”

Holcomb disputed that interpretation. So did Satterberg, who called it a “very narrow reading” of the initiative. “I don’t know how you trace where (the marijuana) comes from,” he said.
Satterberg said he expected federal authorities to seek an injunction to block implementation of I-502′s state licensing scheme for marijuana retailers and growers. “I think it’s the kind of issue the U.S. Supreme Court will have a final word on,” said Satterberg, calling it an “an important state’s rights issue.”
But he does not expect a federal lawsuit to target the types of cases he is dismissing, noting that states already have widely divergent penalties for marijuana possession.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2012/11/09/175-marijuana-prosecutions-in-king-county-dismissed-because-of-initiative-502/

[ReynardMuldrake]

Oops, Flop beat me to it.

[-King-]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VEkLIlDN3UI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[WoodDraw]

The problem is that the Federal gov can do whatever they want under Gonzales v. Raich. The chance of them doing nothing and allowing legal marijuana shops is nil.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

The problem is that the Federal gov can do whatever they want under Gonzales v. Raich. The chance of them doing nothing and allowing legal marijuana shops is nil.

So the risk remains the same for those who sell. However, those who smoke look to be home free. Sounds like a damned fine start if you ask me!

[J Diddy]

So the risk remains the same for those who sell. However, those who smoke look to be home free. Sounds like a damned fine start if you ask me!

Pretty stupid approach by the feds if you ask me. It takes away the opportunity of brick and mortar establishments and an opportunity to regulate and tax those establishments. Instead it puts them in the shadows and with shady supply chains.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Pretty stupid approach by the feds if you ask me. It takes away the opportunity of brick and mortar establishments and an opportunity to regulate and tax those establishments. Instead it puts them in the shadows and with shady supply chains.

Honestly, I don't see the Feds pursuing these guys any more than they have the medicinal guys. Meaning pay your taxes and you'll be just fine.

[Donger]

So the risk remains the same for those who sell. However, those who smoke look to be home free. Sounds like a damned fine start if you ask me!

I think that it's still illegal in Colorado to smoke pot outside/in public.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I think that it's still illegal in Colorado to smoke pot outside/in public.

Same in Washington. Also in non smoking apartments, etc.

[J Diddy]

Honestly, I don't see the Feds pursuing these guys any more than they have the medicinal guys. Meaning pay your taxes and you'll be just fine.

I agree, but until you remove the threat of having someone swoop in and pound your ass, you're not really going to see to much of a committment, imo.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I agree, but until you remove the threat of having someone swoop in and pound your ass, you're not really going to see to much of a committment, imo.

Honestly, Washington is getting TONS of calls from people who want in. They're slammed.

[J Diddy]

Honestly, Washington is getting TONS of calls from people who want in. They're slammed.

They need to be let in, imo.

[go bowe]

Honestly, Washington is getting TONS of calls from people who want in. They're slammed.

i wish i was slammed... :bong:

[Mr. Flopnuts]

They need to be let in, imo.

Sorry I didn't catch this before now. They will be. Don't expect WA state to drag their feet. They're almost going out of their way to take this fight to the Feds. They've already come out and said they're dropping charges, and going to pretty much put the possession part of the law into effect immediately. They just have to figure out how they want to set it up and tax it, and boom! It's in.

The problem I have is that they haven't already done that. Yeah the law allows them until the end of next year, but if they're going to be so proactive, they should've been prepared. That said, folks up there are already comparing it to prohibition. And that's the ones who don't use it. At least per their statements on the Facebook news pages up there. Lots of griping, but a lot of folks are saying this has been a long time coming.