Official "Marijuana is legal in CA" Countdown Thread ***UPDATE: California Sucks***

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
I don't think THC should be included in a drug test for employment. If there's an incident where someone gets hurt or lots of $$$ is wasted or company property is destroyed or something, THEN test for drugs including THC and fire them if they're dirty.

A company has the right to chose what issues that feel that they can set as a employment standard. If you do not like their empoyment conditions, then do not work there.

Note also that one is not allowed to light up in a public place..

And what will the Feds do.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
I guess it will be fun for everyone turning 21 on November 3rd. Go out and toke and drink as part of the celebration!

Also, sounds like the guy who co-founded Facebook and Napster donated $100,000 to the proposition. Nice.

Can not toke in public - it will be interesting that if it passes, how many idiots will still sit in the pokey because they can not read/understand the law?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Last time I checked
federal law > state law

This is true...but the feds are not going to be prosecuting simple possession cases...in California...where the jury knows it's legal.

The Feds will be creative and make it so it is not about the personal use; but rather an attempt to distribute/racketeering, etc.

And if it is a Federal case; it may not need to be tried inside the state.
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,559
0
0
States rights! Yeeeeehaaaaaaw! The west will rise again!!!!!!

If it passes I hope the feds crucify CA over it. Let the leftists get exactly what they want with their massive federal bureaucracy. Maybe then they'll start to understand what us limited government types are talking about.

Do you often root against the common good for petty, vindictive personal reasons?
 

Nik

Lifer
Jun 5, 2006
16,101
2
56
A company has the right to chose what issues that feel that they can set as a employment standard. If you do not like their empoyment conditions, then do not work there.

Note also that one is not allowed to light up in a public place..

And what will the Feds do.

I understand that. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying, that's how I think it should be. Basically, leave them alone until they do something stupid and THEN throw the book at them.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
If you fail a drug test, you're fired. Well, in most situations you are.

The problem is, how do you tell if someone's stoned or if the THC molecule is simply built up in their system because they smoked 2 days ago or something? That's problem. You can't.

I don't know about you, but I can pretty much tell if someone is stoned, lol. well, depends.

You can always check pupil dilation, though. Can't hide that, afaik.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
This is the problem.

I think the Proposition 19 crew should have made an incentive for voting. If you voted, you get 25% at some head shop next time you visit, or something.

good call. I've never been in a dispensary, but I can see a week-long promo of "Get 15% off with your I voted sticker!" working to great success.

I'd be surprised if several of them don't do this....

:hmm:
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
drug users miss work a LOT more than non-drug users, also employee theft occurs in MUCH higher numbers among drug users.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
States rights! Yeeeeehaaaaaaw! The west will rise again!!!!!!

If it passes I hope the feds crucify CA over it. Let the leftists get exactly what they want with their massive federal bureaucracy. Maybe then they'll start to understand what us limited government types are talking about.

Yes, because the infrastructure behind this "War on Drugs" is the definition of limited government....

:confused:
can you actually hear the air whistling out of your ears?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
drug users miss work a LOT more than non-drug users, also employee theft occurs in MUCH higher numbers among drug users.

show us some numbers.

also show us some alcoholics vs pot smokers vs meth heads vs white baggers numbers.

I'm pretty sure that crackheads/metheads are the real threats when it comes to theft.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I don't think THC should be included in a drug test for employment. If there's an incident where someone gets hurt or lots of $$$ is wasted or company property is destroyed or something, THEN test for drugs including THC and fire them if they're dirty.

I don't agree with this at all. The employer should be able to choose if they want to screen for it or not.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
drug users miss work a LOT more than non-drug users, also employee theft occurs in MUCH higher numbers among drug users.

Whether this is true or not simply doesn't matter.

If you are a bad employee, you will be fired. Simple. It is none of your employers business what you do on your own time. All that matters is that you come to work on time and do your job as expected. If you can do this, you are a good employee regardless of whether you drink a 12 pack, smoke a bowl, or do an 8ball of coke every night. Period.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Do you often root against the common good for petty, vindictive personal reasons?

How am I being vindictive? People like me are against big government but constantly get outvoted by those who love massive government and lots of regulation. Those people getting exactly what they ask for isn't being vindictive, it's being realistic. When the dope smoking lefties realize that the monster they've created in Washington DC is out of control maybe they'll come more to my way of thinking.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Yes, because the infrastructure behind this "War on Drugs" is the definition of limited government....

:confused:
can you actually hear the air whistling out of your ears?

Do you need me to spell it out for you, dipshit?

I'm against the war on drugs exactly because it's a function of big government. But insane leftists (who wrongly call themselves "liberals" when they're anything but liberal) have put in place a massive, out of control federal bureaucracy. The only way we'll begin to see any kind of limits on government is if the left starts to realize the error of their ways. Do do that, they need to feel the pain that the big government they've built can bring down upon them.

Government keeps getting bigger, more powerful, more out of control, and the left appears to have no intention of stopping it. So yes, I'd love to see the federal government crush California so maybe we can start to rein the feds in a bit.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,138
12,457
136
Do you need me to spell it out for you, dipshit?

I'm against the war on drugs exactly because it's a function of big government. But insane leftists (who wrongly call themselves "liberals" when they're anything but liberal) have put in place a massive, out of control federal bureaucracy. The only way we'll begin to see any kind of limits on government is if the left starts to realize the error of their ways. Do do that, they need to feel the pain that the big government they've built can bring down upon them.

Government keeps getting bigger, more powerful, more out of control, and the left appears to have no intention of stopping it. So yes, I'd love to see the federal government crush California so maybe we can start to rein the feds in a bit.

How can you blame Nancy Reagan's War on Drugs on the leftists? Sure, there have been drug laws since the early 20th century, but things really ramped up under the Reagan administration...and that's when the seizures of "ill-gotten" money and property began...
 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
43
91
Congrats to CA if this passes! Would actually put you guys a step ahead of us legaly. Though its basically on every street corner here :p what about it still being legal under fed law though. Wouldn't the conflicting laws cause problems ?
 

erikistired

Diamond Member
Sep 27, 2000
9,739
0
0
Fuck the federal government. California should secede and become it's own country. Cuz we're more awesome than the other 49 states combined.

please do this. and if you could physically detach yourselves that would be great as well. i would even pitch in a few bucks if you would just become part of mexico or something. but you can't come back once you leave.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Do you need me to spell it out for you, dipshit?

I'm against the war on drugs exactly because it's a function of big government. But insane leftists (who wrongly call themselves "liberals" when they're anything but liberal) have put in place a massive, out of control federal bureaucracy. The only way we'll begin to see any kind of limits on government is if the left starts to realize the error of their ways. Do do that, they need to feel the pain that the big government they've built can bring down upon them.

Government keeps getting bigger, more powerful, more out of control, and the left appears to have no intention of stopping it. So yes, I'd love to see the federal government crush California so maybe we can start to rein the feds in a bit.

ah, so the whistling really is too loud... ;)


anyway, this is a state issue, not Fed. If the Fed wants to get involved and claim jurisdiction over a state's laws, that's really their issue, isn't it?

Anyway, explain how this will require a larger infrastructure than what is currently in place? It really becomes nothing more than alcohol and tobacco as part of the same branch of regulation. Sure, there will be a few increases in terms of putting things in place to keep home-growing in check and within legal limits, but that is also along the lines of home-brewing and distilling, for which every American already has annual legal limits (thank you, Jimmy Carter! :))

Granted, growing your own MJ will be much, much more popular than brewing.

Personally, I'd rather see larger government infrastructure set in place to regulate this if it shrinks the drug cartel and black market industry, which it invariably will. The potential revenue is insane. The crime reduction perhaps even more insane. You should love these things as a libertarian/conservative, rather than cry and scream and run in fear of this phantom big government boogey man that the Shepherds have drilled into your noggin.
 

erikistired

Diamond Member
Sep 27, 2000
9,739
0
0
ah, so the whistling really is too loud... ;)


anyway, this is a state issue, not Fed. If the Fed wants to get involved and claim jurisdiction over a state's laws, that's really their issue, isn't it?

Anyway, explain how this will require a larger infrastructure than what is currently in place? It really becomes nothing more than alcohol and tobacco as part of the same branch of regulation. Sure, there will be a few increases in terms of putting things in place to keep home-growing in check and within legal limits, but that is also along the lines of home-brewing and distilling, for which every American already has annual legal limits (thank you, Jimmy Carter! :))

Granted, growing your own MJ will be much, much more popular than brewing.

Personally, I'd rather see larger government infrastructure set in place to regulate this if it shrinks the drug cartel and black market industry, which it invariably will. The potential revenue is insane. The crime reduction perhaps even more insane. You should love these things as a libertarian/conservative, rather than cry and scream and run in fear of this phantom big government boogey man that the Shepherds have drilled into your noggin.

i read somewhere that this won't really affect the cartels and black markets much (maybe even on here?) simply because the taxes will be so high that they will have plenty of customers left for their product. i can't imagine it changing crime statistics that much either, it's not like potheads are out holding people up for weed money. i would guess (this is an opinion, not stated as fact) that the more hardcore drug users are the ones committing the crimes. at least if all the "weed makes you mellow" people are to be believed.

also, as already stated in this thread, where the feds come in is withholding federal money and whatnot, which i'm not sure california can make up for with weed taxes, see the above statement re: the drug cartels being hurt for more information on that. people will either grow their own, or the old or possibly a new black market will spring up.
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
How can you blame Nancy Reagan's War on Drugs on the leftists? Sure, there have been drug laws since the early 20th century, but things really ramped up under the Reagan administration...and that's when the seizures of "ill-gotten" money and property began...

The right is to blame for the war on drugs specifically. But without the massive bureaucracy put in place by FDR and other leftists since, the war on drugs would have been a failure. Just look at prohibition. If the federal government in the 20s had been the size it was today, alcohol would still be illegal.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
ah, so the whistling really is too loud... ;)

anyway, this is a state issue, not Fed. If the Fed wants to get involved and claim jurisdiction over a state's laws, that's really their issue, isn't it?
You skipped pot and went straight to meth, didn't you?

That's the whole point, butt monkey. Nothing is a state issue. Everything is a federal issue. The overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause has made sure of that.

Anyway, explain how this will require a larger infrastructure than what is currently in place? It really becomes nothing more than alcohol and tobacco as part of the same branch of regulation. Sure, there will be a few increases in terms of putting things in place to keep home-growing in check and within legal limits, but that is also along the lines of home-brewing and distilling, for which every American already has annual legal limits (thank you, Jimmy Carter! :))

Granted, growing your own MJ will be much, much more popular than brewing.

Personally, I'd rather see larger government infrastructure set in place to regulate this if it shrinks the drug cartel and black market industry, which it invariably will. The potential revenue is insane. The crime reduction perhaps even more insane. You should love these things as a libertarian/conservative, rather than cry and scream and run in fear of this phantom big government boogey man that the Shepherds have drilled into your noggin.

None of what you said has anything to do with anything. You have a learning disability. Have it looked at.