Mj Is Legal In Colorado Washington

[wildBill83]

between you and Ralphie I'm wearing out my scroll wheel.

[AAPOQ]

lol@the Idea That My Posts Are Hard To Read For Any Reason Other Than Being So Long.

Tltr

[dbales]

I guess I'll give my opinion on this.

I used to smoke on pretty much a daily basis. I think I just grew up. At the time I quit, I was looking for a better paying job so being drug free was necessary to get gainful employment. I smoked recreationally and claim no medical use for it. I got high because I liked the mindset and the feeling it gave me.

Do I think it should be legalized? No. Do I think it has medicinal use? Yes. Do I think people will exploit the system and get prescriptions when they don't really need it? Yes, the same happens everyday with the food stamp system and disability system. Recreational use being legalized, to me, is just plain stupid. Notice I said "to me", meaning that is simply my opinion and I won't force that down anyone's throat.

I do believe in general your typical potheads have more opinion and generally get offended faster when it comes to this kind of debate, rather than the people who really need MJ medicinally. Just because you can do some stuff high, doesn't mean everyone that does it can do all those things. People say they have a heightened sense of alertness and carefulness while high (example: "I drive better high than I do sober), but I believe that is a false sense of alertness. Someone drunk could also agree that they drive better drunk than sober. Does that mean they do? No. I have driven drunk and high before. I'll agree I "felt" I was paying more attention, but in actuality I was just over compensating for things that were simple motor skills of when I drive sober.

Again, I'll say that most people who argue its wonderful medical uses, are NOT using for such reasons. Most of those people are using it just to get high. The same people argue that its so much better for your body than alcohol. This may hold some scientific merit, but seriously people, quit making it out to look like it has the same ill effects as water does.

I don't condone doing anything under the influence. If you're drinking, don't try to drive, work on your car, build anything structural, or anything like that. Same goes for smoking weed. Because all it takes is a slight lapse in judgement to ruin your life or someone else's (examples: you dui, you could wreck and kill/injure yourself and or others. You work on your car under the influence, you forget to tighten down that one bolt you'd easily remember sober and that part fails driving down the road, thus causing a wreck or worse.)

But in the end, people are gonna do what people wanna do and I could care less if you do it or not unless your choosing to do so affects my life.

[owequitit]

Lol@the idea that my posts are hard to read for any reason other than being so long.

They aren't that long, especially by my standards. The formatting sucks and reduces the effectiveness of your argument. To be honest, I never even bother to read your posts because of this.

[toycar]

Interesting that you feel that way.

I feel like my posts are written good enough. They are not txt talk, and they are not hard to understand. After looking over my posts the inky difference I think i could make is having a better structured paragraph.


I personally think you are using this as a nit picky way to dodge my side of the conversation.

It's all good though

[owequitit]

Interesting that you feel that way.

I feel like my posts are written good enough. They are not txt talk, and they are not hard to understand. After looking over my posts the inky difference I think i could make is having a better structured paragraph.


I personally think you are using this as a nit picky way to dodge my side of the conversation.

It's all good though

You can think whatever you want. I don't really care. I can't dodge your side of the argument when I didn't even read it because the formatting sucks. I am being brutally honest, but you go ahead and believe whatever you want.

[Ralphie]

I've been lurking here, trying to read all of these posts. I simply can't keep up, it's not worth my time, honestly. I appreciate that folks are having this discussion though!



So, I read this, and I think this is the heart of the argument here. Most, if not everyone, will agree or will concede that "the bad stuff" from alcohol, is just as bad, if not worse, than "the bad stuff" from marijuana. If we all agree to that, then it's only logical that restrictions and regulations on marijuana should be at least as lax as those for alcohol.

Now, I use quotes around "the bad stuff," because anyone who believes that the effects, positive or negative, from marijuana and alcohol are the same, on all levels, personal, societal, national, so many... is just being ignorant. I believe there has been a lot of good research, as well as a lot of "bad" research, on the personal health, and even societal and now likely economical effects of marijuana use. This research is what should be used to help make decisions regarding the legalization and regulation of marijuana.

All of that said, it looks like everyone agrees with it; I'm not saying anyone is being ignorant, or that anyone is claiming that because alcohol is worse than marijuana is a reason to give marijuana a free ride.

I agree that the onus is on the user regarding the specific testing used to detect drug use with respect to jobs and anything of that nature. Not everyone works a high risk job, and not everyone a low risk job. Again, alcohol is a good example because most folks are educated about it; if your job is so high risk that you can't have a drop of alcohol, it goes without saying that marijuana use is going to be held to the same high standard.

But, just because the current tests for marijuana don't even hint at when the use occurred, how "much" occurred, whether or not the drug is even still present, etc. doesn't mean that a test can't be formulated to do so, just like the breathalyzer does for alcohol. If such a test were developed and proven accurate, any and all of these regulations should be either a) worded in such a way that switching to the new test is a non-issue, or b) altered to allow such a switch. Anything otherwise is an ignorant infringement upon my (and every other US citizen's) rights. Again, I'm referring to laws here, not company policy. I don't know much about the laws, but if there are any incentives for a company to require drug-screening/testing, those would present an issue and would have to be resolved. Honestly, I believe that laws such as these are likely dishonest about their upbringing, especially given the light that legalization of marijuana is a very possible thing, meaning that these laws should be done away with anyway. If anything (regarding marijuana, at least), there should be laws to the contrary, forcing business that perform drug testing and screening to "not ignorantly infringe upon rights" as I stated above. Perhaps this is radical thinking, I honestly don't know the current situation well enough to say anything, but working laws in this way reduces the side-effect issue of revamping laws and dealing with the "cost" issue of doing so. That's a different topic though... sorry for the de-rail/ramble!

Well what you quoted(of mine) is not really the heart of the debate.

You actually touched on it in your later post....

The meat and potatoes of it has been the fairness of testing with regards to legalization.

I.E. Old balls Justin smokes everyday.

He has a job that isn't high risk, but he is responsible for a shitload of employees and 100's of decsions that effect them(Kinda guessing here Justin)

If his job does/or decides to do random drug testing, and he tests positive for MJ and IT has become legal to use in his state, it is not fair to terminate/discriminate based on the fact that our current drug tests do not specify the timeline for use.

Was it yesterday? Today? 2 weeks ago?

I understand the underlying problem with that, and I would whole heartedly push for more advanced testing(which will ultimately be more expensive for employers)

not because I feel bad for people who would otherwise be canned, but because if I were an employer I would not care if you smoked last week, I would want to know if you smoked within a few hours of coming into work.

I would want to know if your teetering on self destructing my company and possibly casuing millions in damges from lawsuits if you A) wreck a company vehicle B) get into a fight C) make a pass at a coworker

etc.

Not that MJ inherently makes people do these things, but as we have beaten to a pulp, it will with no doubt, raise the risk of anyone doing anything safely.

Doesn't mean people can't do most things safely "high", but the risk will always be there and since no one would have any way to know what can and can't be done safely "high", employers will continue to keep a zero tolerance and terminate when said employee is found to either be high at work or within a certain amount of time with regards to work.

[toycar]

I guess I'll give my opinion on this.

I used to smoke on pretty much a daily basis. I think I just grew up. At the time I quit, I was looking for a better paying job so being drug free was necessary to get gainful employment. I smoked recreationally and claim no medical use for it. I got high because I liked the mindset and the feeling it gave me.

You work on your car under the influence, you forget to tighten down that one bolt you'd easily remember sober and that part fails driving down the road, thus causing a wreck or worse.)

But in the end, people are gonna do what people wanna do and I could care less if you do it or not unless your choosing to do so affects my life.

I generally agree with what you are saying.


I do work on my own shit all the time after smoking some(maybe 4-5 tokes) and enjoy some beers while doing it(maybe 2-3 over the course of 5-6 hours)


Nothing crazy. Im sure if you used to smoke daily you used to do stuff high as well. You know just as well as I do that you could safely mow the grass after smoking a bowl. You could very easily change your oil. There are plenty of things you can do that are not reaction time specific or threatening someone elses life while having a mild buzz. I am positive that you learned your own personal limits. Its an easy assumption to make here that while you smoked daily, you probably didn't kill anyone or burn any houses down or anything like that. I bet you worked on some shit or another while being high too. Wether it was mowing the grass, washing dishes or cooking dinner. You did stuff after smoking weed and probably didn't kill/hurt anyone or destroy anything.

I think my point in all of this is that the general assumption about MJ is incorrect. Im not suggesting you don't get effected by MJ. Shit, thats why I do it. What I am saying is that its just plain silly for all of these people to live in fear of MJ when there is plenty of room for it in society. We dont just become reckless pieces of shit after we smoke a bowl. Chances are, if you are a POS after smoking a bowl you were a POS before. People can safely live and smoke weed without wreaking havoc on the rest of the world or killing themselves. It is an easy arguement when comparing the effects of MJ to many already legal substances.

It is not meant as a justification, but a comparison. Since MJ is illegal, its worth comparing to things like alcohol or certain frequently abused prescription pain pills and questioning why? When comparing the ill effects of both, it is generally pretty obvious that ill effects of alcohol/pain pills are much worse than MJ, but MJ still ends up being illegal.

Again, Im not advocating for people to get high on the clock or be able to drive high. I agree that there is a very sharp measure of accountability needed if they legalize it. I also think smokers are responsible for showing the public that we can be responsible with our habit. Thats our job, not yours. We need to assume the worst and show the best in this situation. How come people can drop oxy and drive to work and nobody seems to care? Does anyone think MJ is a harder drug than oxy?

I do think it is bullshit that someone could get fired for working sober but smoking weed at home-even if they have a prescription for MJ. Blood tests can tell an employer if the person is currently high. This is nothing new. Why can't they just adhere to that approach instead of fucking with people that can both smoke and be responsible? Im sure the outsourced testing facility can handle both types of tests. If an employee was found to be high on the clock, why couldn't the law allow an employer to refuse to pay the person for the shift worked and have the option to terminate on the spot as well as deduct the cost of the testing from any owed wages? It would have a 0 net effect on the company financially, and the risk of someone showing up high would be just the same as it is now. People work high all the time. No arguing that it happens.

There should be a middle ground here. Millions of people already smoke weed and exist in society. People that smoke weed are no more or less responsible for the bad shit that already happens in society than sober people, and definetely less responsible for the problems than people that do other drugs or drink. I asked for someone to present me with examples of all the MJ users wreaking havoc on society already. I mean, theres more than 17 million pot smokers in the US. Surely we have already validated the fears, wheres the proof? We do exist, we are your neighbors and co-workers. We already exist side by side. So, show me the proof of the damage that MJ does to our society.

For the few that get in trouble, the rest of us sure deal with the consequences. The general idea about MJ is flawed, the general understanding of MJ flawed and communication is completely broken in the conversation. People just regurgitate shit they have been told their entire lives, and refuse to acknowldege that people actually living that lifestyle may have some insight on the topic.


Its absoloutely silly to me. I would think that 24 years on the job would give me some insight or a leg to stand on in the conversation. Non-smokers actually think my experience in the topic discredits my opinion, since I smoke weed I must be an idiot. Some people just refuse to accept or acknowledge that there is more than one side of this conversation. For the majority of MJ smokers the typical stereotype does not apply.

[Ralphie]

If an employee was found to be high on the clock, why couldn't the law allow an employer to refuse to pay the person for the shift worked and have the option to terminate on the spot as well as deduct the cost of the testing from any owed wages? It would have a 0 net effect on the company financially, and the risk of someone showing up high would be just the same as it is now. People work high all the time. No arguing that it happens.

You already know where I stand with everything else you've stated.'

I quoted that one section, because I take issue with it.

Already your given an inch, and trying to take a mile.

If employers accept the fact that some people already work high and take the road of non-payment for shifts worked high as opposed to firing on the spot(even though you did say they would retain the option) you now make the odds 50/50.

As it is now, your done if you pop hot.

If the odds increase in your favor and the lesser of the two is just going that day with no pay, then to me, people are going to chance it.

You know damn well that people take risks.

Maybe you don't, maybe no one in this thread, or on this forum, but outside in the US, people take risks.

If they didn't, people would live a lot longer then they do lol.


Now im all for risks, in the right manner.

Rock climbing, mountain climbing, sky diving etc

Showing up to work high on the notion that if you get caught you have a 50/50 shot of keeping your job but you lost a day's pay will give some people the incentive to test the waters.

As it is now, people test the waters and they are fired on the spot.

I guarantee you that will increase(since we have no # on how many people already show up high) then it is now.


Just saying.....


that's not a good solution.

Better testing and more education(from people such as yourself who have years of experience) is what we need.

We don't need to loosen the rope, however, because it creates a area of risk that is easy to just eliminate from the beginning.

Like I said, smoke at home, and come in sober. Test out because the test proves you only smoke off-hours. Cool.

Come in to work high(IN ANY FIELD) and go home permanetly.

Drugs and alcohol do not MIX in a work enviorment, in any case, unless you work in a strip club or some shit.

[toycar]

The meat and potatoes of it has been the fairness of testing with regards to legalization.

I.E. Old balls Justin smokes everyday.

He has a job that isn't high risk, but he is responsible for a shitload of employees and 100's of decsions that effect them(Kinda guessing here Justin)

If his job does/or decides to do random drug testing, and he tests positive for MJ and IT has become legal to use in his state, it is not fair to terminate/discriminate based on the fact that our current drug tests do not specify the timeline for use.

Was it yesterday? Today? 2 weeks ago?

I understand the underlying problem with that, and I would whole heartedly push for more advanced testing(which will ultimately be more expensive for employers)

Yup, this is the meat and potatoes of my position right here. This, and the definition of "impaired" and what that means to the typical non smoker.





On a typical project I deal with tons of people and make literally hundreds of decisions. Right now I am developing a strip mall in AZ, another in CO and researching a data center for Pixar. My last two projects were in MN and they are wrapping up as we speak. Thats actually were I am right now. Waiting to meet with my contractor to work out a punch list for the finish. Did two apartment complexes for the same guy. Each complex has 7 building with housing for 8 in each building. Garages, rec rooms, pool etc.




It all starts with an idea. I meet with someone and they lay it on me. Then I review their plan, and find the flaws. I work with local gov on zoning, permits and the sort to find out if its even reasonable. The I meet with the survey team to find the land and get it surveyed. I have to review the stats for the area and take that into account. Is the land a good value? Does the location see enough traffic? Location relevance to interstate travel? Demographics? Population? City vs county laws in relevance to location. Finished cost per sq.ft, and potential lease costs. I work with both the developer and the companies moving in. The approach is different for something like a data center vs a retail strip mall, apartment complex or building for retail and condo's.


As an example I have to come up with real numbers on what the lease would cost per sq.ft, before we even start writing checks or building anything. I have to find a total cost for the developer, as well as the cost per sq.ft for potential tenants(if its a retail jobby).


Then if all systems are go and I think its a good idea I take it to corporate. They give me a laundry list of questions/stipulations specific to whatver the project is. For the strip mall I had to find all kinds of shit out. Who's going to lease there, who's committed, for how long, what kind of businesses they are, if the area supports that kind of business etc..

Then after I've done my research and I get the go ahead from my boss its time to start getting serious. After working with an architect, a group of engineers and the devoloper(s)- we get a plan together. I then work with local contractors and have the land straightened out, the plumbing and electrical brought in, the concrete poured and go from there. I higher mason workers, electricians, glass people, security companies- you name it, I do it. We are a finance company that delivers a finished project rather than writing a check and walking away. We consider it protecting our investment.


I have 20-30 teams of people on any 1 job, and 1 team often has 40-50 people on board. All the while I keep 3-5 projects moving at once in different parts of the country. On the data center Im working out the details for right now I expect to use enough k-5 line to wrap around earth and then some. There will be 50 cubes per floor with 4 stations per cube. So 200 stations per floor with ethernet/phone and electrical. 4 bathrooms per floor, each bathroom has m/f so really its like 8 bathrooms. Upper floors have offices and conference rooms and even more BS like the break room/janitors closet and that kind of shit.


Every project is different, and every client is different. Also, I waste a lot of time traveling trying to land clients in the first place. I meet with people all the time and have to tell them their dream is destined for failure and walk away. Shit happens, its part of my job. So yeah, my job gets pretty intense. You could say that it requires a lot of focus and dedication to keep things organized in my life and by example I am the complete opposite of what people have grown to assume a "pot head" really is.


There are a lot of people just like me in the world too. The majority of smokers lay under the cover of darkness. 99% of the time the general public has no idea that people like me are lurking around the corner. The assume I am damaged goods or broken because I smoke weed. At one point in this current conversation it was implied that after smoking weed you couldn't perform as well as a toddler.


Lol

Its ridiculous that non smokers think smoking weed somehow effects people as dramatically as they describe or have grown to believe

[toycar]

You already know where I stand with everything else you've stated.'

I quoted that one section, because I take issue with it.

Already your given an inch, and trying to take a mile.

If employers accept the fact that some people already work high and take the road of non-payment for shifts worked high as opposed to firing on the spot(even though you did say they would retain the option) you now make the odds 50/50.

I should've been more clear.


In the event that an employee was found to be high or drunk on the clock under current law you still have to pay them for that time worked.

What Im saying is to allow the company to tell the employee to fuck off all together. Force the employee to pay for the drug test they failed, take their job, and refuse to pay them for any time worked that they may have been under the influence.

As far as it already happening, it does already happen. People already risk the consequences of zero tolerance all the time. I say give employers even more power to fuck an employee if they show up high, drunk or whatever.


***Edit***


After reading my post I see where I went wrong there. I wasn't trying to suggest that one or the other could happen, just that it would be at the companies discretion to act one way or the other. Under current law the company has no choice but to pay up for hours worked. Even if you were high and they fire you for it. You still get paid for the time you got away with it.

I was emphasizing the choice for the employer to refuse to pay the wage for the hours in question, but I see where I came across otherwise.

[deevergote]

I think what will eventually need to be done is for there to be a legal definition of "high" adopted by employers.
With alcohol, if it is in your system in any detectable amount, you are affected by it. Even if you aren't "drunk", should an employer administer a breathalyser test (not sure if any do, but I'd imagine some do...) you'd be fired for being drunk on the job.
With marijuana, it stays in your system long after the effects have worn off. Unless smokers are "under the influence" for weeks after smoking once...
While marijuana is illegal, it's not necessary to establish the window of effect as it applies to employment. The traces of an illegal drug in your system is enough to result in the loss of your job. But if it's legal, the presence of the chemicals wouldn't be enough to justify firing someone. The very first lawsuit that comes of such a firing will likely set precedent.

[Ralphie]

I should've been more clear.


In the event that an employee was found to be high or drunk on the clock under current law you still have to pay them for that time worked.

What Im saying is to allow the company to tell the employee to fuck off all together. Force the employee to pay for the drug test they failed, take their job, and refuse to pay them for any time worked that they may have been under the influence.

As far as it already happening, it does already happen. People already risk the consequences of zero tolerance all the time. I say give employers even more power to fuck an employee if they show up high, drunk or whatever.


***Edit***


After reading my post I see where I went wrong there. I wasn't trying to suggest that one or the other could happen, just that it would be at the companies discretion to act one way or the other. Under current law the company has no choice but to pay up for hours worked. Even if you were high and they fire you for it. You still get paid for the time you got away with it.

I was emphasizing the choice for the employer to refuse to pay the wage for the hours in question, but I see where I came across otherwise.

Yes!

Im ok with them recouping pay for time worked UTI.

I still think they should be fired on the spot, but not paying for time worked high is a-ok with me.

The very first lawsuit that comes of such a firing will likely set precedent.

Basically this is how it will be.

[toycar]

I think what will eventually need to be done is for there to be a legal definition of "high" adopted by employers.
With alcohol, if it is in your system in any detectable amount, you are affected by it. Even if you aren't "drunk", should an employer administer a breathalyser test (not sure if any do, but I'd imagine some do...) you'd be fired for being drunk on the job.
With marijuana, it stays in your system long after the effects have worn off. Unless smokers are "under the influence" for weeks after smoking once...
While marijuana is illegal, it's not necessary to establish the window of effect as it applies to employment. The traces of an illegal drug in your system is enough to result in the loss of your job. But if it's legal, the presence of the chemicals wouldn't be enough to justify firing someone. The very first lawsuit that comes of such a firing will likely set precedent.

Its happened in Oregon and Michigan already.

Workers in Oregon sued over being terminated for testing positive and having a prescription. Wal-mart workers in Michigan sued for basically the same thing. Tested positive but was not high at work.

Law sided with the employer due to the law that was written lacking a provision for workplace situations.

[toycar]

Yes!

Im ok with them recouping pay for time worked UTI.

I still think they should be fired on the spot, but not paying for time worked high is a-ok with me.




Basically this is how it will be.

I think they should be fired on the spot too!