Election Day Thread

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Yes but medical MJ and recreational MJ are two different topics and I don't think it's fair to say, "well, medical MJ cardholders can do this...why can't Joe Smith do it?"


Very interesting article here about how Mexico may stop interdicting drugs headed into the United States illegally because of the two US states that legalized MJ. Wasn't one of the main arguments against AZ's immigration bill is that AZ's bill meddled in the diplomatic relationship between the US and MX? Sorry, but I really can't see the DoJ just letting this go through as voted on.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/election/...fight-after-us

If it were legal in all of our states, it would shut down that illegal drug trafficking, wouldn't it? People wouldn't need that Mexican stuff. They'd just grow their own.

I'm more curious how this pans out with drug screens for employment. It seems they could still choose to not hire you if you test positive for marijuana.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AGDee

If it were legal in all of our states, it would shut down that illegal drug trafficking, wouldn't it? People wouldn't need that Mexican stuff. They'd just grow their own.

I'm more curious how this pans out with drug screens for employment. It seems they could still choose to not hire you if you test positive for marijuana.

If individuals were to grow their own I could see that making a sizeable dent in illegal MJ trafficking but how is the fed gov going to be able to regulate MJ and "tax the hell out of it" if people are growing their own plants?

[moe.ron]

[DubaiSis]

The pot is going to be available in the equivalent of a liquor store, and it is also going to be allowed to be grown for private use. My guess is both will thrive, so to speak. But that doesn't have anything to do with interstate trafficking. For those of you who are less than a certain age, back in the old days different states had different drinking ages. So a person could go across state lines and buy booze and bring it back to their home state. But that was still illegal, and if caught they would be punished for underage possession. The state where it's illegal doesn't care where the underage person got it. The same rules would apply for OTC pot sales. Just because you can buy it and smoke it in Washington doesn't mean you can buy it and carry it into another state. Will they? Of course. Just like kids drink while underage. But not making it legal doesn't keep that from happening.

The tax issue is a good question. Will people choose to buy their pot pre-prepped, or grow, dry, and process their own? How much is your convenience worth? My guess is there will be plenty of stores doing just fine, and there will be people who enjoy growing their own. Both can coexist. I'm certainly more comfortable with the home grown because I see it as having less social blow back. But I'm ok with either way. And other states will learn from initial mistakes and improve the process over the next 20 years.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

The pot is going to be available in the equivalent of a liquor store, and it is also going to be allowed to be grown for private use. My guess is both will thrive, so to speak. But that doesn't have anything to do with interstate trafficking. For those of you who are less than a certain age, back in the old days different states had different drinking ages. So a person could go across state lines and buy booze and bring it back to their home state. But that was still illegal, and if caught they would be punished for underage possession. The state where it's illegal doesn't care where the underage person got it. The same rules would apply for OTC pot sales. Just because you can buy it and smoke it in Washington doesn't mean you can buy it and carry it into another state. Will they? Of course. Just like kids drink while underage. But not making it legal doesn't keep that from happening.

The tax issue is a good question. Will people choose to buy their pot pre-prepped, or grow, dry, and process their own? How much is your convenience worth? My guess is there will be plenty of stores doing just fine, and there will be people who enjoy growing their own. Both can coexist. I'm certainly more comfortable with the home grown because I see it as having less social blow back. But I'm ok with either way. And other states will learn from initial mistakes and improve the process over the next 20 years.

Are you speaking about Colorado? From what I read about the WA initiative in order to grow or produce MJ you would have to apply for a license and pay a yearly fee of $1000. Even then you wouldn't be able to sell it directly to consumers, only wholesale to the pot shops. It sounded to me that if you were to have a MJ plant in your house or backyard it would be considered illegal production of MJ.

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

LOL. I wish there was a place for socially liberal fiscal conservatives who believe in a strong defense.

What she said!
The GOP mixing in the religion with government was a major turn off for me

[GeorgiaGreek]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm more curious how this pans out with drug screens for employment. It seems they could still choose to not hire you if you test positive for marijuana.

One of my friends was wondering about a similar situation, where she would have to do drug testing for a job in the US, but she had used marijuana in the Netherlands shortly before, where it was legal for her to do so.
I would imagine that a company would be able to choose not to hire you if they found a certain amount in your system, just as they would if you showed up visibly drunk or hungover; It might be legal for you to have done it, but an undesirable quality to some employers. Termination of a job you already have, however, would probably be a different situation if they only found traces of the substance through testing but you hadn't come to work under the influence or publicized your use of it.

[DubaiSis]

I believe in Colorado you are allowed to own 6 plants for personal use, and I think this is a good way to go. And of course buying the plants should be taxed. But if you have a green enough thumb to turn seeds you already own into plants, then go for it (as far as I'm concerned). As far as the drug testing thing, I don't think the two are related. However, the companies that drug test could presumably take THC off their list of drugs they're testing for if it's no longer illegal. I guess it depends on if they were testing for it because it was illegal or if it's because you think it's dangerous to the job. But then that should be a sobriety test, not a drug test in its traditional sense.

[amIblue?]

I do wonder how the legalization and taxation of marijuana at a federal level would impact our budget and spending. It would be an interesting study.

[DubaiSis]

I agree. That's why I think it's good for it to start at 2 very socially liberal states (I don't see Colorado as a liberal state per se, but they definitely have their hippy liberal reputation). Let the people who really want it to succeed work out the kinks before it moves forward in other states or federally. If it turns out to be a phenomenal failure, then it won't have caused too much damage, relatively speaking. And if the sky doesn't fall and life continues on more or less as normal, and maybe there is a small addition to the coffers due to increased sales taxes and more importantly reduction in incarceration costs, then more states will probably get on board. And if it's a massive windfall for these states, then awesome! Schools can re-introduce music programs into schools, which seems apropos for money earned from pot sales.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I believe in Colorado you are allowed to own 6 plants for personal use, and I think this is a good way to go. And of course buying the plants should be taxed. But if you have a green enough thumb to turn seeds you already own into plants, then go for it (as far as I'm concerned). As far as the drug testing thing, I don't think the two are related. However, the companies that drug test could presumably take THC off their list of drugs they're testing for if it's no longer illegal. I guess it depends on if they were testing for it because it was illegal or if it's because you think it's dangerous to the job. But then that should be a sobriety test, not a drug test in its traditional sense.

But, they wouldn't have to take it off the list. There are companies that are not hiring tobacco/nicotine users anymore and they do a blood test to check. It will be interesting to see which companies take THC off of their list.

[Mevara]

Has anyone seen the petitions going around asking to secede from the union? These are official petitions on the White House website and after 25 thousand signatures the Obama Administration has to respond. Currently Texas is leading the charge with over 75 thousand signatures.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by Mevara

Has anyone seen the petitions going around asking to secede from the union? These are official petitions on the White House website and after 25 thousand signatures the Obama Administration has to respond. Currently Texas is leading the charge with over 75 thousand signatures.

Will Obama blame Bush for this, too?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Mevara

Has anyone seen the petitions going around asking to secede from the union? These are official petitions on the White House website and after 25 thousand signatures the Obama Administration has to respond. Currently Texas is leading the charge with over 75 thousand signatures.

LOL. I'm not sure how "official" these petitions are. Yes, that website is part of the White House website and is a mechanism set up to allow people to petition government for a redress of grievances, but it has no legal status other than point of information. As for the White House "having" to respond, they only "have to" because they said they would, not because (as far as I can tell) there is any legal requirement to. This whole thing is nothing more than a means to allow people to say they've let the government know what they think about whatever.

In any event, the response should be simple, leaving aside the whole we-had-a-Civil-War-to-deal-with-this-issue. The president doesn't have any authority at all regarding admitting states to the Union* or letting them secede. People might as well petition McDonald's to let their states secede.



* Speaking of admitting states to the Union, I'm realizing that no one has commented on on the referenda in Puerto Rico last week. Two questions were on the ballot. The first asked whether the current status with the US (territory) should be maintained or altered. 54% voted in favor of changing the current status. The second question asked whether, if the status were changed, would voters rather see it changed to statehood, independence or sovereign free association. 65% favored statehood, while 1% favored independence.

[DubaiSis]

I think the Puerto Rico thing is really interesting, and I'm a supporter. But I can see requiring them to have a higher level of English fluency and literacy first. Apparently this has been a common requirement in the past and might help sway certain constituencies who would be vehemently opposed.