desert dude
Well-Known Member
and it will be illegal under P19 as well.right now it is illegal.
Actual Value of Marijuana?
- Thread starter gupp
- Start date
who said anything about "all" of them? why do you keep blowing things out of proportion instead of just addressing the current issue we are speaking about. it is a legitimate issue. whether you accept it or not.
all you can do is insult us. you have nothing else.
where does it say that?
beardo
Well-Known Member
No because you could use it recreationaly so it would complicate work testing. a pilot can drink on his night off but cant fly drunk and it is easy to prove alcohol levels
desert dude
Well-Known Member
You did, and I quote: "school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED." Is that a misquote? It was cut/paste.who said anything about "all" of them? why do you keep blowing things out of proportion instead of just addressing the current issue we are speaking about. it is a legitimate issue. whether you accept it or not.
all you can do is insult us. you have nothing else.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Just because testing is complicated doesn't legitimize punishing people for smoking a joint last week. Beardo, you are a doper, do you get stoned at work?
nathenking
Well-Known Member
For how old you are, I would expect a lot more intelligence and class... Guess not... If this law gets passed or not, your still up shit creek with out a paddle there bub...
who said anything about punishment?
you have no idea of the point we are trying to make.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
Grow up.
Try to put yourself in the employer's place.
Do you know Dr. Ethan Russo?
I've never met him, but did have an extended dialog with him about this. He knows as much about Cannabis and its effects as anyone on the planet.
There is currently NO WAY to distinguish between someone who burned an hour, or a month ago.
Until this changes, insurers are going to be the masters of our universe. They control the job market(who gets hired and fired) as surely as gravity.
I went to work "dirty" for most of 40 years, but NEVER stoned(my jobs were uniformly dangerous). I never had an accident and and luckily was never tested randomly. Mostly I avoided companies that included random testing in their employee agreement.
I learned a lot about corporate Cannabis policy when I was sent to a job that(unbeknownst to me) required a drug test before stepping on site. I presented my recommendation. They told me quite calmly that they would not accept it. I quit my job, and went to work for a non testing company the following day. I was fortunate to have some good friends.
So no, I'm not "cool" with it, but I'm a grown up and understand that our money driven society is very slow to understand "right" is sometimes better than "profitable".
Do you understand?
i meant people from "all of those groups", i did not mean "every single one of those people". sorry for any confusion.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
A few professors of law support prop 19. I know you legal eagles (Beardo, FDD, et al) are smarter than these guys, but still, consider their pitiful input http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010):
Opinion of Law Professors
Yes on 19
Law professors from across America wrote an open letter to California voters to express their support for Proposition 19. Here is their letter: To the Voters of California:[84]
"As law professors at many law schools who focus on various areas of legal scholarship, we write this open letter to encourage a wholesale rethinking of marijuana policy in this country, and to endorse the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative—Proposition 19—that will be voted on in November in California.
For decades, our country has pursued a wasteful and ineffective policy of marijuana prohibition. As with alcohol prohibition, this approach has failed to control marijuana, and left its trade in the hands of an unregulated and increasingly violent black market. At the same time, marijuana prohibition has clogged California’s courts alone with tens of thousands of non-violent marijuana offenders each year. Yet marijuana remains as available as ever, with teens reporting that it is easier for them to buy than alcohol across the country.
Proposition 19 would remove criminal penalties for private use and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana by adults and allow California localities to adopt—if they choose—measures to regulate commerce in marijuana. Passage of Proposition 19 would be an important next step toward adopting an approach more grounded in reason, for California and beyond.
Our communities would be better served if the criminal justice resources we currently spend to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for marijuana offenses each year were redirected toward addressing unsolved violent crimes. In short, the present policy is causing more harm than good, and is eroding respect for the law.
Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the consistent and dramatic reports of disproportionate enforcement of marijuana laws against young people of color. Marijuana laws were forged in racism, and have been demonstrated to be inconsistently and unfairly applied since their inception. These are independent reasons for their repeal.
Especially in the current economic climate, we must evaluate the efficacy of expensive government programs and make responsible decisions about the use of state resources. We find the present policies toward marijuana to be bankrupt, and urge their rethinking.
This country has an example of a path from prohibition. Alcohol is subject to a regulatory framework that is far safer in every respect than the days of Al Capone. Just like the State of New York did when it rolled back Prohibition 10 years before the nation as a whole, California should show leadership and restore respect for the law by enacting the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative this November.
Sincerely,
Opinion of Law Professors
Yes on 19
Law professors from across America wrote an open letter to California voters to express their support for Proposition 19. Here is their letter: To the Voters of California:[84]
"As law professors at many law schools who focus on various areas of legal scholarship, we write this open letter to encourage a wholesale rethinking of marijuana policy in this country, and to endorse the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative—Proposition 19—that will be voted on in November in California.
For decades, our country has pursued a wasteful and ineffective policy of marijuana prohibition. As with alcohol prohibition, this approach has failed to control marijuana, and left its trade in the hands of an unregulated and increasingly violent black market. At the same time, marijuana prohibition has clogged California’s courts alone with tens of thousands of non-violent marijuana offenders each year. Yet marijuana remains as available as ever, with teens reporting that it is easier for them to buy than alcohol across the country.
Proposition 19 would remove criminal penalties for private use and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana by adults and allow California localities to adopt—if they choose—measures to regulate commerce in marijuana. Passage of Proposition 19 would be an important next step toward adopting an approach more grounded in reason, for California and beyond.
Our communities would be better served if the criminal justice resources we currently spend to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for marijuana offenses each year were redirected toward addressing unsolved violent crimes. In short, the present policy is causing more harm than good, and is eroding respect for the law.
Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the consistent and dramatic reports of disproportionate enforcement of marijuana laws against young people of color. Marijuana laws were forged in racism, and have been demonstrated to be inconsistently and unfairly applied since their inception. These are independent reasons for their repeal.
Especially in the current economic climate, we must evaluate the efficacy of expensive government programs and make responsible decisions about the use of state resources. We find the present policies toward marijuana to be bankrupt, and urge their rethinking.
This country has an example of a path from prohibition. Alcohol is subject to a regulatory framework that is far safer in every respect than the days of Al Capone. Just like the State of New York did when it rolled back Prohibition 10 years before the nation as a whole, California should show leadership and restore respect for the law by enacting the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative this November.
Sincerely,
- Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio
- Ty Alper, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA
- Hadar Aviram, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
- W. David Ball, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
- Tom W. Bell, Chapman Law School, Orange, CA
- Steve Berenson, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
- Eric Berger, University of Nebraska, College of Law, Lincoln, NE
- Douglas A. Berman, Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
- David E. Bernstein, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA
- Ash Bhagwat, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
- Richard Boldt, University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD
- Connor Bridges, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio
- Pamela Bridgewater, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC
- Christopher Bryant, University of Cincinnati College of Law, Cincinnati, Ohio
- Sande Buhai, Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
- Paul Butler,George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC
- Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Irvine, CA
- Gabriel J. Chin, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ
- Marjorie Cohn, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
- Mary Culbert, Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
- Angela J. Davis, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC
- Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA
- J. Herbie DiFonzo, Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY
- Steven Duke, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT
- Elizabeth Price Foley, Florida International University College of Law, Miami, FL
- Eric M. Freedman, Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY
- David Friedman, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Mary Ellen Gale, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA
- Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Casey William Hardison, University of Idaho School of Law, Moscow, ID
- Bill Ong Hing, University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA
- Paige Kaneb, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Madeline June Kass, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
- Alice Kaswan, University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA
- Alex Kreit, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
- Ellen Kreitzberg, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- David Levine, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
- Jerry Lopez, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
- Elizabeth Loftus, University of California, Irvine, CA
- Erik Luna, Washington and Lee University School of Law, Lexington, VA
- Michael Madow, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY
- Leigh Maddox, University of Maryland, School of Law, Baltimore, MD
- Charles Marvin, Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, GA
- Lawrence C. Marshall, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA
- David N. Mayer, Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH
- Tracy L. McGaugh, Touro Law Center, Central Islip, NY
- Andrew P. Morriss, University of Alabama, School of Law, Tuscaloosa, AL
- Christopher Newman, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA
- Michelle Oberman, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Tamara R. Piety, University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, OK
- Ascanio Piomelli, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
- David G. Post, Beasley School of Law, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
- William Quigley, Loyola University School of Law, New Orleans, LA
- Jenny Roberts, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC
- David Rocklin, University of Oregon School of Law, Eugene, OR
- Cesare Romano, Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
- Margaret Russell, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Barbara Stark, Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY
- Barry C. Scheck, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, NY
- Steven Semeraro, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
- Steven Shatz, University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA
- Jonathan Simon, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA
- Eric S. Sirulnik, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC
- David Sloss, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Abbe Smith, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
- Ilya Somin, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA
- Clyde Spillenger, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
- Edward Steinman, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Mark Strasser, Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH
- Robert N. Strassfeld, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio
- Nadine Strossen, New York Law School, New York, NY
- Gerald F. Uelmen, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Alexander Volokh, Emory Law School, Atlanta, GA
- Keith Wingate, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
- Eric Wright, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
- Richard W. Wright, Illinois Institute of Technology, Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL"
beardo
Well-Known Member
Answer-YES . but as for his quote it is true in a few ways yes some people in each of those professions will be going to work blazed it is a fact...the truth is they already do but now it is illegal unless their medical and eventhough some bus drivers might blaze and it is fine if their is a problem and he crashes the bus then they test him and can say he was to blame he used marijuana. now it will complicate this for employers. prop 19 isn't going to make a whole lot of teachers start smoking weed but will change the situation for the ones who do- for better or worse
desert dude
Well-Known Member
No problem. Confusion is what we do best around here.i meant people from "all of those groups", i did not mean "every single one of those people". sorry for any confusion.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Just want to be sure I understand your position on this: It is legitimate to punish people (fire them, discipline them, arrest them for DUI) because they smoked a joint a week ago, that is your position?
beardo
Well-Known Member
I never believe a nerd-they can not be trusted, they are up to no good, I don't like people who are to smart
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
Can we close this ridiculous thread yet?wooo hooo, more insults.
you sure know how to tell us.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Lighten up, FDD. I said "we". "We" includes me.wooo hooo, more insults.
you sure know how to tell us.
you keep pushing this, yet NOBODY here is saying this.
you really don't get it. do you?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
That is a great reply, Beardo. LOL.