19 ms·
California has legalized recreational marijuana
- pmoriarty 10y agoI wonder if this will have any effect on employer urine testing for the drug in California. I also wonder what a Trump vs Clinton Presidency would mean for the enforcement of federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana. Would they be as hands-off as the Obama administration has been? Was drug policy or enforcement even mentioned in any debates or party platforms this election cycle?
- mc32 10y agoFor some industries it will be kind of like how airplane pilots aren't allowed much trace of alcohol. Others will relax it, I'm guessing.
- flukus 10y agoThe problem is how long MJ stays in your system. It's like getting drunk one weekend and then fired for failing an intoxication test a month later.
- brazzledazzle 10y agoBut realistically if you're getting a urine test relating to work most people are going to get enough privacy to bring and use someone else's urine to fill the cup. Not to mention most of the time you're going to get lead time unless you're working with machinery.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoHave you ever been drug screened? There's varying levels of privacy allowed depending on the company doing the screening (including absolutely none) but there's lots of policies in place to where using someone else's urine is very difficult to impossible. Part of my spouse's current job is to watch people pee for drug tests. Also I've heard of at least one company that does hair tests.
- xkcd-sucks 10y agoIf you have enough forewarning to catheterize yourself and fill up with clean urine beforehand it's a non-issue. Obviously this is sensitive to how things are scheduled, but tends to work pretty well when one isn't closely watched between getting notice of the test and getting tested
- tunap 10y agoUnsure of costs, but there is a viable alternative to urine. It's shortcoming, if you can call it that, is it only tests for drug ingestion in short-term of a few hours. IMO, that is the limit an employer's interest should cover, while at work. After work is not anyone else's business but the adult practitioner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saliva_testing#Chemical_substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saliva_testing#Chemical_substa...
- lightedman 10y agoNot really. If you're a very occasional smoker (1 time a week) and exercise regularly and eat right, you'd be clean and clear after a couple of days. It's the constant users that build up levels of THC that can last upwards of TWO MONTHS in their system.
- dvdhnt 10y agoYou know I don't think it will. I haven't seen any information about that being the case in Washington or Colorado. One popular example is the NFL where they contend that because they engage in interstate commerce and it's still illegal at the federal level, they will continue to enforce their ban on its use. A lot of banks were afraid to even do business with sellers in states where it's legal for fear of fines or sanctions from government agencies. Edit - Obama directed the justice department to not prosecute entities in states where it's legal. But it's totally possible a republican president may take the opposite approach.
- MicroBerto 10y agoMarijuana is definitely a place where we'll really see if President Trump sticks to his message on States Rights.
- r00fus 10y agoMy guess is no. The letter soup federal agencies are ascendant. This proposition cuts at the heart of the DEA. Chances are everything will continue just like usual.
- tankenmate 10y agoOr another likelyhood; the Federal government will no longer turn a blind eye as it has in Colorado et al under Obama, and we wind up with a full on Federal / State showdown.
- kombucha2 10y agoThat would be worth it.
- evilduck 10y agoMaybe, but our "states rights" republican platform now elected to run the federal government will have to perform a grand act of hypocrisy. Not that I don't put it past them.
- monocasa 10y ago"States' Rights" was always a red herring, IMO. Even in the civil war, the confederate constitution explicitly banned individual states from deciding to ban slavery.
- oldmanjay 10y agoThe red herring is the slavery argument your political masters have fed you to keep you happily allowing massive power consolidation to an abusive apparatus.
- aphextron 10y ago>I wonder if this will have any effect on employer urine testing for the drug in California. Probably none. The same thing that happened in Colorado. Smaller companies already don't care, and larger ones will always defer to federal law. >I also wonder what a Trump vs Clinton Presidency would mean for the enforcement of federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana. Would they be as hands-off as the Obama administration has been? It could be disastrous if Trump wins. Chris Christie has been a moral crusader against marijuana for his entire term as governor, and a potential Christie attorney general's office could come down hard on states.
- pmoriarty 10y agoWould a federal crackdown on the states affect people who are possessing for personal use or growing their own? Or would it only affect commercial entities trying to sell?
- amaranth 10y agoI don't know if they'd actually target personal users/growers but Wickard v. Filburn would seem to give them the power to do so.
- btown 10y agoBut if a substance is illegal for interstate commerce then personal growth can't have an effect right?
- mindslight 10y agoHigher courts' primary function is to twist logic to justify the status quo.
- wl 10y agoWell, that's the argument that Wickard was wrongly decided. The case in question involved a farmer growing crops for personal use in violation of production quotas. The Supreme Court held that this purely intrastate non-commercial activity was in fact interstate commerce (and thus within the power of the federal government to regulate) because there was an interstate market for this crop and that market was being affected, however slightly, by this farmer not engaging in it.
- Pokepokalypse 10y agoNo. It most definitely will not. That's compliance to the "drug-free workplace" law, which is Federal. Trump is absolutely going to do everything he can to force states who have legalized it, to comply with federal law.
- vectorpush 10y agoI don't agree. He has nothing to gain by doing so and the general public has pretty favorable views on marijuana.
- gozur88 10y agoHe's in a tough position, same as Obama. On the one hand, enforcing federal laws is his job. Presidents really shouldn't be picking and choosing which laws they'll enforce. It's not in their brief. On the other hand, you degrade respect for the law when so many people are against its enforcement. Were I Trump I would propose the end of federal drug laws other than trafficking. Possession is something the states can regulate if they wish, and anyway federal possession statutes are unconstitutional. On a practical level they're grossly unfair and give state prosecutors a lot of extra power, because people can always be threatened with prosecution under federal laws, which carry much tougher sentences in most cases. But Trump can propose anything he wants. The action has to come from Congress, ultimately.
- iamalobster 10y agoDeclining to enforce a law is in the brief of the executive branch - checks and balances.
- gozur88 10y agoNo, I don't think so. If you don't want a job don't take the job. Otherwise you do it to the best of your ability.
- blakeyrat 10y agoThe DEA is under the Executive Branch. Once Trump's sworn in, he's their boss. If he wanted to disband the office entirely, I'm not even 100% sure Congress could stop him.
- 13of40 10y agoSerious question: Has anyone here in "IT" (including software / hardware engineering), not for the government, actually been subject to drug testing? I had it in a state government job and the military, but nothing in ~20 years of private sector tech work.
- 2bitencryption 10y agoYes. Cerner in Kansas City. Worst company I've had the displeasure of working for.
- Artistry121 10y agoAwh. They weren't bad.
- robbiep 10y agohaha how interesting. Worst software products i've had the displeasure of being forced into using!
- kstrauser 10y agoThey sucked up a lot of compsci grads from Missouri State. I'd always wondered what they were like.
- pmoriarty 10y agoYes, for multiple medium to large size financial companies.
- wil421 10y agoYes I'm in IT in Atlanta and at a large corporation and I got tested. In fact most medium to large companies that I know of do in this area. I believe you get some kind of tax break by drug testing.
- cpursley 10y agoInsurance break, not tax.
- twblalock 10y agoEven if the Federal government drops the marijuana ban completely, a lot of companies are still going to test for it because traditional prejudices against "potheads" are going to take a while to fade away among corporate management. I don't personally care about employees doing drugs unless they are operating heavy machinery or are a similar risk to others, but lots of traditional management types feel it is right to fire clerical workers for smoking weed on the weekends.
- evo_9 10y agoIt hasn't in Colorado. That's something that I know quite a few of us here in Colorado wonder; my friend who owns an upscale dispensary doesn't think anything will change but I'm not so certain. Esp. if the rumors that Trump approach various Republicans with the idea that as Vice-President they'd be calling all the shots. Mike Pence is kind of a wild-card, I really don't know what his stance is on legal mj but the little I have read doesn't inspire confidence that he'll take a reasonable approach to this.
- madaxe_again 10y agoExecution for all users. Seriously though, he's a regressive in every field, this included. https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/mike-pence-trumps-vp-pick-is-bad-news-for-cannabis-reform https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/mike-pence-trumps-vp-pi...
- wmeredith 10y agoThat there will be no reasonable approach is correct. pence is not a man to be reasoned with. He doesn't know whether or not evolution is real and espouses teaching intelligent design in schools. He is a climate change skeptic and he believes conversion therapy for gays should be publicly funded[1]. 1. http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/ http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/...
- DoofusOfDeath 10y agoOn the surface, it sounds like your saying that Pence can't be reasoned with based on a particular conclusion he's reached. If that's what you meant, it sounds like a bit if a logical stretch.
- thomyorkie 10y agoIf one has a tendency to reach unreasonable conclusions, is it not justified to question their ability to be reasoned with?
- lightedman 10y ago"I wonder if this will have any effect on employer urine testing for the drug in California." Nope. Independent contractors such as myself are generally free of such things unless it's for a gov't position, most larger companies will still test if they do any business outside of the state, and big companies solely inside the state will likely keep up the testing anyways. Mom and pop? They're probably smoking with the employees.
- donutz 10y agohttp://www.ocregister.com/articles/legal-734790-marijuana-open.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/legal-734790-marijuana-op... Under Prop 64: "Employers can still enforce their own drug policies, including firing workers who test positive for weed." Which is as it should be, a business owner ought to be able to make decisions about what employees to hire or retain. But will we see being a marijuana user becoming a protected class against which you can't discriminate?
- lightedman 10y agoI think you might have demonstrated that you can't read the words that I wrote. Perhaps I should turn this into a special product for people like yourself.
- TTPrograms 10y agoMA appears about to as well.
- M_Grey 10y agoConfirmed now actually, which is nice because the entire concept of every Tom, Dick and Jane who wants a joint having to jump through medical hoops is a bad idea. For one, it really dilutes the notion of cannabis as medicine for those who truly need it, and frankly, it's just silly and wasteful.
- tn13 10y agoSo did Nevada. Hope the prop does not lead to some kind of government controlled monopoly on marijuana.
- pmoriarty 10y agoAt least in California, according to the Associated Press, "adults older than 21 can legally possess up to an ounce of marijuana and grow six plants." As long as people can grow their own, there can be no government monopoly.
- gcp 10y agoThen suddenly selling the plants becomes illegal... (just look at Europe!)
- danielbln 10y agoAs a European, care to elaborate?
- gcp 10y agoI believe in my country consumption and possession of small amounts of pot is legal, but it does sort of have to fall from the sky into your hands.
- Symbiote 10y agoI don't think you should generalise from Portugal to Belarus in one breath. It's legal to buy and sell seeds in the UK, for example.
- komali2 10y agoWhen/where can we start buying seeds? I'm gonna jump on this train. I bet I can barter my weed for those delicious giant oranges dangling off my neighbor's tree.
- tn13 10y agoWith the Republic of Kalifornia you never know. It will depend on how they define "6", "plant" and "grow". No laws in Kalifornia are common sense laws. One real possibility is that government controls who can supply the saplings of the tree.
- protomyth 10y agoND passed its medical marijuana measure.
- swrobel 10y agoExcited about this passing, but this is a poor source. It starts "Recreational marijuana is now legal in California," which is false. The proposition passed, but it isn't legal til 2018.
- kookiekrak 10y agoI believe you're mistaken. The initiative passed and will become law on November 9, 2016. Recreational marijuana shops would open no earlier than January 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_Use_of_Marijuana_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_Use_of_Marijuana_Act
- marme 10y agoThere is a lot of misinformation about this even from the local papers.it becomes law when the vote has been certified. I highly doubt it will be certified by end of day on Nov 9.they have to wait until all mail in ballots come in before they can declare the official results so most likely it takes effect sometime end of this week or early next week but I am sure cops will start treating it like it is law already since there virtually no chance it is not passing
- brazzledazzle 10y agoYou can smoke it but can't sell it until 2018.
- yo-code-sucks 10y agoRead up dumbass.
- serg_chernata 10y agoSo, how many states total is it now legal for recreational use?
- mgr86 10y agoWell MA and NV also voted to legalize last night. It failed in AZ. Maine, is leaning in favor but that is still within 1%. Assuming Maine holds the total are these 7 1. Alaska 2. Washington 3. Oregon 4. Nevada 5. Colorado 6. Massachusetts 7. Maine --- Non States 8. Washington DC 9. Our neighbors to the north. Canada.
- lnrdgmz 10y ago> 8. Washington DC But in DC, marijuana sales are still illegal, which makes for an interesting situation: you're allowed to be in possession of something you cannot legally buy.
- cr1895 10y agoIs growing also illegal? The Netherlands has a similarly bizarre circumstance where it's perfectly fine (though technically illegal) to buy <5g in a shop but it's still quite illegal for that shop to be supplied with product, as commercial production is illegal and heavily counteracted by law enforcement.
- deleted 10y ago
- jjuel 10y agoToo bad this probably means nothing. There is no way the new Republican President will be hands off, and not enforce the federal law.
- legohead 10y agoOn his campaign trail he talked about moving it to schedule 2 or below. And he supports medical marijuana. You should be more worried about his choice of attorney general.
- lightedman 10y agoMy real question is "What's happening to California's medical marijuana provisions?" I can't have opiates so I go through a lot of weed to manage chronic back and hip pain.
- cardiffspaceman 10y agoRead one of the many summaries. There are some taxes that the law brought in, which have exemptions for medical uses.
- traviswingo 10y agoFirst let me say that I don't smoke marijuana. I'm not a fan. Now, I'm glad that this happened. Franky, I was sick of so much attention and focus on something so harmless. There are horrific problems in this world that need to be solved, and some high people drinking Slurpees on a couch watching cartoons shouldn't be the focus of our attention. Plus, the tax on this will bring a lot of revenues into the state.
- Ntrails 10y ago> Plus, the tax on this will bring a lot of revenues into the state. A winning argument if ever I heard one.
- lostgame 10y agoWhy is this down voted? Upvoted for truth.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Chris2048 10y agoWho says it will be harmless? Just because there are greater problems in the world doesn't mean we need another.
- duaneb 10y agoIt can't be as harmful as jailing people.
- tomnipotent 10y agoThis x1000000. It's not about legalization, it's about decriminalization.
- 10y ago
- wehadfun 10y agoSo how does this work for people already locked up for possession. Can they be let out since if they were caught with the weed now they would not be breaking the law?
- ondrae 10y agoIf they have a felony, then there is a process already for getting it reduced. http://myprop47.org/change-my-record/ http://myprop47.org/change-my-record/ If they were arrested recently though, or less than a felony, then I'm not sure.
- ajoy 10y ago"Prop 64 also would authorize the resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions."
- seangrogg 10y agoSo while this is cool I did not look at the proposition nor any of the legalities surrounding it. If anyone could answer (or provide a link explaining) the following I'd appreciate it: * How will this change how marijuana will be bought/sold? * How will this affect drug testing for Californian businesses? For other businesses? * Are there any catches/gotchas to recreational use to be wary of? EDIT: Thanks for your answers, guys! Good to know =D
- tomdell 10y agoIf things are done similarly to in CO, where I'm familiar with the precedents - 1. Some medical dispensaries will double as recreational shops and new recreational shops will open. 2. Many CA businesses will continue to test for marijuana. 3. Maybe remember to pick up inside your car before driving out of state. ... but it could go down differently in CA.
- loteck 10y agoHere's a few details: * You can still be fired from your job for marijuana use. * You could still have your children taken from you for marijuana use. * The prop allows local jurisdictions to set their own rules, so your city/county may still ban it. With this prop as a foundation, Californians can choose to continue to develop cannabis law in different directions from here.
- ransom1538 10y agoHonestly. This already has been going on in CA. The medical marijuana cards are a total joke. In SF it takes ~15 minutes to get one if you are physically at a clinic. marijuana has already been sold, regulated, and industrialized in CA. This law was really about stopping the joke about the cards and getting more tax revenue.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoAs far as I know the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission doesn’t recognize marijuana users as a protected class. Its up to state law to recognize marijuana users as a protected class in employment if they want to. If they don't then you can be fired for testing positive for marijuana just like you can be fired for being a nicotine user in most states or you can be fired for a whole host of behaviors both illegal and legal. The companies doing drug test will continue. http://www.hrmorning.com/ban-hiring-smokers/ http://www.hrmorning.com/ban-hiring-smokers/
- paulmd 10y agoWe'll see what Trump's attorney-general thinks about this. State-by-state marijuana legalization has existed on the sufferance of the Democratic party on this issue. There is an immense amount of power for the Federal government to crack down on the this if they choose, and Donald Trump has never shied away from engaging in exactly such culture-war issues. I would not even be surprised to see medical usage rolled back. There's plenty of justification: after all, Schedule I drugs are supposed to have "no legitimate medical uses", despite the reality of the drugs on it. But it will largely come down to culture war: medical marijuana is exactly the camel's nose under the tent that conservatives said it would be. Politically, legalization is a rallying call for Democrats that pushes turnout. It can be easily snuffed by Republicans, and it will be - the same way the drug war was used in the 70s and 80s. America made some bad choices last night and we're about to get a nice show of just how much power the Federal government can wield when one party both completely controls all the branches of government and has the will to use it as a blunt instrument of power. States' rights are just a platitude for when Democrats are in power, it's not going to slow Republicans down in the least.
- jobu 10y agoIt's hard to say actually. Many republicans are very strong states-rights supporters, and they would happily leave controversial issues like marijuana up to the states and local governments.
- paulmd 10y agoThere are plenty of Republicans who like to mouth those slogans, yes. Particularly when the opposition is in power. But there have always been precious few who actually stand on that principle once their party is in power. Those type of politicians have been forced out over the past decade, first in the Tea Party waves and now with the Trump waves. Nowadays the principle is that you get onboard or you get called a 'RINO', get primaried, and get forced out for someone who will play along. Just look at what happened to any of the politicians who tried to stand up to Trump. They either kissed the ring or they lost. And that was before he pulled off a landslide election.
- 10y ago
- tehabe 10y agoAnd the same voters kept the death penalty in place and even voted for the "reform".