10 ms·
Amazon backs marijuana legalization, drops weed testing for some jobs
- vmception 5y agoLaws pass when well funded special interests get behind them. Put another way, the will of the people never results in anything unless it coincidentally matches the causes of well funded special interests. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- canadianfella 5y ago> the will of the people never results in anything unless it coincidentally matches the causes of well funded special interests. That’s just false.
- vmception 5y agoYou want to split hairs over the word never versus little or no independent influence? > Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
- username90 5y agoThat is for USA though and not the rest of the world. Europe has quite a lot of successful political pushes from the people.
- vmception 5y agoYes a comment about the USA citing a source about a study of the USA in a thread about a US federal law
- Clewza313 5y agoWell funded special interests don't operate in a vacuum. Amazon sees the way the wind is blowing, the cost in firing people who are smoking weed recreationally outside work hours, and the profit to be made if they do start selling it, so why not support it?
- vmception 5y agoRight, occasionally the people influence special interests which can be seen here The Princeton study is pretty clear that the special interests are typically operating in their own vacuum that is way more effective They break down the types of special interests too. Broad population ones are no different than populist movements with no effectiveness
- wutbrodo 5y agoAmazon claims that this is because state laws have been changing, and even if you don't take them at their word, it seems pretty straightforward. Why would they want to get involved in shifting this particular norm? Why didn't they do it before a huge chunk of the country legalized it at the state level? It just doesn't seem like an especially relevant analysis of this event.
- cies 5y ago> Why would they want to get involved in shifting this particular norm? Indeed they dont. They just want to benefit (instead of being harmed) by the shift. Same we see with "rainbow" colored logos on big corps and big corps supporting "racial equality": they only do so once the norm has largely shifted. Big corps dont push for social change unless they get better from it (i.e.: makes them look good).
- seibelj 5y agoLibertarians, although a much-derided and mocked perpetual third party in the US political system, have been banging the drum on drug legalization for decades. Plus their opposition to the incarceration state, excessive police power, unconstitutional search and seizure, and their support of gay rights and overall being ideologically supportive of the individual. What do libertarians predict next? I would suggest the elimination of the modern-day guild system, also known as occupational licensing, as well as the legalization of sex work in various forms. It would not surprise me whatsoever if within 10 years legalized prostitution is a tax-paying and government-supported industry in major coastal cities. Amazon’s move is a recognition that the laws of the state in regards to drugs are woefully backwards and they - possibly the most litigated and attacked business in the world - doesn’t need to respect these laws.
- agogdog 5y agoI don't think praising Libertarians here is relevant whatsoever, they had nothing to do with this and as far as I can tell... very little to do with the public warming up to the idea of legalized marijuana. You can cherry pick positions from literally any political party if you're looking for things someone was right about.
- kube-system 5y agoThe progressive-left has supported a lot of those social issues too. It just wasn’t mainstream enough to get significant Democratic support until more recently. Meanwhile Libertarians never put much consideration into their mainstream palatability.
- seibelj 5y agoThe progressive-left does not care a lot about their electability either, although socialists have had more recent electoral success than libertarians.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- akomtu 5y agoFor many people in the US prisons it must be fun to realize that theyve spent half life behind bars for something that's become legal.
- systemvoltage 5y agoFor many people in the world - weed is still illegal including most of EU, Asia, Africa, Middle East and Australia. We're making progress. No point in looking back except for the fact that we should learn from it.
- tdeck 5y agoI think OP was alluding to the fact that people are still in prison for possession that would now be legal.
- kube-system 5y agoThere are apparently a couple of countries that put people to death for cannabis offenses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_cannabis_trafficking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_canna...
- actuator 5y agoSingapore always amazes me. Incredibly well developed with high per capita income but too much of a nanny state. Maybe the people there are happy with some advantages that come with being a nanny state and don't wish to change that.
- Ekaros 5y agoWeed should be only first step. We should next move to legalizing and taxing all recreational drugs. I don't see why we should treat them any different from ethanol.
- vmception 5y agoThe state should be regulating the supply chain at the very least and treat corrupted drugs as an ongoing terrorist attack Consumers need to know what they are buying and this is not possible under decriminalized frameworks, only recreationally legalized frameworks
- Ekaros 5y agoI'm all for proper regulation and testing. The drugs should provably contain no harmful substances outside approved mixes and should regularly be tested. They also should be uniform strength.
- pas 5y agoNot just ethanol, but also caffeine, tobacco, sugar, etc.
- sergiomattei 5y agoI'm still a little apprehensive on full legalization of drugs like heroin, but legalizing them would allow the state to build better mechanisms to fight opioid dependence and provide recovery help for those in need, without prejudice. That would be a massive public health win.
- gremlinsinc 5y agoDon't legalize distribution, but addiction and use by those addicted, it should be treated as a medical issue, NOT a criminal one.
- keyle 5y agoI always thought the packing was interesting, with huge boxes for tiny packages... It's about to get even more interesting!
- Fatboyrunning 5y agoAmazon's support likely comes because they've identified an opportunity to profit from distribution. Just another chapter of hypocrisy in the history of drug dealing. Great news though.
- toast0 5y agoBuying marijuana from Amazon seems like a non-starter given their inventory management; I've never used the stuff, but I get the impression that most users would like to know what they're getting, and comingled inventory is like a box of chocolates.
- wut42 5y agoPackaged correctly with good product numbers I don't see how this can be an issue.
- rorykoehler 5y agoThey won't be legally allowed to comingle. I could be wrong but I read that legal weed needs to tagged and closely tracked from seed to point of sale. I'm sure there are many cases where companies are skirting the rules but I doubt a company as big as Amazon would risk it. They would probably setup siloed distribution infra for weed.
- DonHopkins 5y agoJustin Hall registered bud.com in 1994 when he was a 19-year-old intern working at Wired Magazine. He also published "Justin's Links from the Underground" at links.net, becoming one of the internet's earliest bloggers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Hall http://www.links.net/ http://www.links.net/ Instead of selling out to Budweiser for peanuts, he stashed it away safely in a cool dry place for later. Now he runs Bud.com as a California benefit corporation delivering recreational cannabis! https://bud.com https://bud.com >What is bud.com? >bud.com helps you find legal, lab-tested, quality cannabis for delivery in your area. >Order from your smartphone, tablet or computer. Pick from curated products across all categories and price ranges, then proceed to checkout. You'll need to indicate a delivery address, provide a valid ID (21+) for upload, then choose your payment method. >Our customer service team is here to help you have a positive order experience. We look forward to bringing you quality products from local dispensaries. History of bud.com: https://bud.com/history-of-bud-com/ https://bud.com/history-of-bud-com/ >I was 19 years old, working as an intern at Wired Magazine in San Francisco. We were launching arguably the first commercial publication on the web; we ran the first banner ads. I learned how to register domains in that office, and I didn’t register very many. I was depressed that justin.com was taken; instead I got justin.org & links.net – both pointed to my personal web site. >A whois lookup shows I registered bud.com on 2 December 1994. It was free to claim; no one had used it before. I had to write a letter explaining what I was going to use it for. I can’t remember what I said I was going to use it for, but I liked pot and I liked the internet so it was fun to have this great, short domain name. I immediately made my email address justin at buddotcom which I’ve used since then. [...] >In 1999 I was contacted by a lawyer Steven M. Weinberg, representing Anheuser-Busch, makers of Bud beer. We chatted by phone: “So, you’re a college student!” Actually I graduated the year before. >He continued: “Well, how does $50,000 sound for bud.com?” >I replied that $50k should be the interest generated by the money someone pays for bud.com. This is a three letter, actual word, dot com domain, and if I’m going to see it on every beer can you make forever, I should at least be well compensated. I remember reading that the marketing budget for Budweiser beer that quarter was $16.1 million. BUD was the company’s stock symbol. >I wasn’t going to sell lightly, and they weren’t going to bid against themselves, so we didn’t get anywhere. First recorded content on bud.com (check that 1996 archive link to Cyborganic's "spacebar" if you love retro web design): https://web.archive.org/web/19961219041227/http://www.bud.com:80/ https://web.archive.org/web/19961219041227/http://www.bud.co... A story of bud.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v9gzfYF6aY&ab_channel=JustinHall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v9gzfYF6aY&ab_channel=Justi... >I've owned the web domain bud.com since 1994. Here's a story of what I've done with it so far, and what we might do with it together going forward!
- stadium 5y agoWeed testing, or any drug testing for that matter, was never done for corporate employees like software engineers, accountants, and the like.
- kodah 5y agoThat is absolutely not true. Maybe in certain areas, but in much of the country a drug test is required for at least software engineering. I don't know about accounting. Edit: At Amazon that may be true, but OP's statement seemed much wider than that.
- URSpider94 5y agoI think OP means “at Amazon”.
- wearywanderer 5y agoSoftware engineers were not drug tested at Amazon 10 years ago, and as far as I'm aware they never were. In what part of the country are companies required to drug test programmers? I have never heard of this being legally required for programmers anywhere. Maybe if you're working on federal contracts?
- kodah 5y agoAt Amazon sure, but what I got from OP's statement was not at Amazon. When I was in Dallas it was pretty routine to get drug tested and I worked for a variety of companies. It was only when I got into product and engineering firms that I stopped getting drug tested.
- taurath 5y agoMaybe a coastal thing, since they don’t want to lose a really good percentage of their good developers.
- jstarfish 5y agoIt's a puritanical east-coast thing. Every job I worked required it. West coast employers never cared.
- wearywanderer 5y ago10 years ago when I worked for amazon as an SDE, they never drug tested me for anything. I remember that because at the time I would have failed. I guess there was a class component to who they decided test, white collar office workers don't get tested but the blue collar workers did?
- lotsofpulp 5y agoIt's probably a liability based decision. If someone that works with machinery gets injured or causes damage, the insurance company might have stipulated they will not cover damages (at whatever premium they agreed on) if the company is not drug testing.
- rejectedandsad 5y agoI think both are correct. I’ve worked other software jobs that do drug test. From what I remember even Goldman Sachs does for SDEs.
- creato 5y agoIt is not explicitly a class issue, it is insurance companies looking for any reason to get out of paying a claim, and testing positive for drugs is one of those reasons. My guess is this comes about because insurance companies will dodge claims due to a positive drug test, but an injured worker could still sue the company. So, companies don't want workers that would test positive for drugs in the event of a work related injury. Warehouse workers are relatively likely to get injured at work. SDEs are not.
- adamcstephens 5y agoWarehouses have a solution for that, which doesn’t require drug testing everyone. If you get injured, you’re required to immediately get a drug test. If you fail, you’re fired and they don’t have to cover anything.
- WesleyHale 5y ago
- nvoid 5y agoMy only objection to the legalization of weed will that the smell is horrific (IMPO!) and it will begin to plague busy streets. How would lawmakers address this because I don't see them making designated areas?
- kevinventullo 5y agoI guess a reasonable default would be to only allow it in the same places that cigarette smoking is currently allowed.
- vmception 5y agoThat’s what already has happened
- xmprt 5y agoSmoking cigarettes is legal but I don't see people smoking in public that often. Besides, most people smoke weed at home so I think the concern, while valid, is overblown.
- powersnail 5y agoWeed has a much stronger smell than cigarette; I can easily smell my neighbor's weed when I walk on the sidewalk, even though they are smoking inside, and there are about 10 meters from their house to the sidewalk. That said, I still support the legalization. As much as I find weed's smell revolting and disgusting, the freedom simply outweighs the concern.
- asdff 5y agoWeed smell dissipates way faster in my experience since it doesn't tend to cling as well to fabrics. You smoke a bong in your apartment with the window open, an hour later someone can walk into the room and probably couldn't tell. You smoke one cigarette inside and everything from your clothes to furniture reeks for weeks.
- deleted 5y ago
- bobbytakeitwith 5y agoWhy not just make it outright illegal to advertise substances manufactured for medical or recreational consumption? I think it would lead to a better common ground to legalization of recreational drugs.
- TaylorAlexander 5y agoI really want the state to get out of the game in messing with drugs. Marijuana shops in California all use advertising to find customers. I’m not sure what we would gain by making that illegal.
- bobbytakeitwith 5y ago> I’m not sure what we would gain by making that illegal. To avoid creating new customers? IMHO, it shouldn't be a goal of society to tempt people into ingesting things that they don't need to. To me, glorifying substances through marketing doesn't help the consumer. If a person understands that they want to use a substance, they can discover a vendor.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago> To avoid creating new customers I really want the state out of the game of controlling drug use.
- vasco 5y ago> IMHO, it shouldn't be a goal of society to tempt people into ingesting things that they don't need to. No ads for ice cream, chips, any cakes or pastries, etc. Great world you'd create.
- vincnetas 5y agoIn all seriousness, i would prefer that. Good thing that at least some countries have added taxes on sugar.
- 5y ago
- DonHopkins 5y agoIf they don't test weed, how do they know they're getting the best strains?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- MonkeyClub 5y agoAli G in da house
- apexalpha 5y agoThe e-commerce company's public policy team will be actively supporting The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021 (MORE Act), which seeks to legalize marijuana at the federal level, its consumer boss Dave Clark said in a blog post. It's so weird that these companies just publicly have full, dedicated teams to support or kill whatevers laws they feel like. Is Amazon even vaguely related to Weed?
- gremlinsinc 5y ago> Is Amazon even vaguely related to Weed Can you sell it? If so - Amazon is related to it or would like to be.
- nexuist 5y ago> Is Amazon even vaguely related to Weed? > The e-commerce company
- 411111111111111 5y agoThe bigger involvement is indirect I think and was also plainly stated in the quote. Amazon employs humans, which are potential users of this substance. If using this substance significantly reduces the cognitive ability of their workforce, they'd have an issue.
- 0942v8653 5y agoAmazon (amazon.com side)'s revenue depends on consumer behavior. If marijuana use in the general population is thought to change consumer behavior in their favor, then they would be foolish not to support it. This effect probably outweighs any worker productivity issues that might be introduced. Use has been correlated with increased impulsive behavior: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330120/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330120/
- WesleyHale 5y agoThe real reason behind this is most likely associate retention and the application:hire ratio. I doubt it has any political basis what-so-ever.
- bananapub 5y agowhy do US employers have the time, money and energy to do drug testing for anything other than dangerous jobs? it's such a totally bizarre effort to to make, even aside from invading the privacy of your employers.
- deelowe 5y agoThe corporate insurance providers require it. Drug testing allows them to avoid a lot of disability claims. This is also why employers do random drug tests. They want to ensure if someone gets hurt, the insurance will cover the disability pay and medical expense. So, they do their best to ensure no one on payroll is using any illegal substances. The thing that frustrates me about all this is that none of it has anything to do with safety or well being.
- efficax 5y agoState and Federal requirements. If you want govt contracts you often have to drug test
- aerostable_slug 5y agoThat has more to do with how the Drug-Free Workplace regs are interpreted by HR & compliance managers. One can have corporate policy stating the company is a Drug-Free Workplace, that employees are subject to testing for cause (w/ consequences for popping hot), and get your .mil/.gov contract just fine (BTDT).
- bananapub 5y agohow could that be it? lots of government contractors don't do drug tests and don't get sued and do get contracts.
- ck2 5y agoI don't care what you do in your own home. But if you drive stoned, I want you to go to jail. No, it's not okay.
- isoblvck 5y agohq in Seattle no wonder half the workforce there would be out of a job