free medical marijuana for low-income residents (San Francisco, Berkeley: unemployed, prices, military)

[MAXIALE02]

I'm not here to fight with you people sorry I insulted your intelligence. Carry on. And I left California because I couldn't afford to support five plus people on my meager paycheck (taxes). Liberal, conservative, democrat, libertarian. I empathize with you all because I refuse to be put in a box. Have a good night and prayers/good vibes to those truly suffering terminally.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Just out of curiosity, would YOU vote for full legalization if it were on the ballot again?

If they float a proper measure, sure. For example it has to allow employers to refuse to hire people who smoke pot and fire people if they start doing it.

If you do support recreational legalization, I'm just curious as to why you'd care if Prop 215 is being used to get around prohibition.

Because the intent of 215 was not legalization. It was for terminally ill people who are suffering to have a safer alternative to morphine. People who have a sprained ankle or something should not be getting medical marijuana licenses.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

If they float a proper measure, sure. For example it has to allow employers to refuse to hire people who smoke pot and fire people if they start doing it.

That's already the case with alcohol and tobacco, so I don't see why it would be a problem with marijuana.

Because the intent of 215 was not legalization. It was for terminally ill people who are suffering to have a safer alternative to morphine. People who have a sprained ankle or something should not be getting medical marijuana licenses.

No, I don't think it was only intended for people with TERMINAL illness - it is intended for anyone with legitimate conditions (whether terminal or merely painful) that would be helped by medical cannabis. I have arthritis, for example, which is greatly relieved by cannabis; do I not deserve medicine too, just because my condition isn't a terminal one? And in my case it's really the best option, as I'm allergic to aspirin and had bad reactions to a few prescription meds.

There are many non-terminal patients who benefit from this drug, and we shouldn't be criminalized any more than someone using it for chemotherapy relief. IMO that would be like saying only cancer patients can use morphine, while someone with a broken bone should be limited to Tylenol.

[zdg]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

it has to allow employers to refuse to hire people who smoke pot and fire people if they start doing it.

People who have a sprained ankle or something should not be getting medical marijuana licenses.

I am not a marijuana user nor do I have a non-terminal illness that requires pain management, but I sure am glad you're here to tell everyone what they should and shouldn't do. It's like a little slice of being back in the bible belt.

[alliance]

Originally Posted by zdg

I am not a marijuana user nor do I have a non-terminal illness that requires pain management, but I sure am glad you're here to tell everyone what they should and shouldn't do. It's like a little slice of being back in the bible belt.

Employers should retain the right to fire someone who is impaired by any substance, whether it be alcohol or marijuana. This is a tricky subject, as I can see from both sides. As an employer of a medical related business, I would need that right. Of course, sometimes it is difficult to tell if someone is high sometimes. This is where it is tricky. Do I wait until that person makes a mistake that costs a life to determine if he/she is impaired…? Or do I just never put myself in that position to begin with…? It's a difficult situation, and not sure I have a set opinion on it.

[zdg]

Originally Posted by alliance

Employers should retain the right to fire someone who is impaired by any substance, whether it be alcohol or marijuana.

Of course, but that's not what we're talking about. I have been an employer/business owner since 1995 and would absolutely fire anyone who came in to work high or drunk. We're talking about employee's right to do whatever they damn well please outside of the office, including the residual effects.

I used to own a high pressure compliance business in the finance world in NYC. If one of my employees was drunk or high, we'd have made mistakes that would have lead to our demise; no question. But if the same employee wants to go home on a Friday night and drink a bottle of vodka then smoke a joint, as long as the effects have worn off by Monday morning, I fail to see why I have the right to govern their free time just because I am the person who signs their paychecks.

If someone has impaired their ability to do the job, you have the right to fire them. Period. What they do on their own time, with their bodies, as long as it doesn't bleed into work time, is their business.

[probablyimnotsure]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Do you care about what people in Wisconsin (for example) think of Los Angelinos? From my experiences, having half of my extended family & many friends in the LA area, you guys don't even care what Northern Californians think of you! So it's not a matter of being "smug," it's just - well - why SHOULD we care? They don't vote on local issues anyway, and most who bash the Bay Area/CA haven't even spent any time here.

Did you not read zdg's post? She mentioned "fly over country" and called them "dittoheads." It's not just that she doesn't care, but thinks she's superior. That's a form of smugness.

[probablyimnotsure]

Originally Posted by zdg

Of course, but that's not what we're talking about. I have been an employer/business owner since 1995 and would absolutely fire anyone who came in to work high or drunk. We're talking about employee's right to do whatever they damn well please outside of the office, including the residual effects.

I used to own a high pressure compliance business in the finance world in NYC. If one of my employees was drunk or high, we'd have made mistakes that would have lead to our demise; no question. But if the same employee wants to go home on a Friday night and drink a bottle of vodka then smoke a joint, as long as the effects have worn off by Monday morning, I fail to see why I have the right to govern their free time just because I am the person who signs their paychecks.

If someone has impaired their ability to do the job, you have the right to fire them. Period. What they do on their own time, with their bodies, as long as it doesn't bleed into work time, is their business.

Yeah, as long as they are still doing their work at a high level, it doesn't matter. I agree.

[mrazyattic]

Originally Posted by Bisaro TMF

More than Faux News.

Don't pat yourself on the back too much.

If you want to form a REAL self opinion, cross check from multiple sources. But I am sure the liberal news tells the real story.......

[zdg]

Originally Posted by probablyimnotsure

Yeah, as long as they are still doing their work at a high level, it doesn't matter. I agree.

Thank you, madam, I appreciate it.