Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rumor has it that the first producing farm announced an opening price of $6,000 a pound for their product, then quickly retracted this after negative reactions.
It will be higher than the black market price though, whatever that may currently be.
Yep, that's been the issue in Colorado as well and it has been much more difficult to enforce the legal pot from the illegal pot. You cant simply find the pot "farm" and raid it anymore, you have to bust the person at the point of sale of the illegal pot and it has to be over a certain amount to be a significant crime, kind like boot legging, no one is going to go after a guy making and selling 5 gal of moon shine a year.
If the legal pot prices are too high then people will just keep growing their own or buying from where ever they were buying before. I don't see legal pot being a cash cow because its easy to grow and now its legal so there is no longer a felony risk if you get caught with too much. Unless I am mis understanding and it is only pseudo legal.
Unless the cruise ship passengers are fully retired most people are not going to risk their careers to smoke a joint. Pot is going to have to become federally legal and then the feds are going to have to create legislation that bar employers from testing for it otherwise most people are not just suddenly going to start smoking it because it comes in a pack at a liquor store. I am looking forward to the day that legislation is passed barring employers from testing for weed. Unless the employers develop a new test that shows you smoked it that same day you were working. In your system does not equal impairment.
I wonder if a state could pass legislation baring employers from testing, surprised this has not become a thing yet because loss of employment is a major barrier to partaking.
I wonder if a state could pass legislation baring employers from testing, surprised this has not become a thing yet because loss of employment is a major barrier to partaking.
Sorry, but that's been found to be unconstitutional in states where it's been challenged. AFAIC, what employees do on their own time should theoretically be their own business, and I'd certainly rather deal with an off-the-clock weed smoker or a one-or-two beers casual drinker than someone stumbling into work majorly hungover, but the government better be prepared to foot the bill for any lawsuits resulting in forcing me to have under-the-influence employees. I can legally test for alcohol, btw, and I can legally fire your ass even if you're not drunk on the clock.
Luckily, my community has banned commercial marijuana sales and grows. It only makes sense not to grow it in one of the most productive farming areas of the entire state. No one will ever grow or sell it now and our community can finally be completely drug free. No one will travel to other places, pay taxes, and bring the evil plant back here either. We also didn't need any supposed tax dollars or new businesses being created anyways. It was the smartest, most freedom loving move as well, as it affected 3000+ people outside city limits who had no way to vote for or against it and are now banned from participating by the 10 mile radius buffer zone rule. Now that our wonderful city council and mayor have decided that we mundanes can't handle cannabis, we are regulated on down to only buying booze from one of the many establishments in town that sell it. Everyone knows alcohol never causes any problems and isn't as bad as the Mary J Wanna. Got to keep the community safe!
I hope someone opens a shop 10.5 miles outside of town and makes big bucks doing so .
Sorry, but that's been found to be unconstitutional in states where it's been challenged. AFAIC, what employees do on their own time should theoretically be their own business, and I'd certainly rather deal with an off-the-clock weed smoker or a one-or-two beers casual drinker than someone stumbling into work majorly hungover, but the government better be prepared to foot the bill for any lawsuits resulting in forcing me to have under-the-influence employees. I can legally test for alcohol, btw, and I can legally fire your ass even if you're not drunk on the clock.
I think the state could compel companies to prove that the employee was actually impared on the job rather than just initiate a firing because there was pot in their system. The problem is once the employer has that drug report there is no way to prove that they did not fire them for other reasons.
So the answer would be to make it illegal to test for pot that sees any further than that day and the employee should get a copy of said report and the state could make it easy for people to sue the drug testing place if they release a report to the employer that shows you smoked 3 months ago. If the test does not exist then the employer is out of luck because the employee has a right to privacy for a LEGAL substance.
Also I never heard of this being unconstitutional just the business owner lobby wanting to keep their death grip on people. I emailed my representitive on the matter of Alaska going away from being at-will and he said that the business community would never accept it and I said how many voters are the rich business owners vs the people? no response which means crony capitalism is alive and well even at the state level.
I think the state could compel companies to prove that the employee was actually impared on the job rather than just initiate a firing because there was pot in their system. The problem is once the employer has that drug report there is no way to prove that they did not fire them for other reasons.
So the answer would be to make it illegal to test for pot that sees any further than that day and the employee should get a copy of said report and the state could make it easy for people to sue the drug testing place if they release a report to the employer that shows you smoked 3 months ago. If the test does not exist then the employer is out of luck because the employee has a right to privacy for a LEGAL substance.
Also I never heard of this being unconstitutional just the business owner lobby wanting to keep their death grip on people. I emailed my representitive on the matter of Alaska going away from being at-will and he said that the business community would never accept it and I said how many voters are the rich business owners vs the people? no response which means crony capitalism is alive and well even at the state level.
It's been tried in the courts in a couple of states. Not interested enough to go look it up.
It's already legal to fire employees for using legal substances. The right to privacy you claimed doesn't exist. Sorry, but nobody wants to hire a drunk to use heavy equipment, drive trucks, that sort of thing. Alcohol is legal, and it's actually a bigger problem for employers in my experience than pot. That said, I don't think most employers are interested in micromanaging the personal lives of their employees. Just stay clean on the job and you should be fine, Pitts.
I really don't see how making it illegal to drug test employees is going to result in a burgeoning pot industry in Alaska. Most drug tests happen at point of hire and when some sort of accident or incident requires one for insurance purposes. Most smaller businesses don't drug test when hired but will do so for insurance reasons if something happens to warrant it.
Pretty sure that the tests used by employers won't show if someone's smoked pot three months ago.
It's been tried in the courts in a couple of states. Not interested enough to go look it up.
It's already legal to fire employees for using legal substances. The right to privacy you claimed doesn't exist. Sorry, but nobody wants to hire a drunk to use heavy equipment, drive trucks, that sort of thing. Alcohol is legal, and it's actually a bigger problem for employers in my experience than pot. That said, I don't think most employers are interested in micromanaging the personal lives of their employees. Just stay clean on the job and you should be fine, Pitts.
I really don't see how making it illegal to drug test employees is going to result in a burgeoning pot industry in Alaska. Most drug tests happen at point of hire and when some sort of accident or incident requires one for insurance purposes. Most smaller businesses don't drug test when hired but will do so for insurance reasons if something happens to warrant it.
Pretty sure that the tests used by employers won't show if someone's smoked pot three months ago.
The big issue with legal pot and drug testing is that pot stays in your system for a LONG time unlike alchoal, especially if the company subjects you to hair test. I think this will be challenged more and more, especially if pot becomes federally legal. Insurance just wants to prove you were not IMPARED during the accident but someone could have smoked a month ago and pop hot and still be fired, that is THE issue right now with legal weed.
It boils down to laziness on the part of employers and the testing facilities, they figure most people are easily replaceable so they don't really care if you smoked that morning or a month ago, that is going to keep getting challenged in courts. The more people that partake or that want to partake but are beholden to a regular pay check are going to support change.
I can have a couple of beers on a Friday night and be perfectly fine Monday morning with nothing in my system and not impared, I can smoke on Friday night and pop hot Monday but still not be impared. That is the crux of the issue.
the more states that legalize the pressure will be on to change drug testing polices at a state or even federal level. Why should I have to wait till retirement to be able to do what I want on my own time?
The big issue with legal pot and drug testing is that pot stays in your system for a LONG time unlike alchoal, especially if the company subjects you to hair test. I think this will be challenged more and more, especially if pot becomes federally legal. Insurance just wants to prove you were not IMPARED during the accident but someone could have smoked a month ago and pop hot and still be fired, that is THE issue right now with legal weed.
It boils down to laziness on the part of employers and the testing facilities, they figure most people are easily replaceable so they don't really care if you smoked that morning or a month ago, that is going to keep getting challenged in courts. The more people that partake or that want to partake but are beholden to a regular pay check are going to support change.
I can have a couple of beers on a Friday night and be perfectly fine Monday morning with nothing in my system and not impared, I can smoke on Friday night and pop hot Monday but still not be impared. That is the crux of the issue.
the more states that legalize the pressure will be on to change drug testing polices at a state or even federal level. Why should I have to wait till retirement to be able to do what I want on my own time?
Are they drug testing you on a constant basis at your job, Pitts? Or are you unemployed and trying to find work? The way it usually works is that you're tested at point of hire and then tested if there's probable cause such as an on-the-job accident.
I'm aware of what the crux of the issue is, but is it really playing out that way in real life? Seems to me that all you'd have to do is bite the bullet and stay clean for a month so you'd pass the initial test and avoid suspicion after that.
Employees in Alaska have some protections under the state constitution, so you should check into those if you're concerned that working is going to interfere with your pot smoking. If it's true that you lost your job, I'm sorry to hear that.
Are they drug testing you on a constant basis at your job, Pitts? Or are you unemployed and trying to find work? The way it usually works is that you're tested at point of hire and then tested if there's probable cause such as an on-the-job accident.
I'm aware of what the crux of the issue is, but is it really playing out that way in real life? Seems to me that all you'd have to do is bite the bullet and stay clean for a month so you'd pass the initial test and avoid suspicion after that.
Employees in Alaska have some protections under the state constitution, so you should check into those if you're concerned that working is going to interfere with your pot smoking. If it's true that you lost your job, I'm sorry to hear that.
I am not unemployed and would never risk my career over a smoke. You are right that is TYPICALLY how it plays out but I have had co-workers start getting randomed and it is within the companies rigth to do so, I want those rights removed because its a slow decline back to the company store and away from freedom. Just because it is unlikely a company will do it does not mean they cant and these days it is HARD to find work. The less rights employers have the better, I should not have to worry about my job because of what I do in my off time.
I write my representitives periodically on this issue and on Alaska being at-will, I dont know why the people of Alaska have not fought for more workers rights, companies should not be able to do mass lay offs or take other draconian actions against people without a profound reason. In fact I think it should be unlawful to terminate someone unless you provide a compelling reason.
I write my representitives periodically on this issue and on Alaska being at-will, I dont know why the people of Alaska have not fought for more workers rights, companies should not be able to do mass lay offs or take other draconian actions against people without a profound reason. In fact I think it should be unlawful to terminate someone unless you provide a compelling reason.
I suspect the harder the law makes it to fire someone, the more reluctant employers are to hire people.
The big issue with legal pot and drug testing is that pot stays in your system for a LONG time unlike alcohol, especially if the company subjects you to hair test.
Is it primarily companies with employees operating equipment that do random testing?
I don't think state, city or school district personnel have to worry about it. Maybe they reserve this recourse if there is reason to believe something is amiss with an employee.
That's the way it worked at Alaska airlines. A drug test was mandatory as a condition of employment, but then they left you alone-except in a case I can recall when an employee started to display erratic behavior.
Then, they were tested and subsequently fired. It was coke, not pot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
