Should we legalize recreational marijuana? (poll, crime, school, vs)

[jambo101]

While i dont smoke the stuff i did vote in the poll to legalize it, the potential economic benefits are substantial..

[Hyperthetic]

Drug use should be protected under the 9th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. constitution, like it always has been.

Marijuana is a social drug, but still, "legal" is way too participative.

[afoigrokerkok]

How many polls on this do we need? There's also another one on the front page of P&OC and there was yet another a few days ago.

[Hyperthetic]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

How many polls on this do we need? There's also another one on the front page of P&OC and there was yet another a few days ago.

We need at least this many, obviously.

Want a little fire, scarecrow?

[no1brownsfan]

Oh for cryin' out loud, another thread about this! Yes! We absolutely should legalize cannabis for recreational use. Given we have alcohol, and cigarettes, which have proven to be more harmful to the individual, not to mention the war on this plant has harmed more innocent people than the actual plant itself! History has shown that prohibition is a big failure.

[Hyperthetic]

Smoke your greens!

Be a greenie!

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by jim9251

Oh get ready for this thread to get to a bagillion pages, people throwing pies, cats and dogs mating, the dead rising...

Personally I no longer care. People can do whatever they want IN THEIR OWN HOME. Not in public, not driving 80 mph, not with kids around. Other than that, meh...

Yes, government should never tell adults what to eat, drink or smoke.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

It leads me to wonder, just exactly what would I like from the Federal government in terms of a solution to this, and I finally worked that out.

I would like it if Federal law were changed so that specifically in the case of marijuana prohibition, each State has the right to regulate it as they see fit, make it the responsibility and the problem of the states. That way, if a state wants to do a majority vote to legalize like CO has, then they can do that. If a state still wants to take the stance of "don't bring that up in here, we will lock your butt right up!" then they can do that. I think it's time we put this decision in the hands of the people.

Employers can still test and make hiring and firing decisions based on it here, and I think they should have that right.

I don't know one single person ever who said "I would love to smoke weed but it's illegal so I don't," nor do I know anyone who said, "I couldn't smoke weed before because the cops would catch me but now that it's legal I've totally started." I think we need to be realistic and educated about all of the possible consequences, and then people should make the choice and deal with any consequences or lack thereof in their lives.

Interesting stance but I do have a few concerns:

It's all very well and fine that some states, like your and others, particularly in the West, have the option of putting an issue before the people, based on a petition that gets enough signatures that it can get on the ballot. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in many states, especially those "Back East". In those states ballot questions can go to the voters, but the state legislature has to put them there. With so many politicians behind the curve on this issue and thinking they know better what is good for us, not to mention our CHILDREN!!!!! (because prohibitionists always do), we never get to vote on the issue.

It's not like any of these states are going to institute a popular referendum process and give up some of their power back to the people. I'm thinking for example of the Governors of Wisconsin and New Jersey.
In Wisconsin they actually tightened the laws related to cannabis this past year.

In NJ the Governor has made the process to get medical marijuana so difficult that a child with seizures (Davet Syndrome) died over Thanksgiving while their parents tried to complete the paper process. Another family completed the process, but are moving to CO, because they still can't get the CBD marijuana their child needs. It is so difficult in NJ that only about 130 people have cards, and there are only 2 dispensaries in the most populated state in the union (considering people per square mile). One of the two dispensaries opened, and then closed for a time, because it ran out of product. With only 130 potential customers, nobody is making any money or tax income in NJ. The list of card holders is administrated by a former cop whose specialty was creating lists of criminals. I'm not making this up! The Governor has said he will make no further changes to the program, "on his watch", and has blocked attempts by the legislature to do so. I could go on, but you get the idea, NJ is the poster child for how to have a medical marijuana program that is so locked down it treats the few participants like pre-criminals.

Employers should NOT be able to test for cannabis after they hire someone. The problem with testing for cannabis is that the breakdown products last in fatty tissue for days, weeks or months, so residual amounts can return a positive test when there is not observable impairment. Employment SHOULD be based on PERFORMANCE and termination should be based on a LACK OF performance, not what is in your body fluids. Employers, even in CO, should not be able to hide behind the federal prohibition, in states that make it legal. Nor should employers be able to fire you for what you did outside of work, just like they can't fire you because you consumed alcohol outside of work, UNLESS they can show that you are actually impaired.

I do know of people that have said they can't smoke because of an employer requirement to pass random drug tests. The discount that employers get from insurance to drug test needs to end and employers need to focus on performance as the issue at work, not your THC level.

At least that's my opinion.

[Sonic_Spork]

Well I have to add a particular caveat to my statement that I believe employers should be able to test for drugs (pot.)

I think that if two conditions are met:
1. A person has had no documented incidents of impairment or poor performance likely linked to impairment (in other words, they seem to do their job just fine.)
2. A person holds a medical card

Then any test results for MJ should be irrelevant, because it is being used as medicine and people shouldn't be medically discriminated against.

But as for recreational...in my opinion (and like yours, an opinion is just an opinion)...a person may have to make a choice between a recreational habit and a job, and frankly, a person's contract with an employer and their contract with the law or society are two different things. For instance, the language exists in my employment contract that I represent my employer even off the clock, and if I were to represent myself as an employee in a manner not consistent with the values of my company, they could fire me for that. So in other words, I have my employer's name identified in my Facebook profile, it even shows up when I "sign in with Facebook" and post in the comments on many news sites. If I were to make a comment that was harrassing, threatening, or discrimanatory, with my employer's name right there next to mine, they would be well within their rights to fire me. My freedom of speech does not come into it. I signed a contract that CLEARLY spelled it out. My contract also said that there may be random drug testing. I haven't heard of any of my coworkers being subject to it (even here in our CO office) but I don't care...I don't use drugs. It doesn't affect me. But if it did...well it's an agreement I entered into, freely. If I violate the terms, my employer can act.

[Memphis1979]

We've had about 6 marijuana polls in the last 3 weeks.

All of them say the same thing as this one. Why do we need to rehash this again? So that Finn_Jarber and a few other prohibitionists have a forum to spread lies?