The Beginning Of The End Of Prohibition

[kpete]

Predictions are hard to get right, and I’m not particularly good at them. But I think today is the beginning of the end of the drug war as we know and loathe it. Once legal marijuana gets established in Colorado, other states will probably follow their example very quickly. I imagine it will legal almost everywhere in the US in 10 years, and that other countries in the Americas will legalize production to help fill the demand.

It’s hard to think about any really big changes in society without coming back to marriage rights. Those changes have happened so quickly, and it’s been so profound, that it seems like you have to compare or contrast everything else to it. I believe that the collapse of prohibition will be swift, as the expansion of marriage rights has been, for the same sort of reason. The opposition is irrational, and once the thing is tested in the real world, the argument will be over.

The drug war is an obscenity. It ruins lives, decimates communities, and functions as the main practical foundation of racial inequality in our country. The drug war is the main engine behind the creation of a criminal class in the US. It’s a profoundly destructive and immoral set of policies. The drug war is one of the worst things about America. And today, the drug war has been dealt a death blow.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/01/02/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-prohibition-4/
Lots More Photos Here:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/gallery/2014/jan/01/colorado-smokers-celebrate-legal-sales-of-marijuana-in-pictures
New Blog:
http://www.colopot.com/

[MindMover]

1. Agreed with 5 years to legalization ....

[L0oniX]

46. Now when I watch "Cops" and see em bust for weed I think WTF ...its legal now.

[regnaD kciN]

93. Five-to-ten years, IF we keep a Democrat in the White House...

If a Republican becomes President in 2016 (or 2020), all bets are off, because you can be sure they'll order full-scale federal crackdowns on states that are "disregarding the law of the land."

Even so, I think you'll be in for a period even after those five-to-ten years where it will be legal in every state, but the federal government still will list it as a controlled substance (it'll take a long time for the political climate to change such that a legalization bill could clear both chambers of Congress), meaning that it would still be vulnerable to a conservative administration deciding to jam federal law down the states' throats.

[JNelson6563]

2. Think of how our prison population will drop!

There goes a huge expenditure right there, not to mention a loss of motivation for the privatized prison industry.

Julie

[jeff47]

3. That's one side. There's also the other side

The tobacco companies have lost hundreds of millions of customers - kids are taking up smoking at record low rates.

These very large and wealthy companies are very familiar with the packaging and marketing of a plant-based product burned and inhaled by consumers. What's the logical "new business" for them? Pot.

Coming soon: Marlboro Joints.

[MADem]

9. They've got the machinery to package cigarettes, and the factories ready to roll, as it were.

I'm quite sure that there are plenty of folks who wouldn't mind buying a "pack" of MJ cigarettes, either the standard 20 cigarettes as found in USA, or the five or ten pack found in other countries.

Why shouldn't the major tobacco companies branch out and start growing and selling strains of weed that are predictable, have a specific strength and flavor, and engender brand loyalty? They could even offer menthol flavored smokes for those who like the cool refreshing taste with their weed?

Tobacco, marijuana--what's the diff? They're weeds...and they grow like weeds. How hard could it be to switch over the factories and start rolling pot instead of tobaccy?

Then, people could go to the "packie" and pick up their beeee-yah and their wine and their pot all at the same place!

[Dustlawyer]

11. I saw a video where they said the Big Tobacco

Co.'s are poised to jump in when they feel legalization has reached a stable enough tipping point. They want to get brand ID and market share before the small pot companies get big. They will just buy them out anyway.

[MADem]

14. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a mixed format, there.

You know how there used to be just "major" beer companies back in the day? And then, slowly, the "craft beer" thing started, and then there were "micro brews" and now many of the better pubs/bars offer a mix of small batch beers and national brands--the different methodologies co-exist without too much trouble.

I think, at least for the next, oh, fifty years or so, there will be people who like the idea of getting their weed the old school way; crumbling it up and rolling their own, or whatever. There will be some who like the convenience of a "pre-rolled" joint or a cookie or candy, and the young kids will no doubt like the vaporizing thing-a-ma-bob.

But old folks, and busy people, and people who don't do a lotta weed, but just want to have some handy in the house, sort of like that bottle of whiskey up in the hall closet for a special occasion? The pre-rolled cigarette pack is just the ticket. Who knows, maybe old school "smoking accoutrements" like gold cigarette cases, coffee table boxes, and so forth will come back into fashion. A clever person will start buying up these heavily discounted items against the day that a certain type of "smoking" becomes stylish again.

[WinstonSmith4740]

49. Years ago when I was in college...

The rumor mill started this meme. Back in the 60's, when we thought legalization was just around the corner, I remember hearing about how the major tobacco companies had already "trademarked" names like Maui Wowie, etc. I don't doubt for a minute that Big Tobacco will be all over this.

[Hestia]

57. and that's okay if you only have the funds for a ragweed type of item but when you

have the funds for boutique strains, no way in hell would one be satisfied with prepackaged.

One is for when you are broke - the other flush (in a good way). It'll serve its purpose and most likely won't be able to complete with dispensaries because of the low quality.

[OnlinePoker]

5. With it legal in Colorado, there should be blanket pardons for anyone...

...convicted of marijuana infractions and expungement of their records.

[rhett o rick]

7. The prison population wont drop. The for-profit prison industry will get

their Congress-Critters to make up the difference. Maybe a subsidy to help them from losing profits.

[truedelphi]

37. I think that money from Big Pharma and Big Private Prison Industry will help

Those two industries buy up the city council members in cities all across Colorado, such as has happened here in California.

Between Obama allowing his DOJ, DEA and ICE agents along with local police, to go into California neighborhoods and arrest the adults in 35 households, in one day (Sept 27th 2012) and without a warrant, and then the following California city governments closing down countless other med marijuana dispensaries, I really hope there is a provision inside Colorado's new law that states emphatically that cities cannot regulate and over-regulate the marijuana situation.


Several citations below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/california-medical-marijuana-crackdown_n_3241324.html

SAN FRANCISCO -- Several dozen protesters gathered in downtown Berkeley Wednesday afternoon to fight federal action against one of California's oldest medical marijuana dispensaries, targeted for closure by the Justice Department.

"The Obama administration's ongoing war against patients is despicable and has to stop," Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, told the crowd. "This is a mean, vindictive move aimed at shutting down one of the oldest and well-respected dispensaries in the country."

U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag on Friday served pot shop Berkeley Patients Group with a lawsuit that attempts to seize the property and ultimately shut the business. Berkeley officials say the dispensary provides significant benefits to the community.

"BPG has served as a national model of the not-for-profit, services-based medical cannabis dispensary," Berkeley City Council member Darryl Moore said in a resolution opposing the lawsuit. "They have improved the lives and assisted the end-of-life transitions of thousands of patients; been significant donors to dozens of other organizations in our city; [and] shaped local, state and national policies around medical cannabis."

####

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Medical-Marijuana-Dispensaries-Ordered-to-Close-in-Garden-Grove-207433721.html

Herbal Organics on Chapman Avenue had planned on closing by 11 p.m. Tuesday to have enough time to clear out by the midnight deadline, according to store owner Shannon Luce. She said customers were asking a lot of questions.

"A lot of people are like 'What are we going to do, where are we going to go, why do I have this rec from a doctor if i can't use it?'" said Luce, who had planned on continuing to sell medical marijuana to her customers through home delivery.


####

http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/riverside/riverside-headlines-index/20130509-medical-marijuana-cities-take-action-to-shut-down-remaining-clinics.ece

[Comrade Grumpy]

23. There are not a lot of pot people in prison.

Maybe 30,000 or 40,000 out of about 250,000 people doing time for drug offenses.

If we want to reduce out drug-related prison populations, we could start by decriminalizing drug possession--all drugs.

[RussBLib]

4. when will Obama go to Colorado and fire up?

Maybe I'll start a petition urging Obama to go to Colorado and partake.

See? It's harmless!

[MADem]

10. When it's legal at the federal level, perhaps. Not before. nt

[Major Nikon]

72. The first step is legalization, the next is to make it mandatory for politicians

[SCVDem]

6. I would bet that everyone in that line has had a stash.

They are out for the novelty and experience of Day 1. I don't blame them since it is a time for a celebration of enlightment, to a point.

Until Cannabis is removed from Schedule one on the federal level and no longer a disqualifier for employment or government assistance, their is no celebration for the poor and unemployed.

Being poor I can stretch a 1/4 of shake out for weeks. $20

Being unemployed I can't even do that because I would test positive and not get hired.

That is the problem. People still subscribe to the J. D. Anslinger ideal that marijuana is a great tool to destroy the poor and minorities.

That's why it remains Schedule one despite the government having a patent on Cannabis stating many medical benefits.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

27. "I would test positive and not get hired."

Unless you were applying for a job as a bass player.

[jmowreader]

32. Get a job inserting newspapers

Half the kids we have down there, the only reason they don't show up at work blunted is their probation officers test them frequently. The ones who haven't been caught doing something...well, let's just say I expect to lose them to the paper in Spokane in April when the pot stores open.

[The Straight Story]

8. It will be replaced by banning cigs and guns

Always someone wanting to ban something somewhere. Never works, but people still get all excited by doing it and making criminals out of folks.

[edhopper]

12. Actually banning cigs in many places

has resulted in a great drop in smokers. And if we ban the sale of cigs, (rather than the use) I doubt people will pay the black market prices they so for other drugs for a pack. We ban every other cancer causing product, why not cigs?

[The Straight Story]

16. We have? Pot is also linked to causing cancer as well

Ambulances in CA are not banned, and they have stickers on their windows saying they contain cancer causing agents.

Exhaust fumes. Coal. Here are 10 items from the home to watch out for:

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-cancer-causers-to-remove-from-your-home.html


And on pot:

Though marijuana most likely pales in cancer risk when compared to cigarette smoking, it's better to play it safe. There are reasons in addition to lung cancer risk (and the fact that it is illegal in most states) to avoid marijuana. Marijuana likely increases the risk of testicular cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, a type of brain tumor, and the risk of leukemia in the offspring of women who use it during pregnancy.

Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case-control study.
Aldington S, Harwood M, Cox B, Weatherall M, Beckert L, Hansell A, Pritchard A, Robinson G, Beasley R; Cannabis and Respiratory Disease Research Group.
Author information
Abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the risk of lung cancer associated with cannabis smoking. A case-control study of lung cancer in adults <or=55 yrs of age was conducted in eight district health boards in New Zealand. Cases were identified from the New Zealand Cancer Registry and hospital databases. Controls were randomly selected from the electoral roll, with frequency matching to cases in 5-yr age groups and district health boards. Interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to assess possible risk factors, including cannabis use. The relative risk of lung cancer associated with cannabis smoking was estimated by logistic regression. In total, 79 cases of lung cancer and 324 controls were included in the study. The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2-15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5-9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5-21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18238947?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

My view, your body, your choice. I know that is not a popular view among some progressives but I prefer it to control by others.

[edhopper]

18. From the CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

Cigarettes and Death

Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1
More than 440,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
173,940 deaths annually among women (including deaths from secondhand smoke)


Cigarette use causes premature death:

Life expectancy for smokers is at least 10 years shorter than for nonsmokers.2,7
Quitting smoking before the age of 40 reduces the risk of dying from smoking-related disease by about 90%.2

Secondhand Smoke and Death

Exposure to secondhand smoke causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1

Secondhand smoke causes 3,400 annual deaths from lung cancer.1
Secondhand smoke causes 46,000 annual deaths from heart disease.1,8,9

The single largest cause of death in our country. But heaven forbid we ban it. So light up and enjoy.
And to your original point that banning cigarettes won't work, in fact it will work quite well.

[The Straight Story]

21. Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer

“The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm,” said Dr. Jyoti Patel of Northwestern University School of Medicine.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/

[Egalitarian Thug]

26. Complete garbage. Prohibition doesn't work. You shoudl probably just accept that

it never has and never will.

What it does is to popularize whatever is banned by making it forbidden, and then it creates a black market where the worst criminal scum on earth can make billions providing what people want and will pay for.

[edhopper]

29. Yes it does

Look at the decrease in smokers in places like NYC.
If you ban the sales of cigarettes and the places people can smoke, but not criminalize the use, you would save millions of lives.
But since it's a "freedom' thing, you can light up and enjoy your shortened life.

Now you can answer with the usual smokers' outrage and I wish you a good day.

[Egalitarian Thug]

30. Oh really. How many people are not heroin addicts today because they can't get any heroin?

Or crack, coke, meth, you name it?

I'm very curious what it is like to live in the world you people have in your head, that allows you to simply ignore anything and everything happening all around you, and decide instead that the only real problem is that the rest of us don't live in there with you.

It's not like we don't already have plenty of evidence going back centuries, showing the inevitable course and consequences of prohibition, yet still the fantasy persists.

[edhopper]

31. Won't ended it

but the banning of the sale and manufacturer of cigarettes will do a great deal to stop millions from smoking.

How many people do you know who still do qualudes?

And while nicotine is addictive, it is very different from those drugs you mentioned.

Like other cancer causing products i don't have a problem with the government banning them. Why if they ban others, shouldn't they ban the single deadliest product in the Country? Because freedom and stuff?

I will give you the last word if you wish to respond, as we aren't suppose to talk about smoking in GD.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. Perfectly demonstrating my point. You keep saying this as if somehow the repetition

will make it true. You know why there are not many people taking Quaalude today? Because the pharmaceutical industry doesn't make it anymore and meth is a lot easier to make.

You lack of a problem with the suppression of free will through violence is the problem. It's ironically a major source for the drug abuse you claim you can stop.

People are going to do what they will, regardless of how you or I feel about it. I say we need to find a way to gain their cooperation, you say you can force them to comply.

My way works, yours never has.

[robbob]

51. An addict has an addictive personality disorder. An alcoholic

has the same. It has NOTHING to do with the drug itself. There are drugs (tobacco CHIEF among them) that are addictive in nature, but you cannot MAKE someone an addict just by allowing them exposure to the drug in question (crack, meth, heroin).

....on second read of your post I am not sure we aren't saying the same thing. Are you arguing there would be MORE addicts if the stuff was legal?

[Egalitarian Thug]

53. No, not at all. My argument is that prohibition is not only ineffective, but exacerbates the

cycle of abuse and destruction caused by both the substance and it's unlawful status. Our current policies and strategies are perfectly illustrated by our South American drug war, we are financing both sides while we hope nobody that matters has the bad taste to point it out.

[Fiendish Thingy]

56. Ther is no such thing as addictive personality disorder

That is a colloquialism coined by laypersons. Addiction is chronic brain disorder with psycho-bio-social components

[SCVDem]

34. It's the cost

I quit cigs 10 years ago because spending 60 dollars on a carton twice a week is insane. NY is even more expensive now.

As for getting cancer from pot, you just don't smoke enough, unlike cigarettes.

We smoked more weed when the quality was poor. Now it's a little one hit pipe or bong. Rolling a joint is too wasteful and expensive.

Shortened life? How's Willie Nelson doing?

[truedelphi]

38. Prohibition doesn't work unless you happen to be the executive of some Big Private

Prison industry. Or the executive of some Big Pharmaceutical firm.
Or retired chem teacher, Walter White

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Yes indeed. It works very well for them. Come to think of it, prohibition works to make

all kinds of people lots of money at the expense of victimizing the entire population.

[frylock]

24. is it really such a burden for you step outside for two fucking minutes for your smoke?

i'm sure you also predicted the demise of all bars in restaurants in California once the smoking ordinance kicked in.

[The Straight Story]

25. No, and you can still smoke in some bars there anyway

Like in Bakersfield. They just have a separate room. Some bars just ignore the ban (like here in Ohio). When the ban went into effect in CA I was living in Tehachapi, CA. Went to the bar and they gave people beer bottles to use, they got rid of the ashtrays.

I generally don't go to bars so could care less in that regards - but I do value people having choices. Don't want to go to a bar that allows smoking? Go to one that does not. Choice - it used to be a progressive ideal.

Places you have to go? Supermarket, doctor, bus, plane, hospital? Fine. No one has to go to a bar. Or a smoke shop. A simple middle ground that allows adults to make their own choices.

Freedom of choice is a big deal to some folks. I have fits when I am around perfumes, have since I was kid. Not asking to ban them (no one really needs them do they?) Stand in a garage for two hours with a car running and you will probably die, do the same in a garage with someone smoking and you won't. I am guessing many pro banners are not selling their cars and taking bikes.

[SCVDem]

28. Working with smokers

They may smoke outside, but when they come back they reek.

It really is a miserable stench.

[frylock]

36. many pro banners actually use their cars to go to work so that they can survive..

I know, it's a novel concept. and you're right, going to a bar is an option, as is smoking, as is smoking at the bar.

[JEB]

13. Like gaming (state lotteries), legal weed

will provide revenue to states that they will not be able to resist. All while not having to raise taxes on the rich who fund elections. So yeah, I too imagine a rapid move to legalization (taxation). I look forward to the end of costly stupid drug war.

[BobUp]

15. Other states

might follow suit, but, the fed will probably still say it's illegal.

[Mariana]

45. If enough states legalize

and the feds refuse to come around, maybe a constitutional amendment would be in order.

[BobUp]

47. Possibly,

but look at the other side of this. What about employers who want their employees to be drug free on and off the job. I see a kunundrum for transport, transportation, trucking companies around the corner. Or a kunundrum for people who might want to be a trucker, bus driver or passenger rail engineer or conductor. People might have to pick a career where drug use is tolerated and acceptable.

This could be a slippery slope for employers and job seekers.

[Mariana]

48. What do you think the slippery slope will lead to?

The situation you describe in your first paragraph is what goes on right now. Some employers drug test. People who wish to use drugs have to find jobs where they won't be tested, or they have to give up the drugs. How do you think that would change?

[BobUp]

50. I don't really know

except that many transportation companies have 0 tolerance for employee drug use.

I was once employed by a railroad crew transporter and had a fender bender, not even my fault, but I had to go have a drug test immediately after the accident, the owner/supervisor told me it was because of insurance regulations.

But I'd known before hand that the company had a 0 tolerance policy.

This could be dicey for insurance companies and employers.

snippet 1

The short-term effects of marijuana include immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions. - See more at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana#sthash.1J7S9Um8.dpuf

snippet 2

At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performance – changes which could impair driving ability. - See more at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana#sthash.1J7S9Um8.dpuf


Now, had I tested positive for drugs, I might have been fired, even though the accident was not my fault.

States might need to write some new laws dealing with people who might be under the influence while operating a motor vehicle, like pertinent to the person's level of intoxication. Something akin to driving while under the influence with alcohol.

I don't have a clear and concise answer to your question directly, I can only imagine a Pandora's box full of problems down the road.

[Mariana]

52. Most if not all states already prohibit driving while impaired

by ANY substance, legal or otherwise. Benadryl makes me very sleepy. If I take it and drive, I'm breaking the law in my state, and I can be arrested and prosecuted. The fact that it's legal to buy Benadryl off the shelf doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

Remember, millions of people already use marijuana. Making it legal just means they won't be arrested and go to jail for it. Nothing else changes. Driving intoxicated was illegal before and it remains illegal. Employers who drug test will continue to drug test. Insurers will make their own rules, as they always do. Life will go on.

[plantwomyn]

74. The biggest problem with DWI testing

is that marijuana tests cannot gauge WHEN the marijuana was consumed. So now we have Colorado legalizing recreational use and vacationers can partake. But if you get stopped in your home state, totally sober, a week after your Colorado vacation, you could still test positive for marijuana and be arrested for DWI. I wonder how long it will be before a defendant will challenge their states inability to prove "current" impairment.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. The very first court case with a lawyer of any merit at all.

[Hestia]

58. You are aware that people smoked in those professions long before private industry drug

testing came along right? There used to be a Socialist newsletter called New Solutions who reported on the drug testing back in the mid 1980s. Utility company in Ga. had to drug test because of new laws. Problem the employees who were the best at their jobs, most enthusiastic, continued learning, etc. all tested positive. It was something like over 60% (remember early 80s that something like 70-75% of 16-22 y/o's smoked) and they couldn't fire all their employees - they'd go under.

So we get private industry rehab. Those private industries making a killing on all aspects of drugs and cannabis (which is not a drug).

I need to go out to the garage and find those newsletters - scan them in and share them. All the issues were like that - a rethinking of problems and looking at them in a new light. Certainly colored my attitude in a lot of ways.

[TheKentuckian]

61. Who gives a damn what they want their employees to do off hours? Slavery is over.

[BobUp]

73. Matters to some,

my spouse has a relative who works for Abbott Pharmaceuticals, and they employ a program that attempts to regulate not only the employees but also their family members cigarette smoking habits. So if you're a cigarette smoker or a family member is one, you won't be working for them very long. I don't know how they enforce that policy, but they have a anti-smoking anti-drug policy.

So who gives a dam? lot's of companies and corporations care what you do when you're off duty. I know it's invasive, but some are still anal retentive after all these years and medical studies after medical studies.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. So you think your employer can demand that you do not drink?

[BobUp]

83. Actually

maybe, and some can fire you for substance abuse if the employee signed an agreement. If an employer does random drug testing, and if they find tests positive, they'll either enter the person into a substance abuse program, or they'll fire that person. Employers mandate whatever they wish, an employee can choose to go along, or not.

I've been in a workplaces when employees showed up tipsy, and the bosses - supervisors sent the people home, and told them they'd not be allowed to work while under the influence.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. no not "on the job" - "off the job".

[BobUp]

85. Original question; So you think your employer can demand that you do not drink?

I don't have an employer. But when I did, some of my employers mandated many things, even a dress code, no long hair, no piercings, no this and no that, no showing up for work intoxicated.

If a person drinks to excess, and it affects their job performance, an employer would probably dismiss or fire a person, or help the substance abuser than to mandate. As far as I know, in America, people are free to do whatever they wish, off the clock, it's the burden of proof of the employer to prove a person is a substance abuser.

Since "drinking" I assume alcoholic beverages you're talking about here, alcohol is legal in most states I believe, while some drugs like cocaine and marijuana is still considered illegal in some states. Employers presently have the right to drug test, and still have the right to fire or dismiss for drug use.

In my experience with a former employer, after a fender bender, I had to have a drug and alcohol screening immediately after, my employer claimed it was an insurance requirement. But I do recall signing an agreement when first hired pertaining to random drug/alcohol testing.

While I believe that what a person does off the clock is their personal and private life, a person can still be held accountable for their actions off the clock. It depends on what kind of a agreement the employees signed, how their contract is worded, if any. And also what state and federal laws govern "off duty drinking"

snippet
Alcoholism is the single largest and most economically destructive addiction in America as an estimated seventeen million Americans struggle with some phase of alcohol addiction at a cost to industry of $186 billion each year, according to a survey by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The business costs of alcohol abuse can include loss of productivity, damages caused by an alcoholic employee, and any treatment required to help an employee recover from their addiction. Federal and state laws dictate at what point an employer may terminate an alcoholic employee; any employer faced with the negative affects of alcohol in the workplace should consult an experienced attorney before taking any action.

http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/firing/firing-employee-alcoholism.htm

[Warren Stupidity]

86. I was responding to this:

but look at the other side of this. What about employers who want their employees to be drug free on and off the job.

And I am astounded at people who think their employers can make these sorts of demands. The question stands, and it refers to off work, as per your comment.

[BobUp]

87. We have enough

invasions of our privacy w/o employers getting into the act. I've always believed that what you do off the clock is your own business. But, if you party with coworkers, rest assured, some of your coworkers can be little tattle tales, they'll tell a supervisor, "yeah, Bob really got ripped last night" some might even tell a supervisor that Bob even stepped outside to blow some weed, and when that happens, you begin to be a marked person.

After my last duty station in the military, I made it a point NOT to socialize with any coworker. People will talk shit about you to anyone. I also made it a point NOT to rub elbows with immediate supervisors. Another good reason NOT to Facebook or Twitter.

[Comrade Grumpy]

17. Alaska and Oregon should go this year, via the initiative process.

In 2016, we'll probably see initiatives in California, Arizona, Montana, New Mexico.

In the meantime, state legislatures will be taking it up, but that's usually a multi-year process. Keep an eye on Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

[bvar22]

19. Hunh?... Wait..Wut...?

Smoking Weed is against the Law?
.
.
.
.
When did this happen?

[Eleanors38]

59. It's a conspiracy theory. Why, I just exploded over here, and no one arrested me.

[AllyCat]

20. What will the corporate prisons do without all those inmates?

Good for CO. This drug war needs to end.

[WinkyDink]

22. Dominoes will fall, because---wait for it---money talks!

[blackspade]

35. I can only hope this OP is correct.

[RainDog]

40. Agreed. Marriage rights and more

For all the bad that goes on, and there's plenty of it, we live in a time undergoing cultural change through the process of agreement as a community in this nation.

The people in the trenches, in the law offices, in the activist groups laid the groundwork for both issues - and there's an overlap in the issue of LGBT's in America and legal cannabis - and that issue is compassion, demonstrated during the initial AIDS crisis.

And then people started talking to one another about issues online.

The internet has been a great democratizer in many ways, for many issues, even ones that are now contentious regarding the same.

[Cha]

41. Surreal! Yet

Reality! To Brownies!

What legal marijuana could mean for you

"In fact, according to the Denver Post story I linked to above, you can pretty much only smoke it in a private home, or possibly some hotel rooms — potentially an awesome driver of room service.

But still, it’s legal. And so are “marijuana-infused” products, such as brownies, drinks and so on."

Marijuana infused Products

"As Colorado legalizes retail marijuana sales, Wyoming law enforcement expects bleed over"

snip//

"Colorado legalized retail marijuana sales this morning, and Wyoming law enforcement officers expect spillover effects.

Albany County Sheriff Dave O’Malley said his office anticipates more stoned drivers and people carrying pot on highways leading from Colorado.

“We saw an impact just after the medical-marijuana legalization in Colorado in the number of stoned drivers on (Wyoming) Highway 287,” O’Malley said. “We had more people in possession as well as people using while they’re driving. So we’ve had an upswing in that regard.”

snip//

"In Wyoming, possession of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana (less than three ounces) carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment, a fine of $1,000 or both, Townsend said."

snip//

Denver awarded 14 licenses for retail shops, 17 licenses for pot growers and three licenses for makers of cannabis products such as pot brownies.

Don't go to Wyoming Stoned

[Blue_In_AK]

42. You can tell it's the beginning of the end

because the opponents to legalization are becoming more shrill. Alaska could conceivably become the next state to legalize recreational use (it's already essentially decriminalized here); now suddenly we're getting all these editorials by national columnists hyperventilating about the dangers of marijuana. The problem for them Is that too many people can rely on their own personal experience to demonstrate that the propaganda is untrue, especially here where allegedly we have the highest per capita percentage of marijuana smokers of all the 50 states, something like 16 percent of adults. I had an argument on Facebook with someone tonight who believes that all of society's ills are the fault of the hippies. "Its all the result of the hippie flower movement. Dumbing down our population with substance abuse, materialism, degenerate social trends. Nothing good is going to come of legalizing marijuana." This guy is in his 40s! What's wrong with him?

I don't know what they're afraid of. It's not like people haven't been smoking marijuana all along. And as one of those "hippie flower" people, I refuse to accept responsibility for the moral decay of certain segments of our society. I had nothing at all to do with Wall Street.

[B Calm]

43. Sad time to be a criminal or a member of a drug cartel. .

[olegramps]

44. You would think that he era of Prohibition would have taught us something.

It only enhanced the attractiveness of alcohol as a forbidden delicious fruit along with creating gangsters to reap the profits. You can't prohibit this sort of thing; at best you can only hope to control it.

[DebbieCDC]

54. Just wait

until all the other 48 states start seeing the tax revenues flowing into the coffers of Colorado and Washington. There will be referendums and ballot initiatives up the wazoo to legalize pot all over the country. The only green the state legislatures (and city governments) will see are the bucks and not the buds.

[oldandhappy]

55. States will want that tax money.

I am in CA where we went broke with the three strikes law. Will be good to keep people out of prison.

[Eleanors38]

60. Pot ban ending, tobacco ban starting. Expect similar results.

[Mr.Bill]

62. I'm all for Marijuana being legalized.

And for this to happen, we must not lose sight of one thing. Marijuana, regardless of what state you live in, is still illegal. It is against federal law, and it is a felony. This is what needs to be changed. It will be very interesting to see how the feds proceed in Colorado and Washington. For the last 15 years they have shown zero respect for California's Medical Marijuana law. The federal law must be changed, and we shouldn't rest until it is.

[Mr.Bill]

65. Let me tell you the story of a friend

He has a medicinal marijuana card in California. He went camping with some friends and he was smoking pot. The Ranger came over to the campsite and asked who had the pot. He proudly said it was him and showed his card. He had less than one ounce. He forgot they were in a national park, even though it was in California, it's federal property. He was arrested and is being charged with a federal felony. Sure, he will possibly be able to plea it down to a misdemeanor. After he spends thousands of dollars on attorneys.

[Mr.Bill]

67. Thanks for the link.

Of course my friend's story is anecdotal, and there may be circumstances I'm not aware of. For instance, perhaps they found a larger amount in his car or campsite. But I know we agree on this, and you get my point.

And just remember, even though it looks like Obama and Holder are willing for the time being to let things happen and respect the new state laws, they have made that same promise in California to medicinal growers, users and merchants. And they have went back on their word constantly. More importantly, we don't know who the President and AG will be three years from now. The time is now to push for a change in federal law. All that would be needed is a provision in the federal law to allow state laws to take precedence when it comes to enforcement.

[Mr.Bill]

69. They got the go ahead in California

to start gathering signatures to put it on the ballot. The biggest opposition, ironically, comes from those making a fortune growing it illegally now. They have become a very wealthy status quo and they throw their money against legalization. As they say, follow the money.

Speaking of money, it will be interesting to see where the prices settle in Colorado and Washington in the next year or so. I realize that prices that have been reported in the last few days are inflated due to the novelty and excitement of it all, but they are double the street prices here. By the way, I live in a northern California county that is possibly the #1 producer in the state. They busted a couple people here on Christmas day with 980 lbs. There are probably thousands of people here growing as much or more. They are not growing for medicinal purposes. They are selling it all over the western states. I'll bet a good amount of the stuff in Colorado's stores came from here. Frankly, I don't use it much, but I haven't paid for it in years. It's so plentiful people give small amounts of it to me. You know, "Hey, try this."

[Mr.Bill]

71. I agree. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

75. There is an initiative circulating in Alaska right now.

They already have enough signatures to get it on the August ballot, they're just trying to pad the numbers now. Since it's already decriminalized here, it should pass.

Our medical marijuana law is kind of screwy. There are no dispensaries, and it's a crime to distribute, so medical MJ patients either have to buy their weed on the black market or grow their own. We can freely possess up to an ounce in our homes for private use or grow 25 plants. I think the new law would allow for dispensaries which would be kind of cool if you don't have the inclination, time or green thumb to grow your own.

[Major Nikon]

77. What's important about CO is it sets up the legal framework for production to consumption

Now other states that legalize can simply cut and paste what CO has done.

[Romulox]

80. All the ancillary actives are indeed Federal felonies..."manufacturing", distributing,

transporting, and the wonderful, wonderful catchall: "conspiracy" to do any combination of the above. This means that no state's medical or legal marijuana program can be lawfully implemented under Federal law.

So while you may be correct in the most technical sense, I think you've missed the bigger picture.

[Romulox]

90. It was *technically* correct, but also deceptive.

*Technically* possession of marijuana is never a Federal crime--it's the intent to distribute that is banned. To say that "marijuana possession is technically not against Federal law" may therefore be "technically" true, but a truth so distorted as to be misleading, at best.

I didn't comment on what you thought should be changed. You sound a little touchy on the subject.

[nikto]

64. By a clone...

Grow your own.

[gulliver]

76. All of the prohibition BS is going to be exposed as BS.

I expect CO and WA to have zero serious problems. Alcoholism and drunk driving may actually drop. Hard drug use may drop too, because kids who just want illegal pot won't need to go to dealers who sell heroin too. Add to that the tax money collected and the tax money not wasted. I think this is going nationwide in short order.

[merrily]

78. I hope he is correct. I wish all the fricking culture wars would end so

that the general public can stop focusing on them and focus on how we've all been robbed for the last roughly 45 years for the benefit of the 1%.

[Romulox]

81. Of course Presidents Clinton and Obama have both been dedicated to the War on Drugs. We delude

ourselves if we pretend otherwise.

[Locrian]

88. I sure hope so

I can't imagine the opposition going down without a fight - but hopefully the momentum will be unstoppable.

[B Calm]

91. Bad news for drug cartels, criminals and the ones who profit

locking people behind bars!