Posted on 09/30/2016 10:31:59 AM PDT by fwdude
For discussion. What does the "legalization" of marijuana usage really entail? Do the breadth of laws related to this expand or contract? Do people still violate marijuana-related laws? Are children affected? Do more people become uses who were not before the law change? Must requirements for professional organization membership change in response to such laws?
And what about Naomi?
Wow. Just reading that article gave me a hankerin’ for some fritos and bean dip.
Okay, Cheech. Knock it off.
Breadth of laws probably increase because it becomes like alcohol.
People still violate alcohol related laws so yes on that one.
It’s generally easier for the under age to get illegal drugs than legal age limited drugs (smokes, booze). Largely the primary sellers of the legal have a strong vested interest in not breaking those laws, where as the folks selling illegal drugs are already breaking the law. So affected yes, in a good way.
Probably not. Smoking is dropping, as huge as the industry is there are a lot of non-drinkers in this country. It’s not like it’s difficult to get pot, really anybody who wants to smoke it is.
Not really. The professional organizations that ban drinking in certain times can ban pot use. And in the end employment is a voluntary relationship where rules can be made that are far in excess of laws. There’s a growing number of companies that won’t employ smokers, not just no smoking at the office, no smokers. Weed or tobacco won’t really matter for those places.
I wonder if one were to investigate the ones pushing for legalized recreational marijuana if they found these people already smoking it, albeit illegally.
I’d guess you would see a temporary increase in usage just after legalization, since people who tried in back in high school/college but then stopped due to not wanting to get in trouble might try it again. However, I think not many of them would continue to do it regularly, so it would probably level off again after the novelty wore off.
Most likely they are. People who don’t smoke may be in favor of legalization, but they’re not going to be motivated to really go out and campaign for it unless it is something that affects their lives directly.
I doubt many people stopped due to not wanting to get in trouble. Unless they wound up in an industry that drug tests. It’s really tough to get caught, you’ve got to be really unlucky, and or dumb.
I can speak from experience somewhat having lived in LA and SF for the past decade and a half where pot Is functionally already legal. Yes, there is a charade around “medical” but it’s not regulated or enforced for the most part. To me there’s not much difference in who smokes the main difference is that those who smoke are a little less discrete about it which is not really good but also not a huge deal outside of certain places well known for that kind of thing.
My daughter, who lives in Seattle, told me that the day after pot was legalized a bunch of companies did random drug testing on “undesirables”. Naturally they tested positive after a night of celebration. Since it is still a federal crime, they fired them.
Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner.
Perfectly valid. Of course they probably would have failed the day before too.
There are laws about marijuana?
Can’t say it ever stopped anyone.
Or get injured on the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.