Slashdot Mirror
Marijuana Legalized In Oregon, Alaska, and Washington DC
Robotron23 writes: Coinciding with the midterm elections yesterday were state ballots proposing the legalization of cannabis. All three territories where full legalization was tabled approved the measure, joining Washington state and Colorado. The narrowest vote was that of Alaska at a roughly 52% to 48% margin. Washington D.C. meanwhile saw the vote strongly tipped in favor of legalization, at about 69% to 31% opposed. Oregon passed its measure by a vote of 55% to 45%. Buoyed by the news, advocates of legal cannabis are already contemplating the next round of state ballots in 2016.
I never in my lifetime expected to see this. It's about time
Yesterday's election was a message to Washington that America wants conservatives to represent them! Also, they want legalized pot, increased minimum wage, the right to have an abortion, insurance-provided contraception, and required paid time off at work!
Wait, what?
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Yawn. Everytime a story on marijuana comes up on a US-centric site, someone suggests that hemp is a miracle material, and it had to be banned so other industries wouldn't be threatened. If hemp is so great, then why is interest in it so relatively low in the many other industrialized countries around the world where industrial hemp has always been legal and easy to grow, even state-subdizied?
Let me guess: did the very same voters in these states also send people from the prohibition parties, to represent them in the federal government yet again? Right hand, you need to meet left hand some day.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I assume a large part of the increasing "tolerance"(pun intended) towards recreational Cannabis use is that people, business and governments are FINALLY understanding it is revenue generating.
People use it anyway, whether it is legal or not. They have for thousands of years. Why not make some legal money out of it instead of letting the cartels have all the fun!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
If marijuana is such a threat to tree-based paper products, then why does paper continue to be so heavily used in many fields even in countries with hemp industries?
Paper from trees is produced by a well-established economy of scale.
If hemp is so great, then why is interest in it so relatively low in the many other industrialized countries around the world where industrial hemp has always been legal and easy to grow, even state-subdizied?
It's a chicken and egg problem.
There isn't much hemp cultivation, so nobody is designing purpose built harvesting machinery.
And since there isn't any purpose built harvesting machinery, it's much harder to grow hemp on a large scale.
There's also a reality that even though hemp can be used in just about everything, it's not always the best (or currently the cheapest) option.
This could change if hemp harvesting and processing ever catches up on the decades of R&D that synthetics and cotton have received.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
But one day, just like with the alcohol prohibition, there will probably be national reform. 23 states have medical, and 5 (i believe) have outright decriminalization. I think your point matters a lot more if you are thinking of investing in cannabis/starting a business than if you are just a consumer. What? The feds have enough resources to come into everyones home who smokes the stuff in states and charge them? I guess my point is: yes, its federally illegal. That doesn't mean these laws passing don't have large implications. The next president will probably be cautious about MJ like the current one because it is a hot button issue and legalization seems to be getting more steam every 2 years.
Obama has stated that this issue is not of major concern to him and will not be seeking prosecution.
That's what he's stated, but not what he's done. They've raided several marijuana dispensaries and farms here in Colorado.
How do you know when a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.
Also remember many jobs will drug test you.
This is already being tested in the courts. There's not yet (as far as I know) a test for marijuana intoxication, only detection that you've used marjuana at some point in the past few days/weeks, so there's little justification for testing for marijuana when it's already legal for recreational and/or medicinal use. It's particularly controversial when an employee uses marijuana medicinally -- cough medicine is going to affect employee performance much more than smoking pot over the weekend.
What they're really doing when you get forced to take a pre-employment piss test is asserting their power over you, even before they start paying you. You're a criminal/drug addict until you provide a bodily fluid to "prove" otherwise (as urine tests have varying degrees of accuracy). With marijuana especially, they're asserting control over your body (as you could smoke on the first of the month and spike a positive for pot at the end of the month) even during the hours you're not working for them (although, if you're an "exempt" employee, there are no hours that are truly yours; being an "exempt" employee means that you trade having to punch a clock for a fixed salary, no overtime, and the possibility of being required to work 120 hours a week, all legal).
It's time we stood up to our corporate masters and told them "It's none of your fucking business what's in my urine."
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Read parent again. Nobody said paper would be discontinued.
But the claim is that it would be threatened. So... why doesn't hemp use threaten paper use where it's legal?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How? How on earth is it anyone's business what you do in your spare time? Unless you come to your job intoxicated (and frankly, I'd be more wary of the drunks than the potheads) it's exactly none of any employer's business.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because that is the basis for ALL our government power, responsibility and authority.
It is arguable that the Feds for many years have overstepped those few enumerated powers they are supposed to have.
Many of us in the US feel it is time to reign in the Feds.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Humorous but true. Privileged members of society (such as members of Congress) don't need to worry about the legality of things such as recreational drugs. Whatever they were using before this law passed won't change because of it. No one is going to say, "Hey, marijuana is legal now, I'm gonna quit doing cocaine and smoke marijuana instead."
I know plenty of professionals (lawyers, surgeons, anaesthetists etc) that use recreational drugs. The chances of them getting charged with anything if caught in procession are pretty much nil. Drug laws aren't for the protection of society in general, the purpose is to establish control over people that are viewed as "trouble makers". Upper society members that use 'responsibly' need not worry. If they make a public scene, yeah, they'll be some kind of slap on the wrist, but in general if you are rich enough or respected enough certain laws don't apply. They are for the people beneath you.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
I agree. The pee test doesn't tell you that, and being around people smoking (but not smoking yourself) is enough to spike a positive.
You've missed my point. The issue is not whether or not I would pass the screen. The issue is that it's invasive, humiliating, and unnecessary. The issue is that it's one more way for your employer to control your life. The issue is that a joint on the weekends isn't going to make you a dangerous/bad worker. The issue is that it's not a crime in a lot of states. The issue is that it's none of their fucking business if it doesn't impact your ability to do your job, and it doesn't. We don't keep people from working if they drink a beer (or 17) on the weekends, and having an alcoholic on your payroll is worse than having someone who's used pot an indeterminant number of times in the last 30 days. But we don't test for alcohol.
But, keep buying into the Reefer Madness hysteria if you want. History will make a fool of you.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Actually, what they are trying to do is find out if you are an addict and are going to be using at work. The rationale is that if you can't stop using any given drug for the 30 days it takes to clear your system, then you cannot control your additiction.
That is proving the GP's point for him.
Its an incredibly stupid rationale.
The first part is treating everything as an addiction. Its not, not everyone who has a toke of weed is instantly turned into a crack whore. It's an odd concept to some that quite a few people can control their habits.
Secondly, it assumes that you cant keep something limited to your off time, for example I can choose to have a few beers over the weekend, that does not mean I drink 24/7. Now my employer absolutely has a right to expect me to be sober whilst at work during my prescribed working hours but after work, they dont get a say.
Fortunately where I live, pre-employment drug tests are illegal and drug tests during employment are only legal for certain areas (like mine sites, construction sites, factories and other places where there are real dangers, so not the office).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.