Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As of five minutes ago Marijuana in WA state became legal yay!!!

I hope the rest of the country can now follow suite.

Maybe the potheads who live in the apartment above mine will finally leave...

I am personally very glad because I have Rheumatism (Arthritis) that began to flare up when I was thirteen and becomes quite painful during the winters here. Plus the taxation and sale will help fund many different state functions.

Still illegal on the federal level.

Lol, from now on the clouds above Seattle shall no longer be from rain...

 Surtur wrote:
Still illegal on the federal level.

Very true but if more states get behind legalization it will force the fed to change the laws. I mean having it classified as a level 1 narcotic right next to heroine is a bit much.

Different federal agencies will adapt.

Be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Bloody potheads, but I do think anyone with Arthiritus that's checked by a doctor to be so should get some.

InquisitorVaron wrote:
Bloody potheads, but I do think anyone with Arthiritus that's checked by a doctor to be so should get some.

I personally think that calling people potheads because they want to smoke a joint and relax is a bit over the top. Think of it like this if you call people that smoke marijuana potheads you would also have to call all people that have a beer or two during the week after a long day at work Alcoholics.

I just don't think it's my place to say a person can't do something they enjoy as long as it isn't bringing harm to me.

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Still illegal on the federal level.

Very true but if more states get behind legalization it will force the fed to change the laws. I mean having it classified as a level 1 narcotic right next to heroine is a bit much.

It won't force the Federal government to do anything. The law must be changed via congress and that means a large majority of congressmen and women not only have to be from pot endorsing districts but also need to not worry about their opponents using it against them come elections.

Pot can easily be legalized on the federal level without congress having to do anything at all.

There are a number of ways it can be removed from the schedule of controlled drugs without any legislative intervention.

Will certainly make my life easier if they do. Though I doubt drug screens for most corporations will go away any time soon.

That's actually an interesting question. As an employer should I be allowed to discriminate against THC users? My industry's an extreme example, as was my last job working security, but what about any random IT gig or code monkey job? (We're talking careers here more accurately I suppose)

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Yep. It will probably be legal in most, if not all states, in the next 10 years. I imagine a number of the bible belt states will hold out for some time, but it will eventually become legal nation wide.

I'm neither for nor against it from a moral stand point. Alcohol is my preferred vice (when FILL-IN-BLANK's mom isn't available). My fiscal conservatism winces at the $$$ spent on putting pot heads and pot dealers in jail/prison.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Will certainly make my life easier if they do. Though I doubt drug screens for most corporations will go away any time soon.

If it's legal in your state, then you can't use that as grounds not to hire if it shows up on a pre-employment drug screen.

However, it isn't difficult at all to find grounds not to hire someone during the pre-employment process, so there's that...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Will certainly make my life easier if they do. Though I doubt drug screens for most corporations will go away any time soon.

That's actually an interesting question. As an employer should I be allowed to discriminate against THC users? My industry's an extreme example, as was my last job working security, but what about any random IT gig or code monkey job? (We're talking careers here more accurately I suppose)

Yes, you should be able to, it is your right as an employer to say, "Hey, I think you have an alcohol problem, you come into work drunk and late, if you even come in at all, and as such are not what we here at Kalashnikov Marine Industries, a subsidiary of PepsiCo, are looking for."

The same holds true for pot. Alcohol might be legal for me to consume, but I'm not going to go into an interview drunk as a skunk, why would I go into one high?

When it comes to questions of employment, it's not, is substance x legal or illegal, it's an issue of is it professional for me to be in this state of mind.

I know of several of my co-workers that partake in pot and while we're all code monkeys, none of them come to work high. They are also playing with fire, should suspicions of drug use come out, simply because the company can ask for random drug tests whenever they want (within reason I believe).

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Hopefully, it will result in civil war, so that Britain can take back those ungrateful colonies, and regain it's rightful place as the globe's leading power.

Alf, a drug screen isn't just "Are you drunk right now?"

We take hair samples in my company. The results can go back 3-4 months. We don't care if you have anything legal in your system (alcohol, etc). In fact, we're only told if there is anything illegal in your system. And "we" is just our HR manager.

 kronk wrote:
Alf, a drug screen isn't just "Are you drunk right now?"

We take hair samples in my company. The results can go back 3-4 months. We don't care if you have anything legal in your system (alcohol, etc). In fact, we're only told if there is anything illegal in your system. And "we" is just our HR manager.

I know, I had to pee in a cup... it's just a trickier situation.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Hopefully, it will result in civil war, so that Britain can take back those ungrateful colonies, and regain it's rightful place as the globe's leading power.

Why would you honestly want said former colonies? (Doesn't effect me, I don't live on the east cost :p) to misquote a famous British expat living in Australia " conquering America would be like having a giant untamed gorilla living in your house that savages you when you try to give it free health care"

For my field I don't think I'd want any form of drug user, legal or otherwise working in my shop. But then again I'm an extreme and relatively rare case in that working for me means working with deadly weapons all day. I don't really know how long pot effects you compared to say booze. *shrug* maybe some of our recreational rebels can enlighten me? Either way I'm federally regulated. So my drug restrictions don't go any where till the feds say they can and probably not till significantly after that knowing the ATF.

All I have to say is good luck taxing it because if it was legal there I would still grow my own.

Word is that police officers in Seattle have been instructed NOT to ticket or apprehend anybody for smoking marijuana in public. It is still illegal, but they don't care anymore.

However sale of weed is still a felony.

I will wait until licensing is available next year then I will grow but until then its just the waiting game.

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
I will wait until licensing is available next year then I will grow but until then its just the waiting game.

Bellingham.. College town... Prepare for profit!

Mattman154 wrote:

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
I will wait until licensing is available next year then I will grow but until then its just the waiting game.

Bellingham.. College town... Prepare for profit!

You know it. I figure i'll ty to get in on the ground floor of a new agricultural golden age

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


For my field I don't think I'd want any form of drug user, legal or otherwise working in my shop. But then again I'm an extreme and relatively rare case in that working for me means working with deadly weapons all day. I don't really know how long pot effects you compared to say booze. *shrug* maybe some of our recreational rebels can enlighten me? Either way I'm federally regulated. So my drug restrictions don't go any where till the feds say they can and probably not till significantly after that knowing the ATF.

Much like alcohol, it depends on the quantity, type, and person using. Some people will be high for over an hour while another person will be off the high in 20 minutes

LSD is all the way down in class III, and doesn't show up in Urine tests.

Why aren't you tripping right now, dakka?

Edit. That's Canada. Never mind.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
LSD is all the way down in class III, and doesn't show up in Urine tests.

Why aren't you tripping right now, dakka?

Edit. That's Canada. Never mind.

LSD is a felony in the US. Great news for a drug that's even more harmless than marijuana.

Kalashnikov, you really shouldn't worry about "drug users" at all unless their drug use is affecting their performance on the job. Obviously one needs to be more careful when working with weapons, but the vast majority of drugs are quite possible to be used responsibly with no lasting complications. Me and my closest friends drop LSD semi-regularly, most of my friends smoke weed, hell, and almost everyone drinks. Weed is less addictive than alcohol and there is absolutely no danger in having a responsible user around. If they're not coming in high or smoking on the job, you probably won't know who is the smoker.

The same is true of just about every drug except the big four (nicotine, heroin, cocain, meth.) If you drink/trip/smoke responsibly, you'll have no problems. If you do it too much, or in inappropriate situations, you can end up hurting yourself or others. Even among the four really dangerous ones, the danger stims as much from the addiction, in many cases, as from the physical effects of the drug. (That's not to downplay that they are all dangerous and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.)

Again, any drug can be dangerous if used inappropriately, but the idea that any and all drugs are as addictive and deadly as heroin or meth really needs to go.

Eh hardly matters for me, again, federally regulated so I have to align with federal law, not state law. So unless something surprising happens in the next few years, y'all filthy hippies can look else where for work.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Eh hardly matters for me, again, federally regulated so I have to align with federal law, not state law. So unless something surprising happens in the next few years, y'all filthy hippies can look else where for work.

Can I have work? I partake in primer fumes, Army Painter Strong tone dip, and... paint thinner...

Can't be worse then any one else I've ever had run a cash register

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-freely-smoking-pot-in-washington-literally-has,30635/

on a side note...