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.

For 24 hours

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ireland-court-legalizes-ecstasy-100-drugs-article-1.2144073

Ecstasy, magic mushrooms and more than 100 drugs are now lawful in Ireland — but only for one day.

The Irish Court of Appeals legalized the drugs Tuesday when it ruled the country’s 1977 Misuse of Drugs Act, which banned the substances, was unconstitutional.

But the reversal will only last 24 hours due to a loophole, The Journal reported.

Ireland officials plan to pass “emergency” legislation to make the drugs illegal again, but it doesn’t go into effect until it’s signed into law the following day.

“We had no way of knowing what the Court would decide today, but we prepared for this possibility,” Ireland’s Health Minister Leo Varadkar said in a statement.

The legislation was pre-approved by Ireland’s Cabinet before the earlier court ruling, he said.

Previously prohibited drugs include crystal meth, ketamine and benzos.

Possession of heroin, cocaine or marijuana is still illegal.

The stupidity...

I thought my coworkers were acting a bit funny today.....

 Sigvatr wrote:
The stupidity...

Agreed

So will they retroactively pardon everyone who was arrested for such when the law wasn't supposed to be in effect previously?

 KiloFiX wrote:
So will they retroactively pardon everyone who was arrested for such when the law wasn't supposed to be in effect previously?

Hahahaha what? That would be crazy!

Curious how many individuals tried to do as many drugs as they can in that time span

..........why couldn't I get a heads up for a ticket to there

Heh, I wonder if the dealers will have to now claim the income on their taxes for that one day? Does Ireland have an income tax? What about sales tax?

 KiloFiX wrote:
So will they retroactively pardon everyone who was arrested for such when the law wasn't supposed to be in effect previously?

Not saying it's right but technically - wouldn't they have a basis for this?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Heh, I wonder if the dealers will have to now claim the income on their taxes for that one day? Does Ireland have an income tax? What about sales tax?

Yes we do


We just don't enforce it

 Senden wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Heh, I wonder if the dealers will have to now claim the income on their taxes for that one day? Does Ireland have an income tax? What about sales tax?

Yes we do


We just don't enforce it

Let's not start that debate lol

This will would be for the crack then....

 KiloFiX wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
So will they retroactively pardon everyone who was arrested for such when the law wasn't supposed to be in effect previously?

Not saying it's right but technically - wouldn't they have a basis for this?

I suspect that at least someone will try it, though there must be a clause preventing it as part of this event.

As far as drugs are concerned, you could do far worse to yourself than dropping a couple e-tabs.

What'll be more interesting to me is the outcome of legalizing it for 24 hours.

Pity it's just the 32 hours. I think they should leave it for a month and see what happens. Selling and distributing are still illegal as was noted, but if possession and getting coked up to your eyeballs is legal for thirty days it'd be fascinating to see what'd come out of it. Based on Portugal's experiment with complete decriminalization and my own state's legalization of pot my guess is "not much"

I find myself wondering what Dreadclaw69 thinks about this.

I wonder how this will affect positive drug tests for a short while. Couldn't it be argued that positives are worthless if everything you were positive for was legal during the previous days?

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how this will affect positive drug tests for a short while. Couldn't it be argued that positives are worthless if everything you were positive for was legal during the previous days?

I can't imagine it would make a difference. I mean, in states that have legalized marijuana, I am pretty sure you'd still get fired if you fail a drug test regardless of the legality of the drug. Perhaps a few have medical exemptions but I think by and large employers are too worried about legal liability.

If I recall there was a big case not long ago where either Sams or Walmart fired a door greeter or some such for failing a drug test, and he argued he had glaucoma and a prescription for legal marijuana, and the court found in favor of the employer. I'll try to find the case but I doubt it matters with the percentage of at-will employment.

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how this will affect positive drug tests for a short while. Couldn't it be argued that positives are worthless if everything you were positive for was legal during the previous days?

That's an interesting question!

Of course the legal fight, and bills, might be enough to dissuade anyone from trying it, but still...

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how this will affect positive drug tests for a short while. Couldn't it be argued that positives are worthless if everything you were positive for was legal during the previous days?

I can't imagine it would make a difference. I mean, in states that have legalized marijuana, I am pretty sure you'd still get fired if you fail a drug test regardless of the legality of the drug. Perhaps a few have medical exemptions but I think by and large employers are too worried about legal liability.

If I recall there was a big case not long ago where either Sams or Walmart fired a door greeter or some such for failing a drug test, and he argued he had glaucoma and a prescription for legal marijuana, and the court found in favor of the employer. I'll try to find the case but I doubt it matters with the percentage of at-will employment.

Actually no so far from what I'm understanding here on the ground. Outside of federally controlled trades most places are treating it like booze. Show up drunk, you're drunk. Show up high, you're high. Either way, you're out on your ass.

 Alpharius wrote:
I find myself wondering what Dreadclaw69 thinks about this.

I find it amusing, and worthy of sharing with other members. But my amusement alone was not sufficient reason to frame the debate. I had intended to reply sooner, but our exchanges in the Social Security thread made me reconsider that approach as posting after your inquiry may have given the impression that I was aware I was doing something underhand and trying to cover my tracks after being outed.

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how this will affect positive drug tests for a short while. Couldn't it be argued that positives are worthless if everything you were positive for was legal during the previous days?

I don't believe that as a rule Ireland, or indeed the UK, make a habit of drug testing employees on account of Article 8 of the ECHR (Respect for Private Life). Some professions might due to the compelling public interest (such as surgeons), but I am not certain as things may have changed since I emigrated from there. As well as that there is is the issue with when the drugs were taken, and how quickly the person's body metabolized them. As this may be affected by a variety of factors it could open up a legal can of worms for those curious who wanted to experiment during the gap in the law.
If I recall correctly the public were warned though that using the temporarily legalized substances would not be tolerated. Although it would be interesting to see how a case would play out in this manner

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how this will affect positive drug tests for a short while. Couldn't it be argued that positives are worthless if everything you were positive for was legal during the previous days?

I can't imagine it would make a difference. I mean, in states that have legalized marijuana, I am pretty sure you'd still get fired if you fail a drug test regardless of the legality of the drug. Perhaps a few have medical exemptions but I think by and large employers are too worried about legal liability.

If I recall there was a big case not long ago where either Sams or Walmart fired a door greeter or some such for failing a drug test, and he argued he had glaucoma and a prescription for legal marijuana, and the court found in favor of the employer. I'll try to find the case but I doubt it matters with the percentage of at-will employment.

Actually no so far from what I'm understanding here on the ground. Outside of federally controlled trades most places are treating it like booze. Show up drunk, you're drunk. Show up high, you're high. Either way, you're out on your ass.

It is less that then a "Show up for work a few days later, it is still in your system but you're not 'high', get tested, show positive" scenario.

 Alpharius wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how this will affect positive drug tests for a short while. Couldn't it be argued that positives are worthless if everything you were positive for was legal during the previous days?

I can't imagine it would make a difference. I mean, in states that have legalized marijuana, I am pretty sure you'd still get fired if you fail a drug test regardless of the legality of the drug. Perhaps a few have medical exemptions but I think by and large employers are too worried about legal liability.

If I recall there was a big case not long ago where either Sams or Walmart fired a door greeter or some such for failing a drug test, and he argued he had glaucoma and a prescription for legal marijuana, and the court found in favor of the employer. I'll try to find the case but I doubt it matters with the percentage of at-will employment.

Actually no so far from what I'm understanding here on the ground. Outside of federally controlled trades most places are treating it like booze. Show up drunk, you're drunk. Show up high, you're high. Either way, you're out on your ass.

It is less that then a "Show up for work a few days later, it is still in your system but you're not 'high', get tested, show positive" scenario.

Actually, I really think it's more about liability.

Ask anyone here in the States what happened when they get injured on the job. What's the first thing on the agenda after you're "stabilized"?

The do numerous tests.

Tests to see if you were drunk or high while on the job determines if/how much insurance pays out.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I don't believe that as a rule Ireland, or indeed the UK, make a habit of drug testing employees on account of Article 8 of the ECHR (Respect for Private Life). Some professions might due to the compelling public interest (such as surgeons), but I am not certain as things may have changed since I emigrated from there.

Still the case. If there is an overriding reason to test someone you could (Surgeon, bus driver, pilot etc.), even then it would have to be part of the contract, with the employees consent and random. They could still refuse, which may be grounds for disciplinary action if the employer has good grounds for testing.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how this will affect positive drug tests for a short while. Couldn't it be argued that positives are worthless if everything you were positive for was legal during the previous days?

I can't imagine it would make a difference. I mean, in states that have legalized marijuana, I am pretty sure you'd still get fired if you fail a drug test regardless of the legality of the drug.

Not entirely true. My company had a talk with all of the hiring managers after CO legalized Pot. We have a distribution site there, and the manager was told that what we allow/ignore is based on local laws. In CO, if one of their employees tests positive with the hair test that we use (which goes back 30+ days), then there is nothing they can do. If, however, they fail a pee test while on the job, then you'd terminate them just like you would if they had alcohol in their system for being Under the Influence on the clock. The pee test is generally only administered if there is a moving vehicle accident on site (fork lift, shop cart, company truck, etc).

 kronk wrote:
Not entirely true. My company had a talk with all of the hiring managers after CO legalized Pot. We have a distribution site there, and the manager was told that what we allow/ignore is based on local laws. In CO, if one of their employees tests positive with the hair test that we use (which goes back 30+ days), then there is nothing they can do. If, however, they fail a pee test while on the job, then you'd terminate them just like you would if they had alcohol in their system for being Under the Influence on the clock. The pee test is generally only administered if there is a moving vehicle accident on site (fork lift, shop cart, company truck, etc).

I think this is the crux of the matter that has caused issues for some people.
On the one hand, in CO pot is legal in many instances. The police cannot arrest you if you have legal cause to possess the substance. You are shielded from the criminal justice system and cannot face criminal charges.
On the other hand there exists a private contract between the employer, and employee. The legalization of the drug, and its decriminalization, did not pre-empt these contracts, or otherwise alter them. You may still be terminated from your employment if you choose to use the substance.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Not entirely true. My company had a talk with all of the hiring managers after CO legalized Pot. We have a distribution site there, and the manager was told that what we allow/ignore is based on local laws. In CO, if one of their employees tests positive with the hair test that we use (which goes back 30+ days), then there is nothing they can do. If, however, they fail a pee test while on the job, then you'd terminate them just like you would if they had alcohol in their system for being Under the Influence on the clock. The pee test is generally only administered if there is a moving vehicle accident on site (fork lift, shop cart, company truck, etc).

I think this is the crux of the matter that has caused issues for some people.
On the one hand, in CO pot is legal in many instances. The police cannot arrest you if you have legal cause to possess the substance. You are shielded from the criminal justice system and cannot face criminal charges.
On the other hand there exists a private contract between the employer, and employee. The legalization of the drug, and its decriminalization, did not pre-empt these contracts, or otherwise alter them. You may still be terminated from your employment if you choose to use the substance.

I don't know about our (federal government via the Department of Veterans Affairs) guidelines for places like Colorado, but I think our guidelines where it was legal via Rx was as follows:

1) VA physicians will not prescribe it.
2) If you have a positive drug test you will be asked to produce an Rx.
3) If you have an Rx it will be treated like a positive drug test for narcotics with a valid Rx (aka: nothing happens).
4) Being under the influence on station = being under the influence on station regardless of the substance or if you have an Rx.

VA docs will not proscribe it as of right now. The VA is a federal agency, and Federal policy 100% complies with Federal law. There is however a bill working through right now which would open up the races for the VA. Which imho, would be a very good thing for a lot of vets vs. the sheer slowed amount of opiates a lot of my friends are on.