POLL: Should President Trump de-list (federally decriminalize) marijuana?
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (201)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Our government tech professional industries are massively hampered already because of the reefer madness bullshit. It's a huge leg up for foreign countries who don't discriminate against professional autists. They all smoke weed. All of them.
"an accurate roadside test"
Exact same field sobriety tests should apply. IMO. Blood draw is useless because someone with practically no THC in their system could be freaking out borderline psychotic, while a person with a heavy dose is just chilling and a safer driver than the average sober commuter.
Field sobriety tests for alcohol require active participation by the driver. Failure to comply brings a roadside BAC tester into play, escalated to transport to a hospital for forced blood withdrawal for continuing non-compliance. Without similar testing path for THC, what does the jurisdiction do when someone refuses to perform field sobriety tests without similar testing options - forced transport to hospital for drawing blood? arrest for failure to comply? revoke driving license under suspected intoxication? Would you say that these seem like proportionate responses?
Not sure what you are designating 'government tech professional industries' - I have never had any piss-testing for any engineering position without a security clearance, but I was regularly tested to operate fabrication and warehouse equipment by company policies. So it seems like your focus on techie-autists probably is not all-inclusive for the corporate issue.
The current security clearance issue is based on the illegality of marijuana (i.e. any use is potentially grounds for revocation of clearance). Legalization would entail switching to looking for a pattern of abuse of marijuana (as it is done for alcohol). My point is that some research and legislation would be needed to define characteristics of abuse so everyone knows what they can and cannot do if they want to maintain their clearance. Unrestricted use is unlikely to be viewed as without risk for the same reasons that alcohol use is not unrestricted.
I hope this clarifies some of the ancillary legal issues that probably will arise with legalization.
"what does the jurisdiction do*"
They enforce the law. If the driver is not giving you probable cause to demand a sobriety test, then you fuck off, ticket them for whatever you pulled them over for, and you leave them alone.
"Not sure what you are designating 'government tech professional industries'"
FBI, CIA. etc. A lot of the professional autists at 4chan, are elite in every single relevant skills category, but you have to pass drug tests and lie detector tests regarding marijuana, before they will hire you. Programmers with aspergers, the best of the best, all smoke weed. And they can't be hired because of it. And that's stupid.
Somehow you're worried that legalizing marijuana will cause problems for officers who already have to perform sobriety checks for drivers under the influence of marijuana? Your big concern, basically, is no change at all. It's already illegal, and it would still be illegal.
"is not all-inclusive for the corporate issue"
And corporations don't need Nancy Pelosi or Kamala Harris to help them decide to hire people who test positive for marijuana or not.
OK, you seem to be jumping around a fair bit on the roadside stop process so let's give you the scenario and you describe what you think should happen. Officer observes vehicle crossing the lane demarcation line giving probable cause to initiate a stop for operating a vehicle while impaired. Officer approaches the vehicle and observes pot-related paraphernalia or (even vaguer but equally valid legally) smells marijuana so it is possible the operator was smoking in the vehicle (analogous to alcohol rules). Driver refuses to perform field-sobriety tests for THC intoxication. Officer, having PC for impairment and passive non-compliance by driver, then....<please fill in the blank assuming no accurate roadside testing options and guidelines for intoxication limits>.
The same issue as above applies for corporate employment. Insurance companies will use State and Federal intoxication and abuse guidelines for setting the employee acceptable limits. They may choose a tighter standard if they wish, but ultimately the issue of impairment while working is something that the companies would be looking to the Government standards to define. The current on-site testing is not refined enough to show whether someone has used it at home (i.e. not impaired, a liability risk, or a termination offense) versus the operator of crane/tow-motor/sheet-metal bender/diesel railroad engine who just had an accident at work and might be a legal liability if they cannot test him to determine whether he was intoxicated with a legal substance at the time. That's just the most obvious case of risk.
Corporations with any risk of accidental injury/death, breach of fiduciary responsibility, classified or NDA work requirements, working with children/elderly, medical/pharmacy work, and probably some other insurance risks that I am not thinking of at the moment would default to all having blanket prohibitions against employees engaging in a legal activity during the hours spent outside the company? I.e. any marijuana use anytime which is the current testable standard is grounds for dismissal even though it is a legal substance? First accident/mistake at work for anyone who doesn't consistently piss clean equals automatic termination? Because, otherwise, it appears that they will have the same insurance/bonding/licensing risk issues if they cannot define impairment at the time of any issue.
You've convinced me Braujager. Kamala was right. We should imprison people for marijuana, because DUI laws exist. And, corporate insurance considerations...
(smidge of sarcasm there)
I would rather suffer the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.