It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court considers whether legal marijuana use is 'lawful'

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I agree except for jobs that require you to be on call even when you aren't at work, like a firefighter or something. But with those jobs, you have to understand what you are getting into when you apply and are hired for the job. Other than that, there is no reason a company should be worrying about its employee's off duty substance intake.




posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
This could also result in a major setback to these types of laws as well.

If the court only considers Colorado law I think they will be ok in having marijuana use covered under the state law. However, if they consider the Constitutional aspect then the entire law allowing for marijuana use could go out the window.

The Supremacy clause of the US Constitution states if a Federal law and a State law conflict, Federal law is the one that will be used. That would mean changing the Controlled substance Act to allow states to decide themselves on what type of law they want.

There have been some Congress members pushing for legalization from the federal level.

Lawmakers Push Obama to Soften Marijuana Rules


Obama's recent comments saying pot is less dangerous than alcohol look like an opportunity to advocates for relaxed marijuana laws
More than a dozen members of Congress called on President Barack Obama on Wednesday to remove marijuana from the federal government’s list of hard drugs, seizing upon his own comments in a recent interview that pot is no more dangerous than alcohol.

“We were encouraged by your recent comments,” the letter from 17 Democrats and one Republican said. “We request that you take action to help alleviate the harms to society caused by the federal Schedule I classification of marijuana. … You said that you don’t believe marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol: a fully legalized substance. …. Marijuana, however, remains listed in the federal Controlled Substances Act at Schedule I, the strictest classification.

“This makes no sense,” the lawmakers added.


Click link for remainder of article.


The other Constitutional issue involved is States Rights and this Supreme Court does not have the best track record in protecting those rights.
edit on 2-10-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In an update for this discussion, the new Wash. DC budget is going to end federal law against "medical marijuana." But now the lawsuits from neighboring states are starting for Colorado:

www.nytimes.com... 49939149

NEBRASKA AND OKLAHOMA SUE COLORADO OVER MARIJUANA LAW
"Two heartland states filed the first major court challenge to marijuana legalization on Thursday, saying that Colorado’s growing array of state-regulated recreational marijuana shops was piping marijuana into neighboring states and should be shut down.

"While marijuana remains illegal under federal law, officials have largely allowed Colorado and other states to move ahead with state-run programs allowing medical and recreational marijuana. But the lawsuit from Nebraska and Oklahoma, where marijuana is still outlawed, argues that Colorado has “created a dangerous gap” in the federal drug-control system.

“Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states,” the suit says, undermining their marijuana bans, “draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems.”

"For months, some sheriffs and police officers in rural counties bordering Colorado have complained that they have seen more marijuana entering their towns and being transported down their highways since recreational sales began in January.

"Oklahoma and Nebraska said the influx had led to more arrests, more impounded vehicles and higher jail and court costs. They say it has also forced law-enforcement agencies to spend more time and dedicate more resources to handling marijuana-related arrests."



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: MKMoniker

Holy crap! I'm not surprised. But damn.


"Oklahoma and Nebraska said the influx had led to more arrests, more impounded vehicles and higher jail and court costs. They say it has also forced law-enforcement agencies to spend more time and dedicate more resources to handling marijuana-related arrests."


They can just as easily dedicate LESS resources to this and not be such sticks in the mud about it. To be honest, I'm not sure why they are complaining in the first place (actually I do, those two states are notorious Bible belt states). They are probably receiving TONS of fine revenue from all those marijuana arrests. Those idiot cops probably feel like they are protecting people by arresting these people too...


But the lawsuit from Nebraska and Oklahoma, where marijuana is still outlawed, argues that Colorado has “created a dangerous gap” in the federal drug-control system.


The words "dangerous" and "marijuana" should never be in the same sentence, unless there is a negative in between them.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MKMoniker

I've now read the whole article and the amount of fear mongering that Nebraska and Oklahoma are perpetuating in it is OUTSTANDING!


They also criticized Colorado for not tracking marijuana once it is sold, and for not requiring marijuana buyers to undergo criminal background checks (under Colorado law, anyone 21 or older can legally purchase recreational marijuana). Colorado’s rules have no way to prevent “criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels from acquiring marijuana inventory directly from retail marijuana stores,” the lawsuit says.They also criticized Colorado for not tracking marijuana once it is sold, and for not requiring marijuana buyers to undergo criminal background checks (under Colorado law, anyone 21 or older can legally purchase recreational marijuana). Colorado’s rules have no way to prevent “criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels from acquiring marijuana inventory directly from retail marijuana stores,” the lawsuit says.


Why should Colorado track what people do with the marijuana they buy? If you are allowed to buy it, you can do whatever you want with it. That is a stupid argument. OH NO! Now drug cartels can buy it in Colorado and resell it elsewhere. How is that worse than what they were doing before when they'd just grow it and sell it anywhere they wanted again?


The lawsuit, which was brought by Nebraska’s attorney general, Jon Bruning, and Oklahoma’s attorney general, Scott Pruitt, accused Colorado officials of participating in a “scheme” that cultivates, packages and distributes marijuana in direct violation of controlled-substances laws while “ignoring every objective embodied in the federal drug control regulation.” It was filed directly with the Supreme Court because it involves a dispute among states.

“The Constitution and the federal antidrug laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local pro-drug policies and licensed distribution schemes throughout the country,” the lawsuit says.


What would be funny is if this back fires in those two AGs' faces and the Supreme Court strikes down marijuana prohibition altogether since TECHNICALLY anti-drug laws are unconstitutional anyways. So this should be interesting

My guess is that these two AG's are in the pockets of a few anti-pot lobbies.
edit on 19-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
The Supreme Court should uphold the Colorado law, if they use State's Rights as a reason. Even a couple of the conservatives may vote for Colorado or vote to not even accept the case. This court case seems like a big deal in this ongoing story, please keep us updated if you catch news of this before it becomes commonly known.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Why should Colorado track what people do with the marijuana they buy? If you are allowed to buy it, you can do whatever you want with it. That is a stupid argument."

Not really. It's a very tricky argument, and it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with it.

States "tracking what people do with (products) brought in their state," echos back to the Texas Gun Shows, where Mexican Cartel buyers are said to arrive with suitcases of cash and a "list" of what to purchase. This came to a head with the idiotically ill-planned programs under George W. and Obama (like "Fast&Furious"), of selling weapons to one Mexican Cartel to help them start a war with another Cartel.

In the end, these dangerous weapons allowed to cross the border ended up killing one of OUR border patrol agents. And probably never-reported numbers of our undercover DEA down there too.

Another concern for neighboring states, is the stoned-drivers who cross over from Colorado, and create car wrecks. Being "high" from maryjane doesn't feel the same as being drunk, but the impairment issues are the same.

I don't know how the Supreme Court is going to handle this. What will be most interesting, however, is the eventual social impact. Will states neighboring Colorado eventually cave in to allow recreational sales of this brain-rotting drug too?

Or will they stand tough against marijuana, and find a way to "blame and financially punish" Colorado for sending dangerously stoned drivers or organized-gangs/criminals transporting pot across their state lines? Will Colorado be forced to create "highway easements" of warnings and pull-outs a mile before leaving the state on all its highways, for people to sober up or change drivers?

Or will Colorado be forced to do what California used to do at their borders to protect their vast agricultural base, have check-points at all borders to make people throw out any raw fruit or vegetables? Colorado's exit check-points would mainly look for stoned drivers and organized-criminals transporting pot into another state, which then becomes a federal issue. Or will neighboring states to Colorado be forced to have easements or check-points for vehicles entering their states?


edit on 19-12-2014 by MKMoniker because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2014 by MKMoniker because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2014 by MKMoniker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

"The Supreme Court should uphold the Colorado law, if they use State's Rights as a reason."

I agree, I expect the Colorado recreational-marijuana law to stand. But Colorado is still going to have to find a way to mitigate a flood of ongoing lawsuits from its neighboring states, if only to avoid massive financial compensation for sending a flood of dangerously stoned drivers and organized-criminals transporting pot across state lines.

"This court case seems like a big deal in this ongoing story, please keep us updated if you catch news of this before it becomes commonly known."

I shall! Like the hacker-terrorists versus Sony Entertainment, these are important stories with no precedent, and have important issues at stake.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: MKMoniker
Not really. It's a very tricky argument, and it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with it.


Yes it will.


States "tracking what people do with (products) brought in their state," echos back to the Texas Gun Shows, where Mexican Cartel buyers are said to arrive with suitcases of cash and a "list" of what to purchase. This came to a head with the idiotically ill-planned programs under George W. and Obama (like "Fast&Furious"), of selling weapons to one Mexican Cartel to help them start a war with another Cartel.


Yes and look how disastrous that turned out. Of course cartel money mostly flows back to drugs anyways...


Another concern for neighboring states, is the stoned-drivers who cross over from Colorado, and create car wrecks. Being "high" from maryjane doesn't feel the same as being drunk, but the impairment issues are the same.


That is incorrect. The impairment isn't the same at all.
Since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows


I don't know how the Supreme Court is going to handle this. What will be most interesting, however, is the eventual social impact. Will states neighboring Colorado eventually cave in to allow recreational sales of this brain-rotting drug too?


Brain rotting? Yeah... No... That is just straight up Reefer Madness bs.


Or will they stand tough against marijuana, and find a way to "blame and financially punish" Colorado for sending dangerously stoned drivers or organized-gangs/criminals transporting pot across their state lines? Will Colorado be forced to create "highway easements" of warnings and pull-outs a mile before leaving the state on all its highways, for people to sober up or change drivers?


Maybe.


Or will Colorado be forced to do what California used to do at their borders to protect their vast agricultural base, have check-points at all borders to make people throw out any raw fruit or vegetables? Colorado's exit check-points would mainly look for stoned drivers and organized-criminals transporting pot into another state, which then becomes a federal issue. Or will neighboring states to Colorado be forced to have easements or check-points for vehicles entering their states?



Why does anyone need to be forced to do anything? Maybe those two states should just take that stick out of their ass and let it drop since this is a non-issue. Marijuana IS going to be legalized, and they are just the last remnants of the anti-pot brigade.

If you are so worried about people driving stoned, what are you doing about all those people driving while on prescription medication? Percocet is an opiate. So people driving on Percocet is like driving on heroin. How does that make you feel? Percocet is legal with a prescription.
edit on 19-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"That is incorrect. The impairment (driving stoned versus drunk) isn't the same at all."

Another thread on ATS disagrees:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
POT-POSITIVE TRAFFIC FATALITIES UP 100% IN COLORADO?

**********************************************************************************************************

"Brain rotting? Yeah... No... That is just straight up Reefer Madness bs."

Not really. It's equivalent to liquor/beer as a "relaxation agent," but there has been decades of study on alcohol's effect on the human body - and not nearly that much study yet on marijuana's effect:

www.livescience.com...
MARIJUANA VERSUS ALCOHOL HEALTH EFFECTS
"For marijuana, much of the concern is with young people who use the drug, because the drug interferes with the development of the brain while it is still maturing, Baler said. [10 Facts Every Parent Should Know About Their Teen's Brain]

"Smoking marijuana interferes with connections being made in the brain "at a time when the brain should be at a clear state of mind, and accumulating, memory and data and good experiences that should be laying out the foundation for the future," Baler said.

"You're cumulatively impairing your cognitive function. What's going to be the ultimate result, nobody can say."

*****************************************************************************************************************************

"If you are so worried about people driving stoned, what are you doing about all those people driving while on prescription medication?"

Law enforcement has developed tests to determine "driving while impaired" - irregardless of the ingested substance.

I know more states will legalize "recreational pot" - you can't put the genie back in the bottle. But marijuana's cumulative harm to the young brains in this country, IS of concern. If our future doctors, lawyers, scientists and legislators have little memory and even less "cognitive function," what kind of Future will they build? Or who will build that Future if they're all off puffing pot somewhere?
edit on 19-12-2014 by MKMoniker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"That is incorrect. The impairment (driving stoned versus drunk) isn't the same at all."

Another thread on ATS disagrees:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
POT-POSITIVE TRAFFIC FATALITIES UP 100% IN COLORADO?


Do you know how they test for pot? They have you piss in a cup. Marijuana stays in your system for up to a month. Sometimes longer. Just because pot-positive traffic fatalities are up in colorado doesn't mean that people are driving stoned.

Oh look on page one, someone pointed that out:


One thing to remember that the media will almost always leave out:

Marijuana metabolites stay in your system for a month, sometimes longer. However, marijuana itself, the effects only last a few hours.

Thus, it is totally possible to test positive for weed even if you aren't high, and haven't smoked it in a while. Testing positive for marijuana does not mean that you are under the influence, only that you have smoked it sometime within the last few weeks.


Oh yeah and your source doesn't disprove my point. Even if every person who got into a highway fatality in Colorado tested positive for pot, there are STILL less people getting into highway fatalities than before.

Let's look at science:
Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence


“At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.

To date ..., seven studies using culpability analysis have been reported, involving a total of 7,934 drivers. Alcohol was detected as the only drug in 1,785 drivers, and together with cannabis in 390 drivers. Cannabis was detected in 684 drivers, and in 294 of these it was the only drug detected.

... The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. … [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.”



Not really. It's equivalent to liquor/beer as a "relaxation agent," but there has been decades of study on alcohol's effect on the human body - and not nearly that much study yet on marijuana's effect:


Yes really. Alcohol and marijuana aren't comparable.


www.livescience.com...
MARIJUANA VERSUS ALCOHOL HEALTH EFFECTS
"For marijuana, much of the concern is with young people who use the drug, because the drug interferes with the development of the brain while it is still maturing, Baler said. [10 Facts Every Parent Should Know About Their Teen's Brain]

"Smoking marijuana interferes with connections being made in the brain "at a time when the brain should be at a clear state of mind, and accumulating, memory and data and good experiences that should be laying out the foundation for the future," Baler said.

"You're cumulatively impairing your cognitive function. What's going to be the ultimate result, nobody can say."


Most drugs are bad for young people. It's a good thing that all legal pot laws include stipulations that only adults over 21 can buy it. Your source still doesn't say that alcohol and marijuana are comparable. The mere fact that marijuana can be used medically proves that your whole point is unfounded.

Keep in mind that is the ONLY negative side effect that article pointed out about marijuana while they couldn't stop naming them for alcohol. Your study doesn't say what you think it is saying.


Law enforcement has developed tests to determine "driving while impaired" - irregardless of the ingested substance.


Irregardless isn't a word and sobriety tests are just that, sobriety tests. They don't pinpoint the substance the person is on.


I know more states will legalize "recreational pot" - you can't put the genie back in the bottle. But marijuana's cumulative harm to the young brains in this country, IS of concern. If our future doctors, lawyers, scientists and legislators have little memory and even less "cognitive function," what kind of Future will they build? Or who will build that Future if they're all off puffing pot somewhere?


Lol this is fearmongering. People have been smoking pot since LONG before America made it illegal. Not to mention alcohol is FAR more harmful to a developing mind than marijuana is. You argue like you are fresh from a 1980's Drugs are Bad lecture. All propaganda and fear mongering.
edit on 19-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"You argue like you are fresh from a 1980's Drugs are Bad lecture. All propaganda and fear mongering."

Not really. Consider this very recent study:

finance.yahoo.com...
SCIENTISTS FOUND SOMETHING STRANGE WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THE BRAINS OF STONERS
"Unlike previous research, which has looked mainly at short-term smokers or simply at young or older users, this study is one of the first to look at pot's long-term effects on men and women between 20 and 40 years old who had smoked almost daily for between two and 30 years. The researchers looked at the brains of 110 people — 62 who didn't smoke and 48 who did — using three different types of MRI scans.

"Compared with people who don't use, long-term, heavy marijuana smokers tend to have a smaller orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), a brain region critical for processing emotions and making decisions. But they also have more cross-brain connections that scientists think smokers may develop as a means of compensating for the difference in size.

"In the smokers, these increased brain connections appeared to help them counteract the behavioral problems commonly associated with weed use, like trouble maintaining relationships or staying motivated enough to find or keep a job. But while new connections blossom throughout the brain during the first few years of regular use, they eventually recede. Researchers saw a significant drop-off in new brain links after about six years of regular use.

"Other studies in people have shown similar links between weed and smaller prefrontal cortex regions, but only research in animals has suggested that marijuana may kill brain cells or reduce their size."



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: MKMoniker

Excess use is bad for you? You don't say... Glad you cleared that up. Now on to other things, just because you find a drawback to marijuana doesn't mean you've proven that it is extremely bad for you. You are STILL pushing 1980's anti-pot propaganda. Move into the 21st century. Marijuana ISN'T that bad for you and DOES have good benefits for many users. It's sad that you are so brainwashed against the drug. Does it really ruffle your feathers that it is going to be completely legal in a few years?

You do know that Carl Sagan was a long term marijuana user when he was alive and says that it helped him think better right?
Carl Sagan, Marijuana Advocate, Explains What It's Like To Be High While Carl Sagan

ETA: How many people have died from marijuana use? How many have died from alcohol poisoning this YEAR alone? That's what I thought.
edit on 22-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




DISH argues Coats violated the company's zero-tolerance drug policy, and says he was treated no differently than an employee who showed up drunk.


I realise this isn't discussing the court case per se, but do DISH network fire employees for having traces of alcohol in their bloodstreams who are not drunk?

If not, then they clearly do not have a zero-tolerance drug policy in place, because this guy Coats, had traces of THC in his system, but was not stoned every day at work, just like someone who has a few drinks after work or a bottle of wine at home in the evening will also have traces of drugs in their systems, alcohol, yet be sober.

How about prescription pharmaceuticals? These are drugs too, some severely impairing and last a very long time in one's system..some are opiates, some are uppers, some are downers, some create foggy thinking, others make people manic...are employees fired for using pharmaceutical drugs (which have contributed to the deaths of 62 Million people in the last 30 years) and if not, why not?

Coats ought to win this case, and DISH ought to be made to pay him compensation and no longer discriminate one drug over another...after all zero MEANS zero doesn't it?



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Piss tests are a HUGE violation of privacy and should be outlawed altogether. Cotton swab tests, I can agree with since they pretty much test if you are ON drugs as the test is administered (technically you can fail a cotton swab test up to 24 hours after ingestion, but that is still a better time frame than a month since ingestion). But marijuana stays in your system for up to a month after taking it and powder drugs (coke, meth, heroin, molly, etc) all stay in your system for a week. Piss tests punish people for doing things in their off time from work. If a company wants to dictate what I want to put in my body, they should pay me when I'm not at work.
edit on 22-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Until there is a test for "high right now", I think this will continue to be a difficult call. As an employer, the rules for employment are clear. If you take a job which has a zero tolerance policy for drug use, you can and should expect to have to follow those rules. It's not like it was hidden from you when you accepted the job.

I am for legalization. There is still a good bit of work to be done before nationwide legality will be a reality. (IMHO)
If employers adjusted their policy, it would go a long way.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Well...there kind of is a test already that can be made to determine if someone is 'high right now'..it's called common discernment.

Are the people staggering around?

Are they giggling uncontrollably?

Can they perform the function they were hired to perform adequately and to standard?

There is many ways to tell if someone is stoned, drunk, impaired by pharmaceuticals, or otherwise negatively affected...you don't have to drag out a test kit to know...although i suspect this has very little to do with assuring the employees are able to perform their jobs safely and effectively in a normal way, and a lot more to do with sniffing around the Governments backside and scoring federal brownie points, because a test for being high, apart from common sense, is only required to prove justification for dismissal and nothing else.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Well as it stands there is nothing I can do about zero tolerance drug policies. I just think that piss tests should be illegal.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Come on now, you know that guy. The one who can be blasted out of his gourd, but still act as normal as the next guy.

If we could test for MJ like a breathalyzer for alcohol, then all this could be easily sorted out. And I doubt we are far from that point. ( I doubt there was a big call for that type of test before the last few years)

Krazysh0t: I agree, and the worst problem is the piss test will only show MJ in most cases. The hard drugs usually don't show up after 24 hours. But my point is there is more work to be done to make everyone OK on this. And on the employer side, I have to agree with the unpopular side.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Washington state law driving under te influence.
If a person has 5+ nanograms per milliliter of THC or more then they are impaired.

Colorado state law driving under the influence.
Zero tolerance.
edit on 22-12-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join