http://kdvr.com/2012/12/10/governor-...l-in-colorado/
Quote:
That said, the release went on to say that that it is still illegal to buy or sell marijuana or to consume marijuana in public.
Printable View
http://kdvr.com/2012/12/10/governor-...l-in-colorado/
Quote:
That said, the release went on to say that that it is still illegal to buy or sell marijuana or to consume marijuana in public.
http://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=432&h=288
Priceless.[rockon]
So if its legal... Are jobs still going to test for it? Itll be intersting to see how it all plays out in a year from now. Maybe youll be able to get your Great Value weed from walmart soon.
Damn! Too late to save the Twinkie.
It has nothing to do with condition of employment, you can still get fired for testing positive. Especially if a company does any work on federally funded jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by MATT02GT
from a local business "The drugs we have on premises are regulated by federal law. We follow federal law regarding employee drug use."Quote:
Originally Posted by MATT02GT
I'm of the opinion that what you do outside work should not a factor in employment (in the general case). The second it affects your performace though...
It's still against federal law. Which means it's incredibly stupid for anyone to engage in the business of growing or selling "Colorado Legal" Marijuana (even MMJ).
All the feds have to do is sit around and wait for a few pot dealers to get rich and they can swoop in and take ALL THEIR STUFF. Homes, cars, furniture, bank accounts, EVERYTHING under Federal asset forfeiture laws.
Should be fun to watch.
Don't you all understand? This is all for the children since all this tax money will help pay for schools right?
What will this do for law enforcement officers. If someone is trafficking drugs, won't they just say that I have a legal amount and you can't search my vehicle?
It's about time it was legalized. I won't use it but I've met enough folks who have to know it isn't that big a deal compared to street drugs, and apparently it will grow anywhere so it seems pointless to clog up the courts and jails over this. Doesn't seem to be a problem in Colorado, but in other states police have been known to kick in people's doors without a warrant because they thought they smelled weed when they were walking past. Personally, I think giving the police the power to kick in doors because they smell weed is a lot scarier than some potheads moving in next door.
My main reason to back this is the textile and industrial uses for cannabis. It's way better than using wood pulp for paper, and it makes really good rope... As soon as that gets legitimatized we're back to being a leader in exporting.
Ronin, curious - I've heard that before, and I also heard that the old textile industries were really big behind the push to get marijuana illegalized. Any truth to that?
From the Internet, so it must be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho Villa
A fresh, federally-funded wave of marijuana prohibition began in 1930 with founding of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, headed by Harry J. Anslinger, nephew to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Mellon, one of the richest men in the nation, was an investor in DuPont Chemical. DuPont was then developing and patenting a variety of chemicals, including new gasoline additives threatened by hemp-based materials being pursued by Henry Ford. At the same time, newspaper titan William Randolph Hearst realized hemp paper threatened his own business interests, like a logging company that sold product to DuPont, a huge advertiser in his papers.
this bill doesn't address commercial hemp production
I've heard that, but not sure on the facts behind it at all. Some pro-MJ conspiracy folk think that's exactly what happened, they claim it was mostly the paper industry that pushed for the prohibition of MJ (something like cannabis is 300% more efficient for producing paper).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho Villa
Oh here is a pretty good video that goes into the truth about our green plant that just got the CO seal of approval:
I Definitely don't disagree with that point. However, I still didn't vote for 64. I do think that this needs to be a state issue- along with damn near everything else- and the more push from individual states to legalize, the more pressure it would put on the feds to admit that they shouldn't have that power. However, it would take a caveat making it a felony to provide to minors (either actively or by negligence) to get me to actively support this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
If you are of the age of consent, f yourself however you want. However, let the future generations make that decision when they have the knowledge and experience to do so, and not before.
I voted in favor of it to hopefully force a showdown between states and the federal government.
Q: How many potheads does it take to change a lightbulb.
A: Screw it, we got lighters
Q. How long does it take before a pound of weed goes bad?
A. I don't know! I've never had it longer than an hour!
Q: How do you hide pot from a hippie?
A: Put it in his work boots.
Q: What do you called a doped-up Pikachu?
A: Tokemon!
Q: What is the difference between politicians and stoners ?
A: Politicians don't inhale...they just suck.
Q. What do you call a stoner that just broke up with his girlfriend?
A. Homeless.
Probably not that big a change. Consent to search, and the law about searches where a person did not consent, haven't changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmjohnson
About the only change here that I can see is, drug dogs don't distinguish between one drug smell and another when they alert. The alert signal is the same no matter the drug. Which means, if MJ is one of the smells on which the dog is trained, then that dog's alerts suddenly became a lot less admissible.
W.R. Hearst was a major financier involved in the move to criminalize hemp. His investments in logging-newspapers was threatened by the quick to grow and produce plant. Unlike deforestation which took years to bring back, hemp was able to re-grow within months of being cultivated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
There was also another movement in the mid 40's regarding people of color and their desire to rape "white women" while under the influence. Mass hysteria and blatant lies, combined with white America's "fear" of blacks did nothing to dispel the myth. Similar to some erroneous firearm laws prohibiting blacks from possession, combined with less than tolerant whites [KKK]in the south being shot at, by those who had issues with neck tie parties after dark.
I am one of those old guys that looks at the cost of this "war on drugs" as it applies to Marijuana in both $$ and lives ruined because of the increased penlites and voted yes.
As to the law and employers it is one of those things that is up to the employer. You want the job then do not come up hot on a test. Just like not coming to work with alcohol in your system they can require you to not have THC in your system. I understand all about how it stays x-number of days and one may not be stoned but again their rules.
There are even places that will not hire you if you have nicotine in your system and it is legal but if ya want the job you have to play by there rules. I myself do not and being a federal worker and a Medical worker have never thought about it but for those that are in a position to and want to I say what the hell.
Although driving and smoking do not mix in recent memory I have seen many stories about how someone got drunk and beat the wife/husband/kids/dog or challenged the cops to a fight. I can't remember the last time I saw the news story "Man Smokes Pot and goes on rampage"
Just a thought from some old guy. [Coffee]
GET OFF MY PLANTSQuote:
Originally Posted by jerrymrc
Every time a CO legal outfit is busted by the Feds, the Feds should also follow the tax money from said legal outfit and door kick the local schools to seize the equivalent amount of assets. It's only fair.
Nothing good will come of 64. Good vid Ronin thanks for posting that.
Good job bringing up Hearst. He was diabolical. Everyone should see Citizen Cane.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
You better have an M1 to say that. [LOL]And I thought ya drove a Yugo not a 73 ford. [hahhah-no] [mop]Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
nissan versa. and a FNC.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrymrc
This whole thing is foolish. I hope the Feds come in and regulate.
There are people who feel the same way about guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
Well luckily for us guns are ok on both levels while mj is not. This law is like your mom telling you it's ok to do something yet your dad would beat your ass for it. No business, bank or school is going to risk prosecution by the Feds. Here you have something that is legal yet on the other hand other than growing your own product, there is no legal way of obtaining it. You can get fired for using it. That's why this law is pointless and foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
Yeah, we need more senseless regulation, not less. As Americans we need the government to tell us how to live our lives because we are not capable of making decisions for ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
Its a step towards national legalization of it and imo, itll get there one day. Like its been said before, there are too many petty cases tying up cops, courts, jails, etc for weed. Also, besides recreational use, there are many uses for mj/hemp and proven medical uses for it. Hell, if it was legal and regualted in every state with its many different uses, that sure could stimulate the economy in many ways. The big hold up I see is something that can test real time like a dui test can do.I voted yes and hope to see progress with it becoming totally legal, and I can also pass a piss test btw.
Oh did the Feds just pass a law outlawing mj, therefore adding more "senseless" regulation? We live in a nation of laws. If you want to live somewhere without laws, you are free to do so. Your utopia where you just run around and do whatever the fuck you want and nobody can tell anybody isn't practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAR31
I think my point is that we need less laws and more personal responsibility. Laws should only exist to protect people from others, not to protect people from themselves. But I guess you need the gov to tell you what's best for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
What Federal regulations will make this better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
that's what we need since the feds do such a great job with everything else......Quote:
Originally Posted by Fmedges
I have always been on the side of legalize. People are going to sell it, people are going to use it. This should help prevent folks from getting something laced with other narcotics etc. I have never heard of anyone ever OD'ing on pot. Beyond that there is the side revenue, with the hemp industry. Hardest thing that hit the hemp industry was all of the federalbureaucracy about growing the plants, granted a majority of the seeds used to grow industrial hemp would probably suffocate you by the time you imbibed enough to get a buzz the same as drinking a beer. The fact remained though that it was still heavily monitored regulated etc. This would potentially make hemp fiber more readily available.
I don't care for drugs and don't use them, but if the government is going to tax everything else, why not tax this. Also, when they say all this money from drugs is being used to fund terrorism etc. legalize it, let it be home grown, and keep the money in our economy. The DEA is still going to be plenty busy as is the IRS, but now they can focus more on the external and worry less about busting some idiot college kid who got stoned in his dorm room.
You guys need to light up and calm down. Anyone got any snacks? [ROFL2][ROFL2][ROFL3][ROFL3]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraven251
Locally it is. The feds could decrease debt by X amount over say 1 year. As an example. In this town we had 3 dispensaries up and running. The town released figures of 2nd quarter revenue after they were up and running. 3 dispensaries paid to the town $165K in taxes! One quarter tax revue if you went on the low side of say $1K per Q that's still $400K annually, $400K! SO What does the city do? Allows a petition to outlaw them on the ballot. Who voted for it, drinkers and fear mongers. After the election, we lost approx $400 in taxes annually, Way to go. Ft. Collins during the first ban not only lost tax revenue, the number of now vacant business didn't help anyone let alone the owners. Even worse the same place the anti-weed proponents wanted to keep weed out of, neighborhoods, was now the only place licensed growers were allowed to sell out of.
Decriminalize it and deal with more serious crimes. whats that saying? YMMV
Smoke a Joint Go to jail
Molest a kid, Out on Bail