This is basically exactly how I feel about it.I'm for it.
I'm not into the stuff, and I think it tends to make people unhealthily apathetic, but I'd rather see my tax dollars put to better use than prosecuting people for marijuana possession. It just shouldn't be a priority, and the illegal trade encourages smuggling, turf wars, and all the rest.
I agree with this as well. Plus (this might have already been said) one can make/manufacture SOOO many things with hemp (paper, textiles, hemp oil, milk, fuel, paints, resins, shellacs, varnishes, medium density fiber board, oriented strand board, and even beams, studs and posts.
Check this link out...
http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html
All in all, I think its much better as a resource then as a drug.
I am also in favor of this as well. Hemp itself is INCREDIBLY useful.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-Thomas Jefferson
Yes! Great summary from a wise man. A pity they removed him from the Texas history books.
Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.Who said anything about smoking? I personally am a big fan of brownies :D
Will it be criminal to feed them to people without telling them it is included? I can just imagine someone going to a pot-luck and then ending up fired from their job because some idiot thought everyone should "mellow out" at the pot-luck.
Will it be criminal to feed them to people without telling them it is included? I can just imagine someone going to a pot-luck and then ending up fired from their job because some idiot thought everyone should "mellow out" at the pot-luck.Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.Who said anything about smoking? I personally am a big fan of brownies :D
I'm pretty sure that's still assault; it's no different than slipping someone a rufie.
I'm pretty sure that's still assault; it's no different than slipping someone a rufie.Will it be criminal to feed them to people without telling them it is included? I can just imagine someone going to a pot-luck and then ending up fired from their job because some idiot thought everyone should "mellow out" at the pot-luck.Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.Who said anything about smoking? I personally am a big fan of brownies :D
What about getting other people high around you by smoking up?
What about getting other people high around you by smoking up?I'm pretty sure that's still assault; it's no different than slipping someone a rufie.Will it be criminal to feed them to people without telling them it is included? I can just imagine someone going to a pot-luck and then ending up fired from their job because some idiot thought everyone should "mellow out" at the pot-luck.Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.Who said anything about smoking? I personally am a big fan of brownies :D
That's a tougher call. I would think that disclosure of the possible exposure would protect the individual or the establishment. In other words if you go into a pot cafe you couldn't call foul. I'm not sure how this plays out in states where you can still smoke in bars, but smoking in bars is banned in California in any case.
Gives a new meaning to the 'I'm gonna cap yo ass' when someone's swingin' their 'gun' out of the car and aiming.
Will it be criminal to feed them to people without telling them it is included? I can just imagine someone going to a pot-luck and then ending up fired from their job because some idiot thought everyone should "mellow out" at the pot-luck.
I don't believe that you're thinking through the implications of the proposed change.
Presumably, if pot were legal, then being fired for testing positive would go away. Rather, one could be fired for showing up to work stoned (In other words, pretty much the way it works with alcohol today). If that were indeed the case, then I'd say it wouldn't be criminal, just very rude. Imagine if you went to a frat party and drank the punch, only to find out it was spiked with vodka. Bad form, but probably not a criminal matter (not saying it should or shouldn't be; just that I doubt it would be; I may well be wrong. In any case, the analogy is a good one).
Will it be criminal to feed them to people without telling them it is included? I can just imagine someone going to a pot-luck and then ending up fired from their job because some idiot thought everyone should "mellow out" at the pot-luck.I don't believe that you're thinking through the implications of the proposed change.
Presumably, if pot were legal, then being fired for testing positive would go away. Rather, one could be fired for showing up to work stoned (In other words, pretty much the way it works with alcohol today). If that were indeed the case, then I'd say it wouldn't be criminal, just very rude. Imagine if you went to a frat party and drank the punch, only to find out it was spiked with vodka. Bad form, but probably not a criminal matter (not saying it should or shouldn't be; just that I doubt it would be; I may well be wrong. In any case, the analogy is a good one).
Actually you can still be terminated for being positive on a UA for THC even if you have a prescription in CO, CA, and WY.
Actually you can still be terminated for being positive on a UA for THC even if you have a prescription in CO, CA, and WY.
While I don't doubt that, think seems like the result of inconsistent legal handling of a still contentious matter. Putting that aside, I still think the analogy is a sound one. Assuming one agrees that legally obtained prescriptions should be exempt from arbitrary* employer reprisals, it seems to be logically inconsistent to advocate criminal charges in the case of THC, but not in the case of alcohol.
* That is, legitimately relating to job performance. Of course, we're getting off track here; I'm not particularly interested in legal corner cases.
Actually you can still be terminated for being positive on a UA for THC even if you have a prescription in CO, CA, and WY.While I don't doubt that, think seems like the result of inconsistent legal handling of a still contentious matter. Putting that aside, I still think the analogy is a sound one. Assuming one agrees that legally obtained prescriptions should be exempt from arbitrary* employer reprisals, it seems to be logically inconsistent to advocate criminal charges in the case of THC, but not in the case of alcohol.
* That is, legitimately relating to job performance. Of course, we're getting off track here; I'm not particularly interested in legal corner cases.
I concur that it's inconsistent. One could be fine with an Oxycontin script but not THC. Go figure.
Actually you can still be terminated for being positive on a UA for THC even if you have a prescription in CO, CA, and WY.While I don't doubt that, think seems like the result of inconsistent legal handling of a still contentious matter. Putting that aside, I still think the analogy is a sound one. Assuming one agrees that legally obtained prescriptions should be exempt from arbitrary* employer reprisals, it seems to be logically inconsistent to advocate criminal charges in the case of THC, but not in the case of alcohol.
* That is, legitimately relating to job performance. Of course, we're getting off track here; I'm not particularly interested in legal corner cases.
I have a question about "legally" obtained prescriptions.
If it is not illegal in a state (CA for example) to write a prescription for a drug (Pot) is it not still illegal based upon federal law? Is it inconsistent to fire someone for something that is in violation of federal law?
Some info from America for Safe Access
Federal Marijuana Law
The federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811), which does not recognize the difference between medical and recreational use of marijuana. These laws are generally applied only against persons who possess, cultivate, or distribute large quantities of marijuana.Under federal law, marijuana is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal government places every controlled substance in a schedule, in principle according to its relative potential for abuse and medicinal value. Under the CSA, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views marijuana as highly addictive and having no medical value. Doctors may not "prescribe" marijuana for medical use under federal law, though they can "recommend" its use under the First Amendment.
So, I don't think there is an inconsistent legal handling with respect to employers being able to fire on the grounds of THC in the system. The federal laws do not distinguish between the use of recreational and medical marijuana. That should give employers a legitimate basis for making such a decision.
I have a question about "legally" obtained prescriptions.If it is not illegal in a state (CA for example) to write a prescription for a drug (Pot) is it not still illegal based upon federal law? Is it inconsistent to fire someone for something that is in violation of federal law?
Some info from America for Safe Access
...
Federal Marijuana Law
The federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811), which does not recognize the difference between medical and recreational use of marijuana. These laws are generally applied only against persons who possess, cultivate, or distribute large quantities of marijuana.Under federal law, marijuana is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal government places every controlled substance in a schedule, in principle according to its relative potential for abuse and medicinal value. Under the CSA, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views marijuana as highly addictive and having no medical value. Doctors may not "prescribe" marijuana for medical use under federal law, though they can "recommend" its
And so we're back to the Feds vs. the States, which is a whole other can of worms... :P
I have a question about "legally" obtained prescriptions.If it is not illegal in a state (CA for example) to write a prescription for a drug (Pot) is it not still illegal based upon federal law? Is it inconsistent to fire someone for something that is in violation of federal law?
Some info from America for Safe Access
...
Federal Marijuana Law
The federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811), which does not recognize the difference between medical and recreational use of marijuana. These laws are generally applied only against persons who possess, cultivate, or distribute large quantities of marijuana.Under federal law, marijuana is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal government places every controlled substance in a schedule, in principle according to its relative potential for abuse and medicinal value. Under the CSA, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views marijuana as highly addictive and having no medical value. Doctors may not "prescribe" marijuana for medical use under federal law, though they can "recommend" its
And so we're back to the Feds vs. the States, which is a whole other can of worms... :P
That is a big can of worms.
But, there are many things that are illegal federally but not on a state by state basis. I still don't see how it is "inconsistent" for an employer to fire based upon something being a federal violation that is not a state violation.
But, I'm out of here with this. :D
I have a question about "legally" obtained prescriptions.If it is not illegal in a state (CA for example) to write a prescription for a drug (Pot) is it not still illegal based upon federal law? Is it inconsistent to fire someone for something that is in violation of federal law?
Some info from America for Safe Access
...
Federal Marijuana Law
The federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811), which does not recognize the difference between medical and recreational use of marijuana. These laws are generally applied only against persons who possess, cultivate, or distribute large quantities of marijuana.Under federal law, marijuana is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal government places every controlled substance in a schedule, in principle according to its relative potential for abuse and medicinal value. Under the CSA, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views marijuana as highly addictive and having no medical value. Doctors may not "prescribe" marijuana for medical use under federal law, though they can "recommend" its
And so we're back to the Feds vs. the States, which is a whole other can of worms... :P
That is a big can of worms.
But, there are many things that are illegal federally but not on a state by state basis. I still don't see how it is "inconsistent" for an employer to fire based upon something being a federal violation that is not a state violation.
But, I'm out of here with this. :D
The law supports the employer on this. THC is still schedule 1, so it's actually treated more harshly than coke from a statutory stand point. That alone is mighty silly to me.
BTW, I'm not saying that the employers are being inconsistent. I'm saying that the laws are contradictory and illogical. As long as pot is illegal nationally no national corporation is likely to change their EHS drug policy due to the insurance cost impact.
I have a question about "legally" obtained prescriptions.If it is not illegal in a state (CA for example) to write a prescription for a drug (Pot) is it not still illegal based upon federal law? Is it inconsistent to fire someone for something that is in violation of federal law?
Some info from America for Safe Access
...
Federal Marijuana Law
The federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811), which does not recognize the difference between medical and recreational use of marijuana. These laws are generally applied only against persons who possess, cultivate, or distribute large quantities of marijuana.Under federal law, marijuana is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal government places every controlled substance in a schedule, in principle according to its relative potential for abuse and medicinal value. Under the CSA, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views marijuana as highly addictive and having no medical value. Doctors may not "prescribe" marijuana for medical use under federal law, though they can "recommend" its
And so we're back to the Feds vs. the States, which is a whole other can of worms... :P
That is a big can of worms.
But, there are many things that are illegal federally but not on a state by state basis. I still don't see how it is "inconsistent" for an employer to fire based upon something being a federal violation that is not a state violation.
But, I'm out of here with this. :D
The law supports the employer on this. THC is still schedule 1, so it's actually treated more harshly than coke from a statutory stand point. That alone is mighty silly to me.
BTW, I'm not saying that...
I agree for the most part.
Perhaps I misunderstood but I thought Bugleyman was stating that it was legally inconsistent that one could be fired for testing positive while working in a state that pot was legal in. My undestanding of that statement was the narrow ground to which my dispute applies.
|
The law supports the employer on this. THC is still schedule 1, so it's actually treated more harshly than coke from a statutory stand point. That alone is mighty silly to me.
How a drug is scheduled and statutory sentences have nothing to do with one another.
Schedule I simply means "no medicinal value", Marijuana, Methamphetamine, LSD and Ecstasy are Schedule I. This just means that, according to the Feds, there is never a legal reason to possess the substance.
Schedule II means some medicinal value. Cocaine and heroin are both Schedule II.
Get caught with ten kilos (22 lbs) of weed, you get six months for a first offense (usually) with no mandatory minimum (you could get probation if your judge likes you). Get caught with ten kilos of coke (or one kilo of heroin) and the statutory mandatory minimum is ten years.
Edit: My post was #420! 4:20, get it?
:)
Knows nothing of American scheduling of drugs, but does know that in Canada drugs are usually scheduled somewhat as follows: before, during, and after gaming, before movies, and always always after work.
|
|
Federal mandatory minimums for some substances. 5 years: 236 lbs. marijuana, 500 grams cocaine, 100 grams heroin, five grams (pure) or 50 grams (mixture, i.e. waste water, etc) methamphetamine, 1 gram LSD.
Ten years: 2360 lbs. marijuana, 5 kilos cocaine, 1 kg heroin, 50g (pure) 500g (mixture) methamphetamine, 10g LSD.
The law supports the employer on this. THC is still schedule 1, so it's actually treated more harshly than coke from a statutory stand point. That alone is mighty silly to me.How a drug is scheduled and statutory sentences have nothing to do with one another.
Schedule I simply means "no medicinal value", Marijuana, Methamphetamine, LSD and Ecstasy are Schedule I. This just means that, according to the Feds, there is never a legal reason to possess the substance.
Schedule II means some medicinal value. Cocaine and heroin are both Schedule II.
Get caught with ten kilos (22 lbs) of weed, you get six months for a first offense (usually) with no mandatory minimum (you could get probation if your judge likes you). Get caught with ten kilos of coke (or one kilo of heroin) and the statutory mandatory minimum is ten years.
Edit: My post was #420! 4:20, get it?
:)
Good point. Thanks for the correction.
The issues with teachers using and selling drugs are ones that have come up in my life on several occasions, and my daughter had friends who traded sexual favors...Granted, I inferred the "everything was better back in the day." If I perceived implications that were not present, I apologize.There are probably some cops and teachers out there who are ok.I can't tell if you're kidding. If you aren't, then your world view is seriously f*@^3D up.My world view is pretty harsh, but yes I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek. I have friends in law enforcement and education, and I know some of them use. I could care less if they (or Bush or Obama) like blow except for the legal hypocrisy. Of course most of my friends with an education back ground are no longer involved in the public system. My friends in SWAT are pretty straight laced religious conservatives and they both have mixed feeling about the war on drugs. They also know that their counties have serious issues with corruption often associated with vice enforcement.
I still don't see where any of this invokes moral decay.
Quite alright. It's not unusual for me to rub folks the wrong way.
My point is really basically that power corrupts. We have this insane loop where the government creates the black market by criminalizing the drugs. Then the government justifies the raids and wire taps and property seizures and all the other abuses of power on the basis of the black market that their own prohibition caused.
Am I the only one who finds this insane?
Not at all...it is insane. And power does often corrupt. I just think that for every "rotten" police officer, there are many who are trying to do the right thing. But I may well be naive; this certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of it.
And the bit about teachers just seemed...random.
A small bit of insight to what is considered a pretty good sheriffs office in CO.
A small bit of insight to what is considered a pretty good sheriffs office in CO.Every time you put something up here like this, I get a little more fearful for our future. Not because what you're doing is wrong, but because it seems way too easy to find this kind of stuff.
gah...
-t
I have had far more interaction with the government in my life than I would care too. Sometimes the government does an adequate job of things, but my experience has taught me that the devil is in the details. I've seen so many programs and government activities that started with (presumably) good intentions become wasteful, corrupt, and just plain dumb.
I get that the average government bureaucrat doing a decent job doesn't make news, but a huge amount of government waste and corruption doesn't see the news anymore either. I suppose we are so used to it that it isn't news worthy any more.
How the Drug War in Afghanistan Undermines America’s War on Terror 11-10-2004
We've know this for a while.
(rolls through)
(rolls through)I see what you did there...
You mean the trail of slime?
well the original link is broken, can anyone find some similar article talking about this? I wanted to know when we might find out if it is going to be on the ballot or not.
or search
"Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010"
HANDS OFF MAH WEED AND MAH BOOZE! OR UR GONNA GIT IT!
Well, to continue from another thread, I'll add my own opinion and anecdotes to the discussion.
As I said (several times) on a previous thread, I am a former Border Patrol Agent. I've caught tens of millions of dollars (possibly over a hundred million) in drugs, 99% of which was marijuana. I don't remember every arrest, but I can tell you that my first arrest was for 622.5 pounds of marijuana, and it was not my largest bust.
I don't know what pot is selling for these days, but at $200/oz, that bust alone would be worth $1,992,000 at "street value" (assuming $200/oz). To put it another way, if you used 1 oz. per week, it would take you 191.5 years to use it all. And remember, that was just 1 bust.
In fact, there were so many drugs crossing the border that the federal prosecutor wouldn't even look at a case if it wasn't over 100 lbs. They made us prosecute at state level. Heck, you were made fun of by the other Agents for only finding 100 lbs. What I'm trying to say is, there is A LOT of drugs crossing the border.
OK, enough background.
My opnion on the matter is that the "war on drugs" is not working. Do you think the cartels would continue sending over the stuff if they weren't making a profit? Heck no. My bust probably registered as a "bad week" for them. It's time to try a different approach. If legalizing it is the answer, so be it, as long as we tax it! Then, and this is the important part, use the taxes to fund public health care.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
You and I travel in different circles, but lets just say my experience does not hold the same truths yours does.Also, everyone I have ever met that was a regular pot smoker was a habitual chain smoker as well. The two seem to go together. I doubt that promoting one is going to curb the other.Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.Well I'm not really one of those "we" though. I dont like cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces, but I don't mind out in the open. As for pot, I think it should have the same restrictions as they have for drinking alcohol in public places. I do agree smoking any substance like cigarettes and pot does damage to you, just as alcohol does.
I used to smoke hella amounts of weed, but I never smoked a cigarette in my life. I'm probably a rare exception, though.
I used to smoke hella amounts of weed, but I never smoked a cigarette in my life. I'm probably a rare exception, though.
must be some serious after-effects because you're definitely a pretty mellow and relaxed guy. ;)
Actually though, if I had my druthers, and it were feasible to do so, I'd much prefer alcohol to have lower availability/greater restrictions than marijuana. I've seen far worse behavior out of drunks than stoners.
That said, I'd also be pro-legalization of most psychedelics, particularly LSD, shrooms, and peyote. It's addiction and dependence that concern me when it comes to drugs and, as far as I know, the psychedelics tend to have low rates of addiction/dependence.
I've experimented with a few psychedelics in my time, and the addiction rate is just not there. People never take acid or 'shrooms because they "need" it, they take them because they want to. Because for us, it's fun to do. Hell, look at popular music. How many dreadful, depressing songs have been written about heroin and other "addictive" substances? Tons. The only songs you hear about psychedelics RARELY speak of ill effects. You don't see documentaries dealing with entertainers whose lives spiraled out of control because of acid*...
*Preemptive Ninja'ing: Jim Morrison did a LOOOOOT more than just acid...
I used to smoke hella amounts of weed, but I never smoked a cigarette in my life. I'm probably a rare exception, though.must be some serious after-effects because you're definitely a pretty mellow and relaxed guy. ;)
Yeah, pretty much. You never see a stoner get high and try to start a fight. An angry drunk, on the other hand...
I haven't smoked in a very long time, due to my job and family life. I've done my share by a long shot, so I try to do what I can to advocate in favor of it.
I used to smoke hella amounts of weed, but I never smoked a cigarette in my life. I'm probably a rare exception, though.must be some serious after-effects because you're definitely a pretty mellow and relaxed guy. ;)Yeah, pretty much. You never see a stoner get high and try to start a fight. An angry drunk, on the other hand...
I haven't smoked in a very long time, due to my job and family life. I've done my share by a long shot, so I try to do what I can to advocate in favor of it.
I get a kick out of Penn and Teller being drug and alcohol free and opposing criminalization and prohibition. It tends to take the wind out of the, "You just want to get stoned." counter argument.
I get a kick out of Penn and Teller being drug and alcohol free and opposing criminalization and prohibition. It tends to take the wind out of the, "You just want to get stoned." counter argument.I used to smoke hella amounts of weed, but I never smoked a cigarette in my life. I'm probably a rare exception, though.must be some serious after-effects because you're definitely a pretty mellow and relaxed guy. ;)Yeah, pretty much. You never see a stoner get high and try to start a fight. An angry drunk, on the other hand...
I haven't smoked in a very long time, due to my job and family life. I've done my share by a long shot, so I try to do what I can to advocate in favor of it.
I agree, Penn and Teller rock. The average person would be amazed at the number of non-weed smokers who advocate it's decriminalization.
I wouldn't be at all amazed... then again, I'm one of them. ;)
I wouldn't be at all amazed... then again, I'm one of them. ;)
Fortunately you're not average.
Yeah, pretty much. You never see a stoner get high and try to start a fight. An angry drunk, on the other hand...
I always find comments like this strange.
Anti-Legalization Guy says: Pot makes people lazy.
Pro-Legalization Guy says: Bull! Lots of people use pot from all walks of life. Some are lazy, sure, but many are no lazier than non-users. It is all about the person, you can't generalize behavior from the use of pot.
*pause of time*
Other Pro-Legalization Guy says: Yeah, and when you use pot it makes you mellow, you will never, exactly 0% of the time, see someone smoke pot and then get angry afterwards.
*scratch head*
I thought you couldn't generalize behavior based on the use of pot? There has never been a violent prick that took a hit and then caused some trouble? I thought those West coast gang-bangers loved to smoke "the chronic", I never picture them as particularly mellow folks. Is it they drink their "40's" at the same time and alcohol is more powerful than the "chronic"? Now I'm confused totally.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
You're conflating causation and correlation. And oddly, at that.
Now, the correlation here may be that people who are hard addicts have demonstrated a willingness to disregard American drug laws. It's perfectly likely that people with that attitude also smoke marajuana. But that doesn't necessarily mean that maajuana leads to harder drugs; it may mean that illegally obtaining and smoking pot is an early indicator of a willingness to illegally obtain and do the stupid stuff.
|
|
... you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
You're conflating causation and correlation. And oddly, at that.
Now, the correlation here may be that people who are hard addicts have demonstrated a willingness to disregard American drug laws. It's perfectly likely that people with that attitude also smoke marijuana. But that doesn't necessarily mean that marijuana leads to harder drugs; it may mean that illegally obtaining and smoking pot is an early indicator of a willingness to illegally obtain and do the stupid stuff.
I know several people who fit that mold. I am told however that this is not the case. My personal experiences tell me it is closer to the truth then most proponents want to believe.
I get a kick out of Penn and Teller being drug and alcohol free and opposing criminalization and prohibition. It tends to take the wind out of the, "You just want to get stoned." counter argument.
I'm in a similar boat. I've never taken drugs recreationally, and often pass on those that are considered medically justified. I'd rather keep my mind clear. But at the same time, I'm completely in favor of legalizing their use, possession, and even distribution. I know I'm a little more radical than some in this belief, but I don't care if we're talking about pot or heroin... as long as we're below the level of something that's gonna be considered a HAZMAT event if it's spilled in transit, I say have at it. If you want to pump various chemicals into your body, organic or otherwise, it's your body and I'm fine with that. As a human being, you're a renewable resource, so by all means enjoy your life the way you want... As long as by doing so you do not endanger the well being or freedom of those around you.
You see, I also support some of the other sides of the argument. If you fall off a ladder at work, I don't think it's unreasonable for your employer to require a drug test before paying your medical bills. I also don't think it's unreasonable to fire you for being stoned on the clock (though I'm sure some companies might perform better if they had a pot-friendly work environment... not all, probably not most, but certainly some). I think if you commit a crime because you chose to alter your state of mind, or if a crime you may have committed anyway is in some way made worse because you were high on something, the punishment for said crimes should be representatively harsher. "Because I was drunk," "Because I was stoned," or "Because I was coked out of my mind" is not a justifiable excuse for breaking the law. It's just worse in my opinion because you intentionally took some drug that you (probably/hopefully) knew might impair your judgment.
Ultimately I hope this goes through, and our law enforcement resources can be redirected towards people that actually endanger others in our society, rather than being wasted on Joe Stoner who's weed habit isn't getting in the way of his productivity any more than {possibly less than) his neighbor's perfectly legal WoW addiction.