...I know Tote and Matts are in California and since their state was one of a few that have voted to legalize pot for recreational use, I have a couple of questions. 1. If you are a citizen of Cali for example, and your state has decided that it's OK to smoke pot, can you still be drug tested and fired by the company you work for? 2. Similar scenario as above, but what if you are a professional athlete who lives/plays in California, can you be disciplined by your sport's drug testing program even though your state says it's OK to smoke pot? ...seems to me that there's some degree of hypocrisy concerning this...and it seems like quite a conundrum. And I would think that there is, or soon will bee, some sort of legal wrangling coming down the road. This may have already addressed and if it has, I'm not aware of it. ...thoughts?
yup. corp drug policies are employment conditions and not based on drug legal status. remember, labor law governed by Federal precedent and pot still illegal on a Federal level anyway.
as for athletes...again league rules, part of CBA's, yadda yadda. A state exempting a substance from criminal classification (for tax revenue purposes) is de facto legalization, but Federal jurisdiction still over rides. You technically could get arrested by Federal officer in CA for possession of a federally controlled substance.
About as contradictory as a state legalizing something that remains a federal crime, lol! In the case of my company, there are basic requirements that are applied to hiring, globally. There are local and regional differences however. But from an insurance perspective not sure I want the operator of a large chemical reactor pissing chronic on a regular basis. Nor do I want my airline pilot hitting the bong on a 36hr layover. Either way, the Feds either need to drop its control schedule or crack down on state legislatures. Too confusing for the half baked as it is.
Personally I've mellowed on this topic. While I think low potency pot of our youth gave way to experimenting with harder drugs, the high potency we have today is more than sufficient to achieve the desired effect. The science isnt settled. There is as much harm as benefit and some of the harms are disturbing. But alcohol falls into that realm too, and people should be able to pick their poison. I'd like to see new driving impairment laws, and double fucked status for drunk and stoned. Tax on pot should be like alcohol, by the %. A complimentary scale for ethanol and THC.
^^^...yup, THC levels are many many times stronger than the reefer I was weaned on in my teens...but as you alluded to, while alcohol is legal and pot is also legal in some states it must be used with discretion and common sense...in other words, yeah, you can drink/smoke casually, but don't get caught driving under either's influence...if you do, you pay the price.
Tote pretty much nailed this topic on the head. Congress has before them the CARERS Act, to give states the right to choose, ie 10th Amendment. Below the first article, and pdf. file speaks directly how the Congressional Research Service will work, with the help of the 10th Amendment. this is one long post when one reads each link. in this case TMI; such is this beast of this issue.... Congress has been working on this issue of Fed vs State, and has until the 31st of Dec, of this yr. to pass the CARERS Act; which is noted as the 3rd link, and noted below in bold font. The CARERS Act isn't so contradictory, as the article itself. Several court cases have been looked at in Caly, as to several employees filing lawsuits for wrongful termination, due to being a medical cannabis patient. These Cases in court argue, when one has cannabis in their blood for approx 45 days, how much can be in the blood, and not be intoxicated or high, while at work???? Most companies have the right to contract like Tote mentioned. Every Aerospace Co. honors federal law, even if laws are passed to allow states to govern cannabis use/sales; an employee cannot partake of the Ganja, even in their off hours. And I've long respected that contractual law, and believe in it. No one wants a stoner working on aircraft, rockets or a space vehicle. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf If you've wondered just whether Colorado and Washington can make marijuana legalization stick in the face of federal law to the contrary, the Congressional Research Service has a (partial) answer for you. In a report dated April 5 of this year, the CRS concludes that states can't be dragooned into federal prohibitions. While the federal government can ban what it wants, the Tenth Amendment allows the states to opt out of participating in the law or assisting in enforcement in any way, leaving federal officials to do the heavy lifting themselves. this link contains the CARERS Act. Tho' this link speaks in depth of the problems regulating use of cannabis, as well as the Fed vs St issues. This is by FAR the most contradictory article I have ever read. The CARERS Act would remove these contradictions, I hope. Either way its gonna' take yrs for this State to Legislate. For Instance, how does one define the legal limit of cannabis while driving. So far, impairment is the defining factor, for law enforcement to hook and book; since their has been no THC defining criteria as to what levels, or how many joints, bong hits, bowls, or inhalations, is un-safe/safe to drive, like with Alcohol's .08 and your drunk laws. at the bottom of this url/link page, you will see 2 pdf files, with additional info of which Congress hopefully passes. http://www.safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law and- here is the CARERS Act itself. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1538/summary https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1538 http://www.safeaccessnow.org/senate_carers_act_petition Ending the War: CARERS Act of 2015 The Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act (CARERS) of 2015 is the most comprehensive piece of federal medical marijuana legislation ever introduced in the U.S. Congress. The bipartisan act which is sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and, in the House of Representatives, by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK) combined a handful of medical cannabis bills that had been introduced over the last decade. This important bill would remedy the state-federal conflict over medical marijuana law, with far-reaching impacts, including: Allowing state programs to continue without federal interference Moving marijuana out of the Schedule I list Removing CBD from the scheduling Creating access to banking services for legal marijuana businesses Ending the DEA-Imposed NIDA monopoly that blocks research Allowing Veterans Affairs doctors to write recommendations in states that have a medical marijuana program. Federal Agencies Grappling with State Conflict Today, several federal agencies have issued guidelines and other policy memorandums that are legitimate efforts to manage the emerging issues within medical marijuana. In fact, as of 2016, every federal agency except the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), has stopped ignoring medical cannabis. Starting with the 2009 Ogden memo and later the 2013 by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, the Department of Justice has made clear that state legal medical marijuana is not a priority. In 2010, the VA updated their policies to no longer deny veterans’ access to medical services due to their participation in a state-legal medical marijuana program. In 2014, the Treasury Department issued guidelines to facilitate banking in the marijuana industry. Information being disseminated to the public from federal agencies has also improved, including the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) DrugFacts: Is Marijuana Medicine?, the Food and Drug Administration’s FDA and Marijuana: Questions and Answers and the National Cancer Institute’s Cannabis and Cannabinoids. Research barriers are are also beginning to fall, with the Office of National Drug Control Policy lifting the Public Health Service (PHS) review, a hurdle only cannabis researchers had to clear in 2015. Likewise, NIDA now supports letting other research centers grow research cannabis, ending the NIDA monopoly. Congress has until December 31, 2016 to pass the CARERS Act. and here is the link to CARERS: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/sign_petition_to_support_the_senate_carers_act despite medical cannabis laws in 40 states, cannabis is still illegal under federal 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 cannabis. These laws are generally applied only against persons who possess, cultivate, or distribute large quantities of cannabis. As of 2016, several federal agencies have issued guidelines and other policy memorandums to manage the conflict between federal and state laws as they pertain to medical marijuana. On August 29, 2013 the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a guidance memo to prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) making it clear that prosecuting state legal medical marijuana cases is not a priority. The memo included eight guidelines for prosecutors to use to determine current federal enforcement priorities. Fortunately, most medical cannabis program’s regulations require the same guidelines ensuring that any business with a licenses are meeting these requirements as well. These guidelines include: 1. Preventing of distribution of marijuana to minors; 2. Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs or cartels; 3. Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under to state law in some form to other states; 4. Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or a pretext to traffic other illegal drugs or other illegal activity; 5. Preventing violence or the use of firearms in cultivation and distribution of marijuana; 6. Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use; 7. Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environment dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; 8. Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
