Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Seattle Times)   Hate on marijuana all you want, but thanks to Washington legalizing it, 40 staffers and one pot expert now have a job   (blogs.seattletimes.com) divider line 108
    More: Cool, Liquor Control Board, marijuana legalization, Seattle Times, marijuana  
•       •       •

4944 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Dec 2012 at 9:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-01 02:08:38 AM  
Hail to the hippie job creators!
 
2012-12-01 02:11:01 AM  
something something big government something something socialists.
 
2012-12-01 02:22:05 AM  
Need to update my resume.

/Right after this doob
 
2012-12-01 09:02:03 AM  
As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.
 
2012-12-01 09:30:13 AM  

OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.


Oooooo. I can't wait for the fur to fly!
 
2012-12-01 09:32:49 AM  
But it will also slow the massive growth in the prison-industrial complex. Won't someone please think of the prison guard union?
 
2012-12-01 09:35:12 AM  
weed is harmless. its natural

arsenic is harmless. its natural

alcohol is harmless. its natural

wink wink.
 
2012-12-01 09:37:48 AM  
It's nice to know Tommy Chong can still get work after his conviction.
 
2012-12-01 09:40:50 AM  

Linux_Yes: weed is harmless. its natural

arsenic is harmless. its natural

alcohol is harmless. its natural

wink wink.


I suppose you also oppose the Sun.
 
2012-12-01 09:41:00 AM  
At least until the Federales come cracking down.
 
2012-12-01 09:42:35 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: At least until the Federales come cracking down.


Hail to the fuhrer!
 
2012-12-01 09:42:47 AM  

OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.


Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?
 
2012-12-01 09:45:30 AM  

special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?


Oh boy.
 
2012-12-01 09:47:21 AM  

special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?


That's the problem- Alcohol is legal, too, but you can't go to work drunk.. Or drive. But there's an easy test for that. With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.
 
2012-12-01 09:48:05 AM  
Yes, how will the multi-billion dollar drug testing industry take this news?
And what about drug testing? Employers can't fire you for testing positive for a legal drug, right?
 
2012-12-01 09:48:47 AM  

special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?


Although pot will be legal, drug testing and firing those who test positive will still be allowed.
 
2012-12-01 09:49:55 AM  
Who is the pot expert? Cheech Marin?
 
2012-12-01 09:50:31 AM  

theewhiterhino: Need to update my resume.

/Right after this doob


so much this.

/in before "i actually drive better when i'm stoned"
 
2012-12-01 09:50:52 AM  

OtherBrotherDarryl: special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?

Although pot will be legal, drug testing and firing those who test positive will still be allowed.


I envision plenty of court cases.
 
2012-12-01 09:51:18 AM  

machoprogrammer: Who is the pot expert? Cheech Marin?


There are many.
 
2012-12-01 09:51:51 AM  

bwilson27: special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?

That's the problem- Alcohol is legal, too, but you can't go to work drunk.. Or drive. But there's an easy test for that. With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.


The test is simple - hold a bag of doritos in front of the suspected stoner, and if they smile and reach for it - they're high. A follow up is to ask a simple question like... "what time is it?" and if they answer by saying "what?" - they're stoned.
 
2012-12-01 09:51:58 AM  

bwilson27: special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?

That's the problem- Alcohol is legal, too, but you can't go to work drunk.. Or drive. But there's an easy test for that. With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.


Testing for that might be more a skill issue for the cops. Just train the cops to do "running through a forest" and use the person's response to the STOP as a judge of sobriety.
 
2012-12-01 09:52:06 AM  
Hate on marijuana all you want, but thanks to Washington legalizing it, 40 staffers and one pot expert now have a job jobs

FTFY
 
2012-12-01 09:55:09 AM  

lenfromak: Hate on marijuana all you want, but thanks to Washington legalizing it, 40 staffers and one pot expert now have a job jobs
Are about to be indicted on Federal Controlled Substances charges.
FTFY


FTFY.
 
2012-12-01 09:56:16 AM  

Another Government Employee: lenfromak: Hate on marijuana all you want, but thanks to Washington legalizing it, 40 staffers and one pot expert now have a job jobs
Are about to be indicted on Federal Controlled Substances charges.
FTFY

FTFY.


Ummmm I don't think so...
 
2012-12-01 09:56:36 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yes, how will the multi-billion dollar drug testing industry take this news?


They're going to love it. DUI laws will now be enforced with a blood test for THC.

And what about drug testing? Employers can't fire you for testing positive for a legal drug, right?

Yes they can.
 
2012-12-01 09:59:23 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Hail to the hippie job creators!

 
2012-12-01 10:02:03 AM  

bwilson27: With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.


Why does there need to be a test first? We didn't have tests for drunk driving when prohibition was lifted. Necessity is the mother of invention. If there is a need for a field sobriety test that includes weed then it will be developed.
 
2012-12-01 10:05:18 AM  

Muta: bwilson27: With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.

Why does there need to be a test first? We didn't have tests for drunk driving when prohibition was lifted. Necessity is the mother of invention. If there is a need for a field sobriety test that includes weed then it will be developed.


Again: there is a blood test for THC, and I believe there is also a saliva test. That was the whole impetus for legalization on the law enforcement side IMHO. Now that it can be a money grab for DUI, everybody is OK with it.
 
2012-12-01 10:05:26 AM  

gabethegoat: theewhiterhino: Need to update my resume.

/Right after this doob

so much this.

/in before "i actually drive better when i'm stoned"


I actually drive better when you're stoned.
 
2012-12-01 10:07:55 AM  

pissedoffmick: Linux_Yes: weed is harmless. its natural

arsenic is harmless. its natural

alcohol is harmless. its natural

wink wink.

I suppose you also oppose the Sun.


i'm not sure about him, but i know i do. that biatch causes cancer.

"the night time is the right time, the night time is the right time."
 
2012-12-01 10:09:05 AM  

lenfromak: Hate on marijuana all you want, but thanks to Washington legalizing it, 40 staffers and one pot expert now have a job jobs

FTFY


Nope subby was correct: I job shared between 41 people who each work an hour a week. This is Obama's new ecomony.
 
2012-12-01 10:09:47 AM  
I wonder if people will stop being paranoid freaks when they're high once it's legal.
 
2012-12-01 10:10:57 AM  
Just what we DON"T need, more government employees. Let me know when a substantial number of real jobs (private sector) are created
 
2012-12-01 10:13:26 AM  
can't get excited about something the federal government can (and will) walk in and lay to waste whenever they damn well please. and that time will probably be when many people are making paychecks, investing money into business and happily enjoying their lives. what's the point. it's like giving candy to a baby so you can take it away.
 
2012-12-01 10:14:02 AM  

MFAWG: Muta: bwilson27: With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.

Why does there need to be a test first? We didn't have tests for drunk driving when prohibition was lifted. Necessity is the mother of invention. If there is a need for a field sobriety test that includes weed then it will be developed.

Again: there is a blood test for THC, and I believe there is also a saliva test. That was the whole impetus for legalization on the law enforcement side IMHO. Now that it can be a money grab for DUI, everybody is OK with it.


Sure, there's a blood test.. And with it, they'll be able to bust you for DUI even though the last time you smoked was weeks ago.
There has to be a more accurate test.
 
2012-12-01 10:14:30 AM  

hasty ambush: Just what we DON"T need, more government employees. Let me know when a substantial number of real jobs (private sector) are created


I have a feeling the 30 pct tax on the reefer will pay for those evil Gubment employees and leave a little left over for your hoverround.
 
2012-12-01 10:16:25 AM  

OtherBrotherDarryl: I wonder if people will stop being paranoid freaks when they're high once it's legal.


Probably, but it won't be because it's legal.

Growers will do a lot more selective breeding on the weed they have and produce strains that won't make you paranoid.

Most weed these days is extremely high in THC these days, since we used to think that's all that got you high, and that the 40 something other components in weed aren't important. Surprise surprise, they are important. THC alone makes people (well, lab rats in the study) exhibit paranoid behavior. If you start dropping the THC levels down, and add more of the other endocanabanoids, such as CBD, you no longer get paranoid behavior.

/SCIENCE!
 
2012-12-01 10:17:11 AM  

bwilson27: MFAWG: Muta: bwilson27: With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.

Why does there need to be a test first? We didn't have tests for drunk driving when prohibition was lifted. Necessity is the mother of invention. If there is a need for a field sobriety test that includes weed then it will be developed.

Again: there is a blood test for THC, and I believe there is also a saliva test. That was the whole impetus for legalization on the law enforcement side IMHO. Now that it can be a money grab for DUI, everybody is OK with it.

Sure, there's a blood test.. And with it, they'll be able to bust you for DUI even though the last time you smoked was weeks ago.
There has to be a more accurate test.

,

My understanding (possibly less than complete) is that they can now tell if it's been within the last 24 hours, so you're sort of kind of right.
 
2012-12-01 10:17:47 AM  

gabethegoat: theewhiterhino: Need to update my resume.

/Right after this doob

so much this.

/in before "i actually drive better when i'm stoned"


Not really but it's a lot more fun...
 
2012-12-01 10:18:04 AM  

fluffy2097: OtherBrotherDarryl: I wonder if people will stop being paranoid freaks when they're high once it's legal.

Probably, but it won't be because it's legal.

Growers will do a lot more selective breeding on the weed they have and produce strains that won't make you paranoid.

Most weed these days is extremely high in THC these days, since we used to think that's all that got you high, and that the 40 something other components in weed aren't important. Surprise surprise, they are important. THC alone makes people (well, lab rats in the study) exhibit paranoid behavior. If you start dropping the THC levels down, and add more of the other endocanabanoids, such as CBD, you no longer get paranoid behavior.

/SCIENCE!


That's not true. The paranoia is cause by the release of dopamine. the THC levels have little or nothing to do with it, really
 
2012-12-01 10:18:40 AM  

MFAWG: bwilson27:

Sure, there's a blood test.. And with it, they'll be able to bust you for DUI even though the last time you smoked was weeks ago.
There has to be a more accurate test.,

My understanding (possibly less than complete) is that they can now tell if it's been within the last 24 hours, so you're sort of kind of right.


Citation?
 
2012-12-01 10:19:34 AM  
media.247sports.com

I hope they find a man who can abide by the rules.
 
2012-12-01 10:22:10 AM  

dr_blasto: gabethegoat: theewhiterhino: Need to update my resume.

/Right after this doob

so much this.

/in before "i actually drive better when i'm stoned"

I actually drive better when you're stoned.


whoooa. mind=blown.
 
2012-12-01 10:23:13 AM  

MFAWG: hasty ambush: Just what we DON"T need, more government employees. Let me know when a substantial number of real jobs (private sector) are created

I have a feeling the 30 pct tax on the reefer will pay for those evil Gubment employees and leave a little left over for your hoverround.


It has been my experience that most government programs that politicians claim they will pay for themselves don't. No doubt Gubment will use all that 30% and demand even more. Even if it did pay for itself we still do not need more government employees.

Knowing government and its employees (you really cannot call them workers as that would imply they work) I am sure they can find plenty of current "under-utilized" government employees they can assign to this new department without having to hire more.
 
2012-12-01 10:24:31 AM  

hasty ambush: MFAWG: hasty ambush: Just what we DON"T need, more government employees. Let me know when a substantial number of real jobs (private sector) are created

I have a feeling the 30 pct tax on the reefer will pay for those evil Gubment employees and leave a little left over for your hoverround.

It has been my experience that most government programs that politicians claim they will pay for themselves don't. No doubt Gubment will use all that 30% and demand even more. Even if it did pay for itself we still do not need more government employees.

Knowing government and its employees (you really cannot call them workers as that would imply they work) I am sure they can find plenty of current "under-utilized" government employees they can assign to this new department without having to hire more.


You sound like a real happy, upbeat kinda guy.
 
2012-12-01 10:24:58 AM  

Blue_Blazer: lenfromak: Hate on marijuana all you want, but thanks to Washington legalizing it, 40 staffers and one pot expert now have a job jobs

FTFY

Nope subby was correct: I job shared between 41 people who each work an hour a week. This is Obama's new ecomony.


1/10
 
2012-12-01 10:26:21 AM  

bwilson27: MFAWG: bwilson27:

Sure, there's a blood test.. And with it, they'll be able to bust you for DUI even though the last time you smoked was weeks ago.
There has to be a more accurate test.,

My understanding (possibly less than complete) is that they can now tell if it's been within the last 24 hours, so you're sort of kind of right.

Citation?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_drug_testing


Saliva testing
Cannabis is detectable by saliva testing. Just like blood testing, saliva testing detects the presence of parent drugs and not their inactive metabolites. This results in a shorter window of detection for cannabis by saliva testing[13] . Delta 9 THC is the parent compound. If saliva sample is tested in a lab, the detection level can be as low as 0.5ng/mL (up to 72 hours after intake)[14] and if an onsite instant saliva drug test is used, the cut off level is generally 50 ng/mL (up to 12 hours after intake)[15] . Per National Institute on Drug Abuse saliva drug testing provides a reasonable alternative to other drug testing methods [16] .

[edit]Blood testing
Cannabis is detectable in the blood for approximately 2-3 days after use, with heavy/frequent use detectable in the blood for approximately two weeks. [17] Because they are invasive and difficult to administer, blood tests are used less frequently. They are typically used in investigations of accidents, injuries and DUIs.

Urine contains predominantly THC-COOH, while hair, oral fluid and sweat contain primarily THC. Blood may contain both substances, with the relative amounts dependent on the recency and extent of usage.



I'll let some of the folks better versed in biochemistry help us sort this out, and then let the GED's in law tell me why it will/will not stand up in court.

There was literally NO oppostiton by law enforcement on this ballot measure, and I suspect advances in testing technologies are a big part of that. It's an additional revenue stream on top of the taxes.
 
2012-12-01 10:28:02 AM  

hasty ambush: MFAWG: hasty ambush: Just what we DON"T need, more government employees. Let me know when a substantial number of real jobs (private sector) are created

I have a feeling the 30 pct tax on the reefer will pay for those evil Gubment employees and leave a little left over for your hoverround.

It has been my experience that most government programs that politicians claim they will pay for themselves don't. No doubt Gubment will use all that 30% and demand even more. Even if it did pay for itself we still do not need more government employees.

Knowing government and its employees (you really cannot call them workers as that would imply they work) I am sure they can find plenty of current "under-utilized" government employees they can assign to this new department without having to hire more.


You're an idiot. Maybe you should do a little research into the state agency in question, and then go home and get your shine box.
 
2012-12-01 10:28:43 AM  

MFAWG: bwilson27: MFAWG: bwilson27:

Sure, there's a blood test.. And with it, they'll be able to bust you for DUI even though the last time you smoked was weeks ago.
There has to be a more accurate test.,

My understanding (possibly less than complete) is that they can now tell if it's been within the last 24 hours, so you're sort of kind of right.

Citation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_drug_testing


Saliva testing
Cannabis is detectable by saliva testing. Just like blood testing, saliva testing detects the presence of parent drugs and not their inactive metabolites. This results in a shorter window of detection for cannabis by saliva testing[13] . Delta 9 THC is the parent compound. If saliva sample is tested in a lab, the detection level can be as low as 0.5ng/mL (up to 72 hours after intake)[14] and if an onsite instant saliva drug test is used, the cut off level is generally 50 ng/mL (up to 12 hours after intake)[15] . Per National Institute on Drug Abuse saliva drug testing provides a reasonable alternative to other drug testing methods [16] .

[edit]Blood testing
Cannabis is detectable in the blood for approximately 2-3 days after use, with heavy/frequent use detectable in the blood for approximately two weeks. [17] Because they are invasive and difficult to administer, blood tests are used less frequently. They are typically used in investigations of accidents, injuries and DUIs.

Urine contains predominantly THC-COOH, while hair, oral fluid and sweat contain primarily THC. Blood may contain both substances, with the relative amounts dependent on the recency and extent of usage.


I'll let some of the folks better versed in biochemistry help us sort this out, and then let the GED's in law tell me why it will/will not stand up in court.

There was literally NO oppostiton by law enforcement on this ballot measure, and I suspect advances in testing technologies are a big part of that. It's an additional revenue stream on top of the taxes.


Hmmm You may be on to something.
 
2012-12-01 10:31:53 AM  

gabethegoat: Blue_Blazer: lenfromak: Hate on marijuana all you want, but thanks to Washington legalizing it, 40 staffers and one pot expert now have a job jobs

FTFY

Nope subby was correct: I job shared between 41 people who each work an hour a week. This is Obama's new ecomony.

1/10


I give it 3/10. The germ of humor was there, but it needed to be connected back to the drugs and Obama's shiftless supporters - a few misspellings never hurt either. Like this:

Nope subby was c0rrect: I job shared between 41 lazy burnouts who eech work a1hr week. This is Obamacarez new ecomony [sic misspelling original] by and for the drugged and lechers.
 
2012-12-01 10:33:05 AM  

bwilson27: That's not true. The paranoia is cause by the release of dopamine. the THC levels have little or nothing to do with it, really


What causes the release of neurotransmitters when you smoke weed? Endocanabanoids. Such as THC, CBD, and all the other 40 or so compounds in there.

If you alter the ratios of endocanabanoids, you alter the effects of the high, by antagonizing the release of different neurotransmitters.

If these ratios had nothing to do with it. Different strains wouldn't give you different kinds of highs.
 
2012-12-01 10:33:08 AM  

bwilson27: special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?

That's the problem- Alcohol is legal, too, but you can't go to work drunk.. Or drive. But there's an easy test for that. With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.


They have a blood test that can detect intoxication amounts...it was put into the Washington law to test for DUI, so problem solved ya square;)
 
2012-12-01 10:34:16 AM  
I thought we settled the states' rights issue back in 1865,

Yes, we did! Not yours.
 
2012-12-01 10:34:25 AM  

ficklefkrfark: bwilson27: special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?

That's the problem- Alcohol is legal, too, but you can't go to work drunk.. Or drive. But there's an easy test for that. With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.

They have a blood test that can detect intoxication amounts...it was put into the Washington law to test for DUI, so problem solved ya square;)


A square who's gotten high every day for the past ten years!
 
2012-12-01 10:35:54 AM  

Linux_Yes: weed is harmless. its natural

arsenic is harmless. its natural

alcohol is harmless. its natural

wink wink.


How many deaths have there been caused by Ingesting the evil weed?
/try harder
 
2012-12-01 10:39:07 AM  

ficklefkrfark: How many deaths have there been caused by Ingesting the evil weed?
/try harder


He is trying harder. He hasn't somehow equated anything to the superiority of open source software like he used to.

/Keep it up Linux_Yes, your linux trolls were always weaksauce anyway.
 
2012-12-01 10:40:15 AM  
www.ganja.com
4 MORE SPLIFFS!!!!

/of dope
 
2012-12-01 10:42:30 AM  
Did anyone here order a Pizza?
 
2012-12-01 10:42:36 AM  

BeerGraduate: [www.ganja.com image 250x196]
4 MORE SPLIFFS!!!!

/of dope


Sort of not kidding: being the guy that got teh weeds legalized would be a nice legacy.
 
2012-12-01 10:44:00 AM  

MFAWG: BeerGraduate: [www.ganja.com image 250x196]
4 MORE SPLIFFS!!!!

/of dope

Sort of not kidding: being the guy that got teh weeds legalized would be a nice legacy.


And it would make the right-wingers kill their own in rage. yay!
 
2012-12-01 10:53:54 AM  

bwilson27: MFAWG: BeerGraduate: [www.ganja.com image 250x196]
4 MORE SPLIFFS!!!!

/of dope

Sort of not kidding: being the guy that got teh weeds legalized would be a nice legacy.

And it would make the right-wingers kill their own in rage. yay!


Amusing as to what you think of as right-wingers

3.bp.blogspot.com

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a reminder that under federal laws marijuana is still illegal. The Department will still enforce the Controlled Substances Act even in states that have now made marijuana legal for recreational use.
 
2012-12-01 10:54:12 AM  

bwilson27: MFAWG: BeerGraduate: [www.ganja.com image 250x196]
4 MORE SPLIFFS!!!!

/of dope

Sort of not kidding: being the guy that got teh weeds legalized would be a nice legacy.

And it would make the right-wingers kill their own in rage. yay!


I'm so old I remember when legalizing the weed was a perfectly respectable right wing position, held by none other than the father of modern conservatism:

static.guim.co.uk
 
2012-12-01 10:57:07 AM  
Oh btw, it IS a trap.
 
2012-12-01 10:58:11 AM  
A sober driver who's just stupid is more of a risk to others than someone who's stoned. You know who I'm talking about. Those idiots who cut blind corners at speeds that push their tire traction to its limit, then try to jerk their way back into their own lane when a car is coming...

Look at where the wreaths and crosses are. You thought it was random,
 
2012-12-01 10:59:18 AM  

hasty ambush: bwilson27: MFAWG: BeerGraduate: [www.ganja.com image 250x196]
4 MORE SPLIFFS!!!!

/of dope

Sort of not kidding: being the guy that got teh weeds legalized would be a nice legacy.

And it would make the right-wingers kill their own in rage. yay!

Amusing as to what you think of as right-wingers

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a reminder that under federal laws marijuana is still illegal. The Department will still enforce the Controlled Substances Act even in states that have now made marijuana legal for recreational use.


And that is where you get into a sticky 10th amendment issue. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

/This is why we had to get a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.
//Anthony Scalia has recently mentioned he's big on the 10th amendment. I wonder what he'll think of this when it finally bubbles up to the supreme court.
 
2012-12-01 11:01:26 AM  

fluffy2097: hasty ambush: bwilson27: MFAWG: BeerGraduate: [www.ganja.com image 250x196]
4 MORE SPLIFFS!!!!

/of dope

Sort of not kidding: being the guy that got teh weeds legalized would be a nice legacy.

And it would make the right-wingers kill their own in rage. yay!

Amusing as to what you think of as right-wingers

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a reminder that under federal laws marijuana is still illegal. The Department will still enforce the Controlled Substances Act even in states that have now made marijuana legal for recreational use.

And that is where you get into a sticky 10th amendment issue. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

/This is why we had to get a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.
//Anthony Scalia has recently mentioned he's big on the 10th amendment. I wonder what he'll think of this when it finally bubbles up to the supreme court.


Scalia tossed the 10th Amendment in a case involving TeH WEeDs at one time, IIRC?
 
2012-12-01 11:01:54 AM  
i21.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-01 11:05:10 AM  

fluffy2097: hasty ambush: bwilson27: MFAWG: BeerGraduate: [www.ganja.com image 250x196]
4 MORE SPLIFFS!!!!

/of dope

Sort of not kidding: being the guy that got teh weeds legalized would be a nice legacy.

And it would make the right-wingers kill their own in rage. yay!

Amusing as to what you think of as right-wingers

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a reminder that under federal laws marijuana is still illegal. The Department will still enforce the Controlled Substances Act even in states that have now made marijuana legal for recreational use.

And that is where you get into a sticky 10th amendment issue. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

/This is why we had to get a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.
//Anthony Scalia has recently mentioned he's big on the 10th amendment. I wonder what he'll think of this when it finally bubbles up to the supreme court.


You must have missed the news. That was tested back in the 1800's and it turns out that you will do what the United States government tells you to do. Strike the 4th, the 10th, and the 1st is limited to designated zones.
 
2012-12-01 11:14:46 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Employers can't fire you for testing positive for a legal drug, right?


Of course they can... A while back, some places were making news for firing anyone who smoked cigarettes... If some place wanted to hire only non-drinkers, they could fire anyone who drank alcohol...
 
2012-12-01 11:21:01 AM  

RobSeace: HotIgneous Intruder: Employers can't fire you for testing positive for a legal drug, right?

Of course they can... A while back, some places were making news for firing anyone who smoked cigarettes... If some place wanted to hire only non-drinkers, they could fire anyone who drank alcohol...


You know, I have half a mind - if I were ever interviewed for a new job and was asked to take a drug test - to say "Sure I will, only if everyone on my prospective "team", my direct supervisor, and everyone in the company with a higher position than I also take the test."

The company doesn't want a "drugged out" worker - why should I want to work in a company potentially rife with illegal drug users? Or alcoholics for that matter?
 
2012-12-01 11:21:33 AM  
From a future article: "The workers of the office could not be reached for comment. They were observed in a perpetually rotating line at the department's lone vending machine."
 
2012-12-01 11:24:29 AM  
POT THREAD! WOOHOO!

Let's compare the cost to society for for marijuana against alcohol. Anybody have the statistics?
 
2012-12-01 11:27:02 AM  

DaCaptain19: RobSeace: HotIgneous Intruder: Employers can't fire you for testing positive for a legal drug, right?

Of course they can... A while back, some places were making news for firing anyone who smoked cigarettes... If some place wanted to hire only non-drinkers, they could fire anyone who drank alcohol...

You know, I have half a mind - if I were ever interviewed for a new job and was asked to take a drug test - to say "Sure I will, only if everyone on my prospective "team", my direct supervisor, and everyone in the company with a higher position than I also take the test."

The company doesn't want a "drugged out" worker - why should I want to work in a company potentially rife with illegal drug users? Or alcoholics for that matter?


Then don't.

The world doesn't owe you anything. It just sounds like you didn't know that.
 
2012-12-01 11:28:43 AM  
I expect the pizza delivery places will be hiring for more late night business as well.
 
2012-12-01 11:31:28 AM  
Great, just what we need more unneeded goverrnment bureaucracy.
 
2012-12-01 11:33:17 AM  
It's encouraging that rather than fight it, WA is moving so fast to create the rules so they can start opening shops. I really hope the feds leave them alone. Washington will be a nice experiment to see how legalization goes...
 
2012-12-01 11:49:58 AM  
4 months and 20 days until 4/20
 
2012-12-01 11:51:31 AM  
since decriminalizing MJ Calif has seen a 20% drop in Juvenile crime and a 50% drop in drug arrests.
 
2012-12-01 11:51:54 AM  

gabethegoat: /in before "i actually drive better when i'm stoned"


I actually drink better when I smoke.
 
2012-12-01 11:56:41 AM  

MFAWG: fluffy2097: hasty ambush: bwilson27: MFAWG: BeerGraduate: [www.ganja.com image 250x196]
4 MORE SPLIFFS!!!!

/of dope

Sort of not kidding: being the guy that got teh weeds legalized would be a nice legacy.

And it would make the right-wingers kill their own in rage. yay!

Amusing as to what you think of as right-wingers

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a reminder that under federal laws marijuana is still illegal. The Department will still enforce the Controlled Substances Act even in states that have now made marijuana legal for recreational use.

And that is where you get into a sticky 10th amendment issue. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

/This is why we had to get a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.
//Anthony Scalia has recently mentioned he's big on the 10th amendment. I wonder what he'll think of this when it finally bubbles up to the supreme court.

Scalia tossed the 10th Amendment in a case involving TeH WEeDs at one time, IIRC?


Funny how nobody , except me, likes the 10th Amendment unless it fits their agenda.
I would say ,except for some interstate commerce aspects Obama care is a violation of the 10th and the same should apply to drug laws. Feds can regulate cross border activity but the states should be able to what goes on with in their own boundaries.

Washington state law should apply to only to grown and consumed in the in the state. If it comes from or is sent out the state then expect the feds to step in.

I think it should be legalize, not of any personal desire to use the stuff but that government resources could be put to better use like securing the border.
 
2012-12-01 11:59:42 AM  

Hobodeluxe: since decriminalizing MJ Calif has seen a 20% drop in Juvenile crime and a 50% drop in drug arrests.


Wow, what a great job they've been doing - in other news, driving offences up 3000%, to fill the deficit in the figures.

Now if they just decriminalize murder, the U.S. would have one of the lowest national crime stats in the whole of the 2nd world!!
 
2012-12-01 12:07:02 PM  
Here is a picture of Seattle the day Pot was legalized in the State.

farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2012-12-01 12:28:20 PM  

bwilson27: ficklefkrfark: bwilson27: special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?

That's the problem- Alcohol is legal, too, but you can't go to work drunk.. Or drive. But there's an easy test for that. With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.

They have a blood test that can detect intoxication amounts...it was put into the Washington law to test for DUI, so problem solved ya square;)

A square who's gotten high every day for the past ten years!


My bad....parallelogram?
 
2012-12-01 12:38:06 PM  

Nothing To See Here: Here is a picture of Seattle the day Pot was legalized in the State.

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x319]


wait, what? Pot expert? What certification do you have to have in order to snag that sweet, sweet gig?

I was once known as Professor Pot. For some strange reason, I forget about pot more each day than most people will learn in their lifetime.

When I mentioned weed to my eye doctor, he did not deny that it worked. He used the old saw "But you'd have to be blazed all day." I said "And your point it?"

Compared to the side effects of the drops and pills I take, I'll take the side effects of the weed any day, every day. I actually like them. There is still the mentality out there that smoking is the only way to imbibe in the stuff. I vastly prefer to eat it now, and like tea even better. My doctor was amazed when I told him that I drink it as opposed to smoking it. He didn't know you could do that.
 
2012-12-01 01:37:02 PM  
Why do people hate on marijuana? Really? I'm guessing few of those who do have actually tried it themselves. The law concerning such trivial matters shouldn't be based on their whims, either.
 
2012-12-01 02:46:01 PM  
I could have gotten a job as a pot expert
but I got high
 
2012-12-01 02:54:52 PM  
I would guess there's a pallet load of resumes for that one pot expert position
 
2012-12-01 03:05:46 PM  
I don't mind marijuana at all. But I can't stand morons who use the phrase "hate on..."
 
2012-12-01 03:34:16 PM  

vudukungfu: Did anyone here order a Pizza?




forums.wakeboarder.com
 
2012-12-01 04:25:15 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yes, how will the multi-billion dollar drug testing industry take this news?
And what about drug testing? Employers can't fire you for testing positive for a legal drug, right?


Private employers can generally fire you on a whim, requiring no reason at all. There are a handful of federal and state protections that protect you from being fired for certain specific things, like your race. But it's hard to prove in court that you were fired for that one thing. If your boss doesn't like you personally and fires you, you're screwed. But if your boss doesn't like your race and he fires you for that, you can sue. It takes a pretty ignorant boss to hand you enough evidence to convince a jury it's the second case rather than the first.

//Fortunately, "bigoted" and "ignorant" are somewhat correlated.
 
2012-12-01 04:41:28 PM  

bwilson27: special20: OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.

Think this through... marijuana is legal in that state where they are employed. Drug tests shows marijuana usage. Your point is?

That's the problem- Alcohol is legal, too, but you can't go to work drunk.. Or drive. But there's an easy test for that. With weed, no such easy test to check if you're inebriated. This is a problem that will have to be solved first.


I have never in my life been asked to take a breathalyzer test for alcohol. Why do you think there's a need to have a similar test for marijuana? If I'm not performing my job duties well, fire me - it doesn't matter if I'm drunk, stoned or just plain incompetent.

I have performed field sobriety tests. I apparently did well enough that the cops didn't feel a need to ask me to blow into a machine.

Now explain to me why pot should be any different.
 
2012-12-01 04:47:44 PM  

MFAWG: HotIgneous Intruder: Yes, how will the multi-billion dollar drug testing industry take this news?

They're going to love it. DUI laws will now be enforced with a blood test for THC.

And what about drug testing? Employers can't fire you for testing positive for a legal drug, right?

Yes they can.


That actually depends on the state. A few states do have laws that protect workers who are engaging in legal activities outside of work hours. Sorry - too lazy to look it up now, but while some (probably most) states do allow employers to fire their employees for something like using tobacco products a few others do not.

I'm not sure where state legalized marijuana would fall since it still is illegal at the federal level - a clear violation of the 10th Amendment (IMO, but not in SCOTUS's opinion).
 
2012-12-01 05:03:54 PM  

Ow My Balls: Why do people hate on marijuana? Really? I'm guessing few of those who do have actually tried it themselves. The law concerning such trivial matters shouldn't be based on their whims, either.


It seems to be in the nature of our species.

Around half of humanity wants everyone to conform, and some respected authority to tell us what to conform to. Their view of the world is hierarchical, and knowing and fitting into one's place is one of their primary drives. The feeling of safety and belonging they get from fitting in is a major source of happiness for them. Possibly even, based on individuals I've known, a prerequisite for happiness.

The other half (including me) are egalitarians, seeing humanity as a group of equals. One of our primary drives is "finding our way", and letting you find your own way as long as you don't step on our toes.

You'll see this split in the results of pretty much any personality test given to a large enough group. And, much as I want to demonize those "evil conformists", both groups are necessary. Egalitarians typically don't build nations or armies to defend them. Conformists typically don't innovate beyond making their hierarchy more efficient, or their place within it more comfortable.

//Please don't take this as political. I'm talking about basic human personality traits that may influence political beliefs but are not equivalent to them. I know conformist liberals (let's keep passing laws until we make everyone equal and then we'll be one big happy family!) and egalitarian conservatives (much of the Libertarian sub-group).
 
2012-12-01 06:15:14 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yes, how will the multi-billion dollar drug testing industry take this news?
And what about drug testing? Employers can't fire you for testing positive for a legal drug, right?


Employers in a "right to work" state can fire you for any damn reason. You can be too smart, too high, too effective, too stupid. Don't matter - "right to work" = we can fire you whenever we want. Anyone who signs a contract is basically in the same situation.

A drug being decriminalized locally does not mean the drug is legal. And if the DEA shows up, you are FARKED. Also they will probably kill your dog.
 
2012-12-01 06:57:58 PM  
PSA: How to buy drugs on the internet 

/You're welcome, if this is actually news to anyone around here
 
2012-12-01 07:00:42 PM  

MFAWG: I'm so old I remember when legalizing the weed was a perfectly respectable right wing position, held by none other than the father of modern conservatism:


Interested in legalizing marijuana.
www.cbn.com

Not that interested.
valetudocafe.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-01 07:02:06 PM  

FarkinSneakyBastage: PSA: How to buy drugs on the internet 

/You're welcome, if this is actually news to anyone around here


Care to link that using a non-shiat filehosting site?
 
2012-12-01 07:04:10 PM  

OtherBrotherDarryl: As Washington state employees, would these folks be WPEA union members and subject to drug testing? Ironic if that's the case.


Most public sector employees in WA are members of AFSCME, which is part of the AFLCIO. I've been a AFSCME member for over six years, and I have never heard of anyone in my department being drug tested.
 
2012-12-01 07:05:57 PM  

fluffy2097: //Anthony Scalia has recently mentioned he's big on the 10th amendment. I wonder what he'll think of this when it finally bubbles up to the supreme court.


Scalia is the hugest hypocrite. He's so not big on the 10th amendment. Gonzales v. Raich

He was the swing vote. All the "conservative" justices dissented. He concurred. All the "liberal" judges wrote the majority opinion.
 
2012-12-01 07:07:31 PM  

casual disregard: Employers in a "right to work" state can fire you for any damn reason.


Only if you're an "at will" employee. Right-to-work and at-will are not the same thing at all.
 
2012-12-01 07:10:36 PM  

DaCaptain19: RobSeace: HotIgneous Intruder: Employers can't fire you for testing positive for a legal drug, right?

Of course they can... A while back, some places were making news for firing anyone who smoked cigarettes... If some place wanted to hire only non-drinkers, they could fire anyone who drank alcohol...

You know, I have half a mind - if I were ever interviewed for a new job and was asked to take a drug test - to say "Sure I will, only if everyone on my prospective "team", my direct supervisor, and everyone in the company with a higher position than I also take the test."

The company doesn't want a "drugged out" worker - why should I want to work in a company potentially rife with illegal drug users? Or alcoholics for that matter?


I worked for a dealership once that was all "random drug test" bat shiat crazy. They'd pull a couple people in for testing every month or so. So this one day the owner gets pulled over right in front of the show room. Next thing we see is extra cop cars and a dog sniffing around. Yes indeed, bunch of coke in the trunk. After that the drug testing requests were laughed at.
 
2012-12-01 07:23:41 PM  

Giblet: You must have missed the news. That was tested back in the 1800's and it turns out that you will do what the United States government tells you to do. Strike the 4th, the 10th, and the 1st is limited to designated zones.


Well government knows what is best and that whole consitution thing is (so I have seen posted by various farkers):

(1) an outdate piece of paper

(2) Written by a bunch of old white men who owned slaves.

(3) A "living document" which they define as government can reinterpret it to mean what they need it to at the time

(4) The general werlfare clause means government can do whatever it wants for our own good as they define it..

To think otherwise means you don't like roads or schools and would prefer to live in Somalia.
 
2012-12-02 03:34:13 AM  
If it was truly legal it would cost almost nothing. Know that.
 
2012-12-02 11:56:08 AM  

albertalaska: If it was truly legal it would cost almost nothing. Know that.


but the cost of lawsuits would be enormous.
instead of just physical damage
your talking mental damage
in billions of dollars
much more than tobacco
 
2012-12-02 04:44:50 PM  

Nothing To See Here: Here is a picture of Seattle the day Pot was legalized in the State.

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x319]


Naw, that was just Thursday. Or Sunday, I forget. What were we talking about again?
 
2012-12-03 02:34:47 PM  

albertalaska: If it was truly legal it would cost almost nothing. Know that.


You are dead wrong. Know that.
 
2012-12-04 01:07:51 AM  

albertalaska: If it was truly legal it would cost almost nothing. Know that.


So everything in the grocery store is free of charge.

Who knew?
 
Displayed 108 of 108 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report