Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder's Marijuana Policy Announcement

You can see the bastards are only interested in their "jobs" and not what's right or wrong.

 

Yeah, but weed is the devil!

Give it the same limitations as alcohol, and I see no problem with legalization country wide. No reason for it to be illegal in the first place, that I can see, aside from people's ignorance on the matter. Save all of that money wasted on a futile attempt to stop it, and turn it into a profit with taxes and regulation like alcohol. A decent chunk of the deficit knocked off right there.

I would never feel the need to take another drink of alcohol for the rest of my life if marijuana was legal, and I would be healthier for it. But NOOO, drugs are bad! But tobacco soaked in very harmful chemicals is fine.

 

To legislate it similarly to alcohol, how would you determine if one has had too much? As far as I know, the breathalyzer for alcohol does not have a parallel for marijuana.

 

O rly?

New Breathalyzer Can Detect Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin - US News and World Report

This is ignoring the vastly wrong results typical of breathalyzers as well. The only accurate way to measure BAC is via blood/etc. tests, not via breathalyzer (See: Numerous DAs, laws, statues, etc. that require blood work or similar to be done to charge for DUI, not solely breathalyzer due to this very reason) - coincidentally, the same as marijuana.

 

"We need marijuana busts to fund things like tanks and infrared cameras so we can use these things against 'the people' at DUI checkpoints arrest whoever we want, whenever we want. Most importantly, breaking down doors and shooting dogs, if not people, is fun!"
I really get a kick out of that article because it has relatively nothing to do with serving and protecting, nothing about what Americans want, yet it has everything to do with income and making money off stuffing people into the penal system and essentially ruining their lives to make money. They're not even talking about prosecution or due process, they want that initial sezuire because law enforcement knows that the minute cash is taken from someone under $10k or so, it's less than the cost of a lawsuit to get the money back.

 

I have no problem with people driving around, high as ****. I would much rather share the road with someone blazed rather than someone pissed-off.

 

High drivers are still very bad drivers. I still think that they should legalize it as long as they can properly detect people that abuse it behind the wheel.

 

Only make the decision to end the drug war on Marijuana, which costs billions and yields absolutely nothing, if police can prosecute people for it whenever they want? THC does not make you "falling apart drunk" like alcohol.

 

My biggest question will be if employers will be allowed to continue testing for it and use it as a basis of employment. Drug tests are not all that hard to beat but I bet quite a few employers will still have a problem with it even if its legalized.

 

What I mean is if there is a way to measure the level of toxicity. I am not sure they can do that. If I recall it is only a negative/positive result currently. That would not be fair to be convicted when in fact the user was not impaired physically.

There is such a thing as falling apart high, particularly with inexperienced users. Besides, you don't have to be falling apart to be more dangerous behind the wheel. There needs to be a way to determine that however.

 

So what's the real reason behind employers testing for drugs anyway? It's because it affects performance on the job right? Why not simply judge performance then? I mean say you have a star employee who gets baked or ****-faced every night but is 100% functional at work the next day, why should an employer give a ****?

If it's the risk of being intoxicated while doing something potentially dangerous (e.g. operating machinery), then any random tests should look for intoxication, not metabolites that linger in the blood for 2 weeks.

I support the idea that employers can do whatever they want as long as it's between them and the employee and it's in the contract, but ...

The way private businesses behave is often due to pressure from laws/gov't. For instance, the commonly invoked bullshit by women called a "hostile work environment" because say, one guy one time used some swear words, only have the power it has because women are a "protected class" under the law and they use said BS law as a sledgehammer to extort money or as a vendetta. If not for such a broad BS law the average private business will take a pragmatic approach (and not an extreme approach) when faced with a complaint from an employee.

What I'm saying is that society/culture is affected by gov't propaganda. There is still a percentage of the population that think marijuana makes you violent.

 

Legalize it with a hybrid of regulation based off what we have for cigarettes and alcohol. Work places shouldn't test for it, but if you come in to work high it should be the same as coming into work drunk.

 

Re: BAC and marijuana impairment.

Habitual drunks have a higher BAC tolerance and are functional (using motor / reaction-time tests) at higher BAC's than average people.

The same is true of marijuana users. Additionally, marijuana doesn't impair judgment and motor coordination anywhere near alcohol does.

The 0.08 BAC limit is arguably way too low. Statistically accident rates begin to rise at 0.10 or 0.12 BAC. The pressure to lower the BAC limit down to 0.08 was politically driven (and money-driven). And this doesn't consider the fact that some people have much higher tolerances.

 

I hope the "regulation" doesn't include limiting DIY, any more than caring for your egg-laying hens should be.

The regulations against brewing your own beer or distilling your own alcohol are silly.

 

how are departments going to get sweet rides if they make it harder for civil forfeiture?

 

My guess would be liability. Easier to defend the company if there's a strict zero drug policy (and testing) than if there's no policy at all.

 

That's not necessarily as true as you may think.

 

Again because of the laws / legal landscape, which the gov't has a monopoly on.

 

This is what field sobriety tests are for.

 

So, what if the cop does not like you, is an *******, or is racist? A controlled accurate test would be more fair in my opinion

I am sure they will figure out how to do that if it is not already under development.

Reason for editing: I am totally baked.