Why Election Day Marks the Beginning of the End of Marijuana Prohibition

[SkydiveJonathan 0]

Switching to American-grown marijuana could deal a significant blow to the drug cartels. Research from the RAND Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center based in Santa Monica, California, estimates that marijuana trafficking accounts for around 20 per cent of the cartels' income: about $6 to $8 billion. Another study published in October by the Mexican Center for Competitiveness estimated that legalisation in Washington alone would subtract $1.4 billion from the cartels' profits.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22488-us-states-vote-to-experiment-with-marijuana.html

[SkyDekker 1,121]

All depends on price point.

If legalized MJ is expensive enough, there will be a sizeable illegal market.

[wmw999 2,121]

That'll go away with time. How many moonshiners are there any more? With predictable dosing in easy-to-use and easy-to-acquire delivery and packaging, along with (ta-daaaaahhhh!) advertising, commercially-grown pot will overtake homegrown within 10 years.

After all, would you really want to be smoking a home-rolled doobie when all your friends have the smoothness of MiJinx (TM)?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

That'll go away with time. How many moonshiners are there any more?

That's because booze is cheap and relatively easy to get for underaged.

[wmw999 2,121]

I'm thinking of cigarettes, too.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[beowulf 1]

It would most likely make it cheaper. Less overhead of having to evade the authorities or fight off competition. Don't have to worry about the Gov destroying crops.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

How many moonshiners are there any more?

Wendy P.

Quite a few in two different areas of the country I have lived in.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Too little, and way too late, UNLESS it is joined with legislation prohibiting employers from subjecting employees and applicants to drug tests for jobs that don't directly implicate safety.

In the 1970s, civilian testing wasn't very common, so people lit up, even if just casually. But nowadays, employee testing is very commonplace in just about every corporate environment for damn near any kind of job, mainly (rationalizing aside) because they can, so they do. And they don't just test pee, they test hair, so gone are they days when you could cruise by on the flush-out time. That alone acts as a deterrent to quite few people who might otherwise casually light up every once in a while: it jeopardizes your employability.

[ManagingPrime 0]

The state will NOT be selling MJ in state liquor stores, or anywhere for that matter, any time soon. They will be in court for years and that's that.

What we will see is hundreds and thousands of citizens in those states not being arrested, fined, losing jobs, etc. due to simple pot use/possession, and that is a great step forward.

The big grey area is HOW people legally get their pot (that's an ongoing issue here in AZ) without retail locations. This piece of the puzzle is what is absolutely critical for revenue generation and limiting the influence of the cartels.

Bottom line: The prohibition era is dying quickly. Very soon the majority of Americans will view marijuana prohibition to have been more detrimental to our nation than alcohol prohibition. Let the states and the Feds work out the details, but the people are speaking, and they are saying "smoke 'em if ya got 'em."

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Too little, and way too late, UNLESS it is joined with legislation prohibiting employers from subjecting employees and applicants to drug tests for jobs that don't directly implicate safety.

I have to admit that I have not read the prop, but I'm willing to bet there is a provision to protect employees. For instance, the Arizona Department of Health Services has the following on their FAQ page:

QP24: My workplace routinely tests for drugs including marijuana. If I'm a qualified patient, what kinds of protection do I have?
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act states that an employer will not be able to penalize a qualifying patient with a registry identification card for a positive drug test for marijuana, unless the patient used, possessed, or was impaired by marijuana on the employment premises or during hours of employment. If you are unsure how the Act applies to you, consult an attorney licensed to practice law in Arizona.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That'll go away with time. How many moonshiners are there any more? With predictable dosing in easy-to-use and easy-to-acquire delivery and packaging, along with (ta-daaaaahhhh!) advertising, commercially-grown pot will overtake homegrown within 10 years.

After all, would you really want to be smoking a home-rolled doobie when all your friends have the smoothness of MiJinx (TM)?

That of course depends on the quality. But even then, there is no shortage of home and microbrew beer makers in America.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

That'll go away with time. How many moonshiners are there any more? With predictable dosing in easy-to-use and easy-to-acquire delivery and packaging, along with (ta-daaaaahhhh!) advertising, commercially-grown pot will overtake homegrown within 10 years.

After all, would you really want to be smoking a home-rolled doobie when all your friends have the smoothness of MiJinx (TM)?

Wendy P.

But MrJinx isn't hand picked, organic, pesticide free, and hand rolled fresh for maximum flavor.

True connoisseurs can tell the difference.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[BartsDaddy 4]

Quote

That'll go away with time. How many moonshiners are there any more? With predictable dosing in easy-to-use and easy-to-acquire delivery and packaging, along with (ta-daaaaahhhh!) advertising, commercially-grown pot will overtake homegrown within 10 years.

After all, would you really want to be smoking a home-rolled doobie when all your friends have the smoothness of MiJinx (TM)?

Wendy P.

Hey my homerolleds are bigger and smoother than MiJinx tm ever thought of being. Thats what 37 years of experience brings to the rolling table.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

Too little, and way too late, UNLESS it is joined with legislation prohibiting employers from subjecting employees and applicants to drug tests for jobs that don't directly implicate safety.

In the 1970s, civilian testing wasn't very common, so people lit up, even if just casually. But nowadays, employee testing is very commonplace in just about every corporate environment for damn near any kind of job, mainly (rationalizing aside) because they can, so they do. And they don't just test pee, they test hair, so gone are they days when you could cruise by on the flush-out time. That alone acts as a deterrent to quite few people who might otherwise casually light up every once in a while: it jeopardizes your employability.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I though the whole idea behind drug testing when its not safety related was that it is illegal to use them(drugs). So if MJ is legal how could the employer then punish their employees for using it? If they could, couldn't people be punished for using alcohol or tobacco on their own time too?

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

if MJ is legal how could the employer then punish their employees for using it?

Because they're private, not public, employers. That means that if it's in an "employment at will" state (most states are), employers can hire or fire any non-contract employee at any time for any reason (as long as the action does not violate some other law, such as, for one example, anti-discrimination laws.) In states (again: most) where that's the case, the only thing that would stop (and not just discourage) employers from maintaining such a practice and policy would be a specific provision of law.

Quote

If they could, couldn't people be punished for using alcohol or tobacco on their own time too?

Generally, yes. In fact, in most employment-at-will states, that's already the case. I'm not saying that that's commonplace - we all know that it's not - but more often than not it would be legal.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I have to admit that I have not read the prop, but I'm willing to bet there is a provision to protect employees.

You'd lose that bet. Law students learn in their first semester to presume nothing about anything in writing unless you've read it first.

I found the Colorado proposition with a quick Google search. Quoting from it (pardon the all-caps; it's a cut & paste):

Quote

(a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.

In plain English, the specific phrase "OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES" means that if a Colorado employer wants to prohibit its employees' MJ use (and not just on the job), it still can do so.

PS - the Arizona law was a poor predictor because (a) state laws are very frequently non-uniform from one state to another, and (b) in any event, the AZ law deals with medical MJ, whereas the CO proposition deals with recreational MJ.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

I'm thinking of cigarettes, too.

And there is a fairly significant black market for those in Canada.

A couple of decades ago, the provincial government in Ontario actually reduced taxes on tobacco products to reduce the criminal element associated with the underground tobacco markets.

(As a side note, some manufacturers were found to be directly supplying that illegal market)

In the end, in a fully legalized market, price point and availability will determine the value of any illegal trade.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm thinking of cigarettes, too.

And there is a fairly significant black market for those in Canada.

There is a fairly significant market for people in Virginia loading up a truck with cigarettes and driving it to New York, too. There are periodic busts but it is hugely profitable for smugglers.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm thinking of cigarettes, too.

And there is a fairly significant black market for those in Canada.

There is a fairly significant market for people in Virginia loading up a truck with cigarettes and driving it to New York, too. There are periodic busts but it is hugely profitable for smugglers.

I'm in the wrong racket.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm thinking of cigarettes, too.

And there is a fairly significant black market for those in Canada.

There is a fairly significant market for people in Virginia loading up a truck with cigarettes and driving it to New York, too. There are periodic busts but it is hugely profitable for smugglers.

I'm in the wrong racket.

Stop playing tennis.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

You'd lose that bet. Law students learn in their first semester to presume nothing about anything in writing unless you've read it first.

I found the Colorado proposition with a quick Google search. Quoting from it (pardon the all-caps; it's a cut & paste):

Quote

(a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.

In plain English, the specific phrase "OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES" means that if a Colorado employer wants to prohibit its employees' MJ use (and not just on the job), it still can do so.

PS - the Arizona law was a poor predictor because (a) state laws are very frequently non-uniform from one state to another, and (b) in any event, the AZ law deals with medical MJ, whereas the CO proposition deals with recreational MJ.

I stand corrected....really should have read the prop.
Looks like some employees may find themselves in a precarious situation. In light of no provision in the state law and no changes to the federal law, I can't imagine many employers changing their drug policies.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

In light of no provision in the state law and no changes to the federal law, I can't imagine many employers changing their drug policies.

I wouldn't expect so. It really has become firmly ingrained in the corporate culture over the past 20 years or so.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

if MJ is legal how could the employer then punish their employees for using it?

Because they're private, not public, employers. That means that if it's in an "employment at will" state (most states are), employers can hire or fire any non-contract employee at any time for any reason (as long as the action does not violate some other law, such as, for one example, anti-discrimination laws.) In states (again: most) where that's the case, the only thing that would stop (and not just discourage) employers from maintaining such a practice and policy would be a specific provision of law.

Quote

If they could, couldn't people be punished for using alcohol or tobacco on their own time too?

Generally, yes. In fact, in most employment-at-will states, that's already the case. I'm not saying that that's commonplace - we all know that it's not - but more often than not it would be legal.

Not in Wisconsin. A while back (maybe 15 years or so) the courts ruled against having a written policy forbidding any legal activity. There were a lot of companies that wouldn't hire smokers (tobacco) and would test for it before hiring. It went to court and the smokers won. I can't quote cases or anything, but I worked for a company that tried to have this kind of policy. It wasn't part of the suit, but dropped the policy after the court decision.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Not in Wisconsin. A while back (maybe 15 years or so) the courts ruled against having a written policy forbidding any legal activity. There were a lot of companies that wouldn't hire smokers (tobacco) and would test for it before hiring. It went to court and the smokers won. I can't quote cases or anything, but I worked for a company that tried to have this kind of policy. It wasn't part of the suit, but dropped the policy after the court decision.

That's great news. For Wisconsin. But unless Congress acts to impose that that standard nation-wide (which isn't likely unless both houses of Congress plus the President are all Democratic at the same time, AND the Dems in the Senate have a filibuster-proof super-majority - a very unlikely scenario), each individual state legislature would have to do so. And most state legislatures tend to be quite conservative. So I just don't forsee it happening anytime soon. Sad, because I consider, oh, about 80-90% of all workplace drug testing to be unwarranted and abusive, but it is what it is.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

There is a fairly significant market for people in Virginia loading up a truck with cigarettes and driving it to New York, too. There are periodic busts but it is hugely profitable for smugglers.

I'm in the wrong racket.

Indeed, there is huge profit potential in smuggling cigarettes. http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/state-news/2012/sep/05/tdmain01-va-federal-officials-aim-to-crack-down-on-ar-2178495/

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"