Hypothesis: legalizing marijuana will have seriously bad unintended consequences

[Dreamer Tatum]

So if pot is legalized here in CA, I see a few things happening, all related to how much regulation gets put on
smokers. For example, if you have a commercial driver's license, the state may try to climb up your butt with testing
to regulate when you smoke. Likewise, employers may try to do the same thing, forbidding its use by employees and
imposing new, frequent, and invasive tests to monitor behavior. Also, bordering states may make life difficult for
anyone with a CA plate by assuming that they're high or in possession.

Any thoughts on that?

[pipi_k]

1. Yeah, because everyone knows that people follow the existing laws

and if pot becomes legal, tens of millions of people who wouldn't have used it otherwise will suddenly develop a desire to do so.

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. You're missing the point.

If it becomes legal, that will give people cover to invade your life to the nth degree.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. News Flash: The fucking idiotic "drug war" has already done that.

What do you suppose happened to that thing, what was it called--- oh yeah, the 4th Amendment? I remember that. Gone. Because of the Drug War.

The sooner we start to roll back the drug war, the better. This is a start.

[Blue_Tires]

45. exactly...

[rucky]

51. And those were intended consequences.

[pipi_k]

48. Why?

Alcohol is legal. Nobody invades our lives because of it.

Tobacco is legal. Same thing. Nobody invading someone else's life. And not allowing public smoking or having designated smoking areas isn't the same as "invading" someone's life.

I can't see where legal pot will cause anyone to invade someone else's life.

People's lives are being invaded now because it's illegal.

[Skittles]

5. or, people who do indulge will go wild with pot at work

because, you know, they are irresponsible

[Dark]

37. There are already companies that ban their employees from smoking tobacco.

They could, potentially, ban them from using weed at all as well.

[pipi_k]

50. They'll all be stoned out under their desks, too.

Society will fall and we'll be stuck back in the Dark Ages.


aughhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

:scared:

[bluestateguy]

2. While I support the proposition's passage, what you said can't be denied

It may very well lead to private employers stepping up their own drug testing.

And then we'll have to pass laws to crack down on that.

[Kolesar]

4. Drug tests are expensive

Is a company with 10,000 employees going to buy 10,000 tests per year at $100 per test? That's six zeroes.

[WhiteTara]

29. ads state that tests won't include canabis testing

in many papers in CA right now. I don't think it will change. People care if you are coked, methed, heroined up. Really.

[Kolesar]

57. My employer would probably want people to be stimulated

Like that movie Outland, where they forced workers to consume caffeine

[Swamp Rat]

6. Employers and police are already very very invasive, and it will get worse until they are stopped.

Marijuana, itself, has very little to do with it... if anything at all.

[mommalegga]

11. Perhaps Im hijacking but

Another employer screening technique I despise is checking your credit rating!! That should be outlawed. :mad:

[RKP5637]

19. I do wonder sometimes how far we are from a police state. Another major

economic turndown and I bet we are there... and I'm not paranoid, just a realist. If the R's are back in, in full swing, this country is going to get miserable... already we have students being tracked like cattle, surveillance up the ying yang on the internet, cameras everywhere, whatever, endless list...

Unwarranted police search and seizures, HTML5 code release well may yield unprecedented levels of invasion of citizens rights, now HR has new social networking invasions tools, and the list goes on... more people in prisons than anyplace else, cops becoming like the SS... At what point do we cross the line? or are we just about there...

Are citizens asleep or has the citizenry just acquiesced to this is the way it is... and don't even know it...

[MindPilot]

23. Yeah, I think most cops would prefer to not have to deal with pot

The ones who are against legalization probably have some vested interest in the drug trade like property seizures. Or they are the authoritarian nanny-state types whose self-sworn duty is to keep America pure and sin-free. Plus pot busts are easy compared to some of that other stuff where the crooks have guns and bombs.

[Scuba]

25. Bingo.

[pipi_k]

53. You know what cops are really scared of?

Domestic disputes...especially those involving alcohol.


Oh yeah...and disputes involving two crazy pizza restaurant guys fighting each other in the street with knives that are (no lie) 17 inches long with a blade
1 1/2 inches wide. Fourteen inches of those 17 is the blade.

Mr P was a cop. We still have the knife he wrestled away from one of the guys.

It's a friggen machete.

[Greyhound]

47. Always with a keen eye on the bigger picture.

I don't write how much I appreciate your participation here nearly often enough.

Support the troops, bring them home.

Peace. Now.

[GodlessBiker]

7. So, we shouldn't vote for more individual freedom because it may mean less freedom?

More is less? Where have I heard this before?

[Dreamer Tatum]

30. When did I say that?

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

8. Maybe employees will be less paranoid and more productive.

[musiclawyer]

9. Unlikely

DOT drivers already get tested for drugs and alcohol. On the job , preemployment and return to duty. Nothing bad happens unless you are under the influence at the time of a test Now, I know a thousand smart and hungry lawyers who will take the first case when someone gets fired for NOT being under the influence ov cannabis. Frankly the employment angle is the least of our problems. The biggest issue will be local governments getting their act together and building the structures to raise revenue. If money does not come in momentum will be lost

[Uncle Joe]

10. Those employers would need good reason due to cost and alienation to their employees.

I believe with time society will come to realize and overcome the overblown demonization propaganda of cannabis for what it is and there will be less hostility, and thus less knee-jerk motivation from employers against employees; that partake during their own time.

I also believe the nation as a whole is heading in the direction of legalization, each state at it's own pace.

[Johonny]

21. I wish that was true

Employers are generally in control of the consultants they hire to tell them what to do. Telling people they will be more productive by drug testing their employees is far easier than knowing actual things that lead to actual increased productivity. Given the current cultural structure of management in this country I don't see this happening. Worse once in place no matter how useless it is no company wants to say they stopped testing for the fear of the negative context some future costumer may place on them. Thus stupid expensive drug testing will likely continue if pot is or isn't legal.

[Uncle Joe]

43. If your scenario holds true, then companies; that resist the temptation

to drug test their employees will gain an important competitive edge over those that do. Their pool of potential employees will be greatly expanded over the more draconian, Big Brother type restrictive corporations.

I'm not totally against drug testing if it's a hazardous job and the company suspects the employee has come to work under the influence, other than that, everyone's private, personal life should be their own.

[slackmaster]

12. I see an entirely different set of possible negative unintended consequences

State and local governments are seeing pie in the sky from tax revenue, which will surely fall short of their rosy forecasts.

The state will crack down by creating and deploying a special corps of cannabis tax cops. People will still get busted for "unlicensed" production and sales, but instead of going to prison they'll face forfeiture of assets.

[bemildred]

14. The present arrangement has seriously bad intended consequences.

The prohibitionists will not just give up on Nov. 3rd of course, but so what?

Testing drivers for pot is very problematical if it is legal, as it does not leave the body quickly, the tests show positive for weeks. It would be necessary to resort to time-consuming behavioral tests to show that someone is unfit to drive. What would happen with employer testing mandates is an interesting question, but it's hard to see how it could be worse than now.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Whatever bad unintended consequences follow, they won't be as bad as the negative consequences

of continuing to do what we do now.

[GSLevel9]

16. in addition...

making it LEGAL and taxing it will just increase the demand for "tax-free" pot...


There will STILL be illegal pot dealing... the taxes will be HIGH. What good is it, really... if you can legally buy an ounce of great bud for $600 after tax?

Most will still want to buy a sack for $120.

Legalizing pot also might make OTHER PROPERTY CRIMES more common to allow people access to "easy" dope...

[Uncle Joe]

18. How did you come up with $600 for an ounce after tax?

How many property crimes are committed to obtain easy alcohol "dope"?

[eridani]

33. A demand that's very easy to meet

Ever heard of growing your own?

[shanti]

38. hold up there

not all municipalities WANT cannabis in their communities. my own has put a ballot measure up for november which will, if 19 passes OR NOT, place a "tax" on growing your own. the fees are so high that it makes growing your own prohibitive. they already refuse to allow any cannabis clubs in my city.

[eridani]

42. That is something that you will have to fight, of course n/t

[JuniperLea]

17. I can't see it going beyond alcohol...

There's a legal limit for alcohol consumption while driving... same should hold for The Weed.

[thelordofhell]

20. If you legalize it, people will just grow it on their own.......no taxes

There's no tobacco company type superpower for weed. Or does the new law have any probibition on growing it on your own?

Hell, I just visited L.A. recently and every other corner there smells like a bong.

[MindPilot]

28. From my voter guide: you will be allowed to grow within a 25 square foot area

That's pretty vague since it doesn't go into any detail about what method, or if that's per person. If there are three people in the house does that mean you have 75 sq ft of growing space?

[Gravel Democrat]

44. It is 5x5 per residence. Not per resident. 4 roomates? You get 1/5 of a 5x5

Here are a few good links with detailed analysis:

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/attorney-dragonfly-is-correct-about.html

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/8-issues-prop-19-supporters-refuse-to.html

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1657506&page=19

Few supporters of 19 have either read it or any objective analysis of it

[shanti]

39. try going to san francisco

it's the same way ;-)

[MindPilot]

22. Most of that is already happening.

IIRC there are provisions in prop 19 that forbid employers from taking action against an employee solely on the basis of a positive test.

There are already rules about showing up for work under the influence of anything to the point of being impaired; same with driving, so I don't think that's going to be a big issue.

My big question is will pot still be tested in a pre-employment drug screen?

[Scuba]

24. Employers are too cheap to test.

[and-justice-for-all]

26. All drugs should be legalized...

It would be a nice elimination process of some multitudes.

[Nikia]

27. In WI, they cannot discriminate against employees for using legal substances

Outside of work hours provided that one is not under the influence.
Even if some states don't have the protection, the reason that testers get away with drug testing is that using is illegal.
Currently, there is no equivalent of a breathylyzer for pot use (that I know of anyway). I think that if it were legal, testing companies might work on this problem. Right now, groups requesting testing do want to detect any marijuana use. If there is a demand to only measure its use within a short period of time, a test will probably be developed relatively soon.

[NBachers]

31. Take the result of the current prescription system and extrapolate it out to the full population

Sure, some people will get too loaded, and some communities will go overboard with taxation.

I think that, down the road, people will look back and say, "What's the big deal?"

[meow mix]

32. most likely everything will be the same as it is now.

the sky will remain upwards. dogs and cats will not be living together.

[RainDog]

34. Prop 19 Fact Check

http://www.taxandregulate.org/prop19anchors.html

Some information, fwiw.

[applegrove]

35. There is a place in Canada with a really high population of young adults and a very low

crime rate. Why? They are all stoned. Nelson BC has a ski hill and hiking. It is beautiful (Roxanne was filmed there I think).

[Rex]

36. I see you have never ridden with someone who smokes pot.

Can you guess which drivers next to you, on your daily trek to work, are stoned/stoners? I doubt it and if Big Brother wants to rip us a new one over Cali, they will do it anyways. I think arrests will go up initially, but the thousands serving for pot might finely get a break in Cali.

What more do you want?

[Dreamer Tatum]

40. Wait a minute. Hang on.

You can't have it all ways: you can't say that legalizing pot will bring in billions in tax revenue without allowing that far more people will use it, which would almost certainly be inclusive of people who've never tried it. That means that on average we should expect more impaired people behind the wheel if pot is legalized, which should result in more accidents.

I get that people want pot legalized, but the idea that driving while high is perfectly safe is bullshit.

[pipi_k]

54. Perfectly safe....I dunno...but

I lived with a guy for almost five years who was stoned nearly every day.

I never had a problem with his driving, and he never, as far as I know, had an accident.


:shrug:

[Dreamer Tatum]

55. OK, one guy down. 100 million + to go. nt

[bemildred]

56. Illegal pot brings in billions in revenues.

It is nothing special to think that legal pot could do the same, but to different beneficiaries. Do governments make a bundle from legal booze? Yes, why yes they do. Are bootleggers a minor problem these days? Why yes, yes they are.

Driving is a murkier issue, but nobody is suggesting we go back to prohibition because of it, and I think the same applies to cannabis.

[librechik]

41. yeah, like the cops will lose their forfeiture rights and go broke

without that second income stream.

[Greyhound]

46. Oh, there will be backlash alright, I don't think there is much doubt about that.

In addition to the possibilities already mentioned, if the federal government is directed to exert its authority within the state, this could well blow up into tragedy.

We'll just have to see how this goes...:shrug:

[Nye Bevan]

49. I'm sure you would have been very concerned in 1933 about Prohibition being repealed

but that turned out pretty much OK, didn't it?

[madokie]

52. Go back to sleep

and dream some more. I didn't like this last one :-)