Originally Posted by ess286

Like the OP says though it's till largely symbolic because weed is still illegal. As long as it's illegal on the federal level it will always be illegal... Oh, and as far as Breckenridge goes, the cops will just charge everyone under the state statute.

but don't you think that, in some places at least, the cops will take the will of the people into account and cut down on petty pot charges? i would hope so, anyway - you're needed for so much more elsewhere

 

Originally Posted by ess286

I still wouldn't use it though since I detest smoking

Fortunately you would still get to have loads of fun eating it though.

bfactor saves the day, as usual weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

Originally Posted by ess286

I still wouldn't use it though since I detest smoking

edibles FTW? Tell me these don't look delicious

You can also drink weed or suck weed (it comes in lollipop form too).

There are tons of ways to get high on marijuana without inhaling any smoke whatsoever Ess. When they legalize it, you should give it a try, it's fun. I wish I could still smoke weed. I do some of my best thinking when I'm high.

 

Originally Posted by ess286

Currently you can be charged with DUI while having too much weed in your system. There are roadside tests and of course fluid tests. Many states don't differentiate

keyword charged, obv the cop would say looked high and smelt high etc. but good luck using a piss test to give someone a dui, that will stick. Id love to hear of these road tests that are proved other than a policemans expert (not sarcastic) opinion. Also, i say that not sarcastically, but one time when I was in a court session a cop said he considered himself an expert on the subject having seen marijuana over 10-20 times

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

 

Originally Posted by bfactor

Heavy machineryaments

obv illegal if specially specified on the drug as something you can't do while you're on the drug obv obv obv

edit: lol I was too high on oxycodone, ironingly, to notice that your post said "marijuana" and not "oxycodone". Sighduckjalifjsae09fuaefklad

Its probably not a matter of what a label says, but rather what the employer deems to unsafe according to its policies. If an employer say no to testing positive for oxycodone it does not matter if it is prescribed.

Let's say, however, that the person is not a heavy machinery operator, which is obv a special circumstance since the drug company itself says you can't do that while on their drug, no ifs ands or buts, but instead let's say...

...that the person was not a forklift operator or UPS truck driver or whatever the fuck, but instead, was just a plain old office worker who sat in a cubicle doing regular plain old computer work.

Now THAT could put up a decent court case. Cuz now it could be argued that since the drug itself doesn't say it's bad to do office work while on it, then descriminating against the worker for taking medicine for a medical problem would be illegal.

Just like descriminating against a fat person who had to take diabetes medicine that made the person sleepier than the avg person would be illegal. Or just like descriminating against a dude with high blood pressure who had to take high blood pressure medication that made him sleepier than the avg person would be illegal.

Similarily descriminating against a chronic pain sufferer who took opiate painkillers which made him more relaxed/not-in-pain than the avg person would also be illegal if the person's work performance was not significantly worsened by the medication that is.

If the person's work isn't affected by their medicine, I think it's against the rules to fire the mofo for the sole reason of him using the medicine, regardless of what the medicine is, as long as it's legally prescribed, no?

Well, yeah. But would that be my only defense? I don't get the "I actually wasn't high at the time I was pulled over, the weed was leftover in my system from last week" defense too?

 

Originally Posted by bfactor

Let's say, however, that the person is not a heavy machinery operator, which is obv a special circumstance since the drug company itself says you can't do that while on their drug, no ifs ands or buts, but instead let's say...

...that the person was not a forklift operator or UPS truck driver or whatever the fuck, but instead, was just a plain old office worker who sat in a cubicle doing regular plain old computer work.

Now THAT could put up a decent court case. Cuz now it could be argued that since the drug itself doesn't say it's bad to do office work while on it, then descriminating against the worker for taking medicine for a medical problem would be illegal.

Just like descriminating against a fat person who had to take diabetes medicine that made the person sleepier than the avg person would be illegal. Or just like descriminating against a dude with high blood pressure who had to take high blood pressure medication that made him sleepier than the avg person would be illegal.

Similarily descriminating against a chronic pain sufferer who took opiate painkillers which made him more relaxed/not-in-pain than the avg person would also be illegal if the person's work performance was not significantly worsened by the medication that is.

If the person's work isn't affected by their medicine, I think it's against the rules to fire the mofo for the sole reason of him using the medicine, regardless of what the medicine is, as long as it's legally prescribed, no?

This is why post employment testing is more limited and performed only in certain circumstances, such as safety sensitive jobs, individual suspicion (which arises because job performance is in question), post accident testing and testing in legally required situations. This is also why there would be a policy in place so the employee knows the rules of his job.

Your standard "significant" affect on job performance is probably a little loose.

Ironically, the largest employer in breckenridge (the ski resort itself) drug tests at employment. I have never met a lift operator who wasn't a stoner. I may have missed a few obv. They were def drunks then lol. No wonder they have so much trouble finding employees. .....other side note: breckenridge tried to suceede (?) from the united states once way back in the day on a technicality. That's why they call it The Kingdom Of Breckenridge.

didn't read thread but pm The Feds for details...

 

Originally Posted by FenwayKing

colorado

and some one once said here Colorado will never...

Obama actually just recently had the Feds, DEA and other Enforcement agencies stop pursuing medical mj all together fwiw.

Its happening people sooner than later obv. What else r the big tobacco companies and the GOV guna sell/tax when it becomes near impossible for people to smoke tobacco?

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

Hip Hip! Jorge!

Hip Hip! Jorge!

weeeeee, i wont read a post past this bc of how awesome it is.