I merged it with the other thread that was apparently posted in the Lounge this morning, then moved to DC. We can move it back if this ends up seeming too political.

The Fed's think they do and always will until all states legalize the shit.

I know you're not endorsing the DEAs view, but I'd still like to respond:

That's bullshit.

Marijuana has a number of medicinal uses. They may not be the BEST AVAILABLE treatments, but they're natural and they do produce some level of symptom alleviation.

The prohibition on weed is commonly attributed to the alcohol and tobacco companies, but the MAJOR player in the fight is the pharmaceutical industry. The natural argument to that is, "well, let the pharm companies produce their own". Never, ever. The pharm companies understand that the growth of these plants is easy and readily available, making their advances in that industry difficult-at-best.

To the medicinal uses: weed is primarily a pain alleviator. It reduces intraocular pressure (hence the "glaucoma" stereotype), and depending on strain, can reduce anxiety, break insomnia, and certainly diminish post-chemotherapy symptoms. I work with a clinical oncologist, and she is a big believer in that type of natural approach, but often is left to proscribing whichever insurance-approved pharmaceuticals (many of which present a whole host of unrelated pharmacological issues) she's left with.

How are they going to legally test you for something that is not a controlled substance?

go wash your vagina. now.

Hooray! Ass backwards missouri will be ten years behind the rest of the country.

If your employer stipulates "no chocolate" and you refuse to empty your pockets, they have the right to dismiss. It's all about your employment agreement.

Because you would be under the influence of a drug, be it pot, prescription drugs, or w/e. They can claim that you could jeopardize the safety of others, depending on your occupation.

no, that's not how it works.


to be clear, there is no entity that has the "right" to search your piss unless you sign on for it.

don't you people have work contracts?

Yup. BUT, constitutional or not, this is where you'll see the best version of the libertarian ideal that "discriminate or prohibit if you want, but at your own peril". Once marijuana is no longer prohibited, employers who choose to perform THC-based drug testing will only hurt themselves. There are plenty of immensely intelligent people I know who smoke marijuana, and employers only do themselves a disservice by prohibiting them from gainful employment. Abuse of heroine, crack, cocaine, I can see... but not weed.

Most employers have you sign a waiver when you are hired that says they can piss test you, in all of these waivers it includes legal and illegal drugs, namely alchohol. So yes, employer can piss test you for anything they want, if you sign the waiver.

There is no testing -- at least in most civillian, "normal" jobs -- for alcohol or pharmaceuticals (that don't also match drug profiles, like Adderall), so why would employers only care about prohibited drugs? The abuse of oxy contin or alcohol are just as dangerous, or more so, than marijuana abuse. And in each case, the company should have trained their employees to spot workers who they suspect are under the influence. Weed has nothing to do with it.

For most jobs in the government p-tests are a condition of employment and if you don't accept the conditions of employment you are not elgible to be hired.

That's bullshit. An employer can, at anytime, mandate random urine test's for it's employees for any non-prescription drug use. They do have to give notice that the random test's are being utilized. If you don't like being tested, find a new job. Now, i am not sure how unions work with testings, but im sure the unions would have to have notice and agree to this.

And just out of curiousity, what is the recourse for an employer who finds out that you have tested positive for alcohol? Or any other legal substance? Seems like it would be grounds for a lawsuit unless the company could prove it was demonstrably harming your work.