digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

No Good Reason For Anti-Medical Pot Decision Against Voters

theunion.com — It is almost certain that the 56 percent of California voters who approved Proposition 215 in an attempt to legalize medical use of marijuana did not intend for employers to discriminate against persons who take advantage of the law they passed. It's clear the court majority reacted with a knee-jerk against any kind of pot use.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Surferess, on 07/07/2008, -1/+23As a Californian, I can tell you this Prop 215 has not ever been properly implemented and most law makers want to keep it that way. It may be easy in San Francisco or LA to find a dispensary, but you will not find one in San Diego County.
    • zephyr42, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5From what I understand about it (I haven't actually read it in full), the proposition was poorly constructed and quite vague. This would account for a lot of... oh I don't know "assumed legality" in some parts but complete lack in others?
    • SIRBERUS, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Same as orange county. There are delivery places, but no actual dispensaries.
      • Whackly, on 07/08/2008, -2/+4dispensaries are preferable to delivery? gimme delivery anyday. 60$ tip if it comes with a large pizza and a 2 liter of 7up.
      • SIRBERUS, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Delivery places have very, very, very limited variety.

        Their prices are also slightly more ($20+ more per 8th). Some only sell by the ounce or quarter.

        Dispensaries, on the other hand, have--sometimes--dozens of strains, better prices per 8th, and even edibles and other nice things.
  • voxtarri, on 07/07/2008, -3/+17I wouldn't want to work for an employer who was close minded anyways.
    • warlax27, on 07/08/2008, -18/+4As an employer that's just what I want a bunch of stoners working for me....
      • NikoKun, on 07/08/2008, -3/+14As an employer, you need to know that, whether or not someone uses pot, has no effect on their work productivity.

        No more so, than if they drink beer.

        As long as they don't do it at work, what's the problem?
        And for medical users, you have no right to deny them the use of their medicine.
      • bdawg123, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2@warlax27

        So, alcoholics are OK then?
    • staeiou, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Just say that when you get offered your dream job with excellent pay and that boss who would have been so laid back if he only had not asked you to pee in a cup.
    • ufia, on 07/08/2008, -9/+2Nice try, voxtarri, we all know you don't have a job.
      • voxtarri, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3I'm a full time artist and a non-stoner actually
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/08/2008, -3/+13People who smoke pot =/= stoners.
  • shadowspawn, on 07/07/2008, -15/+5You can get fired for using tobacco. I failed to see an uproar about that, and it *is* legal last I checked. So I ask... why the uproar about getting fired for using pot?
    • alapoet, on 07/07/2008, -3/+21Bad analogy.

      Tobacco isn't used as medicine.

      The correct analogy would be firing someone for using, say physician-prescribed Vicodin or Valium in their off time (so as not to impact job performance).

      Marijuana is now legal medicine in 12 states. It's time to get over our pot phobia and get on with our lives -- and to allow medical marijuana patients to be productive, working, members of society.
      • Kosher1947, on 07/08/2008, -5/+1I beg to differ sir. Nicotine is a medicine and has been shown to help with the controlling of tourettes syndrome. So tobacco is a medicine in so much as it can be used to attain nicotine. Marijuana is a medicine so much as it can be used to attain THC.

        BOTH, can have there active ingredients distilled into a controlled non-smoked form. And there has been no study to show that smoking marijuana has any benefit over taking THC, and in fact it is safer given that marijuana smoke is more toxic than the smoke from tobacco.

        So while I am not necessarily against marijuana I am going to have to say that a comparison of the two is legitimate given the above explanation.
      • bobbothegod, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1 To Kosher...

        Suppose someone is a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy. Are you aware that one of the many side effects of chemotherapy is extreme nausia? When suffering from nausia, it is difficult/impossible to swallow a pill, such as Marinol, and keep it down.

        For those patients, smoking cannabis is the only option.
      • ashfish, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Kosher, that synthetic THC you're talking about can create psychoactive effects in patients because it lacks the cannabinoids in pot to retard those reactions. I don't know about you but taking medicine that causes hallucinations wouldn't be at the top of my list. There are also other ways to take marijuana to receive its benefits, like baking or vaporizing so the effects of the smoke are out.
  • alapoet, on 07/07/2008, -2/+38Medical marijuana is legal in California (and 11 other states)... Yet you can get fired for using this legal medicine, even with a doctor's recommendation, according to the California Supreme Court. What's up with that?
    • zephyr42, on 07/08/2008, -1/+11The reasoning is that the federal government (And high courts) still see's the plant as a schedule 1 drug, aka no medical use. Bureaucracy needs to catch up with the peoples opinion.
      • captric, on 07/08/2008, -16/+2The peoples opinion needs to catch up with science. There is no legitimate medical use for pot that cannot be substituted with legal, tested, proven and safer prescription or over the counter drugs.
      • VKMO, on 07/08/2008, -2/+19@ captric:

        Wrong.

        My husband has hepatitis C. Anti-nausea drugs (other than marijuana) accelerate the damage to his already compromised liver function.

        According to his physician and liver specialists, marijuana, being almost entirely non-toxic, is less damaging to his liver than any of the alternatives.

        Marijuana is also more effective at controlling nausea for cancer patients than any of the alternatives. A big plus is that it doesn't have to be swallowed, which can be a challenge for someone who is almost constantly throwing up.
      • Zarokima, on 07/08/2008, -2/+13Safer? You know that every single one of those over-the-counter drugs you're touting kills more people every year than pot has killed ever, right?
      • captric, on 07/08/2008, -11/+2@VKMO my sympathy for your husband, but it is no accident that you are from Seattle and believe that marijuana is a non toxic magic pill. It is not. Marijuana is not a proven pain killer, in spite of what your so called doctor may have said. There are REAL medications that can be used to treat H -C. The fact that you and your husband seem to buy in to illegal drugs as medicine argument may explain why your husband has H-C to begin with. Tattoos, drug needles, and promiscuous sex are the major causes of H-C.
      • captric, on 07/08/2008, -8/+2@Zarokim - haha - uhhh - no they DON'T. Smoking kills 300,000 people every year and for the same reason that smoking marijuana is dangerous for your health.. So if we legalize marijuana we would only increase the deaths by smoking in this country and do NOTHING for pain relief.
      • bobbothegod, on 07/08/2008, -1/+11 To captric...

        Can you show us one legitimate, unbiased study that proves the toxicity of cannabis?
        I've been searching for over ten years with no success.

        To compare cannabis to tobacco is futile as most cannabis is not laced with numerous chemical additives to keep smokers hooked. I smoke, and find that I am not just addicted to cigarettes, I am addicted to Marlboro. No other brand seems to satisfy my cravings.

        Tobacco also contains Polonium 210, a naturally occurring, radioactive isotope. Cannabis does not.

      • captric, on 07/08/2008, -4/+1
        Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)-THC), the psychoactive ingredient of cannabis sativa, reduces both extracellular hippocampal acetylcholine concentration and correct alternation tasks in the T-maze.The principal aim of this study was to determine whether a chronic Delta(9)-THC treatment would induce tolerance both to the reduction of extracellular hippocampal acetylcholine concentration and memory deficit produced by the drug.Our results show that a chronic Delta(9)-THC treatment (5mg/kg, i.p., twice daily for two weeks) did not produce tolerance to the inhibitory effects induced by the drug. Moreover, no strict temporal correlation between the two Delta(9)-THC effects was observed: the inhibition in extracellular acetylcholine concentration appeared only 80 min after treatment, while the reduction of correct alternation tasks in the T-maze began after 20 min. The cognitive and cholinergic effects induced by a chronic Delta(9)-THC treatment were completely blocked by the CB(1) cannabinoid receptor antagonist SR 141716A, indicating an involvement of CB(1) cannabinoid receptors in the persistent negative effects induced by the drug. These findings confirm the proposition that CB(1) cannabinoid receptors mediate the negative effects induced by Delta(9)-THC both on hippocampal extracellular acetylcholine concentration and correct alternation tasks in the T-maze, and they indicate that these effects may be differentiated. However, the major outcome of this work is the demonstration that no tolerance to the two inhibitory effects develops after a chronic Delta(9)-THC treatment.

        Nava F, Carta G, Colombo G, Gessa GL.
        Department of Neuroscience, Bernard B. Brodie,
        University of Cagliari,
        Cittadella Universitaria Monserrato,
        S.S. 554 Km 4.500, 09042,
        Cagliari, Italy.
        felnava@tin.it
        Neuropharmacology. 2001 Sep;41(3):392-9

        If you do not understand this than maybe you are having trouble concentrating! Here is the result - you don't get used the deleterious effects of pot by smoking it daily! It figures you are addicted to nicotine as well and it is your imagination that Marlboro is involved in some sort of conspiracy!! Only a ***** druggie with an altered perception of reality would come up with that one!
      • captric, on 07/08/2008, -4/+1The administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principle psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, or the endogenous cannabinoid anandamide, has been shown to impair recent memory. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine if the cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonist SR141716A could attenuate THC- or anandamide-induced memory impairment, and to assess the effects on memory of SR141716A alone. Memory was assessed in rats well-trained in a two-component instrumental discrimination task, consisting of a conditional discrimination, and a non-match-to-position to assess recent or working memory. SR141716A (0.0-2.0 mg/kg) had no effect on either the conditional discrimination or the non-match-to-position. However, SR141716A (0.0-2.0 mg/kg) attenuated the memory impairment produced by THC (2.0 or 4.0 mg/kg) as indexed by an enhancement of performance in the non-match-to-position. When administered to rats pretreated with anandamide (2.0 mg/kg), SR141716A (0.0-2.5 mg/kg) impaired performance in the conditional discrimination at the highest dose. This was interpreted as a deficit in some capacity unrelated to memory (e.g., motor impairment). However, lower doses of SR141716A (0.1 and 0.5 mg/kg) attenuated the anandamide-induced impairment of performance in the non-match-to-position without affecting the conditional discrimination. This is the first report that the memory impairment produced by anandamide can be attenuated by a cannabinoid antagonist; results suggest that anandamide-induced memory disruption is mediated by CB receptors.

        Mallet PE, Beninger RJ
        Department of Psychology,
        Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
        gardner@aecom.yu.edu
        Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1998 Nov; 140(1):11-9
  • screwy3333, on 07/08/2008, -1/+23at first glance this looks like it's from theonion.com
  • nonfatmilk, on 07/08/2008, -1/+25Incredibly unjust. I don't think an employer should be allowed to fire an employee if tested positive for marijuana. I mean, as long as the employee isn't showing up to work high and doing all that is expected at work why should it matter what they do in their spare time?
    • SlimFastForYou, on 07/08/2008, -4/+9Shut up, slave! You are to do as you're told and are not to question your government. Marijuana is bad, mkay? It makes you think. If it weren't for all those damned liberal democrats in congress, we could have already outlawed critical thinking. If knowledge is spread, the terrorists win! You don't want the terrorists to win, do you you ungrateful pathetic unamerican scum sucking poor excuse for a breathing organism? We should return to the days of poll tests. Maybe ask questions like: "Do you accept George W. Bush as your lord and savior?" That would be a good way to disenfranchise the degenerate portion of the population that shouldn't be voting. Goddamn lib'rals.
    • nonfatmilk, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1That just made me lol.
  • russ3, on 07/08/2008, -5/+8I'm reading this and thinking to myself, this is the least funny article the onion has ever released.
  • mulling, on 07/08/2008, -1/+20I look forward to the inevitable upcoming ballot measure which forbids employers from firing medical marijuana users over their medicine. It'll be an added bonus if it also forbids local law enforcement from cooperating with feds on health clinic raids. The nice thing about California is that while the establishment is somewhat fascist, the majority of the population are freedom-loving patriots.
    • Buelldozer, on 07/08/2008, -3/+2Those the same "freedom loving patriots" that pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist? The same ones who can't quiiiite get behind that "Freedom of Speech" part when it's a person in uniform that wants to do the talking?

      Yeah, real patriots over there.
    • RRJackson, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1I lived in L.A. in the early 80's and lived in Sonoma County for the last eight years (until February). I know you can't generalize about a population that large, but the short version is, "I hate my parents! I came out west to reinvent myself! See, everything's about ME now! I talk a lot of neo-Buddhist hippie liberal *****, but if I need a cart in the grocery store and yours is unattended I'll empty it out and take it. I'll cut you off in traffic and I'll use hot-button topics as an excuse to lash out at people who don't share my views of the world. Vote for pot!!!"

      I like to get high from time to time, but don't ever call Californians, "freedom-loving patriots." Most of them are barely even Americans. And of course a huge number of them are illegal immigrants.
    • bobbothegod, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1I wonder what happened to the fourth amendment, you know, the one about unreasonable search and siezure. Requiring someone to piss in a cup as a precondition to employment is an unreasonable search and siezure of bodily fluids, yet is has become widely accepted.
  • jeffness, on 07/08/2008, -11/+10employers can fire anyone for any reason or no reason at all, get used to it hippies.
    • cheezintern, on 07/08/2008, -2/+9If they are private companies than yea, they can fire employees for any reason they want.
    • nodong, on 07/08/2008, -1/+8Uncreative, uptight, bean counters are going to lose their jobs in the coming information economy, get used to it squares.
  • JasonCox, on 07/08/2008, -18/+2Stop doing drugs you fraking pot heads.
    • VaporBro, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7Nugs aren't drugs. ZERO deaths in the History of Mankind. Educate your cox
    • juniorb, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1As much as I love BSG, buried for using "frak" when it has nothing to do with the show.

      Besides, Ron Moore smokes pot. And Adama and Roslin smoked some crazy ***** during Baltar's Ground Breaking on New Caprica.

      God, I'm a fraking nerd.
    • bdawg123, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You stop first, OK?

      That means no alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, cough medicine, etc.

      Morale of the story: Not all drugs are bad and some legally accepted drugs are much worse than marijuana.
  • magamiako, on 07/08/2008, -14/+3I really don't care what any of you try to say but "dispensaries" in CA are not "medical" institutions. Hide behind all the words you want but the fact is you're still smoking pot. And yes, there are long term negative health affects associated with pot use--as well as social effects that affect your life, possible children's lives, and others around you.

    But hey, you keep living in your stoner pipe dream.
    • dizilbdog, on 07/08/2008, -1/+7That's the dumbest ***** I have ever read on digg, seriously read a book and stop watching fox news. Ignorance is bliss is this country and you sir continue to prove it.
      • york2600, on 07/08/2008, -4/+1Move to Humboldt County, CA and we'll see if you can honestly say that there is no negative effects to pot. I spent my time in the emerald triangle and watched smart kids smoke themselves retarded in Humboldt. Pot is a drug, alcohol is a drug, and cigarettes are a drug. They're all drugs and they all lead to problems if you use them in excess. The 215 card ***** is the biggest scam in CA. I've been with people as they went to "doctors". Doctors that put up fliers on Humboldt State explaining how you can get a "get of a jail" card for just $150. You can get a card without any medical history or an exam. Just pay the cash and they sign. Fakest crap ever.
      • SIRBERUS, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2@york...

        People also throw their lives away abusing vicodin, morphine, and even nyquil. Are those not still useful drugs? Should we ban everything that can be abused?

        A red herring argument about it being abused or not does not take away the fact that it helps many.
      • dizilbdog, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Nice Siberus it's people who say marijuana will kill you when they go home to aspirin vicadin give their kids nyquil and adderall and depression drugs and feed them Mcdonald's bunch of hypocrites.
    • cheezintern, on 07/08/2008, -1/+8you're absolutely right, we should also ban tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, high fructose corn syrup, all burning of fossil fuels (including gasoline), violent video games/movies, etc...
      • magamiako, on 07/08/2008, -4/+2cheezintern:

        When someone eats fatty foods, they hurt themselves. Financial, taxation, and insurance costs aside. When I choose to eat a fatty food, it directly affects me. Me eating a cheeseburger will not affect you in any physical shape or form other than maybe a disgust at my fat tub of lard walking into the store ordering another cheeseburger, and maybe, MAYBE a brief sweat smell if it has been hot outdoors--and this is an EXTREME case of lardism we're talking here.

        Alcohol, yet again, despite the fact that someone MAY drink and drive, the act of having a few beers doesn't affect anyone around you.

        HOWEVER:

        When someone smokes a SINGLE cigarette--the people around them have to deal with it. Not only the terrible smell, but the health affects of second hand smoke.

        The same goes for weed, except differently. When someone smokes up a lot of weed with poorly ventilated areas, other people that may not smoke weed and may have pre-existing conditions (such as asthma) may be adversely affected by the area.

        And don't give me the junk about how "second hand smoke" problems are a myth--all you need to do is clean out either a smoker's computer area (if they smoke by it), or look at the corners of their ceilings in their household to see that they smoke.
      • bobbothegod, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3 To magamiako.

        My sister has asthma. When she has an attack, one small puff of cannabis is all it takes to end it.
    • sculptedguns, on 07/08/2008, -2/+5Why don't you educate us all about these long term effects? What effects do you think chronic pain could have on your life and that of the people who surround you? You really think people would go to these lengths to get legal pot if it were an excuse to smoke?

      If you really don't care, shut the ***** up.
      • magamiako, on 07/08/2008, -4/+2Yes, sculptedguns, yes, they would. They would go through these great lengths to obtain it as just an "excuse" to smoke.

        But hey, keep digging me down :)

        Pretty much, from my experiences, all you need to do is to prove you're a resident of CA and provide a note that you have a "headache" or some other ailment that MJ is supposed to "treat", and it's yours. The businesses are not run as medical institutions, a vast majority of the people going to them do not need pot and are using them as excuses to smoke.

        The people fighting for medical marijuana use are in their teens and 20's, a far cry from the random videos you see promoting its use by a single old person saying about how they can't get on in life w/o medical mary jane to help deal with their cancer pains.
      • sculptedguns, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Are you that ***** who used to smoke pot in public places full of babies, elderly, puppies and kittens? Second hand smoke, that is hilarious.
      • york2600, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1Arcata, CA in the heart of Humboldt County. One tiny little hospital and a few tiny tiny little doctors offices and...3 dispensaries. It's not medicine. The majority of their patients are college students that wanted legalized pot. If you want to legalize it then go ahead and do that, with hefty tax, but don't try to pass it off as medicine. It's not.
      • voxtarri, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Magamiako, you are right about the medical MJ distributions being easy to sneak through and they don't require any sort of real medical ailment in order to get the marijuana. Because of this, the medical marijuana laws are just an excuse for some people to smoke pot even though they don't have any sort of real sickness BUT you cannot deny the fact that marijuana really does help treat patients of neurological problems, asthma problems, real migraines, etc.

        I don't live in a state that allows medical marijuana but I do live in a state that allows Pain Management Centers. These centers seem to be very similar to what I hear these Medical MJ distributions are. At these centers, it's cash only, you check off what's wrong with you, and the doctor writes you a three year prescription to Xanax, Hydrocodone, Soma, Vicodin, whatever you feel like. BUT just because these centers are an easy excuse for underground drug dealers doesn't mean that these drugs given out don't work.
    • SIRBERUS, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2I'm willing to allow a percentage of people to abuse the system if it means that those whom are truly in pain can have some sort of relief.

      That is what compassion is. Understanding you can't have everything you want, but doing what you can to help others.

      I'm glad you find peace with yourself in your beliefs that is it is ok for thousands to suffer as long as no one cheats the system.
    • westbay1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You see the commercials on TV... the long term side effects are:
      1) Melting into a pool of mush on a sofa
      2) Trapping yourself in a weed cocoon
      3) Having your dog tell you he doesn't like it when you smoke weed
    • bdawg123, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1"there are long term negative health affects associated with..."

      I could complete that sentence with 100 different things, all worse for you than marijuana, which are perfectly legal. Are you suggesting that we ban anything with "negative health affects"?
      • voxtarri, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Trans Fats, non-organic milk, any food past the expiration date, alcohol, tobacco, certain types of mattresses that hurt your back, carbs, anti-depressants -- let's ban them all!
  • VaporBro, on 07/08/2008, -1/+29LEGALIZE IT
  • alpha88, on 07/08/2008, -17/+1It. Smells. Like. *****.

    That's why it shouldn't be legalized. It smells worse than cigarettes FFS.
    • bizcochoman, on 07/08/2008, -1/+7FAIL
    • looselips, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1All the better reason to provide the raw plants and begin making a tincture or spray.
      We would learn to bottle it like beer if we have to make it kid-safe enough for you, but we shouldn't have to.
      I just had a surgery in a medical-pot-state and not once could I have had a chance to use thc as both a legal and safe remedy, in fact it wasn't even suggested.
      Some good green would have been fine either vaporized or in some cookies, but instead I got to use strong pills which may hurt me or my remaining organs.

      I sure wish I had more parent type people to constantly watch us all or life just would not be fair enough equally for everyone.
    • bdawg123, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1That's a matter of opinion, not fact. Besides, to suggest that something should be illegal due to the way it smells is just plain stupid. In your world, you'd be breaking the law every time you broke wind.
    • voxtarri, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1May smell bad to some people but the smell doesn't linger clothes or cause bad breath.
  • alapoet, on 07/08/2008, -1/+25Anyone who thinks pot "smells like *****" is smoking the wrong pot.
  • damagemouse, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5the court has opened up a HUGE can of worms here. this is why it's so important for future generations to get involved in politics and law.

    what other medications can be grounds for non-hire/dismissal? the court has set a dangerous precedent - one which will result in further contestation and law suits.
  • plamoni, on 07/08/2008, -1/+15It seems to me that ruling that an employer can legally fire an employee for use of a legal drug opens up a huge can of worms. What if an employer suddenly decides that it doesn't want to hire people who use Midol or Birth Control? Does that give them the legal right to exclude 90% of women from the workplace? What if they decide to fire any employee using medicine proscribed during pregnancy? Can they then fire a woman for being pregnant? What if they decide to fire anyone using Anti-HIV drugs... Can they then fire you for getting HIV? What if they could fire you for having been inoculated for Smallpox? Does that mean they can fire anyone over 40?

    This seems to me to be a back door to discrimination. Say what you want about whether Marijuana should be legalized, that's every US Citizen's right. The fact is that the majority of Californians voted to allow its use as a pharmaceutical. This is no different from the DEA's stance that the voters of California cannot be trusted to make informed decisions and need to be "corrected" through destructive, costly, potentially dangerous and wholly unnecessary raids of legitimate businesses.
    • jeffness, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3In Michigan, many people have been fired from companies for being smokers of cigarettes. In Lansing, Insurance company Weyco did it and others followed suit. There is nothing wrong with dismissing employees for private conduct.

      Protected classes are: Race, Sex, Medical Disorder and Age. Personal choices are not a protected class.
    • Luke2012, on 07/08/2008, -1/+0"What if an employer suddenly decides that it doesn't want to hire people who use Midol or Birth Control?"
      Disparate impact and treatment laws would prevent that since gender is a protected class.
    • arobicha, on 07/08/2008, -1/+0You missed the point of the ruling because the author was biased. This was a measure which brings the rights of employers on par with federal laws. Pot is illegal on the federal level, thus employers need protection on the federal level against an issue as sided as this. Sure it might not be right, but I think this is a little too sensationalist to make a valid point.
  • captric, on 07/08/2008, -13/+3My employer tests for drugs and I am glad for it, I dont want to work with a bunch of pot heads because they have proven that they are dangerous in safety related occupations.
    • screwy3333, on 07/08/2008, -2/+13I don't want to work with a bunch of alcoholics either...they are pretty dangerous in safety related occupations
      • captric, on 07/08/2008, -8/+2That is true, except that alcohol does not stay in your body and affect you for 30 days like THC does! Safety related occupations do not tolerate alcohol abuse either and that is also tested for randomly.
      • bdawg123, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3"affect you for 30 days like THC"

        Please cease to partake in these discussions anymore. You've just shown how ignorant you are with that one statement. Detectable in the body and affecting your mental state are two entirely different things. If you honestly think someone remains stoned for 30 days after smoking marijuana, you are a complete idiot.
  • Obzerva, on 07/08/2008, -2/+2Jeez I thought theunion.com was theonion.com for a second...
  • Elderon, on 07/08/2008, -2/+6I think the whole knee jerk reaction thing is caused by the indoctrination by things like D.A.R.E and it's just say no philosophy. kids come out of that thinking that even smelling pot will like fry their brains, turn them into a jobless deadbeat and give them cancer..etc. We're told that those potheads and other druggies will tell us anything to get us to try it, in order to get us hooked. The fact that these classes are usually taught be police officers is no surprise. Personally I'd rather have a program taught by a professor that studies drug interactions that can actually tell us what the drugs do to our bodies.

    Personally I stand by this view: Smoke if you want to. I don't really like the harder drugs like heroine and meth, but really if it's at your own home, I don't care what you do. As for cannabis, I say smoke it. Don't smoke while on the job and perhaps I wouldn't have doctors or pilots intoxicated while working but anyone else I don't really care.
    • magamiako, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Considering they want to rule it as a "medical necessity", this implies dosage requirements which may require smoking on the job.

      And no, the problem with the people on digg's comments right now is that most of them are in their teens and twenty's and don't understand the long term health effects of weed on family, relationships, children, and so forth.
      • WalkerTXclocker, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Most of the "long term effects on family, relationships, children" are because its illegal not because of the drug. I smoke tabacco and their are women who would not date a smoker. That's their choice. The problems arise from people finding out later that you smoke pot or getting in trouble with the law cuz you can't exactly going around announcing it. If pot was legalized a lot of the effects would disappear along with the drug lords and curruption that comes from the war on drugs.
  • dball48, on 07/08/2008, -2/+5I'm all for the legalization of pot, but employers can fire people for drinking caffeine for all I care, it's their ***** company.
  • cerealjynx, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Being stoned at work is really not that fun anyway.
    Unless you're an airline pilot.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/08/2008, -2/+5Why is booze legal but pot is not? Tobacco kills 400,000 Americans per year, pot kills zero Americans per years. Why is pot not legal?
    • Kosher1947, on 07/08/2008, -2/+3Long term studies on marijuana haven't been conducted at the same level as tobacco studies. The results of the few we have do point to an increased cancer risk of chronic marijuana smokers on par with cigarette smokers.

      Also...the true numbers on death attributable to marijuana can be found by looking at the toxicology data of people who died as a result of accidents while under the influence.
      • juniorb, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4"Also...the true numbers on death attributable to marijuana can be found by looking at the toxicology data of people who died as a result of accidents while under the influence."

        ***** correlation.

        According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (that's a cumbersome title!), nearly 100,000 fatal car accidents per year are linked to falling asleep at the wheel. Do we blame sleep? No. We blame the person for doing something dangerous while tired.
      • bobbothegod, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1Kosher, please give us the names of these studies so that we can research and find out who paid for these studies. I seriously doubt they are unbiased.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Let's not forget, we can also eat it, wear it, build with it and run our cars and power plants with it.
      Nothing I have seen reported would be any worse than the effects of booze, or even than the chemicals monsanto is pushing into our food supply.
  • kwolf, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
  • JD52, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1I say we start hanging some of these stupid old ***** who make this country a lot ***** that it needs to be. We should start with Phelps.
  • mstrymxer, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3why don't the politicians realize that when they get out of congress senate or whatever the next generation will prob decrim or legalize marijuana b/c patients need it and its not deadly like cigarettes alcohol and even aspirin. they should go on and legalize it so they will be remembered forever.
    • bobbothegod, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0The next few waves of politicians will be more of the same, if not before holding office, shortly thereafter. Major industries have a lot of money to lose if cannabis is legal. Paper industry, petrochemical industry, pharmaceutical industry, prison industry, textiles.
  • mrsteveman1, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3""The Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) does not eliminate marijuana's potential for abuse or the employer's legitimate interest in whether an employee uses the drug,""

    ***** you. You don't get to decide what constitutes "abuse". Employers don't get to dictate what employees do with in their private time, ESPECIALLY if it doesn't affect their work in any way.

    Your ***** ruling is an example of abuse of your position of power.
  • Kosher1947, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1uniorb>

    Well than in that case you entire original post was nothing more than a ***** correlation. Tobacco doesn't kill anyone, stupid choices do. Booze has no negative effects, people just make bad decisions.

    But...we do look at drunk driving. LOOK...I don't care what you believe, you are free to believe it. What I am taking issue with is your blanket statement that marijuana kills But...we do look at drunk driving. LOOK...I don't what you believe, you are free to believe it. What I am taking issue with is your blanket statement that marijuana kills no one, while using the accident correlation to condemn alcohol through proxy. Get it?

    Marijuana has its negative consequences, and to deny that while pointing the finger at other drugs is to be willfully blind to what is obvious to anyone who looks into it. Personaly I don't care what anyone does so long as it doesn't deprive me. Still I don't understand the wisdom in being anti-tobacco while promoting another dangerous substance. Savvy?
    • Kosher1947, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1'What I am taking issue with is your blanket statement that marijuana "doesn't" kill'

      Was my intended statement in that line.
    • bobbothegod, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Kosher, it does deprive you, even if you never smoke cannabis. Prohibition in any form affects us all in a negative way, it erodes our personal freedom.

      Drug abuse needs to be treated as what it really is, a medical issue. Drug abuse should never be treated as a criminal issue. Dealers should be arrested, not consumers.

      Responsible cannabis use harms nobody, except the feelings and false morality of those who believe the lies of Lamont DuPont, Heny J. Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst.
  • BobbyFansRPpl2, on 07/08/2008, -2/+3How do these olds not realize that alcohol and tobacco are far, far more dangerous than marijuana could ever be? Oh wait, its because this country is ***** up. I'm moving to Canada
  • sparsely, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2@ bobbothegod: to those who buried your comment: ***** YOU.
  • Sarcasmooo, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1I hope "legalize it" becomes the main rallying cry, because I hear 'decriminalize it' as the oft-used compromise, from people who think legalization is unrealistic. Decriminalization means Mexican cartels stay in business while American companies still cannot legally sell. Legalize it, make it as common as beer and cigarettes, do some damage to the cartels destabilizing large parts of Mexico. Our ignorance and bias against a harmless substance used in a victimless 'crime', is costing people their lives outside our borders, when it should be subsidizing our economy.
  • gkiltz, on 07/08/2008, -1/+0If they DO ever legalize it, be ready for higher taxes! You would be amazed if you knew how much of the law-enforcement community lives on the profits of seized assets in drug busts!
    Just like health care got a lot more expensive all of a sudden when the number of abortions tanked, so law enforcement would all of a sudden get a lot more expensive when the number of drug asset forfeitures tanks!
  • captric, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1The case for marijuana's medical use is primarily from anecdotal clinical reports, human studies of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and animal studies on constituent compounds. The authors believe that while a key policy issue is to keep marijuana out of the hands of children, its use for medicinal purposes should be resolved by scientific research and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review. Weighed against possible benefits are increased risks such as cancer, pulmonary problems, damage to the immune system, and unacceptable psychological effects. More study is needed to determine the efficacy of marijuana as an antiemetic for cancer patients, as an appetite stimulant for AIDS and cancer patients, as a treatment for neuropathic pain, and as an antispasmodic for multiple sclerosis patients. If this new research shows marijuana to have important medical uses, FDA approval could be sought. However, the better response is accelerated development of delivery systems other than smoking for key ingredients, as well as the identification of targeted molecules that deliver beneficial effects without intoxicating effects. If the National Institutes of Health conducts research on marijuana, we would propose parallel trials on those indications under careful controls making marijuana available to appropriate patients who fail to benefit from standard existing treatments. This effort would begin after efficacy trials and sunset no later than 5 years. If this open-trial mechanism is adopted, the compassion that Americans feel for seriously ill individuals would have an appropriate medical/scientific outlet and not need to rely on referenda that can confuse adolescents by disseminating misleading information about marijuana effects.

    Making sense of medical marijuana
    by
    Rosenthal MS, Kleber HD
    Phoenix House Foundation, New York, USA.
  • bisexualf, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Recently same-sex marriage is a hot topic. Personally, i think it's great, especially for GLBT. One of my friends, who found her another part on the online community http://bisexualmingle.com, decided to get married recently. Hope they have a great marriage life.
  • voodoo7, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Whoah, that's my home town newspaper. Way to go NC.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.