

Prop 203 for Medical Marijuana passed in Arizona - gregpilling
http://azstarnet.com/article_4a2acfa6-fef9-5104-ac14-422eb139a327.html

======
baddox
It seems weird that the medical use of a virtually harmless substance is
something that is put to a public vote. It should be up to doctors and
researchers to determine if a substance (a) has a legitimate medical
application and (b) is not so harmful as to make its medical application not
worth it. In fact, the Controlled Substances Act describes Schedule I
substances (the most controlled—no prescriptions may be written for these) as
such:

    
    
        The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:
        (1) Schedule I.—
        (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
        (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
        (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
    

"Accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" seems to mean it is
up to the medical community, and not to lawmakers or law enforcement.

~~~
rick888
A very small amount of people actually are smoking pot for the health effects.
The rest just want to get high. Why can't smokers just admit why they want it
legalized?

Which makes me think that there aren't really any health benefits. The only
studies I've seen are completely biased. The proponents are also very
religious about legalizing it and will not listen to any opposing views, which
makes me question their motives.

You also say it's your body and you can do what you want. The law proposed in
California would make it difficult to fire someone that smokes pot. I don't
agree with this. This takes away my right as a business owner.

~~~
icandoitbetter
>You also say it's your body and you can do what you want. The law proposed in
California would make it difficult to fire someone that smokes pot. I don't
agree with this. This takes away my right as a business owner.

So do you consider your right as a business owner to be more important than
the fundamental right to do whatever you want to your body? Seriously?

And EVERYBODY IS DRUGGED in this country. Some drink coffee. Some drink
alcohol. Some take anti-depressants. Some take anxiolytics. The performance of
your workers should be your only concern; the "why" behind their performance
should not bother you. If someone gets high all the time and is able to
produce amazing output, then why would you fire him? On the other hand, if
someone gets high all the time and is terrible at his job, you have a reason
to fire him that is cause-independent: he is not performing well. Why would
you care how people like to cope with reality? The only thing that should
matter for you is how useful they are to you for a given purpose.

Reality is harsh. People try to cope with it with their own tools. Different
tools work for different people. Drugs are such tools.

~~~
rick888
"So do you consider your right as a business owner to be more important than
the fundamental right to do whatever you want to your body? Seriously?"

If it makes it impossible for me to fire you because you are smoking pot as a
result of productivity loss, it's impeding on my rights, sorry. The California
law would have made it "discrimination" to do so, which is just ridiculous.

"If someone gets high all the time and is able to produce amazing output, then
why would you fire him?"

Do you want someone under the influence flying airplanes, driving a school
bus, or operating machinery that could potentially harm others? Seriously?
I've seen enough people high to know how scary a thought this truly is.

"The only thing that should matter for you is how useful they are to you for a
given purpose."

Right. Because a drug that many times causes short-term memory loss and
paranoia is going to help someone's productivity.

"Reality is harsh. People try to cope with it with their own tools. Different
tools work for different people. Drugs are such tools."

It's funny because you are so dead set on freedoms and rights. But when your
rights take away the rights of other people, you see no problem with it.

~~~
icandoitbetter
"If it makes it impossible for me to fire you because you are smoking pot as a
result of productivity loss, it's impeding on my rights, sorry. The California
law would have made it "discrimination" to do so, which is just ridiculous."

So you're saying that you're unable to fire someone who doesn't perform as
well as you wanted (be it because of pot or sheer incompetence)? I don't think
that's actually true... Sorry.

"Do you want someone under the influence flying airplanes, driving a school
bus, or operating machinery that could potentially harm others? Seriously?
I've seen enough people high to know how scary a thought this truly is."

Do you want someone under the influence of alcohol flying airplanes, driving a
school bus, or operating machinery that could potentially harm others?
Seriously? I've seen enough people drunk to know how scary a thought this
truly is.

Wait...

"Right. Because a drug that many times causes short-term memory loss and
paranoia is going to help someone's productivity."

Yeah, as we all know no drugs ever have negative side effects while still
having positive effects. But okay, I agree that high people are less likely to
perform well. All that is, however, besides the point: if they don't work
well, you can fire them. You don't have to bring up pot to make your case;
they aren't doing their job well, they're out. The law allows you to kick
people out because they don't do the job well.

Again, how many people do you see coming to work drunk? I'd guess not many.
Why do they not come to work drunk? Because they wouldn't be able to perform
very well. Why do they care about performing well? Because they want to keep
their jobs. I don't see how anything would be different with marijuana.

~~~
rick888
"Yeah, as we all know no drugs ever have negative side effects while still
having positive effects. But okay, I agree that high people are less likely to
perform well. All that is, however, besides the point: if they don't work
well, you can fire them. You don't have to bring up pot to make your case;
they aren't doing their job well, they're out. The law allows you to kick
people out because they don't do the job well."

What I'm saying is the wording of the law that didn't pass in Cali was such
that it would allow for people that were pot users to not be discriminated
against in the work place. Since it was fairly vague, it could easily be used
against the employer if those people were ever fired.

"Again, how many people do you see coming to work drunk? I'd guess not many.
Why do they not come to work drunk?"

Are there any specific laws that say that an alcoholic can't be discriminated
against by a potential employer? I don't think there are. This is the
difference.

Also, it's much easier to detect if a person is drunk (smelling it on their
breath, motor skills are affected). I know lots of people that smoke instead
of drink because they don't want to get a DUI.

