The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on August 01, 2022, 12:57:57 pm
-
Into the weeds: Here's what's in the Senate Democrats' long-awaited marijuana bill
by Cami Mondeaux, Breaking News Reporter |
| August 01, 2022 07:00 AM
Senate Democrats unveiled their long-awaited marijuana legalization bill on Thursday, opening the door to future conversations on Capitol Hill about cannabis legalization despite its slim chances of being advanced in Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) released his Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which would decriminalize marijuana possession nationwide and allow states to enact their own laws without federal oversight. The legislation comes more than a year after Schumer proposed a draft of the bill and includes propositions that are backed by both parties.
Here’s what the bill would do:
Decriminalize marijuana and expunge criminal records
Under the bill, anyone with a criminal record related to nonviolent federal marijuana offenses would have his or her record expunged and records sealed within one year of enactment. For those still serving sentences, the legislation would allow them to file for sentence review hearings. After those hearings, courts are instructed to “expunge each arrest, conviction, or adjudication of juvenile delinquency” for the offense, as well as vacate the current sentence.
The U.S. comptroller general would also be instructed to conduct a study examining the demographics for who is most likely to be convicted on federal marijuana charges to be shared with Congress.
more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/heres-what-marijuana-bill-would-do
-
Not a word about giving Dispensaries access to the banking system so they can take credit cards (which I'd never use anyway).
-
It's a trap!
Would this question be changed or modified to remove "marijuana" from the text?
(From Form 4473)
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized
for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside
-
It's a trap!
Would this question be changed or modified to remove "marijuana" from the text?
(From Form 4473)
They wouldn't have to change the question to remove marijuana if marijuana is legalized federally.
-
They wouldn't have to change the question if marijuana is legalized federally.
All they'd do is remove "unlawful"
-
All they'd do is remove "unlawful"
They wouldn't need to change anything. If they make marijuana legal anyone 21 or over would be a lawful user of marijuana. I don't know how it is in other states but 8n Kalifornia you have to be 21 to 7se marijuana so anyone under 21 use marijuana would still be an unlawful user.
-
Not a word about giving Dispensaries access to the banking system so they can take credit cards (which I'd never use anyway).
@Cyber Liberty
Last Christmas, Santa gave me a $100 Visa gift card.
I tried to use it at my dispensary but the reader wouldn't accept it...even though it's essentially 'cash'.
Then a light went off in my head realizing it's to curtail money laundering...or am I mistaken in that?
-
@Cyber Liberty
Last Christmas, Santa gave me a $100 Visa gift card.
I tried to use it at my dispensary but the reader wouldn't accept it...even though it's essentially 'cash'.
Then a light went off in my head realizing it's to curtail money laundering...or am I mistaken in that?
As long as it's a Schedule 1 controlled substance, banks cannot legally do point of sale CC transactions. Been a law in the drug war for a long time. At least, that has been my understanding why they have a bunch of ATMs in the dispensaries.
-
They wouldn't need to change anything. If they make marijuana legal anyone 21 or over would be a lawful user of marijuana. I don't know how it is in other states but 8n Kalifornia you have to be 21 to 7se marijuana so anyone under 21 use marijuana would still be an unlawful user.
Modify the question thus:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
-
Modify the question thus:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
No, because it still refers to MJ as a "controlled substance." Just remove the word "marijuana."
-
No, because it still refers to MJ as a "controlled substance." Just remove the word "marijuana."
At present, even medical marijuana is 'controlled'. Like it or not, legal or not, this could remain a restriction and disqualifier.
It's no skin off my ass, one way or another, but I don't use it, and it would disqualify me from working on drilling locations, even if legal at present.
-
At present, even medical marijuana is 'controlled'. Like it or not, legal or not, this could remain a restriction and disqualifier.
It's no skin off my ass, one way or another, but I don't use it, and it would disqualify me from working on drilling locations, even if legal at present.
True in many professions, like tuck driving. And I think the proposed bill removes MJ from the list of Schedule 1 controlled substances. It would still, however, be "controlled," like Percocets, just under a different schedule.
You make a good point.
There will likely be lawsuits about companies that do random drug screens of 100% of their employees. The argument would be, "Why would a company care if a mailroom worker got high a month ago?" I worked for a large company that did that, but they quietly abandoned it because it turned out to be a huge waste of money ... nobody ever got caught and forced into rehab.
-
If marijuana is made legal federally nothing would or need to be changed with the 4473 form. As far as private companies go they can have just about whatever requirements of their employees they want to.
-
If marijuana is made legal federally nothing would or need to be changed with the 4473 form. As far as private companies go they can have just about whatever requirements of their employees they want to.
If you can't see another avenue to disarm the American public, then your tunnel vision is even more constricted than I had perceived. If the question of legality was removed from the form, and simply left 'user', then it could be made a disqualifier. Just saying.
-
If marijuana is made legal federally nothing would or need to be changed with the 4473 form.
MJ is specifically listed on the 4473, so yes it would have to be changed.
As far as private companies go they can have just about whatever requirements of their employees they want to.
True, for now. My company did it so they could put a "Drug Free Workplace!" sticker on their advertisements. Pure optics.
-
MJ is specifically listed on the 4473, so yes it would have to be changed.
True, for now. My company did it so they could put a "Drug Free Workplace!" sticker on their advertisements. Pure optics.
You are leaving out the greatest reason for the claim: Insurance costs. Behind it all, being able to claim a drug free workplace cuts insurance premiums, which can be a substantial expense.
Then, too, there are some jobs you might want people who are clear headed doing.
-
You are leaving out the greatest reason for the claim: Insurance costs. Behind it all, being able to claim a drug free workplace cuts insurance premiums, which can be a substantial expense.
Then, too, there are some jobs you might want people who are clear headed doing.
Absolutely! Like driving trucks and airplanes. And heavy machinery like construction equipment. In your case, people assembling drill rigs.
-
Absolutely! Like driving trucks and airplanes. And heavy machinery like construction equipment. In your case, people assembling drill rigs.
I can think of plenty of others too, like in the medical profession. Sure don't want my next surgeon tripping on a half dozen edibles.
-
Absolutely! Like driving trucks and airplanes. And heavy machinery like construction equipment. In your case, people assembling drill rigs.
Assembling them is hazardous, but operating them (safely) demands vigilance.
-
Assembling them is hazardous, but operating them (safely) demands vigilance.
Roustabouts won't be the people suing for relief from drug testing requirements because they are protecting their own lives. It will be people like mail room workers and yes, Geologists who don't operate the dangerous equipment to sue. I doubt they would win, but it's possible they will try.
-
Roustabouts won't be the people suing for relief from drug testing requirements because they are protecting their own lives. It will be people like mail room workers and yes, Geologists who don't operate the dangerous equipment to sue. I doubt they would win, but it's possible they will try.
Those who sue won't be getting any contracts, and that would be industry wide. Maybe office folks, but nowadays, it isn't the sort of thing you can have much room for error, and an 'error' is often a million dollar (or more) screwup. I just don't see the industry taking that chance when drug testing was credited for severely reducing accidents and other foul-ups. I'm a Geologist, and have had to take pre-employment and random tests.
-
Roustabouts won't be the people suing for relief from drug testing requirements because they are protecting their own lives. It will be people like mail room workers and yes, Geologists who don't operate the dangerous equipment to sue. I doubt they would win, but it's possible they will try.
As Safety and Environmental Mgr, I had to administer random (and for cause, or accident) drug testing.
You'd be surprised how rare we'd get positive hits at the plant level. Not many people were willing to risk blue collar $100K jobs for drugs.
-
Those who sue won't be getting any contracts, and that would be industry wide. Maybe office folks, but nowadays, it isn't the sort of thing you can have much room for error, and an 'error' is often a million dollar (or more) screwup. I just don't see the industry taking that chance when drug testing was credited for severely reducing accidents and other foul-ups. I'm a Geologist, and have had to take pre-employment and random tests.
It was my company's decision to discontinue the testing because it wasn't cost effective, even though there are dangerous jobs in the wafer fabs. One can make the case that somebody who consumed MJ a month ago could be a direct cause of them making a typo, but what does it cost to weed out such a person? And would that even be a case worth considering if someone isn't high when making the typo?
The problem is, there still isn't a widely available test for "Is this person high right now?" Like a breathalyzer for alcohol.
-
It was my company's decision to discontinue the testing because it wasn't cost effective, even though there are dangerous jobs in the wafer fabs. One can make the case that somebody who consumed MJ a month ago could be a direct cause of them making a typo, but what does it cost to weed out such a person? And would that even be a case worth considering if someone isn't high when making the typo?
The problem is, there still isn't a widely available test for "Is this person high right now?" Like a breathalyzer for alcohol.
And that creates a host of problems with legalization and enforcement of things like DUI, because the line which used to be at yes/no is now reduced to subjective observation of the accused impaired driver, which can be shredded by a competent defense attorney. Other contexts may vary, but the old line of present or absent was a clear threshold. Making that line fuzzy will not help matters, just present a gray area that will feed attorneys and cost money.
Even more so, identifying limits to determine what constitutes quantifiable intoxication, as has been done with alcohol (which has its limitations, too, as do the testing methods), becomes a problem in defining when a person is impaired, and to make that even worse, unlike alcohol, where X ounces of N concentration for a given body weight will, generally and predictably yield a given Blood Alcohol Content, making avoiding a DUI technically possible, how do you determine what amount of weed smoked or ingested will yield what concentration of intoxicating cannabanoids?
More problems than it is worth, imho, but I'm neither a user nor a fan of it. Others will disagree, not only about intoxication levels, but about latency and latent effects which seem apparent to non-users--just like the odor of skunk (but that's another story).
It seems odd to me that the same people who bitched mercilessly about the odor of tobacco smoke aren't out up-at-arms about the odor of skunk, but what do I know?
-
MJ is specifically listed on the 4473, so yes it would have to be changed.
True, for now. My company did it so they could put a "Drug Free Workplace!" sticker on their advertisements. Pure optics.
MJ would not have to be changed off of the 4473. It says UNLAWFUL. If MJ is legalized federally then it would be unlawful for 18yo to 21yo to use it. Anyone over 21yo would be LAWFUL use of MJ. The question on the 4473 remains valid.
-
MJ would not have to be changed off of the 4473. It says UNLAWFUL. If MJ is legalized federally then it would be unlawful for 18yo to 21yo to use it. Anyone over 21yo would be LAWFUL use of MJ. The question on the 4473 remains valid.
Aha! I get your point now. Sorry, took me awhile...
-
I'm not the smartest in the world...but shouldn't this be a state issue? But of course the Feds wouldn't get their cut.
IMHO, the feds should be taking up far more important issues...like they did with lynching. /s Of course it's difficult to multi-task as Rome burns.
-
Democrats sold us that gambling would save this nation, and now drugs will. There are always some that believe any crap democrats can drudge out of A SEPTIC TANK. Expect the drugs will save this nation no better than drugs, in fact probably do far more damage than the promises made on drugs behalf. Will the democrats then demand Mexican drug lords here disarm, instead of democrats arming them?
-
MJ would not have to be changed off of the 4473. It says UNLAWFUL. If MJ is legalized federally then it would be unlawful for 18yo to 21yo to use it. Anyone over 21yo would be LAWFUL use of MJ. The question on the 4473 remains valid.
Right, if the intent was to suddenly declare it okay to use marijuana and have a firearm.
Instead, I think it more likely (especially with a rabidly anti-gun ATF) that the form would be changed simply to "user of marijuana..." without regard to legality. Otherwise, anyone with a Medical Card would be okay as things stand, and I do not believe that is the case.
-
Right, if the intent was to suddenly declare it okay to use marijuana and have a firearm.
Instead, I think it more likely (especially with a rabidly anti-gun ATF) that the form would be changed simply to "user of marijuana..." without regard to legality. Otherwise, anyone with a Medical Card would be okay as things stand, and I do not believe that is the case.
If that was the case then they could use anything as a disqualifier like alcohol or prescription medication. I wouldn't put it past the gun grabbers if they thought they could get away with it.
-
If that was the case then they could use anything as a disqualified like alcohol or prescription medication. I wouldn't put it past the gun grabbers if they thought they could get away with it.
They are working on it.