Indiana's Push for Medical Marijuana

[indyartisan]

I see some of you driving out there and I think you may be under the
influence of a bit too much coffee.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Most corporations have some kind of policy where if you're involved in an incident/accident, with certain levels of damage or any injury, require a comprehensive test of both BAC and urine or blood (that varies by company). I'm most familiar with hazmat, but I believe similar things are required if involved in incident/accident in a vehicle you're required to have a CDL to drive

Any company I've ever been with also ran drug free/substance free workplace with comprehensive random test (my last employer I believe required a '9 panel DOT test') that you could not refuse and keep your job. It will probably not surprise you that as a non-user I was all for it. My clearance required a polygraph and I was questioned about drug use

I think more and more, companies are getting away from random testing because it's just not cost effective. The other things you mentioned, (testing after an incident for example) would be no different if MJ were legal - that's what I'm saying - treat it just like alcohol use.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I see some of you driving out there and I think you may be under the
influence of a bit too much coffee.

Coming into downtown from the west on 36? Might be me

 

[jamil]

Lets quit the arguing and get it on the ballot. Get this red state smokin' and the feds will follow.

But you know it’s not going anywhere. Look how long it took to be able to buy beer on Sunday in Indiana? Of course that was a turf war more than a puritan law. But it worked so long because it had wide support of Hoosiers. Until it didn’t. MJ legalization will likely happen eventually. As less religious younger generations, with different priorities, become voters, it’s an inevitability. That is unless the new Church-o-Social-Justice puritan doctrine has the same hangup.

 

[Ziggidy]

Why is it so important for everyone to be able to get high? The high is (or can be) associated with so much more bad than good? It alters judgment and decision making, which can badly impact life. Alcohol is no better. Both are bad for the body, changes one's ability to make clear judgement calls, can badly affect others, and both are bad for your own body. They both cause increased burden on society by means of healthcare, property loss, lost income, and general support.

Nothing good will come of it. Nothing.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

But the Emporer has no clothes!

 

[jamil]

Why is it so important for everyone to be able to get high? The high is (or can be) associated with so much more bad than good? It alters judgment and decision making, which can badly impact life. Alcohol is no better. Both are bad for the body, changes one's ability to make clear judgement calls, can badly affect others, and both are bad for your own body. They both cause increased burden on society by means of healthcare, property loss, lost income, and general support.

Nothing good will come of it. Nothing.

This is the decision I've made for myself. I'm not inclined to make that decision for others.

 

[ATOMonkey]

But you know it’s not going anywhere. Look how long it took to be able to buy beer on Sunday in Indiana? Of course that was a turf war more than a puritan law. But it worked so long because it had wide support of Hoosiers. Until it didn’t. MJ legalization will likely happen eventually. As less religious younger generations, with different priorities, become voters, it’s an inevitability. That is unless the new Church-o-Social-Justice puritan doctrine has the same hangup.

If you thought fighting the retailers was hard, wait until you try to fight the distributors...

 

[Jludo]

Why is it so important for everyone to be able to get high? The high is (or can be) associated with so much more bad than good? It alters judgment and decision making, which can badly impact life. Alcohol is no better. Both are bad for the body, changes one's ability to make clear judgement calls, can badly affect others, and both are bad for your own body. They both cause increased burden on society by means of healthcare, property loss, lost income, and general support.

Nothing good will come of it. Nothing.

I cant think of any good soda brings, extra burden on healthcare etc.

Try to imagine your music library if drugs weren't a thing.

Also imagine using this argument on firearms.

 

[BugI02]

There is no constitutional underpinning of the right to keep and use intoxicants, including alcohol, in the bill of rights. Although we have a long and checkered relationship with alcohol (as the Whiskey Rebellion highlights) I think any such attempt to promote/proselytize for MJ or other drugs would have been seen as moral degeneracy by the founders (and I'm not sure drunken coach or buckboard driving was much of a thing)

 

[Expat]

This is the decision I've made for myself. I'm not inclined to make that decision for others.

I agree or would if my tax money wouldn't have to pay for the consequences.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I agree or would if my tax money wouldn't have to pay for the consequences.

It occurs to me there's a human tendency to believe that when I have to pay for your the consequences of your decisions, I want to have a say in the choices available for you make.

 

[Jludo]

It occurs to me there's a human tendency to believe that when I have to pay for your the consequences of your decisions, I want to have a say in the choices available for you make.

We pay healthcare costs for anyone who falls below poverty line, by this reasoning govt should restrict anything that could negatively affect health.

 

[Jludo]

Also it sounds like we're lumping weed in with heroin. Most lazy stoners are still able to hold down a job at taco bell to support their habit. There aren't a many strung out stoners begging on the corner just trying to fill their next bowl.

 

[Jludo]

I agree or would if my tax money wouldn't have to pay for the consequences.

Your tax dollars pay for the cost of keeping it illegal, which I'd argue Is a higher cost.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We pay healthcare costs for anyone who falls below poverty line, by this reasoning govt should restrict anything that could negatively affect health.

Bloomberg is running for POTUS, he's the guy for that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Also it sounds like we're lumping weed in with heroin. Most lazy stoners are still able to hold down a job at taco bell to support their habit. There aren't a many strung out stoners begging on the corner just trying to fill their next bowl.

Maybe. But many of them are also depending on subsistance transfer payments to sustain that standard of living. As long as that's happening, people will have a case for having a say in what choices you get to make. Cover your own nut, pay for all of the ramifications, including all of the collateral damage of your decisions, and your neighbor has zero grounds for interfering with your life.

 

[Jludo]

Maybe. But many of them are also depending on subsistance transfer payments to sustain that standard of living. As long as that's happening, people will have a case for having a say in what choices you get to make. Cover your own nut, pay for all of the ramifications, including all of the collateral damage of your decisions, and your neighbor has zero grounds for interfering with your life.

I do, so no one has any grounds for making these substances illegal for me. Correct?

If the social safety net is our grounds for govt. making unhealthy substances illegal, do we agree with Bloomberg's going after sugar?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I do, so no one has any grounds for making these substances illegal for me. Correct?

If the social safety net is our grounds for govt. making unhealthy substances illegal, do we agree with Bloomberg's going after sugar?

I don't support it. I am only saying there is an argument by those that do in supporting such things. In fact, Bloomberg has argued on such grounds when going after sugary drinks. If you don't want your neighbors telling what to do, let's begin by not taking their money. It is another tendency for people to apply laws to those who do not cause problems as well as to those that do. It's just the way it seems to be working. My observations do not necessarily imply affirmation.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I think more and more, companies are getting away from random testing because it's just not cost effective. The other things you mentioned, (testing after an incident for example) would be no different if MJ were legal - that's what I'm saying - treat it just like alcohol use.

Yup. I’ve never been drug tested for a job, but i did slice my finger really good on a chuck jaw once and had to go get it stitched. The company required a drug screening, since they were the ones paying for the clinic visit. I had no problem giving them a screening, I wouldn’t want to run any kind of machinery in an altered state of mind. I have seen people that should have had stitches and refused repeatedly to go to the clinic. I always figured they were dirty and didn’t want the screening.