Proposal M passes in Detroit - marijuana possession decriminalized

[brizee]

"Leaders" including the state attorney general, city clerk, mayor and city council didn't want the people to voice their opinion.

At least one of the rags in this town endorses it.

Appearantly the last time it was put before Detroiters they overwhelmingly approved.

I'm a yes.

Not a drug user. Never been a drug user. No wish to become a drug user.

But I will see this city/region dragged into the twentyfirst century, even if it's kicking, screamin, bloody, and bruised.

[poobert]

I second that. I don't mess with the stuff either.

However: you can bet the unholy Dark Lord of the Sith, the most-hated, vile, reptilian demon that is Bill Schuette will gleefully spend the state's resources tightening the thumbscrews on Detroiters using pot in their houses.

[Danny]

I'm will vote 'God sakes NO' on proposal M. Detroit cannot be a pot holding utopia. Detroit will be city of idiots, harlots, mongrels. What kind of race are we?

[Wheels]

I'm will vote 'God sakes NO' on proposal M. Detroit cannot be a pot holding utopia. Detroit will be city of idiots, harlots, mongrels. What kind of race are we?

I think a 420 break might do you some good Danny.

[brizee]

It's only a matter of time.

The dam is is cracked and you can't fight common sense.

[SMRJim]

This would NOT suddenly cause people to run out and start buying pot just because they know they can't be arrested for having a fairly small amount of it in their home. It amazes me that people think like that!! People will buy it and smoke it regardless, this just means there would be less of them in jail because of it. That's my take.

[Ray1936]

Yeah, legalize pot and make tobacco a felony. You liberals rip me up.

[jcole]

Yeah, legalize pot and make tobacco a felony. You liberals rip me up.

You can have all the tobacco you want in your house, Ray; and I don't think Prop M will allow people to smoke pot at the bar or restaurants. I'm pretty sure that would be a crime too.

[Ray1936]

You can have all the tobacco you want in your house, Ray; and I don't think Prop M will allow people to smoke pot at the bar or restaurants. I'm pretty sure that would be a crime too.

Nope, not a smoker at all, jcole. It's just the paradox of the thinking that amuses me.

[jcole]

Nope, not a smoker at all, jcole. It's just the paradox of the thinking that amuses me.

I was kind of using the royal 'you'; not assuming you are a smoker. Maybe I should have said "One can have all the tobacco...".

[Bad Brains]

Yeah, legalize pot and make tobacco a felony. You liberals rip me up.

The War and Drugs are and smoking bans are all Liberal ideals. I don't get where you're coming from with this one. Perhaps your angel is confused?

[laphoque]

I used to smoke a lot until I spent a month in the Netherlands.

All throughout highschool I was all about getting high. I went to school in northeast Michigan where, looking back, we did manage to have our fun. However it was not without an oppressive feeling of boredom.

Marijuana was an excuse to go out and meet people I might have never found a pretense to speak with. It eased the boredom and acted as a catylist for finding humor in the ordinary happenings and places that surrounded me.

Also it was illegal so it was an exciting challenge to avoid the police who were just as bored as us: amusing themselves by pursuing and arresting teenagers for this psychoactive herb.

When I went to the Netherlands, I brought with me the American mythology that surrounds marijuana: that baggage that makes it more powerful than it actually is. I was surprised to find that although this was a country where you could have the most powerful marijuana I'd ever had both cheaply & easily: most people were unmoved by it. Yes, they partook. No, it really wasn't that big of a deal. They moved on with their lives.

Where marijuana is legal its use is reduced. It's just a silly herb that increases your appetite, makes you a bit more likely to laugh at the day-to-day, and makes it very easy to sleep at night.

Its only real detriment to society [[given that even potheads need to be productive enough to afford weed and food) is its prohibition. Prohibition's enforcement allows those cops who are racist many tools to show how superior they are. Even those cops who are in it for justice find themselves on the wrong side of policy based not in emperical evidence but instead an unfounded, ugly fear of weed.

That Mexicans will savage your previously protestant princesses. That rappers will seduce her and turn her away from her family. That she will grow up beyond the little girl she was born as.

The paradox is that our policy puts the McJob of peddling weed to bored kids right in her hands. Highschoolers have the easiest access to marijuana. Because of a policy that is supposed to keep any of them, and as a consequent otherwise law-abiding adults, from ever smoking it.

This is the true reefer madness.

[detroitsgwenivere]

It's just the paradox of the thinking that amuses me.

I think the issue with tobacco is that it's highly addictive and companies are treating cigarettes with tons of poisonous chemicals. Nicotine is also poisonous. Second-hand smoke is worse, because as it lingers a person is consistantly breathing it in, causing the amount of oxygen entering the body to go down significantly. It also triggers asthma attacks.

Pot is only addictive in the psycological sense, people can become dependant on it like they do with food or sex. You can't smoke it in public, so the 2nd hand effects are a non-issue in the legal sense, unless you smoke it around your kids or something. The smoke from pot is high in tar, and produces the chemicals that come from burning a substance, but not all the poisonous chemicals that cigarettes have. Plus, smoking is only one way to ingest marihuana. You can eat it, vaporize it, and apply it like lotion. No one would know the wiser.

It's not for everyone, but neither is owning a gun or going to church. It is what it is.


I'll still think you're cool if you don't smoke pot Ray

[JVB]

Wasn't possession under an ounce in Detroit already decriminalized a few years ago? What is this new proposal for?

I don't mes with it, but if we've learned anything in this country it's that prohibition DOES NOT work.

[Scottathew]

I've never used illegal drugs. Never smoked a cigarette, never smoked pot, and I never want to.

However, I'm for the decriminalization of pot. WHO CARES. It's not that different from alcohol. People are still going to smoke it if it's legal or not.

Let's free up the criminal justice system to go after real crooks. And one day, one it's decriminalized state-wide we can tax the hell out of it.

[Zacha341]

When are employers going to get the heads up regarding all of this decriminalization? As it stands now many companies drug screen, even using hair analysis over urine [[which can be faked or altered). Most screen for the top 5 drugs and some of the hospitals are now screening applicants out for nicotine!!

If I were seeking employment I'd forgo drugs for the time being, which also at this time includes cigarettes if your going for employment in a hospital.

[bailey]

When are employers going to get the heads up regarding all of this decriminalization? As it stands now many companies drug screen, even using hair analysis over urine [[which can be faked or altered). Most screen for the top 5 drugs and some of the hospitals are now screening applicants out for nicotine!!

Well, from a business perspective do you want to hire someone that will casually ignore laws they think are stupid? It's not a speeding ticket, it's an offense that comes with jail time. What other laws do they think are stupid or inapplicable to them?

But really, decriminalization is irrelevant to an employer. Until there is a test that can accurately determine the level of impairment relative the amount of THC in the system there are going to be total bans on the use.

The reason they do this is because they are worried about liability for employees that get injured or injure someone on the job and are found to have pot in their system. Currently, there is really no good, generally accepted [[read: Courts of Law) way to tell what levels lead to what impairment. legalized pot with no standard of impairment is Bernstein and Fieger's wet dream.

The second there is a test that is as accepted as a breathalyzer is for alcohol in determining impairment ... the resistance to legalization goes away from both the law enforcement community and the business community.

[Zacha341]

Ummm, I didn't say I was for or against using drugs anywhere in that post, nor did I use the word "stupid". I recently took a battery of drug screenings for a very crucial job which I passed as I don't use any of the requisite drugs they screen for - it's not a problem for me.

I did not state say I was against employers screening! I think they should in most cases. I was pointing out the IRONY that with all the decriminalization companies continue screen OUT users. Are we good now ----?

I do feel employers should carefully evaluate the 'level' of THC in ones system before ruling out employability as there are households where occupants smoke and others ingest the smoke into there systems passively. Like passive tobacco smoke issues.

To restate [[pragmatically so I suppose, as I DON'T use THC products or drugs) if you do drugs a perspective employer screens for, you best obstain if that is the best you can do... pending the shake out of it all.

Well, from a business perspective do you want to hire someone that will casually ignore laws they think are stupid? It's not a speeding ticket, it's an offense that comes with jail time. What other laws do they think are stupid or inapplicable to them?

But really, decriminalization is irrelevant to an employer. Until there is a test that can accurately determine the level of impairment relative the amount of THC in the system there are going to be total bans on the use.

[JVB]

When are employers going to get the heads up regarding all of this decriminalization?

Employers can screen for whatever they want, which is why you see some employers screen for nicotine even though it's legal. Especially if part of the employment package is health care, I can see why they would want to know what chemicals people are putting into their bodies.

That actually doesn't bother me as much as the prohibition laws do, because you can always go work for a company that doesn't screen for your drug of choice, but you can't just move to another country very easily.

The second there is a test that is as accepted as a breathalyzer is for alcohol in determining impairment ... the resistance to legalization goes away from both the law enforcement community and the business community.

I think you just hit the nail on the head for legalization. But it should still be decriminalized [[ie not enforced) because locking people up for this kind of thing is ridiculously expensive, destroys families and has zero effect on drug use.

[Zacha341]

Got that for sho'... I was pointing out the irony of it all. Kinda funny to think of those '50s movies showing doctors in hospitals smoking, and now you cannot work in a hospital if you smoke. We've come a long way...

[poobert]

I guess I'm "an employer" since I hire people [[the Orwellian 'job creator' shit gets old) and I could give a shit less if my guys go home and smoke a joint.

No, you cannot show up high to work. You also cannot show up drunk to work. You can, however, drink on your own time. Yet if you smoke weed at a barbeque and get 'the hair test' two weeks later, you're busted.

A simple background check before hiring, along with properly screening your candidates, can usually weed out bad apples. I've had people with spotless records except getting busted for pot years ago. I ignore that.

I've had far more problems with employees who drink too much. Whatever you do, do it in moderation for chrissake.

[Bad Brains]

I guess I'm "an employer" since I hire people [[the Orwellian 'job creator' shit gets old) and I could give a shit less if my guys go home and smoke a joint.

No, you cannot show up high to work. You also cannot show up drunk to work. You can, however, drink on your own time. Yet if you smoke weed at a barbeque and get 'the hair test' two weeks later, you're busted.

A simple background check before hiring, along with properly screening your candidates, can usually weed out bad apples. I've had people with spotless records except getting busted for pot years ago. I ignore that.

I've had far more problems with employees who drink too much. Whatever you do, do it in moderation for chrissake.

You're one of the good ones, and I applaud you for that.
Bad employees are bad employees, you don't need drugs tests to determine that.

I care about my privacy and self-respect too much to want or need to work for someone who cares so much as to what I do in my private life that they are willing to have my urine tested by some creep. I wouldn't piss in a glass vile for someone just like I wouldn't let a potential employer mount a camera in my bedroom to make sure I'm not doing something they don't approve of.

[Honky Tonk]

"Detroit cannot be a pot holding utopia. Detroit will be city of idiots, harlots, mongrels."

Uhhhhhh, WILL be?

[Danny]

Is Detroit becoming like Sodom and Gommorah? Ready to be detroyed by fire and brinstone from Heaven.

[Honky Tonk]

"Ready to be detroyed by fire and brinstone from Heaven."

Ready to be laid to waste by reefer and MD 20-20........