Catholic Online Forum

The first interactive Catholic Forum on the web
It is currently 18 May 2013 20:23

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 14:12 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18820
Location: USA
Washington State just legalize Pot and Homosexual marriage.

Justification is Biblical:

Quote:
LEVITICUS 20:13 - "If a man lays with another man he should be stoned."

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 14:38 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14622
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
But cannabis use still contradicts US federal law, which classifies marijuana as an illegal narcotic.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-07/w ... se/4414132

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 07:22 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18820
Location: USA
:roll: :roll:

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 10:05 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 12:15
Posts: 11399
Location: State of Michigan, USA
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
Quote:
But cannabis use still contradicts US federal law, which classifies marijuana as an illegal narcotic.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-07/w ... se/4414132


It could produce an interesting show-down if a President decides to enforce federal law with regard to marijuana over the laws of a particular state.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 10:28 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2002 16:21
Posts: 15594
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Dean wrote:
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
Quote:
But cannabis use still contradicts US federal law, which classifies marijuana as an illegal narcotic.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-07/w ... se/4414132


It could produce an interesting show-down if a President decides to enforce federal law with regard to marijuana over the laws of a particular state.

I can't imagine the FBI going around busting up pot parties.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 11:54 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2759
Dean wrote:
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
Quote:
But cannabis use still contradicts US federal law, which classifies marijuana as an illegal narcotic.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-07/w ... se/4414132


It could produce an interesting show-down if a President decides to enforce federal law with regard to marijuana over the laws of a particular state.


The impression I have after listening to the Colorado Governor's report of discussions with the Feds is that they won't bother those with an ounce or less in possession, all bets are off for dealers though. I can imagine an occasional raid/bust just to flex the Feds muscles and show the states who's in charge. The real issue in my mind is that we have invited the Mexican Cartels to expand their influence in our states; there is no upside to those Cartels.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 13:01 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2003 21:49
Posts: 7732
Location: Los Angeles, California
Bob A

Quote:
The real issue in my mind is that we have invited the Mexican Cartels to expand their influence in our states; there is no upside to those Cartels.


That may be true in the beginning but in Washington there will be laws regarding retail sales and taxation by Dec. 2013. Since medicinal use has been allowed for years and since it's easy to get permission for medicinal use, I think those who wanted to get pot would already found a way either through legal or illegal means and there won't be a big upswing in usage. Hopefully, with legal sale the cartels won't have that ability but that would only be true if retail outlets are allowed to sell their own. What is absurd about the WA law is that for now, only people using it for medical reasons can grow it. If everyone could grow a limited amount, that would help break down the cartels influence.

From what I've read the Colorado law allows growing for personal use.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 13:30 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2759
Val wrote:
Bob A

Quote:
The real issue in my mind is that we have invited the Mexican Cartels to expand their influence in our states; there is no upside to those Cartels.


That may be true in the beginning but in Washington there will be laws regarding retail sales and taxation by Dec. 2013. Since medicinal use has been allowed for years and since it's easy to get permission for medicinal use, I think those who wanted to get pot would already found a way either through legal or illegal means and there won't be a big upswing in usage. Hopefully, with legal sale the cartels won't have that ability but that would only be true if retail outlets are allowed to sell their own. What is absurd about the WA law is that for now, only people using it for medical reasons can grow it. If everyone could grow a limited amount, that would help break down the cartels influence.

From what I've read the Colorado law allows growing for personal use.


I think a small amount can be grown, not sure how much. We have a news story about a raid about every few weeks including some medicinal growers who apparently had too many plants. I'm more concerned about the lack of any measure of intoxication or testing for drivers available to the police. If these people insist on rotting their brains I'm OK with it, just keep them from endangering anyone else.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 13:32 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 12:15
Posts: 11399
Location: State of Michigan, USA
Up to 10 plants is what I heard. I thought that was quite a generous amount.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 15:20 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14622
Location: Sydney, Australia
Bob A,

Quote:
I'm more concerned about the lack of any measure of intoxication or testing for drivers available to the police.


Yes and no. The NSW police have been randomly stopping and testing motorists for some years now. (Since 1982 from memory.)

Quote:
Cannabis drug testing describes various drug test methodologies for the use of cannabis in medicine, sport, and law. Cannabis use is highly detectable and can be detected by urinalysis, hair analysis, as well as saliva tests for days or weeks.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_drug_testing

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 15:20 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2002 16:21
Posts: 15594
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Bob wrote:
I'm more concerned about the lack of any measure of intoxication or testing for drivers available to the police. If these people insist on rotting their brains I'm OK with it, just keep them from endangering anyone else.

I think in most states DUI includes being impaired by drugs as well as alcohol. I can't see why that would change,

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 16:26 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2003 21:49
Posts: 7732
Location: Los Angeles, California
David L,

Quote:
I think in most states DUI includes being impaired by drugs as well as alcohol. I can't see why that would change,



I've never understood the argument advanced by some that there will suddenly be a rise in pot impaired drivers as though they could drive around with impunity. Plenty of people get charged with driving impaired on prescription medication.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 16:35 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 05:16
Posts: 15696
Location: Southern California, Catholic
Val wrote:
David L,

Quote:
I think in most states DUI includes being impaired by drugs as well as alcohol. I can't see why that would change,


I've never understood the argument advanced by some that there will suddenly be a rise in pot impaired drivers as though they could drive around with impunity. Plenty of people get charged with driving impaired on prescription medication.
I saw an article a week or so ago on some random testing of drivers someplace in Southern California. As I recall 7% had alcohol in their system and 14% had drugs. I think this may have included those below the legal limit. It did include both legal and other drugs.
The most significant fact was the 2:1 ratio of drugs to alcohol. I wonder how effective roadside checks are for drugs.

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 20:10 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: 01 Mar 2009 06:51
Posts: 1788
Quote:
Washington State just legalize Pot and Homosexual marriage.

Justification is Biblical:

Quote:
LEVITICUS 20:13 - "If a man lays with another man he should be stoned."


I got it, Bob. :P

Keep them coming. "You're a funny guy." -- The Good Fellas

_________________
Norman
...that is the regret of a lot of old people when they look back and realize too late what might have been.
This was what President Martin regretted. He thought he was doing something good. It was a disaster. How can anybody know what is the right thing to do?
-- Theresa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 20:27 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2003 21:49
Posts: 7732
Location: Los Angeles, California
Joe,

Quote:
The most significant fact was the 2:1 ratio of drugs to alcohol. I wonder how effective roadside checks are for drugs.


I have a serious concern that if I'm ever involved in a major accident, they'll automatically check me for drugs and find narcotics in my system. They don't remotely impair me, I take it exactly as prescribed but it would be easy to accuse me of impairment.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 21:44 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 05 Sep 2002 16:11
Posts: 8595
Location: Eastern NC
I'm worried about a whole raft of employment-related issues. The onus, of course, will be put on employers to ensure that their employees are level-headed while working, to ensure that the employee does nothing to injure himself or a customer. That gets expensive fast.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 22:00 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4919
Rose West wrote:
I'm worried about a whole raft of employment-related issues. The onus, of course, will be put on employers to ensure that their employees are level-headed while working, to ensure that the employee does nothing to injure himself or a customer. That gets expensive fast.


I agree. Some people will not want to hire, employ, and let alone associate with a druggie... It all comes down to just discrimination, freedom of association, etecetera...

As far as I know the military still denies drug users with exceptions only in cases of momentary youthful indiscretion. Same for most critical or security related or premised jobs -federal and private.

I hope this does not go the way of homosexual sex and evolve from legal private activity to public mandated acceptance and government subsidized and promoted activity... I think the next step will be government seeking revenue from the activity.

As an aside, I still await the homosexual sex tax.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 04:17 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18820
Location: USA
Norman,

I'm glad someone did !

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 06:52 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 06 Mar 2008 23:35
Posts: 5268
Location: Europe
Who_started_this? wrote:
Quote:
Washington State just legalize Pot and Homosexual marriage.

Justification is Biblical:

Quote:
LEVITICUS 20:13 - "If a man lays with another man he should be stoned."


I got it, Bob. :P

Keep them coming. "You're a funny guy." -- The Good Fellas

Oh, now I get it! :)
When I first read it, I thought, "Hmmm.... that's odd...what's up with BobC? Not his usual posting style." :oops:

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 07:23 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2759
LASaxman wrote:
Bob wrote:
I'm more concerned about the lack of any measure of intoxication or testing for drivers available to the police. If these people insist on rotting their brains I'm OK with it, just keep them from endangering anyone else.

I think in most states DUI includes being impaired by drugs as well as alcohol. I can't see why that would change,


There are presently no quantitative field tests like those for alcohol; it comes down to the officer's judgement which is not fair to the officer, the suspect nor the safety of the public. We have had several cases discharged by the courts for lack of evidence.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 07:46 
Offline
Proficient Member
Proficient Member

Joined: 15 Aug 2007 14:53
Posts: 587
Location: Tacoma, Washington USA
Initiative 502 sets a legal limit of 5 nanograms of THC for persons operating a motor vehicle. That seems incredibly low to me, and i wonder how they arrived at it. The little reading i've done suggests that pot has widely varying effects on people, and tolerance buildup is common. The Seattle Times in an article this past week noted that some defense lawyers were recommending medical marijuana smokers avoid driving at all, but the Seattle police were more, uh, mellow about it, saying there will be no random stops and tests, and you'll only be tested if you were driving improperly in the first place.

There was a picture in the Seattle Times of the head of a community college music department triumphantly holding up an ounce-bag of pot in a crowd. Unprofessional and unedifying. :tsk:

chris kirk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 11:28 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 16:17
Posts: 11496
Location: Enjoying the sight and aroma of blooming lilacs on a marvelous day in May …
inthegobi wrote:
Initiative 502 sets a legal limit of 5 nanograms of THC for persons operating a motor vehicle. That seems incredibly low to me, and i wonder how they arrived at it. The little reading i've done suggests that pot has widely varying effects on people, and tolerance buildup is common.
chris kirk

First, the disclaimer: Though having been exposed to pot on various occasions throughout my life, I have never ingested it and at my advanced age, have no intention of ever doing it regardless of its legality.

Chris, alcohol also has widely varying effects on people, depending on physical size and other factors, such as physical condition, whether you eat when you drink, etc.

But in most states, if you have a blood alcohol content of .08 % or greater, you are considered intoxicated. How is that different?

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 13:09 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2003 21:49
Posts: 7732
Location: Los Angeles, California
Daniel,

Quote:
I think the next step will be government seeking revenue from the activity.


They are planning to tax it as I understand and why not...it's a commodity and should be regulated as alcohol is and allowed to be sold. Allowing legitimate providers to grow it is the only way to lower the price and lessen the power of the cartels. Medical marijuana is quite expensive. If there are more providers and competition, it will go down in price.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 17:14 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2759
inthegobi wrote:
Initiative 502 sets a legal limit of 5 nanograms of THC for persons operating a motor vehicle. That seems incredibly low to me, and i wonder how they arrived at it. The little reading i've done suggests that pot has widely varying effects on people, and tolerance buildup is common. The Seattle Times in an article this past week noted that some defense lawyers were recommending medical marijuana smokers avoid driving at all, but the Seattle police were more, uh, mellow about it, saying there will be no random stops and tests, and you'll only be tested if you were driving improperly in the first place.

There was a picture in the Seattle Times of the head of a community college music department triumphantly holding up an ounce-bag of pot in a crowd. Unprofessional and unedifying. :tsk:

chris kirk


OK, I'm not sure how significant that level is but I want to know how the police measure it in the field? Do they run every suspected intoxicated driver in for a lab test? It seems to me that in their haste to further yield to the hedonists they overlooked some very important issues. How does an employer in sensitive industries now ensure the sobriety of the workforce; random drug testing will surely be challenged in court. Who will bail those arrested by the Feds for doing something their State has declared legal? As usual we leaped before we knew how high the cliff was.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 17:26 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2003 21:49
Posts: 7732
Location: Los Angeles, California
Bob A,

Random drug testing already takes place and I don't see how this changes things. Even prescription drugs, if taken in excess can result in a termination if it impacts work and it's fairly easy to prove a substance is impacting work.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 19:46 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2759
Val wrote:
Bob A,

Random drug testing already takes place and I don't see how this changes things. Even prescription drugs, if taken in excess can result in a termination if it impacts work and it's fairly easy to prove a substance is impacting work.


I worked in a very high security position where random drug testing was performed; a failed result caused by a validated prescription would not in itself result in termination, it could result in a temporary shift to a less sensitive position. My point was that termination for a failed test for pot could likely be challenged in court since there was no proactive legislation to deal with such a case and pot is now legal in some states.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2012 20:04 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2759
Val,
let me clarify a bit; in my position I was required to notify the company of any changes in my life that could compromise either my security rating or my ability to perform. Notification would be required for personal relationships, behavioral changes, finances, drug or alcohol use; prescription drugs could be a part of that if there was a potential for performance limiting side effects. Coworkers were expected to report the same on each other if they were aware of them.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2012 16:50 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2003 21:49
Posts: 7732
Location: Los Angeles, California
Bob A,

I see what you're saying now. Will you call me up and tell me what you did?

Personally, if it's not an issue of security or public safety, I wouldn't care what my employees ingested outside of work as long as they performed well. I've known people who smoked pot every morning before work the way some people have their cigarette and coffee.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group