New York Times

leaffan

Well-Known Member
I don't know if this is a game changer, but I do view it as very significant...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html

"It took 13 years for the United States to come to its senses and end Prohibition, 13 years in which people kept drinking, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals and crime syndicates arose and flourished. It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol.

The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.

We reached that conclusion after a great deal of discussion among the members of The Times’s Editorial Board, inspired by a rapidly growing movement among the states to reform marijuana laws.

There are no perfect answers to people’s legitimate concerns about marijuana use. But neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol, and we believe that on every level — health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization. That will put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at the state level.

We considered whether it would be best for Washington to hold back while the states continued experimenting with legalizing medicinal uses of marijuana, reducing penalties, or even simply legalizing all use. Nearly three-quarters of the states have done one of these.

But that would leave their citizens vulnerable to the whims of whoever happens to be in the White House and chooses to enforce or not enforce the federal law.

The social costs of the marijuana laws are vast. There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012, according to F.B.I. figures, compared with 256,000 for cocaine, heroin and their derivatives. Even worse, the result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals.

There is honest debate among scientists about the health effects of marijuana, but we believe that the evidence is overwhelming that addiction and dependence are relatively minor problems, especially compared with alcohol and tobacco. Moderate use of marijuana does not appear to pose a risk for otherwise healthy adults. Claims that marijuana is a gateway to more dangerous drugs are as fanciful as the “Reefer Madness” images of murder, rape and suicide.

There are legitimate concerns about marijuana on the development of adolescent brains. For that reason, we advocate the prohibition of sales to people under 21.

Creating systems for regulating manufacture, sale and marketing will be complex. But those problems are solvable, and would have long been dealt with had we as a nation not clung to the decision to make marijuana production and use a federal crime.

In coming days, we will publish articles by members of the Editorial Board and supplementary material that will examine these questions. We invite readers to offer their ideas, and we will report back on their responses, pro and con.

We recognize that this Congress is as unlikely to take action on marijuana as it has been on other big issues. But it is long past time to repeal this version of Prohibition."
 

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
I can see politicians using marijuana as a crutch come election time. Its come to the point where if a US politician supports marijuana, gays and guns...your more likely to be elected. The citizens are finally taking over...took long enough.
 

leaffan

Well-Known Member
another step in the right direction...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/04/nytimes-drug-testing_n_5648259.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada

As The New York Times continues to roll out editorials supporting the legalization of marijuana, a Change.org petition has received thousands of signatures calling for the paper of record to bring its marijuana testing policy in closer alignment with its editorial message.

The petition, created last week by marijuana policy reform group Marijuana Majority and dispensary locator company WeedMaps, demands that Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the chairman and publisher of The New York Times, stop drug testing new employees for marijuana.

"No one is saying that employers should be forced to deal with workers who are intoxicated at the office," the petition reads, "but off-duty marijuana use doesn't negatively impact a journalist's ability to do his or her job. Traditional drug testing programs cannot determine whether someone is currently high; they merely test for metabolites that indicate whether someone used marijuana as far back as a month ago. The Times should replace its outdated drug testing policy."

As of Monday, the petition has received almost 4,500 signatures in support.

"The Times and its publisher have a great position on the need to end government discrimination against people who use marijuana," Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, told The Huffington Post. "It's very hard to understand why the Times feels like it needs to check the content of journalists' urine before they're allowed to report stories."

A Times spokeswoman wouldn't go into detail but told HuffPost last week that the paper's policy for drug testing hasn’t changed, despite the editorial board's decision to support legalization.

“Our corporate policy on this issue reflects current law,” the spokeswoman said.

But Angell takes issue with that stance. "There's absolutely nothing on the lawbooks that requires the newspaper to continue carrying out this wasteful and discriminatory practice," Angell said. "It's up to the publisher alone, and he should match the paper's great editorial talk with some ethical HR walk."

Despite the paper running a series of op-eds beginning last week calling on the federal government to repeal marijuana prohibition, the Times is one of several big media companies that still require new hires to take a drug test.

Editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal spoke about the apparent gap between the editorial position of the paper and the HR practice of drug testing employees onMSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes" last week.

"Whether we're going to continue testing for marijuana or not, I don't know," Rosenthal said. "If they ask me, I'll say stop. But they won't. They tend not to [consult the editorial page on HR issues]."
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Drug tests for journalists? Only in the USA! Drug testing should only be allowed in cases where an employee is suspected of being impaired at work and should measure impairment - not use. My kid's buddy had to get tested to work on a dairy farm in Alberta!?
 

Jackal69

Well-Known Member
guess seeing movies with the reporters getting hammered on their "off time", is going to be comparable to movies with smoking in building scenes
 

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
About the illegal market. With the current pricing in Colorado and Washington the illegal marker will flourish. There's quite a bit of money to be made even when selling weed for $100-120 per oz. Now having said that if the legal prices go down a bit but enough to the illegal to still continue you'll see most non violent hobby gardeners providing for their friends.
 

leaffan

Well-Known Member
About the illegal market. With the current pricing in Colorado and Washington the illegal marker will flourish. There's quite a bit of money to be made even when selling weed for $100-120 per oz. Now having said that if the legal prices go down a bit but enough to the illegal to still continue you'll see most non violent hobby gardeners providing for their friends.
The greedy tax rate in Wash St will guarantee a place for the BM.
It's insane.
 

leaffan

Well-Known Member
I haven't checked lately but it was in the paper as $12-24 per gram. That was pretty crazy.
My Doc buddy from Nanaimo was down there last weekend , couldn't get anything...sold out.
Most of that is tax money....the State is making more than anyone else there.
 

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
Just imagine if the Cdn govt gets a crazy idea to follow their model.
They will, politicians can't think out of the box once they are in their gang. No way in hell will there not be a $3+ tax per gram. On top of that the authorities will be cringing on not getting $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for fighting reefer madness, they're already bitched about that last year when it came to legalization.
 

leaffan

Well-Known Member
They will, politicians can't think out of the box once they are in their gang. No way in hell will there not be a $3+ tax per gram. On top of that the authorities will be cringing on not getting $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for fighting reefer madness, they're already bitched about that last year when it came to legalization.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who are thinking...I've got no problem if they do!
 

mojoganjaman

Well-Known Member
Drug tests for journalists? Only in the USA! Drug testing should only be allowed in cases where an employee is suspected of being impaired at work and should measure impairment - not use. My kid's buddy had to get tested to work on a dairy farm in Alberta!?
like mebbe the police station????

wouldn't that jack some LEO's.....hehehe



mojo
 
Top