home

CO Amendment 64 Task Force Submits Recommendations

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 09:10:00 AM EST
Tags: Amendment 64 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Colorado's Amendment 64 Implementation Task Force submitted its report and recommendations yesterday on how to implement the Amendment which legalizes personal adult possession of marijuana.

Look for high taxes and low limits on what out of state residents can buy.

Thanks to Westword for making the full 102 page report available. I have uploaded it here.

< Kim Dotcom: Setback in NZ Appeals Court | Sequester >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    CO Amendment 64 Task Force Submits Recommendations | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Most of the Recommendations... (none / 0) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 10:13:31 AM EST
    ...seem to be inline with alcohol regulations.

    But allowing employers to fire employees for off-the-job marijuana use is non-sense and the article did not mention if it included licensed MM users, or even if that program will remain.

    Marijuana in childproof containers made me laugh.

    That is some bullsh*t... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 11:16:22 AM EST
    nobody has a problem with drinking off the clock, as long as you can do your job on the clock.  Should be the same for reefer...they should call that the Coors Clause to Prop 64;)

    The "no outdoor growing" rule isn't very green...all that polltion casuing electricity when you could use the sun.  But most crop would be grown indoor anyways, so no biggie.  

    And whats the big deal about a pot raffle for charity?  You can set up a casino night for charity in places where gambling is illegal.  

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    You can get fired in many jobs for drinking "off the clock" if you come back to work (i.e. cocktails at lunch, or within so many hours if you are in a job like an airline pilot).

    And while you may not like it, and it probably should be changed, smoking marijuana is still against federal law, so no, to equate this to drinking off the clock is not an apt comparison.  A better comparison would be to say that an employer can fire you for committing a different federal offense (say, unarmed robbery) off the clock.

    Parent

    It's an apt comparison for Colorado... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    We don't even know how many federal crimes there are (seriously, too many to count, it's been tried)...the provision has nothing to do with federal law violations imo.  

    I'm thinking protecting the drug testing industry might have something to do with it though.

    For sure you can and should be able to get fired for going to work drunk and/or high to the point you can't do your job...but the provision seems to mean they can fire you on Monday morning for getting high on Friday night, and I think we agree that ain't right.  How much of an issue it is I don't know...most private employers can fire at will anyway as long as it isn't discriminatory based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

    Parent

    Please... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    ...you know damn well he isn't talking about being under the influence at work.  This is about doing something that has absolutely no bearing on your job.

    And technically, it's not illegal to get high, and since that can be done without actually possessing a substance, there is no crime in having drugs in your blood.  Testing positive for any drugs test is not proof of a crime, there has to be another act, like driving for it to be illegal.

    I get that you have a problem with it, but you have never stated why. Instead you bring up doing it or being under the influence while at work.  And that companies inherently have that right, but never an actual reason why that is valid.

    Catholic organizations fire unwed pregnant women, and like you, they never give a valid reason beyond some employer morality hocus pocus.  Employers have no right to regulate morality and that's what they are doing when they fire a person for legal off-duty behavior that doesn't effect work performance.

    Parent

    There are other evil ways (none / 0) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    they can catch you and make life miserable.  The Aspen Ski School doesn't test ski instructors before hiring them but if someone in your class gets injured then they test the instructor for drugs and alcohol.  Doesn't seem quite fair.

    Parent
    That Seems Weird... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    If they get sued the last thing they need is finding out on of their employees was under the influence.

    But that is standard at most work places and even for traffic accidents, if someone is hurt, you get tested.  That doesn't bother me so long they are checking to see if you were under the influence at the time, not what you did last week at a concert.

    Like alcohol, there is ppm threshold for being under the influence for most recreational drugs and some prescriptions.

    Parent

    I pesonally know a guy... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    who lost his job after a workplace accident for what he did last week on his own time that had no bearing whatsoever on the accident.

    Insult to injury, the co-worker who was injured was 100% at fault and told management as much...but the policy is the policy and you know how that goes, zero tolerance = zero common sense.

    Parent

    And the Real Kicker... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 04:54:22 PM EST
    ...had he decided instead of weed to shoot up or do some lines, his test would have been clean.

    I keep instance of people winning lawsuits against employers that test hair because it discriminates from person to person how far back they can go.

    If only that argument could be made for pot, the more fat your body has, the longer THC stays in your system.  In a sense, they can test further back on heavier people.

    Parent

    WOW...thanx Scott... (none / 0) (#11)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 08:24:28 PM EST
    I'm now down to 178 lbs. so I'm good to go.  Let the good times roll.

    Parent
    smoke 'em if you got 'em... (none / 0) (#12)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 08:25:50 PM EST


    Parent
    I have a dream... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    that one day men and women will be judged on their behavior and the content of their character, not on the contents of their urine or blood or hair or spinal fluid.

    Parent
    Colorado struggles (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 07:13:39 AM EST
    With legal marijuana use and driving.

    When is someone too stoned to drive?

    The answer, it turns out, has been anything but simple in Colorado, which last fall became one of the first states in the country to legalize marijuana.

    Prosecutors and some lawmakers have long pushed for laws that would set a strict blood-level limit for THC, the key ingredient in cannabis. A driver over the limit would be deemed guilty of driving under the influence, just as with alcohol.

    Such legislation has failed several times in recent years in the face of fierce opposition from marijuana advocates and defense lawyers, who claim a one-size-fits-all standard doesn't work for marijuana because it affects the body differently than alcohol.

    SNIP

    Though research and opinions vary widely, studies have shown that smoking marijuana tends to affect spatial perceptions. Drivers might swerve or follow other cars too closely, as well as lose their concentration and suffer from slowed reaction times. Such findings have led some researchers to conclude that driving high doubles the chances for an accident, and that smoking pot and drinking before driving is a particularly dangerous mix.

    Every state bars driving under the influence. But convictions in drugged-driving cases generally rely on police officers' observations rather than blood tests. The White House in a drug policy paper last year called on states to adopt blood-limit laws in an effort to reduce drugged-driving incidents by 10 percent by 2015.
    If cops can "observe," (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 09:13:30 AM EST
    they can video tape.

    problem solved.

    Parent

    Dumb... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    ...it's easy to test, they use ppm in your blood, just like they do with alcohol.  And just like DD if have more than legally allowed, you are guilty.

    The problem is a lot of states never set limits like they did with alcohol when the technology became available.  They were too busy eradicating drugs to be bothered with common sense.  Also, there is no formula for determining if someone is under the influence when multiple drugs are found.  They may fall below each drug limit, but when combined, they are not capable of operating a motor vehicle.  But again, that is something that could be calculated using science, but they since 'all drugs are bad' they haven't bothered.  

    Not really our problem they can't figure out if you committed a crime, suspecting someone is not enough, it is there responsibility to prove it, not just suspect it.

    Parent

    CO Amendment 64 Task Force Submits Recommendations | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment