CA to Vote Legalizing Pot in November Ballot...

[101lifts2]

Which way will I vote...decisions...decisions...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/...es_pot_wi.html

If California legalizes pot, will D.C. follow?
If they aren't already, elected officials in the District should be keeping close tabs on this year's election in California.

On Wednesday, advocates for legalizing marijuana officially secured enough signatures to put a referendum on the California ballot this November asking voters to legalize and tax pot.

And, judging by recent legislation in the District, what starts in California often eventually makes it way to the left-leaning District.

San Francisco's decision in 2007 to ban plastic bags, for example, was one impetus for the District's recently enacted bag tax. And San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome launched the modern same-sex marriage movement when he issued marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004 -- long before the District took up the issue.




And California voters approved a referendum allowing for the medical use of marijuana in 1996 - two years before voters in the District approved a similar referendum. The District's medical marijuana law is only now being implemented because it was tied up for years on Capitol Hill.

But if California voters approve the legalization of marijuana - which remains an if, because polls show a potentially close election - how long will it be before pro-pot advocates seek to petition a similar measure onto the ballot in the District?

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, estimates it would be six years or less before the marijuana legalization debate makes its way to the District.

"California, like it or not, really pushes American politics and business in one direction or another," said St. Pierre, noting the issue is also expected to soon land on the ballot in Nevada and Oregon. "I am going to guess four to six years after the citizens of California pass something like this, there is either an initiative here or the city council takes it up."

Already, D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) has been grumbling publicly that some of the District's drug laws need to be reformed because too many residents are being locked up for drug possession. But Council member David A. Catania (I-At large), the chairman of the Committee on Health, and other council members have made it clear they do not want the medical marijuana legislation pending before the council to spiral into a debate over outright legalization.

A Washington Post poll conducted in January found District residents were split on whether they supported legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Forty-six percent of residents favored the idea, but 48 percent opposed.

But while 60 percent of whites supported legalizing marijuana, only 37 percent of African-Americans felt that way, largely due to strong opposition among older black women.

A debate over marijuana legalization wouldn't be entirely new terrain for the District. In 1977, the city council approved legislation to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of the drug. But then Mayor Walter E. Washington vetoed the measure, citing the possible effects the law would have on city youths.

And even if legalization advocates won a referendum over the issue in the District, Congress would ultimately have the power to block it from taking place.

It's hard to see Congress staying out of that debate. But who would have guessed six years ago that the debate over whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District would have been such a snooze this year on Capitol Hill?

--Tim Craig

[nhgunnut]

This needs to be done at a national level. I am tired of spending tax dollars to by breakfast for stoners to stupid not to get repeatedly arrested.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

This needs to be done at a national level. I am tired of spending tax dollars to by breakfast for stoners to stupid not to get repeatedly arrested.

like you'd get the money back if they hadn't been arrested.

[Inferno]

I don't care either way, but I wonder if they will still test for civil service jobs (police/fire)

[Captain Morgan]

Originally Posted by Inferno

I don't care either way, but I wonder if they will still test for civil service jobs (police/fire)

Oh, I'm sure they will. Thing with pot is that it's not like alcohol as far as how long it stays in your system for testing. It doesn't fuck you up as long as alcohol, but it will show up in tests for a lot longer. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if more companies start testing for it and it's still against policy to smoke it.

Although, weird thing about my job is that it doesn't test for drugs, at all. I have a government job and was never tested. Kind of surprising, really, considering what I do. Doesn't matter, though, I haven't smoked in years.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Captain Morgan

Oh, I'm sure they will. Thing with pot is that it's not like alcohol as far as how long it stays in your system for testing. It doesn't fuck you up as long as alcohol, but it will show up in tests for a lot longer. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if more companies start testing for it and it's still against policy to smoke it.

Although, weird thing about my job is that it doesn't test for drugs, at all. I have a government job and was never tested. Kind of surprising, really, considering what I do. Doesn't matter, though, I haven't smoked in years.

I agree. For people who like to smoke I have a feeling legalization will fall short of the utopia they imagine. I doubt most employers would give a shit but I suspect workers comp. insurance providers will ultimately be the ones who control the policies of employers.

[Kaneman]

I have a feeling its not going to pass this time around, still a lot of fear concerning Marijuana and it murderous effects.

Around here though, there are fewer employers drug screening. I didn't have to test for my last two jobs actually (both were auto finance corporations) , and two of my buddies who recently got corporate jobs didn't have to test either. I think goof has a point regarding workers comp ins, or even auto/health/home, etc. etc, but it hasn't happened with alcohol and I don't think it will with marijuana once it is legalized or decriminalized either.

I could be wrong though, people are some evil motherfuckers.

[Mrs. Colleen]

I hope it goes through...this state is fucked and we need the money.

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by goof2

I agree. For people who like to smoke I have a feeling legalization will fall short of the utopia they imagine. I doubt most employers would give a shit but I suspect workers comp. insurance providers will ultimately be the ones who control the policies of employers.

Yep...this is true. I think alot of companies won't allow it (at least not on company time), but I seriously doubt they are going to start testing for it unless they get some huge ass discount from insurance providers.

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by goof2

I agree. For people who like to smoke I have a feeling legalization will fall short of the utopia they imagine. I doubt most employers would give a shit but I suspect workers comp. insurance providers will ultimately be the ones who control the policies of employers.

Once something is legal, you cant fire someone for doing it. Companies cant make a policy saying a worker cant drink at home, nor would they be able to with Marijauna.

Company policies still have to be in line with the law, up on this side of the border at least.

If its a complete legalization, and not just decriminalization, then the governement will have to come up with a surefire way of finding out if someone is currently impaired. This creates a major problem, because im not sure theres an actual way to do that with pot. How do you tell how stoned someone is when they are out driving? You cant just leave it go, and say 'No, its fine, drive high all you want'. So im not sure how to deal with that.