twk said:

---

Quote:

---

Though I expect beurocratic delays and regional fights, I hope in the next year this removes employers ability to fire for testing positive for THC as long as you have a valid prescription. This doesn't mean an employee can get high or be high at work - same as alcohol. I also suspect Texas will continue to be very stringent.

---

Why do potheads think that they have a constitutional right to do drugs?

No, this will not prevent employers from firing people who use drugs.

---

Everywhere I've worked you can be fired for being under the influence of drugs, even Rx drugs. But if you test positive for XYZ in your system through urine or a hair follicle test but have zero impairments and a valid Rx for it, there isn't an employer ou there that will fire you.

If THC is reclassified to a Sch. III substance it should be treated exactly the same as any other Sch. III drug in that regard. Not a hard concept at all to understand.

But since you used the term potheads, I'm also not surprised at the inability to make a logical comparison.

That still wouldn't change the ability of an employer to decide to fire you for whatever reason they wanted to either.

TA-OP said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Congress still needs to undue what they did in the recent legislation reopening the government. Even with rescheduling the federal government will effectively make criminals out of millions that currently use hemp-derived products allowed by the 2018 Farm Bill.

---

No worries. If the Dems sweep the House in the midterms, gridlock will ensure the status quo remains in place for years.

---

Not sure if we're on the same wavelength. What I'm saying is the GOP snuck a rider into the not-so-clean bill reopening the government that effectively shuts the Farm Bill loophole. They gave it a 1 year hold on its implementation. So, at some point in the next year, the status quo becomes making criminals out of millions.

---

Link to what they snuck in there? I hadn't heard any of that.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Donde esta, Grape Soda?

---

Celebrating

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Donde esta, Grape Soda?

---

Lathspell said:

---

The "costs" of smoking a little weed is massively less than the costs of having a couple drinks. Everything about alcohol is more hardcore than marijuana.

Anyone who acts like weed is worse than alcohol immediately loses all credibility.

---

1) There is no good clinical data that weed is better or worse for your long term brain function than alcohol. People that claim that weed or alcohol is worse for you than the other are speculating.

2) There is good data that overindulgence in either weed or alcohol at any age is bad for your brain health. There is not very good data that moderate use of either is bad for your brain. "Moderate" is a relative term, but generally much more conservative than people think.

3) There is even better data that overindulgence of weed is worse for kids under 25 than it is for kids over 25. There is incomplete data about kids that use weed in moderation, because pro-active clinical trials on Sched I drugs are prohibited.

byfLuger41 said:

---

So is this still true? My '80's brain has some preconditioning.

---

Yep.

Just that the amount of Fentanyl that will make you stupid or die is a tiny fraction of the amount of weed or alcohol that will do the same damage.

BusterAg said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

The "costs" of smoking a little weed is massively less than the costs of having a couple drinks. Everything about alcohol is more hardcore than marijuana.

Anyone who acts like weed is worse than alcohol immediately loses all credibility.

---

1) There is no good clinical data that weed is better or worse for your long term brain function than alcohol. People that claim that weed or alcohol is worse for you than the other are speculating.

2) There is good data that overindulgence in either weed or alcohol at any age is bad for your brain health. There is not very good data that moderate use of either is bad for your brain. "Moderate" is a relative term, but generally much more conservative than people think.

3) There is even better data that overindulgence of weed is worse for kids under 25 than it is for kids over 25. There is incomplete data about kids that use weed in moderation, because pro-active clinical trials on Sched I drugs are prohibited.

---

Kids over 25? What kind of sheltered ass household are you running, Buster?

I would say alcohol is definitely worse for the body, however you bring up good points on how they both can have deleterious effects on the brain. Chronic Marijuana use can really effect a person psychologically.

Quote:

---

But if you test positive for XYZ in your system through urine or a hair follicle test but have zero impairments and a valid Rx for it, there isn't an employer ou there that will fire you.

---

Wrong. If you've got a job that is considered employment at will (most private employment), your employer can fire you because they don't like the color of your hair or any of a number of other things that some people might not think logical, but it's still perfectly legal. There are only a few reasons for which an at will employee cannot be fired under the law, yet, marijuana users think they ought to be entitled to special protection (the same as race, gender, or other protected classes) and not be in a position to be fired because they are using pot. It's a juvenile sense of entitlement.

Seems odd that they are de-scheduling marijuana while also banning hemp products. What's the deal with that?

I don't know a single person that thinks that. The real problem is how long it stays in your system. It seems stupid for a company to fire you over something you might have done on the weekend or on your own time that had zero to do with job performance. Not that they don't have the legal right to do so, only that its stupid if they do.

AtomicActuator said:

---

Seems odd that they are de-scheduling marijuana while also banning hemp products. What's the deal with that?

---

Different competing interests within the GOP. Trump's wing of the party is actually fairly centrist, with a lot of former democrats that don't care about the things the older more traditional wing of the party does.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I don't know a single person that thinks that. The real problem is how long it stays in your system. It seems stupid for a company to fire you over something you might have done on the weekend or on your own time that had zero to do with job performance. Not that they don't have the legal right to do so, only that its stupid if they do.

---

The OP thinks that.

Lathspell said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Congress still needs to undue what they did in the recent legislation reopening the government. Even with rescheduling the federal government will effectively make criminals out of millions that currently use hemp-derived products allowed by the 2018 Farm Bill.

---

No worries. If the Dems sweep the House in the midterms, gridlock will ensure the status quo remains in place for years.

---

Not sure if we're on the same wavelength. What I'm saying is the GOP snuck a rider into the not-so-clean bill reopening the government that effectively shuts the Farm Bill loophole. They gave it a 1 year hold on its implementation. So, at some point in the next year, the status quo becomes making criminals out of millions.

---

Link to what they snuck in there? I hadn't heard any of that.

---

Theres any number of news articles if you just Google. In an effort to try and find a somewhat unbiased article, I'll link the one from The Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/blog/congress-reopens-government-reignites-prohibition

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

Though I expect beurocratic delays and regional fights, I hope in the next year this removes employers ability to fire for testing positive for THC as long as you have a valid prescription. This doesn't mean an employee can get high or be high at work - same as alcohol. I also suspect Texas will continue to be very stringent.

---

Why do potheads think that they have a constitutional right to do drugs?

No, this will not prevent employers from firing people who use drugs.

---

Its in the Declaration of Independence so maybe that confuses people.

David_Puddy said:

---

Aggie95 said:

---

great...more people that smell like absolute **** when walking by or driving by with the windows rolled down

---

Of all the things to complain about. Weed smoke smells 100x better than cig smoke

---

Disagree bigly. Weed in public is a nuisance. I hope it gets banned in public.

Weed

I can't take opioids even though I have chronic pain. So I just suffer through life. Would be great if I could get a prescription that would help me. I can't even use CBD products right now because there's no guarantee they don't have absolutely zero THC, and if my employer gives me a random test and I'm positive I get fired.

Sometimes it has nothing to do with "recreational" use and getting high. Sometimes there are legitimate medical reasons for wanting to legalize marijuana.

I'm going to laugh at all the pro weed advocates when this research that they've been clamoring for confirms all the worst aspects of weed that have been shown already in studies regarding effects on brain development, long term lung health, etc and weed gets banned again.

My brain is already developed, so oh well.

I don't plan on smoking it, so oh well.

maverick2076 said:

---

I'm going to laugh at all the pro weed advocates when this research that they've been clamoring for confirms all the worst aspects of weed that have been shown already in studies regarding effects on brain development, long term lung health, etc and weed gets banned again.

---

Why is it the government's job to make that risk decision for me? I guarantee my use is far less risky than not using. I only get about 2 hours of sleep, and that's interrupted by pain, when I don't use anything. I wake up and go all day in debilitating pain to the point I'm almost in tears by dinner time. Then, I use so I can get comfortable enough to sleep. It's either that or chain 4-6 shots to pass out, which I've done. If the government is so worried about health effects, their looking the wrong way.

I don't want to use it. I just don't want to be murdered because I happened to get a good look at some guys supplying it.

Marijuana today isn't marijuana from the 1970s. I don't want anyone who "just had one hit man" behind the wheel of a car while my kids drive to school or operating heavy equipment at my job.

If a president has the power to willy willy decide a substance grown in fields can be schedule 1 or 3 or none without a constitutional amendment, then why did we need a constitutional amendment to make alcohol schedule 3?

The baptists would never comply without a constitutional amendment. Probably.

Nobody wants to control weed more than some drunk ass losers

Anyone check how Dan Patrick is doing?

maverick2076 said:

---

I'm going to laugh at all the pro weed advocates when this research that they've been clamoring for confirms all the worst aspects of weed that have been shown already in studies regarding effects on brain development, long term lung health, etc and weed gets banned again.

---

What's your point? We should ban everything that's bad for you?

Smoking weed isn't good for you (not so hot take). Neither is eating sugary food, drinking alcohol, or smoking cigarettes (which the tobacco lobby actually DID say was healthy).

You want the choice or prefer the government decide for you?

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Donde esta, Grape Soda?

---

He's in the head. Scromiting.

Principal Uncertainty said:

---

If a president has the power to willy willy decide a substance grown in fields can be schedule 1 or 3 or none without a constitutional amendment, then why did we need a constitutional amendment to make alcohol schedule 3?

---

That was before SCOTUS went nuts with the expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. The federal government used to be held to the limited powers the framers intended. But with the current commerce clause precedent, they can regulate just about anything remotely affecting the wider economy or anything that is bought, sold, advertised, or transported across state lines.

Principal Uncertainty said:

---

If a president has the power to willy willy decide a substance grown in fields can be schedule 1 or 3 or none without a constitutional amendment, then why did we need a constitutional amendment to make alcohol schedule 3?

---

Are you talking about Prohibition? There were no 'schedules' then.

The schedules that the president can manipulate were created by Congress, but Congress shouldn't have had the power to do that without an amendment imho, just like with prohibition.

nm

Jason C. said:

---

Marijuana today isn't marijuana from the 1970s. I don't want anyone who "just had one hit man" behind the wheel of a car while my kids drive to school or operating heavy equipment at my job.

---

I wouldn't want anyone who had been drinking, or taking heavy pain meds, or didn't get enough sleep, or playing on their phone, or just had a fight with their wife, doing those things either.

What's your point, exactly?

maverick2076 said:

---

I'm going to laugh at all the pro weed advocates when this research that they've been clamoring for confirms all the worst aspects of weed that have been shown already in studies regarding effects on brain development, long term lung health, etc and weed gets banned again.

---

There's basically zero chance of that happening. Tobacco is much worse for your lungs, and alcohol is at least as bad for your brain, and both are legal.

However, studies already show and will continue to show truly medicinal purposes for caniboids, medicinal purposes lacking in the affermentioned products.

It's remarkable how many people in 2025 are still profoundly ignorant about Marijuana.

It's been inevitable for a long time that it will be fully legalized federally. Trump might as well be the one to do it. It'll jazz the Gen Z stoners to vote for him possibly.