Seattle Cops On Marijuana Legalisation

[level.eleven]

.....and a private employer can do that, but a govt employer cannot. It's difficult for local govt to justify excluding a segment of the populace due to, according to local govt, participating in a legal act.

An excellent argument for holding government agents to the same standard and abolishing special treatment. Congratulations.

 

[phylodog]

Good luck with that, the public isn't going to want their protectors stoned anymore than they want their Dr stoned

Seems difficult to make the argument that it is harmless and should be allowed, just not by some people.

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't need it to advance my argument though. If a SPD officer is a resident of the state of Washington they should be allowed the same rights as every other resident of the state.

I certainly can't disagree with that. Employees should be accorded the same privileges as others. If the general public can legally consume alcohol and tobacco, then you should be allowed to as well. The solution is legislative or personal. You can always get another job if you disagree with the terms of employment. Or get your legislators to cut your crew a sweetheart deal.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Seems difficult to make the argument that it is harmless and should be allowed, just not by some people.

That is the way I feel about cigarettes and the ability to carry a handgun without a license

 

[phylodog]

An excellent argument for holding government agents to the same standard and abolishing special treatment. Congratulations.

Holding them to the same standard like being allowed to smoke weed in Seattle?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Holding them to the same standard like being allowed to smoke weed in Seattle?

Going to be a lot of private people not allowed to smoke it as well because of their jobs.

 

[level.eleven]

Going to be a lot of private people not allowed to smoke it as well because of their jobs.

The argument is over.

 

[phylodog]

Going to be a lot of private people not allowed to smoke it as well because of their jobs.

I have to wonder if policies prohibiting marijuana will be challenged in court now though? Cigarettes have been proven to cause health problems and I think prohibition could be allowed there if their use prevented an employee from being included in the insurance plan or would cause premiums to increase (I'm guessing here). I haven't seen proof about marijuana causing the same problems plus it doesn't have to be smoked. I don't think eating pot brownies causes lung cancer.

 

[phylodog]

I'm gonna have to blaze a spliff to make sense of all of this....

 

[level.eleven]

I'm gonna have to blaze a spliff to make sense of all of this....

Your questions are as simple as you argument. Employment screening is still legal. Nothing changed in that regard. Do you understand this simple fact?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I have to wonder if policies prohibiting marijuana will be challenged in court now though? Cigarettes have been proven to cause health problems and I think prohibition could be allowed there if their use prevented an employee from being included in the insurance plan or would cause premiums to increase (I'm guessing here). I haven't seen proof about marijuana causing the same problems plus it doesn't have to be smoked. I don't think eating pot brownies causes lung cancer.

And the brownies further help to prevent the munchies and the extra drive to the snack store. everyone wins

 

[phylodog]

Your questions are as simple as you argument. Employment screening is still legal. Nothing changed in that regard. Do you understand this simple fact?

Gee, I wonder if it would be as simple for you if we weren't talking about cops?

I'm questioning how an employer can prevent an employee from partaking in a legal activity not proven to create health issues which increase insurance premiums. Please go into great detail how this is allowed? Please eliminate the fact that we are talking about police officers from your argument.

Please type slowly so those of us not as ****ing brilliant as you can keep up. You have yet to explain a ****ing thing.

Is my request simple enough?

 

[level.eleven]

Gee, I wonder if it would be as simple for you if we weren't talking about cops?

I'm questioning how an employer can prevent an employee from partaking in a legal activity not proven to create health issues which increase insurance premiums. Please go into great detail how this is allowed? Please eliminate the fact that we are talking about police officers from your argument.

Please type slowly so those of us not as ****ing brilliant as you can keep up. You have yet to explain a ****ing thing.

Is my request simple enough?

It is quite simple. Review the past 50 years of case law. Honestly, I don't understand your position. Pre/post employment drug screening is old hat. Nothing changed in that regard.

 

[phylodog]

It is quite simple. Review the past 50 years of case law. Honestly, I don't understand your position. Pre/post employment drug screening is old hat. Nothing changed in that regard.

Drugs have been illegal for more than 50 years. Marijuana is no longer illegal in WA. When the law changes it creates new case law.

 

[level.eleven]

Drugs have been illegal for more than 50 years. Marijuana is no longer illegal in WA. When the law changes it creates new case law.

With regards to going to jail, yes. Immediately, as a prerequisite for employment or continued employment, it does not. You are changing the subject.

Alcohol is legal, that doesn't mean that Bisard gets to take a nip in his squad car.

To fall back on your argument, change the law if you do not like it. I await the Captain testifying before the legislature, complete with a chestful of badges and accolades, in full dress regalia, arguing that police can consume cannabis. I will support you. You, are asking for even more, special treatment. More immunity.

 

[1911 DeadHead]

So at what levels of thc in my blood am I DUI? We all know how long it can be in a regular smoker's system. Why not bust people for driving on other prescription narcotics? "Be sure of affects before operating vehicle or heavy machinery" sticker makes it ok? Alot of unanswered questions.

 

[phylodog]

With regards to going to jail, yes. Immediately, as a prerequisite for employment or continued employment, it does not. You are changing the subject.

Alcohol is legal, that doesn't mean that Bisard gets to take a nip in his squad car.

To fall back on your argument, change the law if you do not like it. I await the Captain testifying before the legislature, complete with a chestful of badges and accolades, in full dress regalia, arguing that police can consume cannabis. I will support you. You, are asking for even more, special treatment. More immunity.

I'm done. You are off of your meds. Marijuana is now legal but an officer smoking it is special treatment. Got it.

 

[phylodog]

So at what levels of thc in my blood am I DUI? We all know how long it can be in a regular smoker's system. Why not bust people for driving on other prescription narcotics? "Be sure of affects before operating vehicle or heavy machinery" sticker makes it ok? Alot of unanswered questions.

Most states have laws against driving while impaired or intoxicated. That applies to booze and drugs whether legal prescriptions or illegal recreational. I don't think that will change.

 

[level.eleven]

I'm done. You are off of your meds. Marijuana is now legal but an officer smoking it is special treatment. Got it.

I would abandon your position if I were you as well. Do you want to consume cannabis? First you take it up with your brotherhood's union. Next, take it up with the legislature.

Funny, this is the same route as the factory worker.

Did you know that my aunt in Colorado, who works for an investment firm, will still endure her urine being tested for the presence of cannabis? Would you believe termination would be the result of a positive result? Do you understand that cannabis is legal, now, in Colorado?

Why should your brotherhood be excluded? Are you immune from market forces?

 

[1911 DeadHead]

Most states have laws against driving while impaired or intoxicated. That applies to booze and drugs whether legal prescriptions or illegal recreational. I don't think that will change.

Ummm yea, but still no answer. I could smoke a joint a month ago and an officer can suspect me of being intoxicated and then I lose my license from a joint I toked on a month ago?