|
I do believe that under the plant patent rules, none of the strains that are currently widely available can be patented due to the impossibility of proving creation,.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
computer parts posted:This conversation solidifies my belief that the opposition to drone bombing was about the "drone" part and the not the "bombing" part. I did notice people didn't care too much when they were still called UAVs. Obdicut posted:It's actually an interesting set of problems because there's already brand loyalty in play. Can corporations trademark stuff like 'purple haze' and 'blueberry'? Are genetic patents for the strains allowable? It's somewhat difficult to trademark something by the name it's already known as, unless you came up with that name. And of course trademarks can't be descriptive. duz fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
When weed is legal will all incarcerated weed dealers have their sentences commuted
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Bwee posted:When weed is legal will all incarcerated weed dealers have their sentences commuted At most, only if they aren't in jail for anything else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
They would have to stagger the releases over several years in order to not create just a huge homeless population and automatic crime rate increase if there are not in place retraining etc.. otherwise you just released a huge number in the 100,000 into the population who don't have work, possibly no place to live, and with a recidivism of 80 percent I think in the US you would most certainly see a uptick in crime. Basically releasing 100s of thousands of people into the public with no structure in place for support would just result in a uptick in crime and homelessness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Brannock posted:A glimpse at our future. "This is the way it's been and I've had to put up with it; why are you complaining about it?" Stop thinking so terrestrially. The air above your property is not yours except insofar as you can effectively utilize it. US v Causby, 1947 posted:It is ancient doctrine that at common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe -- cujus est solum ejus est usque and coelum. But that doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim. 250 feet is well into the proposed air-travel corridors for drone traffic. You absolutely don't have the right to shoot down a delivery drone just because it's crossing your property any more than you have the right to shoot down an airliner in its own corridor. Drones will happen and should happen, and you are being a luddite. And in fact would have been one 60 years ago. If you don't want to be visible from the air put up an awning. Or pass peeping-tom laws. Making aerial photography illegal to try and establish a "right to privacy" in a publically-visible space is just luddism, plain and simple. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:They would have to stagger the releases over several years in order to not create just a huge homeless population and automatic crime rate increase if there are not in place retraining etc.. otherwise you just released a huge number in the 100,000 into the population who don't have work, possibly no place to live, and with a recidivism of 80 percent I think in the US you would most certainly see a uptick in crime. How labor-intensive is large-scale weed cultivation? Because I think I have a work-placement idea. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How labor-intensive is large-scale weed cultivation? Because I think I have a work-placement idea. "putting them to work on my farm picking buds" doesn't sound so good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Yeah, it's nice to say let's decriminalize weed but really if you did that you could create more problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yeah, it's nice to say let's decriminalize weed but really if you did that you could create more problems. Aside from the moral problem with keeping people incarcerated for what is no longer considered a crime, I can't imagine extended unemployment would be more expensive than what's involved in running prisons over-crowded with non-violent offenders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yeah, it's nice to say let's decriminalize weed but really if you did that you could create more problems. To be precise, you would have to deal with short-term problems that have been created by the prolonged criminalization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:They would have to stagger the releases over several years in order to not create just a huge homeless population and automatic crime rate increase if there are not in place retraining etc.. otherwise you just released a huge number in the 100,000 into the population who don't have work, possibly no place to live, and with a recidivism of 80 percent I think in the US you would most certainly see a uptick in crime. Give tax breaks to dispensaries that employee the released weed criminals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Move to a non-garbage state. Civilization is just over the hills. They're all garbage to me
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
If you expunge their record I'd imagine they'd be more employable, so that'd be swell. What happened post alcohol prohibition (I asked, with Google at my disposal)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:If you expunge their record I'd imagine they'd be more employable, so that'd be swell. What happened post alcohol prohibition (I asked, with Google at my disposal)? No mass or automatic pardons but a number performed individually, is my understanding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:If you expunge their record I'd imagine they'd be more employable, so that'd be swell. What happened post alcohol prohibition (I asked, with Google at my disposal)? It was pretty difficult to actually go to long term prison for just drinking alcohol, and most of the dudes in prison during prohibition had broken multiple other laws. Plus you have to understand, many states had banned alcohol on their own beforehand or didn't lift their bans until some times decades later. And since you were usually convicted under state law, well, national deprohibiton was no get out of jail thing, and if you were in federal prison you probably had done a bunch of other poo poo to get the feds on you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
I think I was operating on the false assumption that there was in fact over 100 thousand, apparently the number is closer to 50,000 for simple possession so really not that much to be absorbed. I just did some quick fact checking on it. It's still a large number but that would mean that a simple staggered release wouldn't ultimately have that much negative impact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
So this is local news as all gently caress, but I feel the thread will get a kick out of it, and it is tangentally USPOL in as much as poo poo like the confederate flag or Washington football team are. A small highschool in Goshen, Indiana (up in the northenr part of the state, neat Michigan) has a football team the "Goshen Redskins". There has been pressure lately to change the name due to its offensiveness. Here is an article on it.. quote:Why so many people defend the Goshen Redskins mascot I have been going out canvassing two to three times a week (weather permitting) since March. It's the usual bit "Hello, my name is Fried Chicken, I'm out today for [candidate] for [position], have you heard of him/her? [candidate] is [candidate bio and talking points], do you plan on voting in the election this November? Would you vote for [candidate]? [spiel about how to get more information if unsure]. Finally, do you have any concerns that you would like to see [candidate] address? Thank you for your time, we hope to see you out in November, have a lovely day" And the "other concerns" is absolutely enlightening. If you want to understand why this country is the way it is, go out canvassing and just talk to people like that. Because overwhelmingly, the responses I will get are a predictable 3 part beat. 1) they want [road they have to regularly drive down] paved 2) they are concerned about police indifference/absence 3) pure loving spite on race or an imagined racial/ideological block It's like god damned clockwork. Occasionally I'll get something else instead of #3, like a comment about zoning, or some other public service failing (eg trash pickup). But its a rare thing not to get some comment about some culture wars bloc that's usually framed in racial terms. There's nothing particularly surprising about this article at all, except that the paper published it. Note that the writer doesn't identify the openly racist assholes except the last one, and that's only because she was one of the ones to vote. Or basically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
 I don't understand how its political correctness run to not use an offense name for a public title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Indiana is the Mississippi of the Mid-West so that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
What would it take, besides a loving miracle and a working government not looking to gently caress the poor to appease the rich, to make it unlawful to ask someone if they have a criminal conviction on a job application? Unless someone is applying to work somewhere that has an actual reason for knowing, like a bank or an elementary school or something, I really find it despicable that the question is allowed to be asked. Following the laughably piss-poor internal logic of the current public on the issue, once someone has "served their time" why should they be hosed if they apply to basically every job ever? They "served their time", by the public logic, and now they're out of jail but they can't get a job anywhere. Well what the gently caress do they think is going to happen as long as every McDonalds in the nation has them ticking the "are you a person we will never hire?" box?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:What would it take, besides a loving miracle and a working government not looking to gently caress the poor to appease the rich, to make it unlawful to ask someone if they have a criminal conviction on a job application? Presumably a law prohibiting it. It's not like it really matters that much though since convicts aren't the ones that are vying for high paying jobs. If anything letting them in will just depress wages more (at least until you're literally at the minimum wage).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:They "served their time", by the public logic
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Goddamnit guys the thread isn't even a day old and you already got my thread title changed!Mr Interweb posted:Wow, something non-terrible came out of the senate: I think you will find that this is in the OP already under the "War on Drugs" section.  Please remember to read the OP each month! I put good work into it and it's not a complete recap!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:What would it take, besides a loving miracle and a working government not looking to gently caress the poor to appease the rich, to make it unlawful to ask someone if they have a criminal conviction on a job application? Unless someone is applying to work somewhere that has an actual reason for knowing, like a bank or an elementary school or something, I really find it despicable that the question is allowed to be asked. Following the laughably piss-poor internal logic of the current public on the issue, once someone has "served their time" why should they be hosed if they apply to basically every job ever? They "served their time", by the public logic, and now they're out of jail but they can't get a job anywhere. Well what the gently caress do they think is going to happen as long as every McDonalds in the nation has them ticking the "are you a person we will never hire?" box? This is an interesting example of class at work, and part of why recidivism is still a problem. There are tons of high powered folks with multiple DWI/DUIs, guys who did brief time in minimum security facilities for insider trading, folks with possession of cocaine convictions, and it doesn't affect their job hirability a whit. They tend to be lawyers, brokers, bankers, etc. But if a guy wants to make hamburgers or ring a cash register or do basically anything but mow lawns or work day construction, well, we're going to need a full background check and to speak with your probation officer, and if you tell anyone about it, you're going to be out on your rear end quick because most of the customers will be terrified of you and you might make some of your co-workers uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Presumably a law prohibiting it. It would probably require criminal history to be a protected status like veteran, gender, sexual orientation (current by executive decision, hopefully in future through actual law), although they would have to build in a lot of exceptions; it should probably matter that someone had been convicted and imprisoned for vehicular manslaughter under the influence if they're applying for a CDL, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
If by some miracle marijuana becomes federally legalized you can look forward to the inevitable court case where termination for use off the job is still considered legal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:If by some miracle marijuana becomes federally legalized you can look forward to the inevitable court case where termination for use off the job is still considered legal. Can't people be fired if they're given a DUI?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:If by some miracle marijuana becomes federally legalized you can look forward to the inevitable court case where termination for use off the job is still considered legal. This is pretty well accepted, and the comparison is the substance use rules that professional athletes have to follow. When Washington and Colorado legalized weed, the NFL in particular made clear it was still on their prohibited list, so it was still something they could use to fire you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How labor-intensive is large-scale weed cultivation? Because I think I have a work-placement idea. Like any other crop, it's very labor intensive to grow, harvest, and process. I worked for one of the bigger Marijuana companies in Denver as a marijuana trimmer and lasted only for a whole week. I was expected to be able to trim ten plants per work day by the end of my first week. The plants were the full length of five feet and had to be hung from a chain attached to the ceiling so that I could inspect them and separate the scruff from the part of the plant I would trim from. I was able to reach five per day, but it was something that I had no experience in doing before in my life and was let go. I don't even smoke and just did it because I had been unemployed for almost four months and thought that I'd give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Can't people be fired if they're given a DUI? Can you get fired for drinking responsibly at home? Actually...I think the answer is yes. An employer could put a "no alcohol consumption ever" clause in an employment contract and have it be enforceable. That's my guess based on the general power of employers versus employees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
foobardog posted:This is pretty well accepted, and the comparison is the substance use rules that professional athletes have to follow. When Washington and Colorado legalized weed, the NFL in particular made clear it was still on their prohibited list, so it was still something they could use to fire you. Illinois is in the process of setting up medical marijuana. I was told, that as a teacher and under explicit state law, I can be fired for using medical marijuana. It was at a conference where we were talking about students receiving it as a prescription (because people freak out about that) and the retired state police officer stated that businesses can determine their drug policy and even if it was allowed for medical reasons legally, then a business could still fire you for using. I asked him that if that was the case, could a business owner who did not approve of any medicine (birth control, tylenol, etc) fire me for using those. The officer mumbled around and went to someone else's question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
At will employment means that if the boss doesn't like anything you can be fired. In many states you can still be fired for political speech, who you have sex with (or if you didn't use protection) or if you eat too much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Toyota is lame, and does hair follicle tests. Liquidate the owners and nationalize all businesses who screen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Goddamnit guys the thread isn't even a day old and you already got my thread title changed! The name change was pretty good, tbqh. I do appreciate the work that goes into the OP, that being said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I can't wait for drones to somehow be covered by the second amendment. Ya'll are weird. Uh, I can wait on that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
The pages of nonsensical drone-fear have been entertaining. Ultimately, I hope the impending regulations (if additional regulations are needed, and bad drone behaviour isn't already covered under existing privacy/sound/harassment behaviour which most of it probably is) follow logical and reasonable pfffftt it's gonna be a clusterfuck as scared old ladies (even those in the body's of young men) shriek about how someone has to do something to make drones go away forever argue against technology libertarians yelling about how the law should never ever apply to them. I mostly feel bad for the responsible hobbyists who have been doing this poo poo for decades and are going to get hosed now no matter what happens or how responsible they are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Illinois is in the process of setting up medical marijuana. I was told, that as a teacher and under explicit state law, I can be fired for using medical marijuana. It was at a conference where we were talking about students receiving it as a prescription (because people freak out about that) and the retired state police officer stated that businesses can determine their drug policy and even if it was allowed for medical reasons legally, then a business could still fire you for using. I asked him that if that was the case, could a business owner who did not approve of any medicine (birth control, tylenol, etc) fire me for using those. The officer mumbled around and went to someone else's question. That is a legitimate grey area now because it's illegal federally. I expect if & when marijuana is legalized federally they won't be able to fire you for medically using it but you're fair game for recreational use. Also there will probably be a tightening of standards for medical use, less like California and more like East coast states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
quote:NEW YORK -- Several news organizations gained rare access Saturday into a private gathering of influential Republican donors hosted by Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a nonprofit organization backed by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch. Our political media, ladies and gentlemen 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The pages of nonsensical drone-fear have been entertaining. I'm not sure how impeding emergency response vehicles or repeatedly flying around aircraft taking off or landing is entertaining to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:53
|
|