Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
thats not candy
Mar 10, 2010

Hell Gem

Bobnumerotres posted:

But if marijuana is legalized, won't you not get in trouble for having it in your system? I mean they don't test for nicotine and alcohol.

Employers can if they want. There are no employee protections for weed in Colorado. You can be fired right now for being a cancer patient with a card, and they'll be able to drug test you tomorrow too even though it's now legal for everyone.

Hell in some states, they can legally fire you for consuming nicotine.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

thats not candy
Mar 10, 2010

Hell Gem

Dusseldorf posted:

El Paso county went against 64 and for Romney.

To be fair, 64 lost in El Paso by only 1.2% compared to the President's 21% loss. A decent amount of Republicans must have voted for 64, but the amendment was definitely carried by Obama voters state wide.

thats not candy
Mar 10, 2010

Hell Gem
Are the CA mmj powerhouses fighting against legalization this time? I really don't get why they care, in Colorado it was the mmj monopolies that got first dibs on everything, and it still seems like they all pretty much run the recreational show to this day.

I wish Hillary would adopt a federal legalization stance. There are left wing Colorado voters out here that think she will roll back everything and try and end all the legalization efforts by suing the state -- mostly due to the DNC platform and Debbie's stance I guess?

thats not candy
Mar 10, 2010

Hell Gem

showbiz_liz posted:

Hasn't she already said that she supports state-level legalization initiatives? Sure she's taken the milquetoast 'wait and see' stance, but she hasn't given any indication that she'd try to roll back legalization.

Yes, but to a bunch of left wing stoners and other students I interact with daily, they simply do not believe her. Hillary has trust issues, so that milquetoast white moderate stance isn't nearly as effective.

thats not candy
Mar 10, 2010

Hell Gem

showbiz_liz posted:

If she came out tomorrow and said "I'll legalize weed on day one of my presidency," this type of person still wouldn't believe her - they're just invested in not believing her.

Quite frankly I do not think that is the case in a lot of the young voters I talk to. A strong commitment to a legalization stance would go a long way to appease some of these voters. The wishy-washy wait and see poo poo is what bothers them, being dumb single issue voters and all.

I understand the political realities elsewhere in the country, but we just had her major primary competitor adopt a strong legalization stance. I feel like the traditional democratic powerhouses are simply waiting for her to change her stance, not the other way around.

  • Locked thread