Alcohol Industry vs California Marijauna Legalization

Cigaro
Posts
1949
Joined
4/5/2010
Location
Rockford, IL, USA
Edited Date/Time 1/27/2012 12:17pm
This has got be the lamest argument from the alcohol industry to hide the real reason they're against legalization.









|
Void Main
Posts
17013
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
USA
10/2/2010 5:25am Edited Date/Time 10/2/2010 5:28am
"It's creating quite a buzz." Smile They should make alcohol illegal in addition to marijuana. Then I wouldn't be drunk all the time.
borg
Posts
6921
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
10/2/2010 6:14am
So it's Bud vs bud? I saw that somewhere. I'm not a smoker but the opponents to this make me ill. I'm generally against the initiative process in California. It's a clusterfuck of truly special interests using the ignorant voters to directly make law. Out of the hundreds of initiatives that have been on ballots, only a few really made any sense. Most are convoluted and contrived. This one happens to be a rare sensible one though.
cyaxares
Posts
129
Joined
9/10/2010
Location
Columbia, MD, USA
10/2/2010 6:58am
Void Main wrote:
"It's creating quite a buzz." They should make alcohol illegal in addition to marijuana. Then I wouldn't be drunk all the time.
"It's creating quite a buzz." Smile They should make alcohol illegal in addition to marijuana. Then I wouldn't be drunk all the time.
Alcohol consumption in the US actually increased during prohibition, so I think we would find a way to get drunk even if alcohol was made illegal.
SteveS
Posts
5598
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
USA
10/2/2010 7:45am
I don't think it's much of a stretch for their claim to turn out to happen.

As soon as it's legal, I can see court challenges to testing for it because unlike a BAC test, the tests for marijuana don't correlate to the degree of impairment. They just indicate exposure in the recent past. And they'll argue that it's unconstitutional to deny the right to work due to an undefined prior exposure to a legal substance. And the 9th Circuit will uphold that.

And I don't think it's a stretch at all for insurance companies to raise rates. They'll do that at the merest whiff of a rumor.

The Shop

Rooster
Posts
4432
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edmonton, CA
10/2/2010 8:33am
Wait until the prison lobby throws down their bucks against legalization.

Who really benefits more than the private prison owners who get paid handsomely to house these criminals who get caught with a bad of weed?
BobbyM
Posts
21437
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
USA
10/2/2010 9:38am
where does the Oreo coalition stand on this?
SteveS
Posts
5598
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
USA
10/2/2010 9:54am
Rooster wrote:
Wait until the prison lobby throws down their bucks against legalization. Who really benefits more than the private prison owners who get paid handsomely to house...
Wait until the prison lobby throws down their bucks against legalization.

Who really benefits more than the private prison owners who get paid handsomely to house these criminals who get caught with a bad of weed?
I believe it's already decriminalized enough that the "personal" levels of possession don't send people to jail in California.
mxasdfg
Posts
19
Joined
9/12/2010
Location
FI
10/2/2010 10:25am
person should have the right to make himself what he wants:
legalize it
Cigaro
Posts
1949
Joined
4/5/2010
Location
Rockford, IL, USA
10/2/2010 11:58am
SteveS wrote:
I don't think it's much of a stretch for their claim to turn out to happen. As soon as it's legal, I can see court challenges...
I don't think it's much of a stretch for their claim to turn out to happen.

As soon as it's legal, I can see court challenges to testing for it because unlike a BAC test, the tests for marijuana don't correlate to the degree of impairment. They just indicate exposure in the recent past. And they'll argue that it's unconstitutional to deny the right to work due to an undefined prior exposure to a legal substance. And the 9th Circuit will uphold that.

And I don't think it's a stretch at all for insurance companies to raise rates. They'll do that at the merest whiff of a rumor.
You make a very good argument,but I think you're looking to deep into the Alcohol Industrys complaint. This is just a diversion to make people forget the real reason why they don't want it legal. They'll lose money because a lot of people will stop drinking.


And whats really different about whats going on right now with drivers on the job? People still drink and still smoke while driving on the job. And for the alcohol industry to even compare being under the influence of marijuana to being under the influence of alcohol behind the wheel is just stupid as shit.

12,800 people dead from drunk driving in 1 year- No one talks about how insurance rates going up.

0 -Deaths from marijuana in what a century? And we're talking about how insurance rates should go up if weeds legalized?

Cigaro
Posts
1949
Joined
4/5/2010
Location
Rockford, IL, USA
10/2/2010 12:05pm Edited Date/Time 10/2/2010 12:06pm
SteveS wrote:
I believe it's already decriminalized enough that the "personal" levels of possession don't send people to jail in California.
You're correct. I seen the vid last night. They just write out tickets and make you pay a fine due to 50% of the court trials and time are spent on people with marijuana possessions.



I still believe they do things like this in Chicago and it's called an I-bond. Due to Cook County jail being over crowded all the time.
cyaxares
Posts
129
Joined
9/10/2010
Location
Columbia, MD, USA
10/2/2010 3:26pm
SteveS wrote:
I don't think it's much of a stretch for their claim to turn out to happen. As soon as it's legal, I can see court challenges...
I don't think it's much of a stretch for their claim to turn out to happen.

As soon as it's legal, I can see court challenges to testing for it because unlike a BAC test, the tests for marijuana don't correlate to the degree of impairment. They just indicate exposure in the recent past. And they'll argue that it's unconstitutional to deny the right to work due to an undefined prior exposure to a legal substance. And the 9th Circuit will uphold that.

And I don't think it's a stretch at all for insurance companies to raise rates. They'll do that at the merest whiff of a rumor.
BAC tests don't correlate to the degree of impairment either. One person with a .08 BAC might be quite buzzed where a career drinker might not show any signs of impairment.
SteveS
Posts
5598
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
USA
10/2/2010 7:28pm
Truck drivers are already subject to being tested for alcohol and drug use. They can already lose their jobs or be penalized for positive tests. It's the same as with pilots, train operators, etc.

However, once marijuana is legalized, they will challenge marijuana testing in the workplace because the test is not one which indicates degree of impairment. The BAC DOES indicate degree of impairment. The higher the level, the higher the degree of impairment. The particular level which is the cutoff is not arbitrarily chosen. There is a certain allowed level which is accepted.

The marijuana testing that is done will show positive for a joint smoked last week. They don't have or do testing which can indicate the same way BAC does for alcohol. For that matter, THC levels in the bloodstream don't correlate to the perceived effects. The drug just doesn't work in a way that follows that kind of blood level response curve.

And I didn't have to look very deeply into the argument given in that video at all. They read what the statement from the distributors said, it took about a second and a half to see how the situation will play out, and knowing how the lawyers and courts figure these things, it will play out exactly that way.

I don't doubt that the beer distributors also have a potential financial stake in the game. But it's entirely within their prerogative and rights to fund one side or another of the issue--whichever will suit their business aims.

But I don't think the argument is lame at all, and they won't be the only ones affected by it. Any company which hires professional drivers/pilots/operators will have the same issue to deal with.
Cigaro
Posts
1949
Joined
4/5/2010
Location
Rockford, IL, USA
10/2/2010 8:02pm
SteveS wrote:
Truck drivers are already subject to being tested for alcohol and drug use. They can already lose their jobs or be penalized for positive tests. It's...
Truck drivers are already subject to being tested for alcohol and drug use. They can already lose their jobs or be penalized for positive tests. It's the same as with pilots, train operators, etc.

However, once marijuana is legalized, they will challenge marijuana testing in the workplace because the test is not one which indicates degree of impairment. The BAC DOES indicate degree of impairment. The higher the level, the higher the degree of impairment. The particular level which is the cutoff is not arbitrarily chosen. There is a certain allowed level which is accepted.

The marijuana testing that is done will show positive for a joint smoked last week. They don't have or do testing which can indicate the same way BAC does for alcohol. For that matter, THC levels in the bloodstream don't correlate to the perceived effects. The drug just doesn't work in a way that follows that kind of blood level response curve.

And I didn't have to look very deeply into the argument given in that video at all. They read what the statement from the distributors said, it took about a second and a half to see how the situation will play out, and knowing how the lawyers and courts figure these things, it will play out exactly that way.

I don't doubt that the beer distributors also have a potential financial stake in the game. But it's entirely within their prerogative and rights to fund one side or another of the issue--whichever will suit their business aims.

But I don't think the argument is lame at all, and they won't be the only ones affected by it. Any company which hires professional drivers/pilots/operators will have the same issue to deal with.
They got a test they can use to determine if marijuana use was within the last 4 hours of the test.

It don't take a genius to figure out their hidden agenda. It's all about the money they would lose because a lot of people would stop drinking. I mean cmon,they're worried about their company drivers being a risk and endangerment to the public if their high on marijuana? But yet they don't give 2 shits about the product they push and all the drunk driving deaths caused from it.

Liability insurance and premiums? Get the fuck outta here! Like their product don't have an effect on the tax payers dollar? It's a petty argument just to keep their pockets lined.


SteveS
Posts
5598
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
USA
10/3/2010 5:13am Edited Date/Time 10/3/2010 5:15am
There's nothing hidden about their agenda at all. They are the beer distributors.



The effects of their product are already figured into insurance premiums everyone pays, and they always have been, since alcohol use was legal long before the automobile and insurance for it were invented.



However, for professional drivers, insurance premiums are adjusted if the company has an alcohol and drug testing program in place to reduce or prevent their drivers from operating under the influence.



Four hours prior exposure....hardly precise enough to determine whether the person is under the influence or impaired by the marijuana.

Face it. The beer distributors have a valid reason to be opposed to the initiative. They stand to lose from it. You just support the initiative and wish to see it passed. That doesn't make the beer distributors any less opposed to it, nor their reasons invalid. They certainly could be affected by it. You don't have to care whether they are affected by it or not.
Void Main
Posts
17013
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
USA
10/3/2010 6:08am
Void Main wrote:
"It's creating quite a buzz." They should make alcohol illegal in addition to marijuana. Then I wouldn't be drunk all the time.
"It's creating quite a buzz." Smile They should make alcohol illegal in addition to marijuana. Then I wouldn't be drunk all the time.
cyaxares wrote:
Alcohol consumption in the US actually increased during prohibition, so I think we would find a way to get drunk even if alcohol was made illegal.
Not me, I'm a law abiding citizen.
Cygnus
Posts
14845
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Hanover, CO, USA
10/3/2010 7:46am
Nothing better than a cold beer and a doobie!
88sdad
Posts
2677
Joined
2/4/2007
Location
Poeville, NV, USA
10/3/2010 7:51am
Cygnus wrote:
Nothing better than a cold beer and a doobie!
A "Root" beer and doobie go pretty good together also.
Cigaro
Posts
1949
Joined
4/5/2010
Location
Rockford, IL, USA
10/3/2010 1:04pm
SteveS wrote:
There's nothing hidden about their agenda at all. They are the beer distributors. The effects of their product are already figured into insurance premiums everyone pays...
There's nothing hidden about their agenda at all. They are the beer distributors.



The effects of their product are already figured into insurance premiums everyone pays, and they always have been, since alcohol use was legal long before the automobile and insurance for it were invented.



However, for professional drivers, insurance premiums are adjusted if the company has an alcohol and drug testing program in place to reduce or prevent their drivers from operating under the influence.



Four hours prior exposure....hardly precise enough to determine whether the person is under the influence or impaired by the marijuana.

Face it. The beer distributors have a valid reason to be opposed to the initiative. They stand to lose from it. You just support the initiative and wish to see it passed. That doesn't make the beer distributors any less opposed to it, nor their reasons invalid. They certainly could be affected by it. You don't have to care whether they are affected by it or not.
So what changes to the testing program for these professional drivers are gonna be made? I mean they are testing for drugs n alcohol now right? What a cotton schwab mouth test is gonna raise their treatment program funding by 50-75%?

Just because their voting to legalize it doesn't mean that people are gonna be free to drive stoned on the job. It will probably be no different then alcohol as far as on the job. No one is suppose to drink while on the job now right,so it should be no different for marijuana.


And you say 4 hours prior exposure is hardly precise enough to determine whether the person is under the influence? What if a driver takes a breathalyzer test and he blows just under the legal limit for alcohol? Does he get to keep his job because he was legally drunk?

In reality that 4 hour test is good enough. There's a place for work and there's a time for pleasure. If you test positive for weed while on the job you should lose your job regardless. That goes for alcohol and all the other drugs also.


SteveS
Posts
5598
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
USA
10/3/2010 5:08pm
Actually, if they blow under the legal limit, then everything is fine. It is well established that certain blood levels of alcohol have certain effects, and the legal limit is quite low nowadays at 0.08, such that a person is deemed OK to drive at levels below that.

The problem with the marijuana testing is that it's not quantitative, and it only indicates prior exposure.

You are trying to believe that evidence of any prior exposure to marijuana will continue to suffice for the employee drug testing.

Once marijuana is legalized, there will be challenges to that thinking, and it will get thrown out as a valid workplace test. Then, since there's no quantitative test that can be proven to show a blood level/impairment correlation, there won't be a way to weed out prior exposure but no longer impaired from prior exposure and still impaired.

And the insurance companies' response to that will be to raise rates.
Cigaro
Posts
1949
Joined
4/5/2010
Location
Rockford, IL, USA
10/3/2010 6:20pm
Laughing Laughing Laughing
seven11
Posts
337
Joined
4/30/2008
Location
Peoria, AZ, USA
10/3/2010 7:00pm
They can test if a person has had recent exposure to marijuana by doing saliva testing. I believe it will show up positive if the person has used in the last 12 hours. If you've smoked in the last 12 hours you shouldn't be at work. Also how about doing a simple roadside impairment test, you know walking the line/standing on one foot touching your nose? Also you can detect a persons level of impairment by doing a blood test. So if a driver is in an accident and needs to be hospitalized the dr is going to do that regardless. Marijuana only stays in the blood for 72 hours and towards the latter the levels are quite low.
88sdad
Posts
2677
Joined
2/4/2007
Location
Poeville, NV, USA
10/3/2010 7:22pm
seven11 wrote:
They can test if a person has had recent exposure to marijuana by doing saliva testing. I believe it will show up positive if the person...
They can test if a person has had recent exposure to marijuana by doing saliva testing. I believe it will show up positive if the person has used in the last 12 hours. If you've smoked in the last 12 hours you shouldn't be at work. Also how about doing a simple roadside impairment test, you know walking the line/standing on one foot touching your nose? Also you can detect a persons level of impairment by doing a blood test. So if a driver is in an accident and needs to be hospitalized the dr is going to do that regardless. Marijuana only stays in the blood for 72 hours and towards the latter the levels are quite low.
Marijuana only stays in the blood for 72 hours and towards the latter the levels are quite low.

Pot stays in your system a little longer than 72 hours.
CR250Rider
Posts
6706
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Moses Lake, WA, USA
10/3/2010 8:05pm Edited Date/Time 10/3/2010 8:15pm
BobbyM wrote:
where does the Oreo coalition stand on this?
Lay's potato chips

cheetos

chocolate milk

ice cream

etc, etc







the companies that sell that stuff should stand up now !

Legalize it !
tunedlength
Posts
2782
Joined
12/9/2006
Location
Ontario, CA, USA
10/3/2010 8:07pm
[embed][/embed]
seven11
Posts
337
Joined
4/30/2008
Location
Peoria, AZ, USA
10/3/2010 11:09pm
seven11 wrote:
They can test if a person has had recent exposure to marijuana by doing saliva testing. I believe it will show up positive if the person...
They can test if a person has had recent exposure to marijuana by doing saliva testing. I believe it will show up positive if the person has used in the last 12 hours. If you've smoked in the last 12 hours you shouldn't be at work. Also how about doing a simple roadside impairment test, you know walking the line/standing on one foot touching your nose? Also you can detect a persons level of impairment by doing a blood test. So if a driver is in an accident and needs to be hospitalized the dr is going to do that regardless. Marijuana only stays in the blood for 72 hours and towards the latter the levels are quite low.
88sdad wrote:
[b]Marijuana only stays in the blood for 72 hours and towards the latter the levels are quite low.[/b] Pot stays in your system a little longer...
Marijuana only stays in the blood for 72 hours and towards the latter the levels are quite low.

Pot stays in your system a little longer than 72 hours.
Sure it stays in your system longer than 72 hours, but it is stored in your fat. It is not detectable in a blood test past 72 hours. Therefore it does not stay in your blood.
Rupert X
Posts
10997
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Newark, OH, USA
10/4/2010 4:49am



Pizza industry spokesman Jeff Spicoli had this to say : " Yeah, like we're all for it, dude !"
DirtyFilter75
Posts
6915
Joined
1/9/2009
Location
Evansville, IN, USA
10/4/2010 8:09am
Would it help me focus.....?

Would it help me focus.....?

I can't stay focused!Woohoo
Cigaro
Posts
1949
Joined
4/5/2010
Location
Rockford, IL, USA
10/4/2010 9:00am
SteveS wrote:
Actually, if they blow under the legal limit, then everything is fine. It is well established that certain blood levels of alcohol have certain effects, and...
Actually, if they blow under the legal limit, then everything is fine. It is well established that certain blood levels of alcohol have certain effects, and the legal limit is quite low nowadays at 0.08, such that a person is deemed OK to drive at levels below that.

The problem with the marijuana testing is that it's not quantitative, and it only indicates prior exposure.

You are trying to believe that evidence of any prior exposure to marijuana will continue to suffice for the employee drug testing.

Once marijuana is legalized, there will be challenges to that thinking, and it will get thrown out as a valid workplace test. Then, since there's no quantitative test that can be proven to show a blood level/impairment correlation, there won't be a way to weed out prior exposure but no longer impaired from prior exposure and still impaired.

And the insurance companies' response to that will be to raise rates.
I completely understand your argument and where you're coming from on this. But have insurance companies actually said they would raise rates if prop 19 is passed? I haven't heard anything written in stone about it. Sounds to me like the alcohol industry is just assuming it will raise rates if passed. What would you expect they are in panic mode.

The way I see it played out is if the alcohol industry don't get insurance companies in bed with them on their beliefs,the insurance companies are not gonna budge because they'd be taking money out of their pockets.

Capitalism at it's finest! Fighting for that all mighty $..
10/4/2010 12:32pm
I wonder how much money the pharmaceutical industry has dumped into the opposition campaign.
Cigaro
Posts
1949
Joined
4/5/2010
Location
Rockford, IL, USA
10/4/2010 1:40pm
I wonder how much money the pharmaceutical industry has dumped into the opposition campaign.
I would imagine they forked out a lot of cheese

Post a reply to: Alcohol Industry vs California Marijauna Legalization

The Latest