Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 27th, 2006, 05:43 PM   #1
BowtieWrangler
Senior Member
 
BowtieWrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-06-06
Location: Detroit
Posts: 444
iTrader: (2)
Michigan Could Have An Interesting Ballot

i was watching tv and this came on the news

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...EWS99/61127028


im surprised to see that this is something being considered, anyone else see this?
BowtieWrangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2006, 07:15 PM   #2
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,616
iTrader: (12)
Calling Sandy boy......

I wonder how this would effect drug testing at work places if it went through.
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2006, 07:27 PM   #3
BowtieWrangler
Senior Member
 
BowtieWrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-06-06
Location: Detroit
Posts: 444
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
Calling Sandy boy......

I wonder how this would effect drug testing at work places if it went through.
x2 that thought crossed my mind.........dont smoke it but that was one of the things i was wondering
BowtieWrangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2006, 07:41 PM   #4
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,831
iTrader: (11)
It wouldn't affect workplace drug testing at all.

The basis of NRC and DOT drug testing is impairment - not legality. The workplace issue is impaired / unfit for duty employees - as a result of legal (alcohol, prescription drugs) or illegal substances.

Alcohol is legal, but having a nonzero blood alcohol level is still a drug test failure.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2006, 09:19 PM   #5
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,302
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
It wouldn't affect workplace drug testing at all.

The basis of NRC and DOT drug testing is impairment - not legality. The workplace issue is impaired / unfit for duty employees - as a result of legal (alcohol, prescription drugs) or illegal substances.

Alcohol is legal, but having a nonzero blood alcohol level is still a drug test failure.
But lots of companies require pre-employment drug screening. Thats about prior usage, not current impairment.

It won't matter to much because it will still be against federal law even if something like that passed, which I doubt it will.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 06:13 AM   #6
Ebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: MI
Posts: 3,326
iTrader: (8)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post

It won't matter to much because it will still be against federal law even if something like that passed, which I doubt it will.
That's what I've always wondered about states putting this up for vote. Federally, it would still be illegal, so the state is basically deciding not to enforce a federal law. It's a good thing to have seperation of local/state/federal governements, but didn't know a lower branch of government could decide not to enforce, or in a sense break, a federal law. I only thought it could go the other way, making laws more resrictive.

Like places in CA where it has been legalized. A certain city will make it legal and locally you are "safe", but I've heard of the DEA/Federal goverment has still made arrests in certain instances.
Ebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 10:51 AM   #7
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,108
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
But lots of companies require pre-employment drug screening. Thats about prior usage, not current impairment.

It won't matter to much because it will still be against federal law even if something like that passed, which I doubt it will.
I doubt it would pass in Michigan also, but it would matter if it did. Look at California, the state county and local police forces aren't enforcing the federal law. They are leaving that to the federal marshals and FBI who have bigger problems.

This has all been playing out in real life since prop 215 passed and the state law is holding its own. Yeah the feds have made a few raids on the big medical pot growers but it hasn't really slowed down the growers or users, and a lot of cancer patients are better off because of it.

I hope they get their 304,000 sigs.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 11:00 AM   #8
roll-bar Bob
Senior Member
 
roll-bar Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-20-06
Location: M CITY
Posts: 2,694
iTrader: (3)
I DONT SMOKE AND WONT !!!

BUT HAVE LOTS OF FRIENDS THAT DO I HOPE IT PASSES
roll-bar Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 08:53 PM   #9
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,302
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
I doubt it would pass in Michigan also, but it would matter if it did. Look at California, the state county and local police forces aren't enforcing the federal law. They are leaving that to the federal marshals and FBI who have bigger problems.

This has all been playing out in real life since prop 215 passed and the state law is holding its own. Yeah the feds have made a few raids on the big medical pot growers but it hasn't really slowed down the growers or users, and a lot of cancer patients are better off because of it.

I hope they get their 304,000 sigs.
I guess it would depend on the local law enforcment. I think they have the freedom to decide whether to enforce federal law or not. Thats apperently why you get situations where illegal immigrants get into trouble with local laws but don't get turned over to the feds.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2006, 10:49 AM   #10
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,108
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I guess it would depend on the local law enforcment. I think they have the freedom to decide whether to enforce federal law or not. Thats apperently why you get situations where illegal immigrants get into trouble with local laws but don't get turned over to the feds.
Yeah, that's probably true. I wonder how it would go over in Michigan. I remember in the 2004 elections that Ferndale(I think) was trying to pass a law similar to this. The police chief came out and said even if the law passed that he would still have his men making arrests. I guess he never heard about the will of the people. Pretty sure it failed anyway.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.13534 seconds with 32 queries