Legalized Recreational Marijuana In NY

[Zapp Brannigan 139]

9 hours ago, Kevin said:

The legality of it us a gray line. Just because NYS says it's legal the federal govt. still says it is illegal. 

 

I am 100% in favor of this. This will allow me to not rely on my meds all the time.

My question is are they going to monitor to see who buys at the dispensary so they can compare it to the pistol permit holders? 

I have not seen anything about keeping track of who buys what. Also waiting for the actual bill to be released so I can read it.  I have a medical card so any chances of me getting a pistol permit as far as I know is 0 not that I wanted one anyways.

[MsKreed 1,201]

12 hours ago, Kevin said:

15 hours ago, MsKreed said:

but searching the vehicle for what? A substance that is legal to possess?

The legality of it us a gray line. Just because NYS says it's legal the federal govt. still says it is illegal

Good point...

But I'm thinking if NYS is passing legislation to codify not enforcing the federal regulatory rule....we wouldn't expect them to be looking for probable cause to search for a motorist possesing marijuana. 

If someone is trying to pose the argument that the smell of mj somehow equals "probable" possession of other drugs or contraband...I have to disagree. The only explanation would be looking for excuses to wiggle around the Fourth.

[MsKreed 1,201]

Also...the DEA arbitrarily setting narcotics schedules for regulatory rules that hold the force "law" has always been a contentious point for me.

First...because it's lazy and political for elected lawmakers to assign the task of making laws to appointed career bureaucrats. 

And second, the other bureaucracy (FDA) has authorized it for medical purposes.....so it has not fit the DEA schedule 1 "no medical purpose" definition for a few years by that measure.

Edited March 25, 2021 by MsKreed

[Zapp Brannigan 139]

Quote

Here’s a summary of the main components of the 128-page New York marijuana legalization bill: 

-Adults 21 and older would be able to possess and purchase marijuana products from licensed retailers.

-There would be no penalties for possession of up to three ounces of cannabis or 24 grams of marijuana concentrates.

-Adults could also cultivate up to six plants for personal use, three of which could be mature. A maximum of 12 plants could be grown per household with more than one adult. Homegrow would not take effect until regulators set rules for it, and they would have a maximum of six months to do so for medical patients and must do so for adult-use consumers no later than 18 months after the first retail recreational sales begin.

-People with convictions for marijuana-related activity made legal under the legislation would have their records automatically expunged.

-A system of licenses for commercial cultivators, processors, distributors, retailers, cooperatives and nurseries would be created, with a prohibition on vertical integration except for microbusinesses.

-Social consumption sites and delivery services would be permitted.

-Individual jurisdictions would be allowed to opt out of allowing retailers or social consumption sites by the end of this year, but residents could seek to override such bans via a local referendum process.

-A new Office of Cannabis Management—an independent agency operating as part of the New York State Liquor Authority—would be responsible for regulating the recreational cannabis market as well as the existing medical marijuana and hemp programs and would be overseen by a five-member Cannabis Control Board. Three members would be appointed by the governor, and the Senate and Assembly would appoint one member each.

-The legislation sets a goal of having 50 percent of marijuana business licenses issued to social equity applicants, defined as people from “communities disproportionately impacted by the enforcement of cannabis prohibition” as well as minority- and women-owned businesses, disabled veterans and financially distressed farmers.

-Cannabis products would be subject to a state tax of nine percent, plus an additional four percent local tax that would be split between counties and cities/towns/villages, with 75 percent of the local earnings going to the municipalities and 25 percent to the counties. Marijuana distributors would also face a THC tax based on type of product, as follows: 0.5 cents per milligram for flower, 0.8 cents per milligram for concentrated cannabis and 3 cents per milligram for edibles.

-Tax revenue from marijuana sales would cover the costs of administering the program. After that, 40 percent of the remaining dollars would go to a community reinvestment fund, 40 percent would support the state’s public schools and 20 percent would fund drug treatment facilities and public education programs.

-Police could not use the odor of cannabis to justify searches.

-The State Department of Health would oversee a study of technologies for detecting cannabis-impaired driving, after which it could approve and certify the use of such a test. Additional funds for drug recognition experts also would be made available.

-The state’s existing medical cannabis program would also be changed to expand the list of qualifying conditions and allow patients to smoke marijuana products. Patients could also obtain a 60-day, rather than 30-day, supply.

-Smokable hemp flower sales would be allowed.

-Current medical cannabis businesses could participate in the recreational market in exchange for licensing fees that will help to fund the social equity program.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Zapp Brannigan

[Kevin 342]

Sounds good to me

[Hal 343]

I really do not have an opinion either way on this , well I do but none I wish to voice right now . My concern is for those employers that have strict drug testing and enforcement in the workplace . These rules are in place for the safety of the employee and coworkers and make perfect sense  . I know this will shake out pretty well for the most part but , Legal in the eyes of the Law and admissible in the workplace , thats where I see problems . 
I’ll edit this to mention the argument of being under the influence of marijuana after  partying on weekends , and being sent for random drug tests come Monday  . That will be one of the biggest problems and will be put to the test in many workplaces , that I can guarantee ! 
 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Hal

[Chris 2,206]

It already is a problem. When I got hired at my current job the manager said only a fraction of applicants to the work force could pass a drug test. Hell I remember one of the staff at the hospital having a slew of trainees come and go, because of the same.

I guess what I’m saying is, so long as employers require random drug screening it doesn’t really matter if it’s legal in New York or not. The ones who are gonna partake, will either way.

Me? Even if I didn’t have to pass random drug screens I wouldn’t partake. I’m happy with a couple beers or cocktails now and then. But if it’s your thing, mazel tov.

From a medicinal point of view I think this is great. There’s a lot of people who could benefit but can’t afford the high prices at the dispensary.

[Zapp Brannigan 139]

Well if your workplace requires drug tests and you fail then that's on you that's the chance you take. Legalizing recreational should have no effect on employers drug testing (i think there may be something in the bill about this, but I have not read the complete bill).  The prices at the dispensary are crazy 100.00 there gets you what 40-50 gets you on the street and they do sell the flower but its ground up already to meet NYS standards and who knows what's ground up with it and the street quality is better. That and one of the big corporations that supply our "local" dispensary was caught shipping out moldy product.  

[Chris 2,206]

1 hour ago, Zapp Brannigan said:

Well if your workplace requires drug tests and you fail then that's on you that's the chance you take.

I couldn't agree with you more. 

[Kevin 342]

I remember at Dish corporate headquarters in CO a while ago they terminated an employee because he failed a drug test, he sues saying it was for medicinal use and was legal. 

It went all the way to the top court and they said could fire him because while legal at the state level it is not at the federal level. 

When the federal govt makes it legal it will be a whole different story.

 

https://money.cnn.com/2015/06/15/news/companies/dish-employee-firing-marijuana-colorado-court/index.html

[Hal 343]

Buts thats the very point i am making , legalizing will make a difference . Hypothetically a person does some partying on Friday night and uses some marijuana , gets popped for a  “ random “ drug test , fails and gets terminated . Now with legalization that employee has more of a leg to stand on .... I’ll explain . Union shop has to try arguing for this employee . Employee admits that on Friday night he had indulged a bit ( on his own time ) gets popped Monday for a testing . Now the union has to have a meeting with the person and the Company to try defending what an employee does on their own time , believe me these meetings can get nasty . Meanwhile the Company is paying the Stewards and other Union officials their respective wages during this meeting . Then we go to arbitration, Lawyers will be brought in and we sit and argue a case all day long , which is fine but Company has to pay four union people to be there as well . They key to the case is the person doing what they want on their own time but marijuana is still in the system on Monday . It’s more of a process than most people think . I have done quite a few of these , one in particular was a 23 year employee, spotless work record , a model employee if you will ! I wrote the grievance, had the meeting , Plant manager included , argued to save his 23 years and the company was getting ready to drop the whole matter with just  a week non paid time off ! This guy stands up and tells me not to waste anymore time or breath and proceeds to tell the company that he quits !! 
So yeah , you are absolutely correct that the onus is on the employee. But as you can see its not just a matter of “ your fired get the hell out “ as i’m sure the case is with some employers . But this was all when marijuana was illegal and now with it being legal for recreational use there will be yet another layer added to an already extensive process beyond the Arbitration which would be binding on both party’s by the employee bringing in his own Attorney ,as he will surely do , to argue whether he is or is not permitted to use his own time as he see’s fit . 

 

[Chris 2,206]

Since we’re partly overseen by the DOT, there’s no arguing the point. Someone gets tested positive for MJ they’re done, union or otherwise.

As Kevin said, when it’s made legal at the federal level maybe things will change. But I don’t see that happening any time soon.

 

[Zapp Brannigan 139]

2 hours ago, Hal said:

Buts thats the very point i am making , legalizing will make a difference . Hypothetically a person does some partying on Friday night and uses some marijuana , gets popped for a  “ random “ drug test , fails and gets terminated . Now with legalization that employee has more of a leg to stand on .... I’ll explain . Union shop has to try arguing for this employee . Employee admits that on Friday night he had indulged a bit ( on his own time ) gets popped Monday for a testing . Now the union has to have a meeting with the person and the Company to try defending what an employee does on their own time , believe me these meetings can get nasty . Meanwhile the Company is paying the Stewards and other Union officials their respective wages during this meeting . Then we go to arbitration, Lawyers will be brought in and we sit and argue a case all day long , which is fine but Company has to pay four union people to be there as well . They key to the case is the person doing what they want on their own time but marijuana is still in the system on Monday . It’s more of a process than most people think . I have done quite a few of these , one in particular was a 23 year employee, spotless work record , a model employee if you will ! I wrote the grievance, had the meeting , Plant manager included , argued to save his 23 years and the company was getting ready to drop the whole matter with just  a week non paid time off ! This guy stands up and tells me not to waste anymore time or breath and proceeds to tell the company that he quits !! 
So yeah , you are absolutely correct that the onus is on the employee. But as you can see its not just a matter of “ your fired get the hell out “ as i’m sure the case is with some employers . But this was all when marijuana was illegal and now with it being legal for recreational use there will be yet another layer added to an already extensive process beyond the Arbitration which would be binding on both party’s by the employee bringing in his own Attorney ,as he will surely do , to argue whether he is or is not permitted to use his own time as he see’s fit . 

 

The way I see it is the company has a policy against drug use and testing positive for THC as I am sure they have a policy against alcohol and being drunk or under the influence while at work. Legal or not they have broken the company policy and open themselves up for termination or treatment programs whichever the company chooses.  As far as recreational goes in my opinion with employers its cut and dry.  Now medical use is questionable

[MsKreed 1,201]

It seems like there is precedent that medicinal use of legally prescribed medication can still be prohibited while on the job (or behind the wheel).  

Just because your doctor prescribed codeine, benadryl or Xanax (or any number of legal drugs) doesn't meant it's OK to drive a school bus (or any vehicle), operate a jack hammer or run a cash register with your brain in a fuddle from it.

[Hal 343]

1 hour ago, Zapp Brannigan said:

The way I see it is the company has a policy against drug use and testing positive for THC as I am sure they have a policy against alcohol and being drunk or under the influence while at work. Legal or not they have broken the company policy and open themselves up for termination or treatment programs whichever the company chooses.  As far as recreational goes in my opinion with employers its cut and dry.  Now medical use is questionable

Absolutely but ... always a but right ? I am looking at the ramifications of legalizing marijuana for recreational use and how that spills over onto the job sector . As I explained in my post there will definitely be those that will party on Friday and pay for it on Monday and will use the argument that the Company cannot dictate how they spend their off hours . And I see this as a “ battle cry “ of defense against company policy. 
I will come out not wanting marijuana legalized as there are too many cons here but the flip side of this is , the Employer can control what the Employee does on their own time . Theres the rub ! 
I cannot remember the labor book but I distinctly remember this statement... “ There exist a Master and Slave relationship between the Employer and the Employee “ , I will try to find it . I guess my point being there will be more , much more , to this than just a bunch of people happy as hell to be getting stoned legally . But others will pay as  is always the case ! 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Hal

[Chris 2,206]

This isn’t going to suddenly affect anyone because let’s be honest, it’s not like people are going to suddenly start smoking weed because NY says they can. And chances are, the people smoking it aren’t likely in a job requiring them to pass a drug screen.

And if someone does suddenly decide to chance it, they know full well what they’re doing and the consequences when they light up.

And if they don’t like the terms of their employment, they can always find a job that enables them to smoke pot in their off time I suppose.

[Zapp Brannigan 139]

6 hours ago, MsKreed said:

It seems like there is precedent that medicinal use of legally prescribed medication can still be prohibited while on the job (or behind the wheel).  

Just because your doctor prescribed codeine, benadryl or Xanax (or any number of legal drugs) doesn't meant it's OK to drive a school bus (or any vehicle), operate a jack hammer or run a cash register with your brain in a fuddle from it.

Being on the job under the influence is one thing.  

Should I be turned down for a job because I have a medical marijuana rx? 

5 hours ago, Chris said:

This isn’t going to suddenly affect anyone because let’s be honest, it’s not like people are going to suddenly start smoking weed because NY says they can. And chances are, the people smoking it aren’t likely in a job requiring them to pass a drug screen.

And if someone does suddenly decide to chance it, they know full well what they’re doing and the consequences when they light up.

And if they don’t like the terms of their employment, they can always find a job that enables them to smoke pot in their off time I suppose.

Actually I think you are gonna see more people trying it because it may be legal. You may also see more job openings. 

5 hours ago, Hal said:

Absolutely but ... always a but right ? I am looking at the ramifications of legalizing marijuana for recreational use and how that spills over onto the job sector . As I explained in my post there will definitely be those that will party on Friday and pay for it on Monday and will use the argument that the Company cannot dictate how they spend their off hours . And I see this as a “ battle cry “ of defense against company policy. 
I will come out not wanting marijuana legalized as there are too many cons here but the flip side of this is , the Employer can control what the Employee does on their own time . Theres the rub ! 
I cannot remember the labor book but I distinctly remember this statement... “ There exist a Master and Slave relationship between the Employer and the Employee “ , I will try to find it . I guess my point being there will be more , much more , to this than just a bunch of people happy as hell to be getting stoned legally . But others will pay as  is always the case ! 

 I agree with you especially the last part.

[Hal 343]

All points that will have to be shaken out as time goes by I guess Zapp ... 

[MsKreed 1,201]

10 hours ago, Zapp Brannigan said:

Being on the job under the influence is one thing.  

Should I be turned down for a job because I have a medical marijuana rx? 

I don't think so....and would fight any employer asking protected medical questions.  They have no more right to as if an applicant or employee has a cannabis Rx than Xanax or Benadryl. 

I'm also of the belief that neither the DMV nor Pistol Permit Clerk should be allowed access to your medical records either. Whether its marijuana or any other drug that can affect performance, acuity, etc.... being prescribed does not mean someone is rendered incapable of performing any such tasks ever.

[Chris 2,206]

Except if you get calls in for a random rug screen, you’re far better off if they know in advance that your prescribed and taking a benzo like Xanax. Its when you dont have a prescription that the fun begins.

[MsKreed 1,201]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Except if you get calls in for a random rug screen, you’re far better off if they know in advance that your prescribed and taking a benzo like Xanax. Its when you dont have a prescription that the fun begins.

I was addressing Zapp’s question of being turned down for a job for having an Rx for medical cannabis.

If your example is for a pre-employment drug test, then having an Rx for Xanax shouldn’t be an exclusion for hiring….nor “should” a marijuana prescription. Nor should having any particular Rx exclude someone from driving or having a firearm.

The being called in for drug tests after employment … We need better technology all around.

In the above case of legally prescribed Xanax, the purpose of a drug test (either random or a non-random test for cause after some incident) should be to determine if someone is under the influence, fit for duty, etc…

If you are involved in a workplace accident while under the influence of [insert drug of choice; cannabis, alcohol, heroine, oxycodone], that’s its own legal exclusion….grounds for termination and not covered by workers comp, etc.

So if a test may show Xanax (or any drug; legal or not) “in your system” for days after the effects are gone, then testing is pointless for anything other than purely punitive reasons.

 

I know there are policies abound that are based on just that, but they really don’t follow “science”. That’s why there needs to be a standardized testing measure that will objectively distinguish between presence in the body and impairment/effects…of any drug.

[Kevin 342]

I can help with the drug screening questions.  I have a prescription for a drug that pops a + on all drug tests. 

I just have to give the company that administers the test my prescription information (drug, dosage, Dr., pharmacy info and permission to contact them) when they call me and ask me about it.  

Then when the employer gets my drug results it shows as a negative because I have a prescription.  I have had to do it a bunch of times and never had an issue. 

[Hal 343]

5 hours ago, MsKreed said:

 

So if a test may show Xanax (or any drug; legal or not) “in your system” for days after the effects are gone, then testing is pointless for anything other than purely punitive reasons.

 

So there it is , I worked for a company where some supervisors would go out of their way to get you terminated . One in particular had it in for me bad , I’m talking major vendetta ! I won’t go into the gruesome and funny details . So back on topic .

After a series of heart attacks and topping things off with the proverbial “ iron that broke the camels back “ ( literally ) this supervisor came to my area saying that i had to call a nurse at Occupational Health because I had failed this latest of many “ random “ drug tests , and of course he had that gotcha look . 
I called , of course knowing full well they had found one or more prescription drugs ( I’m a walking Pharmacopeia lol ) they wanted to ask if I had a prescription for a drug , that I had taken 3 days earlier and had showed up on the test , and yes I did /do . 
this guy was on cloud nine that whole day thinking / hoping  i was getting terminated  and of course i poked the bear more than just a little 😉😂. 
Sorry to go on but MsKreed making the “punitive” reference , I was just making the point that there are some employers that relish the thought of “ regularly scheduled random testing “ , and I see this as going to happen more when marijuana is legalized ! 

[Zapp Brannigan 139]

The bill passed and it is now legal in NYS. I did watch some of the live stream of the assembly voting the one thing I did notice was it was mostly old white men voting against it and minorities and women voting in favor.  

[MsKreed 1,201]

On 3/28/2021 at 10:40 AM, Zapp Brannigan said:

-The legislation sets a goal of having 50 percent of marijuana business licenses issued to social equity applicants, defined as people from “communities disproportionately impacted by the enforcement of cannabis prohibition” as well as minority- and women-owned businesses, disabled veterans and financially distressed farmers.

This part here made me laugh....considering the medical dispensary licenses were some outrageously high shake down of like $50k up front, don't we think the fees might be prohibitive for many of those applicants???