Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Obama keeps promise to send first-time nonviolent drug offenders to rehab over jail
Lots of people think Obama hasn’t changed anything on the drug war front (Bill Maher is one of them, but who can blame him – drug policy isn’t exactly hot media stuff). But it turns out that PolitiFact is giving Obama a “promise kept” on this one. They write, “(T)he administration has supported drug courts, which allow low-level drug offenders to have their charges dropped if they successfully complete a court-monitored treatment program.”
Thus we have the “drug courts” which operate mostly at the state and local level.
There are approximately 2,700 drug courts. The administration estimates that we are now sending about 120,000 people to treatment instead of jail. That’s a lot of drug users who would have been languishing in jail, where they don’t get help and often don’t belong. President Obama requested $13 million more for drug courts and treatment in 2013 than he did in 2012.
Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, pointed out that in the “last fiscal year, the Obama administration spent $10.4 billion on drug prevention and treatment programs compared with $9.2 billion on domestic drug enforcement.”
Researchers at the National Institute of Justice found that drug courts may lower re-arrests and significantly lower costs:
Compared to traditional criminal justice system processing, treatment and other investment costs averaged $1,392 lower per drug court participant. Reduced recidivism and other long-term program outcomes resulted in public savings of $6,744 on average per participant (or $12,218 if victimization costs are included).
Overall, according to the Justice Department, we’ve had a decline in prison inmates every year for the past three years.
The drug problem started really plaguing our courts and jails back in the ’80′s. Under Bush, we had the big push on the War on Drugs, also known as the War on Drug Users because so many offenders ended up in jail, clogging the system and overcrowding the jails.
In 2007, then candidate and Senator Obama promised to do something about it, namely to send first-time drug offenders to rehab over jail. He wanted to treat the drug war more as a public health issue than a law enforcement issue. This makes sense since there is little correlation between the amount of money we spend on controlling drugs and actual drug usage.
In fact, the Obama Administration’s inaugural National Drug Control Strategy, published in May 2010, represented a new direction in what used to be called the war on drugs.
In a speech at the World Federation Against Drugs in Sweden, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Director of U.S. National Drug Control Policy, explained the Obama administration’s “third way” approach to drug control (as opposed to the “war on drugs” or blanket legalization), “(T)he Obama Administration supports a “third way” approach to drug control—one that is based on the results of a huge investment in research from some of the world’s preeminent scholars on disease of substance abuse.”
Along those lines, the Administration required that insurers offer coverage for substance use disorder treatment services in ObamaCare. Pragmatic and humane — that’s just what you get with the Obama administration. Conservatives won’t like it because punishment is an important part of their world view. Certainly punishment has its place, but when that punishment does nothing but cost taxpayers money, it seems obvious that we needed a new approach; one that gives drug addicts a chance to recover, and does not clog our courts and jails with drug offenders.
The drug courts mostly apply locally and on the state level because the majority of federal drug offenders wouldn’t be elgible for the drug court program due to the seriousness of their offense.
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out for Bill Maher that if we legalized medical marijuana we’d have even less people in jail. Seriously.
For more on the Obama Administration’s drug control policies, click here.
Related Posts :
From health care to education, to civil justice and support for working families, the actions of R ...
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told reporters today that the spiraling dru ...
Georgia lawmakers are out of touch with voters when it come to drug testing people who receive benefits from ...
In an interview with ABC News, President Obama stated that his administration won't prosecute marijuan ...
Cutting government spending is the drug of choice for the Republican Party. They're already looking for ...
95 Responses to Obama keeps promise to send first-time nonviolent drug offenders to rehab over jail
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 9:27 am
legalizing marijuana is fine, but remember you can still be fired from your job if caught in a pee test. The same as you can be for alcohol.
Beesh
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 9:55 am
That’s a pretty crappy comparison. Alcohol is in your pee for a very short amount of time while marijuana can be found for up to a few months. While I agree you shouldn’t be under the influence of any substance at work you can’t use a pee test to accomplish this with marijuana. Some sort of test needs to be created that tests RECENT marijuana use, not whether or not you smoked that joint a few weeks ago.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Doesnt matter. If you show up to work with drink in your system you can get fired. The same goes for pot. That is the veiw of corporations. Drinking is legal but having it in your system is not legal at work
I am all for legalizing it, dont get me wrong. But people need to understand you can get fired for doing it. If its in your system its still influencing you under the work places laws
Mannie
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:54 am
lol i dont think i work with one person who doesnt smoke or drink at work. i love working in the quarter
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:57 am
And?
mike
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
I don’t think you understand how marijuana testing works though. It is unique in that it can stay detectable in urine for days, weeks, and even months in heavy users. A person may not be intoxicated at all but a urine test would show a positive result.
A blood test will show intoxication levels, though, companies will not use them because of cost and invasiveness.
Michael Degregoria
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
I’ve never had a job in my life where I was tested for alcohol in order to get hired. I think it should be illegal for a company in a state where marijuana is legal to discriminate based on positive marijuana test.
Joseph Michael Read
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Shiva alcohol gets out your system in max of 48 hours where as cannabis takes up to 30 days from just one use depending on the body fat percentage of the user. Alcohol tests are used to determine if the user is under the influence while at work. Now If I smoke a joint 20 days before my test for work i will still fail yet i will not have recently used marijuana? The use of marijuana is far different than alcohol and I would actually argue that depending on the user some people would function better under the influence of cannabis.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:07 am
Doesnt matter. Its in your system and by law still influencing your abilities under “workplace” laws. Drinking effects go quickly, pot doesnt
You can argue people are better while smoking pot, its an argument you would never win becuase its unprovable
Ki
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Pot can be detected in your system for up to a month, that doesn’t mean it affects you. It’s to do with how it’s processed that alcohol is processed by the liver and cannabis is absorbed by the fat cells. This is because alcohol is a poison that the body is desperate to get rid of, and cannabis is not.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:47 am
so you think that something is in your system doesn’t affect you? That’s not the point. The point is if it’s in your system and you get tested at work you can get fired.
lockewasright
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:04 am
Marijuanna is detectable in the system LONG after it has ceased to impact the user’s sobriety. That is not so with regard to alcohol. It is not the same the thing. Argument to the contrary is comprehension fail. There are perscription pain meds that can be detected in the system even after the effects have worn off. Without a test demostrating how recent the use was, employers cannot demonstrate that a person is under the influence at work.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:14 am
first of all, I will say this one more time. I am not arguing against marijuana. But your statement is not true. The fact that an employer cannot demonstrate that a person is under the influence at work has nothing to do with anything. The fact of the matter is if it’s in your system they can fire you.
You cannot demonstrate that if marijuana is in your system three weeks after you smoke it that it has no effect on your brain or your lungs. just because you don’t feel high doesn’t mean that the pot doesn’t have an effect on your physical system.
An employer cannot demonstrate that it is affecting your sobriety. That is contentious, perhaps see’s a long-term lessening of your abilities. Who knows?
If you are stating that there should be laws that say you can only have a certain amount in your system as measured by a test then that’s probably a good idea to look at. I don’t know if it’s possible to measure the amount of THC in your system, possibly it’s just a test that says it’s there or it’s not. If that’s the case three weeks later after smoking it is no different than smoking a one hour ago. ACCORDING TO WORKPLACE LAWS. most companies have rules that say if it’s in your system you can be fired, sent to a second chance program or put under observation. They don’t say if there’s 10% THC in your system they will drop the charges.
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
I hate to tell you this, Shiva, but the weed has long stopped working before it leaves your system. All the residual THC, still in your body beyond the normal 1-4 hour intoxication time frame, does is contribute to your tolerance level
And, weed has a built-in tolerance gauge that other drugs don’t have. It’s the only illegal drug I’ve ever heard of where people have been long to take long, extended breaks from it in order to get their tolerance back down. Meanwhile, people who use alcohol, heroin, cocaine, use cigarettes, or even abuse prescriptions usually don’t stop (or just can’t). They keep consuming these substances to the point where their toxicity overwhelms their bodies, thus causing harm. On the other hand, weed seems to shut itself off before the user reaches this point.
And here’s another tidbit for you. Synthetic weed (a futile man-made attempt at replicating THC – the substance that gives you that “high”) is actually more deadly than the natural stuff. Synthetic weed has sent people to the ER and killed a few others. Because of this, synthetic weed is scheduled under the Controlled Substance Act (where it belongs). Now, if they can just reschedule or completely unschedule its better and more natural relative, that would make much more sense.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
nice post, but it doesn’t change the fact that if it is in your system and you get tested, you can get fired. That’s all I’m saying. I am not arguing against marijuana.
Jesus
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Umm you can definitely test how much weed is in your system. I was a student athlete and you were allowed up to 16 nanograms in your test and still pass
Genemaster
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:52 am
I will never have been able to get my PhD without pot to relieve stress as well as being able to focus for 10-12h on tricky experiments. Actually I was an average student in high school, after starting pot in university (like many others) I graduated as major of my class.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:54 am
well that’s fine, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you can get fired in the workplace with pot in your system. I am not arguing against smoking pot, I have repeatedly said I am for its legalization.
Congratulations on graduating at the top of your class.
Moongal6
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
In Oregon, if you have your Medical Marijuana card, you cannot be fired from your job if they “find” it in your system.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 12:06 am
Thats a good thing
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:44 am
You’ve raised all valid points. However, I do believe that many employers will change their minds over time. Part of the problem is that the public is ignorant of what weed actually does to the body. They are willing to blindly accept the scare tactics pushed by the Drug War.
Yet, people should still understand that drug testing by employers is still a problem. Luckily there are so many jobs out there that don’t require drug testing. However, many aren’t so lucky in finding them.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Possibly. I have worked in Tn and Mi and find that even the smallest shops have these rules. I know companys have not changed their minds on alcohol over time.
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
There are still many, many jobs out there that don’t require drug testing. I’ve lived all over this country and know many people who’ve never had to contend with this issue. However, it’s still a problem and it’s important you raised it. That’s reality, folks. There are still employers at there who are not “enlightened.”
Kris
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
“I know companies have not changed their minds on alcohol over time.”
Well, part of the reason for that is because the tests we use for workplace alcohol consumption are accurate regarding the TIME of consumption. Alcohol tests indicate whether you are actually under the influence at the time of the test or not. Marijuana testing doesn’t work like this. It doesn’t test whether you are impaired, it merely tests if the substance is in your body or not. With marijuana, the substance remains in your body longer than the effects last. A lot longer, actually. Marijuana testing gets you fired now because the substance is illegal and, like others have mentioned, there is negative propaganda for marijuana consumption. If legalization of marijuana was implicated, then the testing we use for marijuana as of now would be impractical for employers. It is only used now to see if you are using the drug at all, which is grounds for suspension. If the substance was legalized, then they would have to find a reliable test to see if employees were impaired at work, otherwise they would not be firing people justly and they could be sued for doing so.
Daniel Brown
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
It won’t stay in your system for 320 days from just one use… That is for HEAVY users. It is more like 2-3 days for a single use. Please get your facts straight, as I’m on you side and just want you to have the facts to argue with.
Daniel Brown
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
30 days not 320… jeesh sorry.
mike
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
That’s a good point. But remember that a lot of people drink a beer or two almost every day. Even conservatively, a lot people drink two three times a week. If someone were to relax after work by taking a hit of weed they would build up THC in their body to the point where a urine test would pick it up basically 365 days a year.
Rene
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
I believe marihuana should be dropped from the harmful list, and businesses should stop testing against it. I mean Do any of us know anyone who was at work and caused a big loss/accident at work for being high? Can any business (at national level) come up with one report pointing to that accident and irrefutable say it was cause for the mere reason that person cause it for being high on marihuana?
M Tyner
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:03 am
> you can still be fired from your job
> if caught in a pee test. The same as
> you can be for alcohol.
When you test positive for alcohol, it’s safe to assume you are intoxicated.
When you test positive for THC, it is not safe to make the same assumption. It only means you’ve been exposed in the last week or two.
Thousands of people will have to lose their jobs unfairly before the law will catch up with biology.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:13 am
” It only means you’ve been exposed in the last week or two.”
Or hours ago.
The stuff is still in your system and can be influencing your performance but like any other drug can. That is the view of the workplace not my view
Mike
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:25 am
Or went to a concert with people smoking pot all around you. Let’s be serious here – what matters in the workplace is the ability to do ones job. If they can detect a high enough level of THC in your bloodstream to cause reduced job performance, then sure – otherwise, leave it alone.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:38 am
I am not against legalizing it. But the fact its in your system can get you fired
lime45
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:34 am
so the ‘workplace’ has spoken to you? where are you getting this?
Oh… wait, you’ve been hired by this site to get people to post responses to your comments….d’oh, I fell into the trap!!
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:40 am
you fell into the trap called ignorance. Perhaps you have never had a job? Almost any place that does drug testing, almost any workplace has laws that say if you are caught with something in your system you can get fired. I think there is a age requirement for posting here
Katie
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Yeah, if it’s in your system you’ll be fired, because it’s illegal. If alcohol’s in your system, you’ll be fired because you’ve been drinking recently.
If pot is legalized, there’s no reason to think that there will be job consequences for smoking pot a week before you get a drug test.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
There will be no consequences prior to a drug test unless you cannot function. In which case there probably will be a drug test.
If you never get tested, and you perform correctly at work, there will be no consequences as far as I can see. Its like drinking heavily on the weekends
Beth
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Wow, I have been trying to read this chain of comments and every five seconds you blathering about getting fired and the workplace. Obnoxious spammer. Aren’t you supposed to be stopping spam?
img65.exs.cx/img65/664/sp...
Fact is, if they legalize it, employers will have to change the way they look at things. It’s pretty f*cking obvious if someone has smoked weed… A simple face to face is all that is needed for any employer to determine whether or not an employee is high. Whether or not they smoked on their vacation however, is none of their employers f*cking business. Legalization = Change in workplace policies.
Seems you Can’t Understand Normal Thinking. Shut up.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
the thing is, it would be nice if employers change the way they look at things. The real thing is, they don’t have to do anything.
Are you a little out of control today?
mike
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
All the companies I’ve worked for (in IL, CA, MO) all have had policies against showing up to work under the influence of any drug.
So yes, I don’t think anyone will disagree that you have nothing to complain about if you show up to work stoned and you are fired. However, a urine test will NOT show intoxication. It will only show if you’ve used marijuana potentially in the past few days or weeks. In addition, the chemical that is tested for is not the same psychoactive compound that is responsible for intoxication. It is a byproduct which totally means you can be 100% not intoxicated and still test positive.
There have been numerous scientific studies done on intoxication and detectable drug levels in the body. All agree that once the THC is out of your bloodstream (within hours after administering the drug) that a person is no longer intoxicated.
Why don’t you pull out your company’s HR handbook and look up the rules for showing up to work intoxicated?
Here is a university study which explains it:
www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugt...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
I have said here that I am totally for levels of intoxication being measured when you get a drug screen. I will not disagree for one second that laws should be changed to reflect similarities to alcohol
However in the case of marijuana that does stay in your system intoxication is not the question. I realize that intoxication has been discussed, the fact that the THC is still in your system for days and weeks afterwards does not stop the company from thinking that it could still be affecting you and at least alternate methods
It is only been my experience that employees get a urinalysis would getting a drug screen. The two companies I work for never tested for alcohol when they sent you randomly, it was always a simple drug screen. If it shows up you have to face the penalties. And that’s what must be changed
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Once again, the intoxicating affects of weed only lasts 1-4 hours. That’s the bottomline you need to understand. It doesn’t operate the same way as alcohol where if it’s in your system, you are feeling its effects (even with hangovers). Also, alcohol loses its effect when it leaves your body.
Although people compare weed and alcohol, they are very different drugs. These drugs are only comparable in the amount of harm they can cause (which is significally less than harder street drugs like cocaine and heroin). However, the way they function in the body are completely different. Weed can stay in your system way beyond the time it’s lost its effects. Alcohol stays in your system for a significantly shorter period of time, but if its in your system at ll, you are feeling its effects (whether your just a little tipsy, flat-out drunk, or surviving a hangover).
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
I don’t need to understand anything. Simply because my only point is, if it’s in your system you can get fired if you get tested.
For the 10,000th time, I am not discussing whether it should or should not be legal. I am not arguing against it. My original statement was if it is in your system and your company tests you you can be fired even if it’s legal. The same as with alcohol.
I have said several times that I do not think people should be penalized for smoking a joint and then two weeks later being tested and being penalized
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
“I don’t need to understand anything.”
You’re the one who continued to argue that weed still has an effect on you as long as it’s in your system. It simply does not.
Sorry, but this demonstrates that you don’t understand.
I’m not arguing with you over drug-testing in the workplace. You’re correct about that. I’m arguing with you over the effects of marijuana.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Ah well the effects are not the significant part. You need to argue them with your representatives
My point is, to the companys if its in your system it is illegal and it could effect you. And if you are a heavy smoker a buildup of THC laying in your system could very well have an adverse effect on your performance and health well being.
Michael cheese
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Yes but there’s no way to prove a positive marijuana test means you are under the influence. Therefor it shouldn’t be legal to fire someone for a positive result if it’s legal. Also it’s not an intoxicant.
but anyway, what job gives you a urine test every time you go into work? It’s going to be one drug test before you get hired and maybe random drug tests while employed.
These tests aren’t meant to discover if people are intoxicated at work, they’re meant to discover if someone is uses illegal drugs. That’s the point of a drug test. They don’t test for alcohol. Therefor, in states in which pot is legal, they should stop testing for it. It should be brought to the courts if companies still want to do that.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
no one gives you a test every day you come in to work. Not that I’ve heard of
Most companies do random drug testing, and many companies do a test if you are in an accident at work. For instance you injure yourself or injure someone else. As it is the law does not discriminate between using 5 min. before the accident or the random drug testing and whether or not you have used three weeks prior. I have agreed several times here that the testing needs to be improved to show that that person was under the influence at the time of the accident or the test.
StealthBadger
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 10:27 am
Yes, a person could get fired until the laws catch up with the probable (eventual?) legalization of marijuana in most states.
Given NORML’s war chest and devoted lawyers and lobbyists, I expect that to change in litigation and legislation very quickly. It will be a bumpy ride along the way, though; you don’t get rid of 45-60 years of stupid overnight. We still have legal detrius from Prohibition (of alcohol) hanging around to this day.
Erstwhile Herring
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:16 am
Define ‘supports.’ All our drug courts here are closing due to lack of funding. If you’re going to support something, you should offer grants for it, just not do some handwaving about how special your stance is.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:21 am
We dont have drug courts, we just have the usual various levels of courts.
Daniel
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:42 am
Hopefully you didn’t read the article. I’m stoned and my reading comprehension is still better than yours.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:52 am
no, your reading comprehension is not better than mine. The article talks about the legalities of drug offenders. I am talking about getting fired in the workplace. In other words you’re stoned and you have no idea what’s being discussed. So much for that.
rose
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
shiva, after reading everything on this thread, you actually are the only person who can read. its funny but kind of makes people who are commenting against you look stupid, even though you are both on the same side.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
I can understand why they are doing it. I smoked pot for 20 years myself and would take every opportunity to defend it. But this is not a case for you need to defend it, however it is a case where all should agree in my opinion that testing needs to be improved to show level of use. No one should be penalized for using pot three weeks before a test. However if a test shows that you have very high levels of it in your system that you got a face the penalties.
it’s funny but when you haven’t smoked pot for around 20 years you can look at others and see what they’re doing very easily when they are users
Mavent
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:21 am
You have to love the way potheads like to claim that pot has “no effect” on people. Yeah, that’s why you dorks smoke it. Because it has “no effect”.
The Truth
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:34 am
Actually, you have that incorrect. “Potheads,” you say – which actually includes a broad range of individuals such as lawyers, doctors, police officers, politicians, and MANY other successful people who may have never even used the stuff! – do not simply claim there is no effect on people. You are obviously forgetting this, or are missing a very big picture. Marijuana legalization advocates state that “pot” has no NEGATIVE effects on people – and that IS EXACTLY why many cancer patients and other sick people prefer it over the drugs given to them by mainstream medicine, which often have negative effects such KILLING YOU SLOWLY.
Now, please do your research next time before you make such an imbecilic statement. It’s like people don’t know how to use Google or something, jesus #*%!ing christ.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Diseases associated with smoking pot(googled)
cyber.law.harvard.edu/evi...
www.sciencedaily.com/rele...
there are also several disorders of the brain where initiative is stifled in memory is affected.
On the other hand if you think that putting something that is burning into your lungs is a good idea you are probably wrong. If you are to eat the stuff that you would find it’s far better for your system
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Weed can be eaten. Many patients prefer eating it over smoking it. Weed is a versatile drug and although smoking is the most popular way of using it, there are so many others.
Alcohol has devastating effects to the body and it’s still legal. Weed doesn’t kill (while alcohol can), but it’s not completely harmless. Nobody is saying that. It’s just that the harm associated with weed don’t support its legal prohibition. We are at the point now where the legal consequences are more harmful and damaging to the individual than the drug itself.
Barry Roope
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:32 am
They need to fund treatment centers, many people want to be off drugs, but there is no treatment beds available, This is a real problem, hopefully Obamacare has something in there to help.
M L
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:38 am
I was a participant/graduate of one of these “Drug Courts”. While I won’t deny it’s a better option to prison, what we’re talking here is literally lesser evil. The way the one I was involved in was run was horrible. The slightest infraction(being a minute late for a meeting, or maybe someone could just decide they didn’t like your attitude) would land you in jail for a weekend or longer. The “counselors” would basically take a group of us and berate us, verbally whipping us and telling us we were terrible people because of our drug use, regardless of what our charges were or what the drug was(mine was marijuana, and my charges were distribution and delivery- I got a small amount on two different occasions for someone who I thought was a friend who was using me to get herself out of trouble for multiple DUIs). Actual science was completely absent. It was all based on cliches and long-debunked drug myths- and woe on you if you dared to stand up for yourself or speak truth. I’m not the kind of person who “goes along to get along” well, so it was 3 years of hell. These people would put you on “house arrest” where you weren’t allowed to leave your home without permission- and if you needed to and couldn’t get permission because no one would answer their phone? Better hope none of the police they employed came over to check, or to jail with you. To jail with you if you can’t get a job around their crazy schedule and restrictions. To jail with you if they decided your house wasn’t clean enough- yes, sometimes they would show up at your home unannounced and invade your privacy. You have no rights, no voice, and no recourse. Drug Court is a good idea in theory, but unfortunately in practice it needs a lot of work. Did I mention it also costs thousands of dollars to go through? Yeah, it does. Where I live, it is so exploitative and unhelpful that it seems more like a source of revenue than rehabilitation. So maybe someone with some influence should look…
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
You are right about “Drug Courts” being the “lesser of the two evils,” but it’s still a step in the right direction and honestly Obama is wise to take this on. I think he sees the tide is changing, but Washington is not. And that’s so ironic because weed is ubitiquous at all socio-economic levels in Washington. When the head of the lobbying group NORML says that he could be a total dick and rat-out all the politicians and DC elites he’s smoked pot with, he’s not lying.
Elites in DC (and even most of DC’s middle-class) can use the drug safely because of their privilege. Meanwhile poor and mostly black DC residents end getting most of the arrests.
The fact that 18 states (and DC) have legalized medical weed and 2 states have legalized it for recreational is very significant. The federal law doesn’t have teeth without help from the states. The question of whether or not states can create a law that directly contradicts federal law is one thing, but state’s involvement in enforcement is another. States are under no obligation to prohibit pot or even enforce their current laws. And already what’s starting to happen is that even in states where pot is still legal on all counts, decriminalization is starting to take hold.
If the trend we are seeing at the state level continues, Washington can no longer maintain the status quo. It will have to enforce the federal laws on their own and there isn’t enough time or resources to do this. And even under the current system, what happened to you is uncommon. The vast majority of users and sellers don’t get caught. The Drug War can’t be won because it’s getting harder and harder to enforce.
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
I need to correct a statement here. I meant to say that states where pot is ILLEGAL on all counts have may already experienced some from of decriminalization. This is because some in law enforcement are getting sick and tired of busting pot users when they rather be chasing after murders, thieves, rapists (you know, people who do real damage to society).
Fred
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Shiva, a direct quote from your personal web site,
“l believe that all people should always have the right to what happens with their bodies.”
lol,, what a troll
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:48 am
well let’s look at it this way. What you totally misunderstood is I am not saying it should not be legalized. I smoked pot for over 20 years. I just made the observation that if it’s in your system, you can get fired at work. Your problem is, is your comprehension is not working well for you today
Em
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
I am a bit baffled by you people. Why can’t you understand the point Shiva is making? He/she is not stating pot has negative effects on the body, nor are they saying they are against the drug. So stop trying to defend it.
Shiva is making the point, IF your workplace performs DRUG TESTING and you have THC POSITIVE in your BODY, then you can get FIRED. Unfortunately, thats how it bloody is. Thankfully, I have never been subject nor has anyone I know ever been subject to drug/alcohol testing as that seems a bit Orwellian.
But please try to read what Shiva is actually saying. Good god.
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Oh, I definitely understand where Shiva is coming from with this. Everything she said about employer mandated drug testing is true. And this is actually an issue confronting citizens in both Washington state and Colorado. In those states, employers can’t just justify their testing based solely on weed’s illegality.
However, I think Shiva is getting a lot of thumbs down because her knowledge about weed is lacking. And unfortunately, this is the result of weed’s prohibition. So much of the “official” information on weed is simply Drug War propaganda and not based on actual facts.
jackie
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
maybe i missed it but where did shiva state any misinformation? i read over everything and it just kind of looks like a bunch of people misreading or wanting to show their knowledge so reading what they want to see…
Daniel Brown
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Shiva, along with the new law in Washington is a new BLOOD test for cannabis that will show, at least much more accurately, if someone is under the influence currently vs. a urine test. I don’t anymore, but I used to smoke in the evenings after work and if I was subject to a drug test for an accident at work, I’d simply insist on a blood test and almost certainly be in the clear.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Not if you smoked every night.
I am glad there are new tests coming. However it remains up to the workplace to adopt new rules. They can still say its in your system
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Sorry, but THC (the substance in weed that gives you that “high”) is only effective for 1-4 hours. After that, it does nothing but contribute to your tolerance level.
This is why Daniel Brown was able to past his blood drug test. It was a much more accurate test that could determine if he was under the influence at that every moment. All a urine test does is determine that THC was in your system at all. It can’t determine if you are currently under the influence.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
but it doesn’t really matter does it? Companies use a urine test. Either you pass it or you don’t. If you do not pass it you are subject to the rules of the company. If you do pass it you go back to work
Daniel Brown
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
I appreciate your comments. The blood test is actually not new, they are just now using it as part of the new law to determine impaired driving or not. THC is processed out of the blood much quicker. Have a look here: www.canorml.org/healthfac...
In WA, they are using the 5 ng/ml, max level, as a cutoff for DUII. Even in chronic users, that blood level is achieved within hours… Just food for thought as I simply would like to see what is fair be applied to the workplace as well.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
and I would entirely agree with you. A test that would indicate levels of “sobriety” so to speak would be appropriate in my opinion. You should not be penalized for a joint you smoked two weeks ago. I agree that testing(Both corporate and legal) should be just like alcohol. But let us remember that you are talking about legalities when you mention a cut off for a DUI. The subject is really what does your company say in what rules does it have and I think that’s where the changes need to be made. I have never heard of anyone being busted legally for driving under the influence of marijuana, although I’m sure it has been done
Daniel Brown
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Just more food for thought for people who think that pot causes traffic accidents… Sure it’s a NORML site but they site 42 different scientific studies. Pot can actually help some people drive better!
www.canorml.org/healthfac...
All the more reason it should just be legal, period, and always should have. It would have been taken more seriously and not abused as much.
Again, this is just food for thought… I personally must remain cannabis free until it is no longer tested for employment and parenting reasons. I just believe the stigma is simply long over due to be lifted.
jenna
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
@nabsentia23, okay this is nitpicky but you keep getting on shiva for not understanding so I think you should get called out a little, you aren’t reading carefully:
Daniel Madison wrote: Shiva, along with the new law in Washington is a new BLOOD test for cannabis that will show, at least much more accurately, if someone is under the influence currently vs. a urine test. I don’t anymore, but I used to smoke in the evenings after work and if I was subject to a drug test for an accident at work, I’d simply insist on a blood test and almost certainly be in the clear.
He wasn’t tested, this didn’t happen. This is a small quick misread but perhaps you did it throughout this thread?
Shiva is not talking about tolerance but about presence, and yes even if the effects stop after 4 hours, if you’re a regular smoker they can still detect it.
Michael cheese
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Wait, Which workplaces give you breathalyzers everyday when you come into work to see if you’re drunk? I’ve never heard of this.
Pimp Masta
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 10:55 am
I don’t need a goddamned treatment program. I need the government to quit sticking its nose into my private life and deciding what I drink, what I smoke and what I eat.
Bob
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 12:54 am
That’s why I vote Libertarian.
TedDanson
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:03 am
I am a American and I am a free person. I choose what I want to do as long as it does not effect any one around me. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
- Thomas Jefferson.
I am sorry some of you dont have a pair of balls to stand up for what you believe in and your freedoms, are you free if you have todo what some one els tells you todo? no. Americans use to not put up with this shit and we slowly let our selves be put into a box.
our four fathers would cringe if they could see the state our country is in today.
Joseph Phillips
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:30 am
End Prohibition, and you don’t have to do a damn thing about someone trying a drug. Zero action, zero taxes. If someone commits arson, they’re never charged with a crime for being mad, or for being weird about lighters. Being angry, even crazy angry in your brain area, is not a crime. Burning stuff is bad, and dangerous: crime. Simple. Being horny: not a crime. Being a rapist: crime. Being greedy: not a crime. Stealing pensions: crime. Being foolish: not a crime. Doing something dangerous or something that deprives someone else of their liberty is a crime. Driving impaired: not a crime. Driving dangerous: insta-crime. I’m not advocating driving impaired. Some people are impaired, stupid jerks from the moment they draw their first breath. But without stupidity, there is no learning. Without foolishness, there is no common sense, without greed and avarice and apathy there is no virtues, no sanctuary for human growth. You can’t outlaw plants, nor the human condition, you silly goose. Just outlaw BAD THINGS that PEOPLE DO TO SOMEONE ELSE. Let’s say someone got high and threw a brick threw a window because someone dared him to. Would you outlaw courage to thwart foolishness, outlaw foolishness to protect the decent? What is it about those attracted to power that causes them to fall under the spell…of power? Power is just as dangerous: crime. Why can’t people just be satisfied with just punishing the act. People accept soldiers murdering Afghan citizens to get at some terrorists. So, if people are intoxicated, just leave them alone, they’re off in their private struggle, gone fishin’. Or, punish them for what they do to another human being, not for just being giggity. What made them do it shouldn’t supersede the nature of the transgression. The Drug War funds organized crime. Stop being ignorant. Go outlaw photons for enabling plant growth, Stupe-burger with a side of Stupe sauce on Stupeday with Dr. Stupe and my dog Stupe Dog in your face, sill goosenuts!
Chelsea
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:43 am
this argument is stupid.
although, I would definitely prefer to be under house arrest than in jail.
mediabeing
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Oh goody, Barry makes another milktoast/weak move forward. Oh, thank you SO much, Mr. President!
Whatta man.
Let’s hope term #2 isn’t as stinking cowardly as term #1. The People have shrieked to the President what needs to be done. We’re going to call him ‘Hoover Jr.’ if he doesn’t get on it.
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn….
Daniel Brown
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
“Companies use a urine test. Either you pass it or you don’t”
Maybe for pre-employment screen but I have NEVER heard of a case in an accident you are not allowed to insist on a blood test, as well as with the police for a DUI situation. Sorry, you are simply wrong there.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
frankly I have never heard of a employee having the opportunity to demand anything in a company environment. Having been tested myself several times over the years I was not given a choice on what type of test I would like to have. I know that in the case of alcohol they do take a blood test. The two companies I have been tested by it was a simple drug screen by urinalysis
Bob
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Obama is spokesman for the mafia. Who gives a damn what hes says.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
the Mafia? Really? Is he a godfather? A lieutenant? A capo?does he run numbers on the side?
Grace Mangones
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
I used to work for the Clerk’s Office,Criminal Division and the first drug court was conducted here in Tampa,Florida. I can testify that drug court works. Drug addiction is a disease and many users do not have the money necessary to attend any drug program. Drug court really gives individuals the chance to change their lives. When a first time offender goes to jail,the chances of returning to jail are very high. On the other hand,if a person goes to drug court they have a very good chance of staying clean and never getting in trouble again. I hope they continue the drug court for first time offenders. I applaud President Obama for supporting the drug court initiative. The program gives first time offenders a chance to become a productive member of society.
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Drug addiction is a health problem and should be handled as such. Those who go to jail for first-time drug offenses are more likely return because of the stigma of the arrest. When they get out of jail, it’s harder to find a legitimate job, etc. So, what do they have left to do? C-R-I-M-E! And, to confound the problem, these first-time offenders may be even more addicted when they get out. Drugs are everywhere in our prison system. An expert from the documentary, “Breaking the Taboo” made the keen observance that if you can’t control the flow of drugs in a maximum-security prison, what makes you think you can control it in the greater society?
We are at the point now where the legal consequences of drug use are worse than the drugs themselves (especially with marijuana). And despite the legal consequences, the majority of users and sellers still don’t get caught. Something’s got to change. The fact that Obama supports these drug courts is a sign that he knows this too. Unfortunately, though, the Drug War mentality is still firmly entrenched in DC. Yet, there’s still reason to be optimistic.
Rene
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
20 bucks it really is expensive. You also have the option to move to Mexico where 20 pesos (equivalent to a 1 dollar 60 cents gets you like 20 grams of marihuana (I could be wrong and it might be more. Low quality though)I do think marihuana should be dropped from drug testing at work or when you apply for a new job.
Moongal6
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
The difference is tobacco and alcohol are legal. But, I feel they do far more destruction than MJ. I don’t indulge in MJ, but I am a caregiver and the strains they grow now are truly amazing as far as pain relief. Psychic and physical.
AC
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Great. More cash for the ‘rehab’ scammers. The drug addicts can be shifted to prescription addictions.
How wonderful (for the pharmaceutical company profits).
nabsentia23
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Yes, this is another problem that needs to be addressed. However, when our country treats what should be a health issue as a legal and justice issue, this is to be expected.
Treatment has never been taken seriously in this country, which is why the rehab “scammers” are a problem. However, you must realize that jail time is a lot worse. This is not a perfect solution, but it’s a heck of a lot better than that.
M.R.M
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
i dont do it anymore, medical reasons, but can you say “invasion of privacy 100%???” and this is a so called, “free country”???? ***slave owner’s test,*** and free people, do what they want, they need to come out with a new testing system, that can detect if you have been stoned for an hour or two, thats the key! and on our free time, we can be free!…..food 4 thought………….breath test system????
ceanf
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
seriously, is this a joke? it is almost as bad as when they gave him a nobel peace prize, which he accepted with a ‘war is peace’ speech.
the only thing obama has done is double down on previous administration’s drug policies after lying through his teeth about his drug policy positions to get votes. drug courts are a compassionate, 3rd way? guess what, more first time offenders end up GOING to jail, and for LONGER than they would have, had they took the original punishment. sorry, but plenty of drug courts, and plenty of normal courts are still jailing non-violent people for possessing or ‘conspiring to sell’ an unapproved PLANT.
but once again, start struck obama fan boys can only see the man through rose colored glasses. it is really all they have left…
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
You have proven nothing. Do you have any facts?
The facts are against you.