Video: Sure looks like CNN’s reporter was baked during a segment on marijuana

posted at 2:41 pm on January 15, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Gawker, if you can’t watch the whole thing, skip to 4:00 to see why last night Anderson Cooper called this the greatest live hit the show’s ever done. My favorite moment is that big, bright, glassy-eyed smile at 5:15. (Second-favorite: The thoughtful explanation of the difference between sativa and indica.) The question here isn’t whether she’s high — the symptoms she describes are familiar even to non-users (losing her train of thought, finding things unusually funny, etc) — but whether she could have gotten this giggly from a contact high, i.e. from second-hand smoke without taking a hit herself. Answer: Yes, if she was around lots and lots of it. A single joint won’t do much to a bystander; 16 joints might. According to Kaye, she was riding around in the close confines of a limo all day with veteran potheads smoking blunts as big as cannons. Contact-high verdict: Plausible.

To redeem this silly clip, an interesting policy question from Reid Cherlin: If Republicans take back the White House in 2016, will the feds start cracking down on weed in states where it’s legal?

Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at UCLA and a prominent reform advocate who helped Washington State put together the regulations for its new marketplace, put it this way: “You could reappoint John Ashcroft as attorney general and people could be going to prison for long terms for things that they’re doing right now.”

It’s not clear yet what a marijuana debate within the GOP would look like: While it might be good politics to get behind an issue that most Americans support, only 37 percent of Republican voters favor legalization, compared with 58 percent overall. Republicans have traditionally stood for law and order, and against the kind of social decay that pot-smoking so handily represents—yet they also stand for states’ rights, minimal government and personal liberty. All of which means that with the next round of states considering legalization initiatives in the next two cycles, candidates, who until now have been able to laugh off questions about legalization, are going to find that they have to talk about it.

Right, but the X factor is federalism. If a new Republican president decided that he didn’t want to get sidetracked with a boutique hot-button issue like this, especially when most of the public’s softening on legalization, he could simply say that he’s deferring to majority will in the individual states for federal enforcement purposes. Local control is usually better, and regulatory clarity — the drug should be either legal or illegal in a jurisdiction, not both as it is now in Colorado — is always better. Federal prosecutions could continue in states where the drug’s illegal, thus appeasing drug warriors, but the DOJ would busy itself with other matters in the few states where it’s not. A Gallup poll taken in December 2012 found that 64 percent thought the feds should back off in states where the drug is legal; even among people who oppose legalizing weed, 43 percent nonetheless said the feds should defer to the states. A Republican wouldn’t have much trouble selling a “follow the states” compromise on enforcement to his base, I suspect. Especially if he’s eager to lure more young voters to the party.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If Republicans take back the White House in 2016, will the feds start cracking down on weed in states where it’s legal?

Yeah, if anything they’ll do that, not abolish Obamacare.

rickv404 on January 15, 2014 at 2:45 PM

What’s CNN’s drug policy?

NotCoach on January 15, 2014 at 2:46 PM

That’s it. I’m moving to Colorado.

myiq2xu on January 15, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Dave’s Not Here.

Del Dolemonte on January 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Sure looks like CNN’s reporter was baked during a segment on marijuana

She’ll be in Mr. Hand’s classroom for detention with Spicoli for the next few days…

Bruno Strozek on January 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM

In line with the thread

Schadenfreude on January 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Now put her on a tower welding critical joints.

Boom-time for drug free laborers and tradesman.

Murphy9 on January 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM

In keeping with the comparisons between weed and alcohol, would her behavior been tolerated had she been drinking?

And to extend the “contact high” question a bit: Had she been underage, would the potheads she hung out with been criminally liable? Moreover, how often does one get a “contact buzz” from alcohol?

BKeyser on January 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Anderson seemed particularly interested in the “cannon” euphemism for some reason…

dpduq on January 15, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I’m all for federalism but there are quite a few Federal issues that would make it difficult to respect federalism here. Examples:

How long until Obamacare mandates “medicinal” herb coverage for those with purported chronic anxiety (the magic words used by Californians trying to get medical marijuana)?

How could prohibition states protect their jurisdictions from the spillover effects of neighboring legalized states?

blammm on January 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM

If Republicans take back the White House in 2016, will the feds start cracking down on weed in states where it’s legal?

Good question. I’m pretty sure if we field an old guard Richard Nixon style candidate that asserts to the public that he’s going to sick the National Guard on a growing number of states that have legalized pot, we are going lose a huge slice of independent voters. Maybe some Republicans too.

anotherJoe on January 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Shouldn’t the correct answer be “Defer to the States, until such a time it can be shown that the States activities are a Clear and Present danger to the Nation as a whole”?

I am not against legalizing MJ…disclosure, I smoke…BUT if legalizing turns the State into a all out war-zone, then yeah, I’m gonna give it a thumbs down.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Contact high my @ss.
She was takin’ her own hits when the camera was off – or they cut those scenes.

dentarthurdent on January 15, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Wow, that is the first Anderson Cooper segment I have ever liked….lol….So happy to see Americans being American again, even if its only one state…Godspeed CO

Redstone357 on January 15, 2014 at 2:55 PM

In keeping with the comparisons between weed and alcohol, would her behavior been tolerated had she been drinking?

And to extend the “contact high” question a bit: Had she been underage, would the potheads she hung out with been criminally liable? Moreover, how often does one get a “contact buzz” from alcohol?

BKeyser on January 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Further distinction between pot and alcohol – you can’t get a contact high just from being around other people who are drinking.

dentarthurdent on January 15, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Yeah Cooper must be high more often than you would think. Along with Sean Penn.

Cindy Munford on January 15, 2014 at 2:57 PM

New CNN motto:

You don’t have to be stoned to work here. But it helps.</blockquote>

29Victor on January 15, 2014 at 2:57 PM

… How could prohibition states protect their jurisdictions from the spillover effects of neighboring legalized states?

blammm on January 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Other than crime going down due to reduce illegal drug trafficking, what effects do you anticipate?

M240H on January 15, 2014 at 2:57 PM

If Republicans take back the White House in 2016, will the feds start cracking down on weed in states where it’s legal?

I’ll see your federalist challenge and raise you consistency:

To be consistent, said Republican president would also not have to enforce federal marriage laws where nullified.

nobar on January 15, 2014 at 2:40 PM

nobar on January 15, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Good question. I’m pretty sure if we field an old guard Richard Nixon style candidate that asserts to the public that he’s going to sick the National Guard on a growing number of states that have legalized pot, we are going lose a huge slice of independent voters. Maybe some Republicans too.

anotherJoe on January 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM

yeah the rule of law is for suckers…

I’ll ask again…can a GOP President(not that I think we’ll ever see one again in my lifetime) get to ignore Federal Laws he doesn’t like and nominate an AG that never deviates from the President’s line?

No seriously is the next President President in the sense Obama is?

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 2:59 PM

My biggest beef with non-enforcement of the Supremacy clause in states like Colorado that legalized in defiance of federal law is that Holder’s DOJ is inconsistent on the matter.
They ignore these obvious in your face violations while going after Arizona BECAUSE they were enforcing federal immigration law. It’s absurd and the GOP ought to be pointing it out and demanding equity in the matter.

Curmudgeon on January 15, 2014 at 3:00 PM

I am not against legalizing MJ…disclosure, I smoke…BUT if legalizing turns the State into a all out war-zone, then yeah, I’m gonna give it a thumbs down.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM

I was against legalization until after we had tackled some GROWN-UP Libertarian ideas and devolved power back to the states on other issues but I have been converted…

Legalize it Nationally…ALL of it…

Subsidize it on an inverted sliding scale until it is free…

Have USPS deliver it to Chech and Chong’s door…

Ounces, Pounds, or Tonnes?

Now since I have embraced the Libertine lifestyle can we have some rule of law?

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:02 PM

“You could reappoint John Ashcroft as attorney general and people could be going to prison for long terms for things that they’re doing right now.”

Like Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS scandal, Immigration to name a few.

freedomfirst on January 15, 2014 at 3:03 PM

My biggest beef with non-enforcement of the Supremacy clause in states like Colorado that legalized in defiance of federal law is that Holder’s DOJ is inconsistent on the matter.
They ignore these obvious in your face violations while going after Arizona BECAUSE they were enforcing federal immigration law. It’s absurd and the GOP ought to be pointing it out and demanding equity in the matter.

Curmudgeon on January 15, 2014 at 3:00 PM

You mean prosecutorial discretion shouldn’t be allowed to be a Partisan billy-club?

Yeah I agree but since Congress evidently thinks it is just ducky on the Democrat side I think it is time to take it to the limit.

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Like Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS scandal, Immigration to name a few.

freedomfirst on January 15, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Nah mannnn pass me a doobie that is just Obama and Holder Presidentin’ mannnn

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Other than crime going down due to reduce illegal drug trafficking, what effects do you anticipate?

M240H on January 15, 2014 at 2:57 PM

The biggest issue is enforcement of DUI’s. Right now, you can test positive for marijuana even up to 30 days after you take it with a urine test.. A saliva test is a little more accurate as it only tests positive for 12 hours. But the issue will be the proof that the state has to bring as to how long ago the smoker, smoked it, and the fact that positive test depend on how frequent a user you are. It will be an expensive undertaking for the state to fight these cases for years to come, and “weed” out the constitutional problems of establishing proof that someone is high. It probably won’t be anymore expensive that what we have now, but make no mistakes even with legalization there will be problems for users and the legal system.

melle1228 on January 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Now since I have embraced the Libertine lifestyle can we have some rule of law?

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Heck I would settle for no having to pay for everyone’s bad choices in exchange for legalizing every hedonistic pleasure imaginable.

Like I have said repeatedly, in a few years the only legal “rights” we will have will be to marry a same sex partner while smoking weed.

melle1228 on January 15, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Heck I would settle for no having to pay for everyone’s bad choices in exchange for legalizing every hedonistic pleasure imaginable.

Like I have said repeatedly, in a few years the only legal “rights” we will have will be to marry a same sex partner while smoking weed.

melle1228 on January 15, 2014 at 3:06 PM

No no not just weed…

artificial distinction…Pothead wants the same power that Glee Mafia has taken for themselves and wants to set the “new normal” on morality….

No sir…if this is in fact an argument based on “because freedom” “because war on drugs” then put the pedal to the floor and do what is being fought in the WA state legislature and legalize it all…

Let Darwin sort this out.

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM

yeah the rule of law is for suckers…

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 2:59 PM

I think our candidate should talk about enforcing the rule of law where it counts, as with illegal immigration (so Rubio, Walker, Christie etc are out).

With states that have legalized pot (CO, WA, and soon to be many more if not nearly ALL), look the other way, unless we want to tear the Republican party apart on this issue, and lose the election as well. Yeah, if state wants to legalize it, and they in a democratic way vote to do that, don’t impose the federal govt in a draconian anti-democratic power grab that would get a lot of people on both the left and right talking about seceding, or at least talking about getting another Dem back as president.

anotherJoe on January 15, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Nah mannnn pass me a doobie that is just Obama and Holder Presidentin’ mannnn

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Didn’t mean to harsh your mellow.
Pass the dutchie on the left hand side….

freedomfirst on January 15, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Now since I have embraced the Libertine lifestyle can we have some rule of law?

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Not looking at it from a Libertarian POV…or at least if i am, its with a small “L”.

MJ I can see legalizing, I won’t go the whole hog and say ALL drugs..THAT would be a recipe for serious disaster, IMHO.

Between booze, MJ, gambling and tobacco the Fed & State Gov have enough “sin tax” revenue to keep them happy as a pig at the trough for decades to come…IF THEY can exercise some restraint in trying to spend every nickle.

As to those that indulge…be prepared to pay a little more in the long run for your fun…in both taxes and regulation…but it would be worth it.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 3:14 PM

I think our candidate should talk about enforcing the rule of law where it counts, as with illegal immigration (so Rubio, Walker, Christie etc are out).

With states that have legalized pot (CO, WA, and soon to be many more if not nearly ALL), look the other way, unless we want to tear the Republican party apart on this issue, and lose the election as well. Yeah, if state wants to legalize it, and they in a democratic way vote to do that, don’t impose the federal govt in a draconian anti-democratic power grab that would get a lot of people on both the left and right talking about seceding, or at least talking about getting another Dem back as president.

anotherJoe on January 15, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Right so let me get this straight…

“Holder and Obama are right to pick and mix MANY more laws than pot” and “justice man” “Federalism”…

BUT

The States of Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky are essentially prohibited from exerting their state will on their natural resources and having coal electrical plants, and mining and export b/c “laws?”

California, NY, Oregon, and Washington State get to dictate to Ohio ON THAT paradigm through Federal Regulation not even law…

this was whim…”regulation”?

That is the new definition of liberty?

Like I said we are not a serious nation anymore, and we deserve EVERYTHING we get as a reward.

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Dave’s Not Here.

Del Dolemonte on January 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM

My favorite scene in that whole movie.

When the Van pulls away, and the Police dog is laying Upside
down.

ToddPA on January 15, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Dave’s Not Here.

Del Dolemonte on January 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Dave’s still not here.

Ward Cleaver on January 15, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Via Gawker, if you can’t watch the whole thing, skip to 4:00 to see why last night Anderson Cooper called this the greatest live hit the show’s ever done.

I see what he did there.

Ward Cleaver on January 15, 2014 at 3:23 PM

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Of course I agree with you 100% that Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky etc should not be victims of Obama’s illegal war on coal. Two wrongs don’t make a right, though. Half or more of Republicans wouldn’t want the feds interfering with a states right to determine its own drug laws.

anotherJoe on January 15, 2014 at 3:23 PM

… How could prohibition states protect their jurisdictions from the spillover effects of neighboring legalized states?

blammm on January 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Other than crime going down due to reduce illegal drug trafficking, what effects do you anticipate?

M240H on January 15, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Kansas could get a contact high if it sits next to Colorado for too long.

RINO in Name Only on January 15, 2014 at 3:24 PM

According to Kaye, she was riding around in the close confines of a limo all day with veteran potheads smoking blunts as big as cannons. Contact-high verdict: Plausible.

When I was in school they were called “bombers”.

Ward Cleaver on January 15, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Wouldn’t that have been hilarious if she was a mom and had a three year old with her? Second hand smoke that makes three year olds cough, or second hand smoke that makes them cough and high? Country is headed for awesome, yessiree.

WitchDoctor on January 15, 2014 at 3:26 PM

The biggest issue is enforcement of DUI’s. Right now, you can test positive for marijuana even up to 30 days after you take it with a urine test.. A saliva test is a little more accurate as it only tests positive for 12 hours. But the issue will be the proof that the state has to bring as to how long ago the smoker, smoked it, and the fact that positive test depend on how frequent a user you are. It will be an expensive undertaking for the state to fight these cases for years to come, and “weed” out the constitutional problems of establishing proof that someone is high. It probably won’t be anymore expensive that what we have now, but make no mistakes even with legalization there will be problems for users and the legal system.

melle1228 on January 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM

I don’t think that’s a serious argument. If all else fails, they can always do the traditional behavior tests, and now they have video cameras. The state is not going to let a little thing like how-to-test-for-it stop them from collecting traffic fines.

Fenris on January 15, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Cannabis
Narco
News

Shy Guy on January 15, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Of course I agree with you 100% that Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky etc should not be victims of Obama’s illegal war on coal. Two wrongs don’t make a right, though. Half or more of Republicans wouldn’t want the feds interfering with a states right to determine its own drug laws.

anotherJoe on January 15, 2014 at 3:23 PM

right so it is VITAL to the Republic to join with Authoritarian MOONBATS who are electing people who hamstring the rule of law to give them THEIR COOKIE…

but those of us who are principled on Federalism get to watch them laugh and inflict their policy preferences with executive orders and regulatory fiat…

Thanks for clearing that up.

“Serious Nation”…

this is just like the log cabins grabbing their cookie.

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Wouldn’t that have been hilarious if she was a mom and had a three year old with her? Second hand smoke that makes three year olds cough, or second hand smoke that makes them cough and high? Country is headed for awesome, yessiree.

WitchDoctor on January 15, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Works in the White family of West Virginia.

Murphy9 on January 15, 2014 at 3:28 PM

dentarthurdent on January 15, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Right. Of course. But if you can get a contact high from being around other pot smokers (and I don’t know that that is the case), than that would mean that pot and alcohol aren’t exactly equal. As so many like to suggest.

BKeyser on January 15, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Yep. Now that the potheads have their rights, do I still have my right to NOT have any working for me–like, say, building my house or something? Because I really want it to stand up. Or working on the bridge I’m going to drive over. Or in my hospital.

Or is this like gay rights–we who don’t wish it shoved down our throats have to shut up and sit in a corner now and suffer?

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 3:31 PM

I don’t think that’s a serious argument. If all else fails, they can always do the traditional behavior tests, and now they have video cameras. The state is not going to let a little thing like how-to-test-for-it stop them from collecting traffic fines.

Fenris on January 15, 2014 at 3:26 PM

I have no problem with states picking to legalize or decriminalize marijuana as long as I don’t have to pay for any aspect of it.

That being said, I was thinking more of the Constitutional challenges since not everyone who tests positive for marijuana is impaired at the time they test positive, and positives test vary based on how frequent a user you are. Unlike alcohol which is very easy to test accurately how much is in your blood stream which gives a good indication if you are impaired at the time of the accident. If pot is legalized, I expect it to be treated like alcohol. It is not illegal in itself to drink and drive, but to drive while being under the influence or impaired. I would assume that the law would follow this with marijuana. The problem is that you can’t really test for impairment (or we don’t have the technology to test) right now.

melle1228 on January 15, 2014 at 3:32 PM

If Republicans take back the White House in 2016, will the feds start cracking down on weed in states where it’s legal?

No. The GOP wants Americans stupid and passive almost as much as the Democrats do.

Nomennovum on January 15, 2014 at 3:39 PM

No. The GOP wants Americans stupid and passive almost as much as the Democrats do.

Nomennovum on January 15, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Exactly, I’d also argue it would be intelligent for us to use Holder’s likely methodology of “legal pot use” disarming our political foes.

If we are to live in a lawless country that rules based on Media whims and a defacto spoils civil service system we need Republicans ruthless enough to start splinter splitting the leftard coalition…

I mean if we are all in agreement that the law means “whatever duuuuude” it is time to be just as ruthless as the democrats.

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:43 PM

… The problem is that you can’t really test for impairment (or we don’t have the technology to test) right now.

melle1228 on January 15, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Sure you can; it’s called a field sobriety test. I would say the dashcam recording of the drivers performance would satisfy any judge or jury.

As a side note, I was once required by Houston police to put both arms straight out to my sides, lift one foot in front of me, tilt my head back, and recite the alphabet … backwards.

I passed.

M240H on January 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM

…The problem is that you can’t really test for impairment (or we don’t have the technology to test) right now.

melle1228 on January 15, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Can’t walk a straight line without giggling? Impaired.

Fenris on January 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Yep. Now that the potheads have their rights, do I still have my right to NOT have any working for me–like, say, building my house or something? Because I really want it to stand up. Or working on the bridge I’m going to drive over. Or in my hospital.

Not to be a spoilsport, but chances are that you already interact with functional MJ users.

Not every MJ user is a longhair OWS type…hell, if we met in public you’d would never think I was one. Mostly because when I do partake I don’t do it 24/7.

My career necessitates me to be clearheaded when working…can’t do that when you just had a doobie…not only for safety but for legal reasons. And if you seen the prices that MJ can go for (depending on your part of the country) a real salary (not PUBLIC wages) is the only way you’ll be able afford to BUY the stuff. Once it becomes legal (and taxed) it will even be more important to be able to have a regular income to pay for it.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Mom, you’re embarrassing me.

WhatSlushfund on January 15, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Yep. Now that the potheads have their rights, do I still have my right to NOT have any working for me–like, say, building my house or something? Because I really want it to stand up. Or working on the bridge I’m going to drive over. Or in my hospital.

Or is this like gay rights–we who don’t wish it shoved down our throats have to shut up and sit in a corner now and suffer?

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 3:31 PM

What a lame argument. How on earth do houses and bridges get built today with the number of alcoholic construction workers? Give me a break.

mazer9 on January 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Q: What is the difference between a drunk and a stoner at a stop sign?

A: The drunk guy runs it and the stoner waits for it to turn green.

If the whole world smoked a joint at the same time, There would be world peace for at least two hours. Followed by a global food shortage.

petefrt on January 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM

whether she could have gotten this giggly from a contact high, i.e. from second-hand smoke without taking a hit herself.

For a second there I thought you’re going to segue into a 70s film monologue:

“He’s getting high just talking about getting high, and you’re getting high off of his high, and I’m getting high off of your high. And it’s one big contact high.” – Alice
(“Go Ask Alice”, 1973 TV movie)

She’s more likely suffering from breathing in the scent of old, unbathed hippie leftist burnouts in close quarters.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 3:52 PM

What a lame argument. How on earth do houses and bridges get built today with the number of alcoholic construction workers? Give me a break.

mazer9 on January 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM

That’s exactly true…

if my Airline Pilot wants to be a bit relaxed who cares…?

I am certain the Libertines will be JUST as restrained in their use of Lawfare as the Glee Mafia has been honoring the Log Cabin GOP’s promise that Gay Marriage would not devolve into “enforced acceptance.”

TOTALLY

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:53 PM

…Once it becomes legal (and taxed) it will even be more important to be able to have a regular income to pay for it.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Buy? It’s called “weed” for a reason.

Fenris on January 15, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Buy? It’s called “weed” for a reason.

Fenris on January 15, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Yeah about that….

heh see cannot even follow CO’s enlightened law…which I FULLY EXPECT to be the case which means “legalize it” b/c “taxes H15…taxes man”

was as sincere as “no man none of us will ever get so baked we’re barely functional man…look around you square 97.95% of people are baked”

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Yep. Now that the potheads have their rights, do I still have my right to NOT have any working for me–like, say, building my house or something? Because I really want it to stand up. Or working on the bridge I’m going to drive over. Or in my hospital.
Or is this like gay rights–we who don’t wish it shoved down our throats have to shut up and sit in a corner now and suffer?
Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 3:31 PM

What a lame argument.
mazer9 on January 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM

I agree – it’s an unrealistic scenario since druggies can’t hold down a job anyway.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Right. Of course. But if you can get a contact high from being around other pot smokers (and I don’t know that that is the case), than that would mean that pot and alcohol aren’t exactly equal. As so many like to suggest.

BKeyser on January 15, 2014 at 3:31 PM

You don’t have to smoke pot to get high.

mazer9 on January 15, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I agree – it’s an unrealistic scenario since druggies can’t hold down a job anyway.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Look for the next “new civil right” to be the Libertines joining with Al $lim $hady $harpton’s efforts to outlaw pre-employment criminal background checks with eliminated pre-employment and random drug screening…

That’ll make my old job as a ramp agent for an airline a LOT MORE FUN

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:57 PM

I agree – it’s an unrealistic scenario since druggies can’t hold down a job anyway.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Hollywood actors/actresses may disagree…

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM

I agree – it’s an unrealistic scenario since druggies can’t hold down a job anyway.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Mr. Choom is preezie.

Schadenfreude on January 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM

You don’t have to smoke pot to get high.

mazer9 on January 15, 2014 at 3:56 PM

This is the hard hitting commentary I come to HA to read.

Murphy9 on January 15, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Sure you can; it’s called a field sobriety test. I would say the dashcam recording of the drivers performance would satisfy any judge or jury.

As a side note, I was once required by Houston police to put both arms straight out to my sides, lift one foot in front of me, tilt my head back, and recite the alphabet … backwards.

I passed.

M240H on January 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Can’t walk a straight line without giggling? Impaired.

Fenris on January 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM

The field sobriety test is not proof of impairment. It is probable cause to actually “Test” for impairment. A test needs to be done.. If the legal standard is the field sobriety test, then I can’t pass it, because I can’t balance myself for 15 seconds on one foot. That also being said, I have seen numerous field sobriety tests that are quite subjective. Like a cop making someone walk a line where there was no line on the ground to follow. Field sobriety test are worthless.

melle1228 on January 15, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Look for the next “new civil right” to be the Libertines joining with Al $lim $hady $harpton’s efforts to outlaw pre-employment criminal background checks with eliminated pre-employment and random drug screening…

That’ll make my old job as a ramp agent for an airline a LOT MORE FUN

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:57 PM

On the contrary, Im pretty sure that there have been past challeges agaisnt screening processes…

But let me speak to a part of that argument…pre-screen vs random screen…usually YOU are told before even being hired on which you would be required to do as part of your employment. If your working in a job that has the Federal Government or Agency oversite, then its more likely you’ll be exposed to random testing.

A private company, usually not as much, but depending on the company.

Either way, you can exercise discretion on whether you accept such limitation. You’re not required to work for a company that does random screening (or any screening) if you feel it violates your privacy…it may limit your participation in the workplace, but that is your choice.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:06 PM

If Republicans take back the White House in 2016, will the feds start cracking down on weed in states where it’s legal?

If they had a true Federalist bent, they could simply retreat to a Constitutionally defensible position of only regulating weed when it is in commerce between the states (or being imported, naturally). And they could simultaneously dump the idea that intra-state commerce “impacts” interstate commerce in such a way that they have any business regulating it. That would be a win for everyone.

GWB on January 15, 2014 at 4:12 PM

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:06 PM

You keep on thinking that there is sanity….

I see people being winnowed out b/c of faith to get LawFared into having to bake cakes for GLEE!

It’s funny up in Canada Jihadi Jim got the school to instruct him in a non co-ed fashion b/c “it is Haram my friend.”

I think Islam is going to be the only faith with Freedom of Religion in my life time.

Libertine GOP is operating under the same illusion sane civil unions and gay marriage advocates did when they convinced themselves it was not an excuse for judicial performance art by freaks or going to be attempted to be won by judge rather than vote.

Whatever I am serene…

I only saw an impaired driver amputate a guy’s leg once.

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM

If they had a true Federalist bent, they could simply retreat to a Constitutionally defensible position of only regulating weed when it is in commerce between the states (or being imported, naturally). And they could simultaneously dump the idea that intra-state commerce “impacts” interstate commerce in such a way that they have any business regulating it. That would be a win for everyone.

GWB on January 15, 2014 at 4:12 PM

on “pot” not on you know anything else important…

just on wakky tabakky…because “laws”…

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM

I agree – it’s an unrealistic scenario since druggies can’t hold down a job anyway.
whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Hollywood actors/actresses may disagree…
BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Mr. Choom is preezie.
Schadenfreude on January 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM

You guys are making the argument for druggies being bad hires!

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Two words: States Rights

georgealbert on January 15, 2014 at 4:22 PM

The field sobriety test is not proof of impairment. …Field sobriety test are worthless.

melle1228 on January 15, 2014 at 4:04 PM

It used to be, and can be again. I would argue that nearly our entire government is worse than worthless, so that’s not an argument either ;)

Fenris on January 15, 2014 at 4:23 PM

I was the biggest stoner in high school, my eyes were constantly red.
Everyone was surprised when I graduated 2nd in my class.

There was only one problem. I never drank alcohol or took drugs in high school. I was on the the swimming and waterpolo teams for 4 years. My eyes were very sensitive to the chlorine.

Judging based on false perceptions is a form of bigotry.

MichaelGabriel on January 15, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Look for the next “new civil right” to be the Libertines joining with Al $lim $hady $harpton’s efforts to outlaw pre-employment criminal background checks with eliminated pre-employment and random drug screening…
That’ll make my old job as a ramp agent for an airline a LOT MORE FUN
harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 3:57 PM

I don’t need to look too far ahead for that.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Two words: States Rights

georgealbert on January 15, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Two words

Derp Derp

so for Pot it is states’ rights, but not coal because “costs to us all” b/c “justice”…

do you think MAYBE we could get some economic liberty before we worried about intoxicants of choice…

if the Occutard Wall Street Stoner idiots reciprocate out in CO by invoking their right to cheap energy I’ll be real humble…

I also don’t expect to need to be.

States Rights is a nice fig leaf to cover one’s groin about giving the Libertine left its cookie.

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:26 PM

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Maybe its regional thing: I’m in the US, the Northeast Progressive Corridor (sadly), so there is that.

You guys are making the argument for druggies being bad hires!

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 4:21 PM

No, I’m making the argument that bad hires will ALWAYS be bad hires, no matter what the hell their taking.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:27 PM

I don’t need to look too far ahead for that.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Ding…

but man that is TITALLY different Harlekwin mannn we’d NEVER try to do that with drug screening…

pssssssttt

//Spicoli

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:28 PM

MichaelGabriel on January 15, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: Visine.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 4:30 PM

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Really…

so are you in rational Washington State where they are trying to legalize all drug possession in their House?

Yeah “rational”…hey look I am ALL for the Northwest corridor getting “states rights” just as soon as Patty Murray stops trying to force my state to be “green”…

ah not that rational are you Washington?

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:30 PM

No, I’m making the argument that bad hires will ALWAYS be bad hires, no matter what the hell their taking.
BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Das macht nichts; “Druggie” and “Bad Hire” are interchangeable terms.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Really…

so are you in rational Washington State where they are trying to legalize all drug possession in their House?

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Nope, and if I were, I’d definitely would work against such legislation.

Again, I’m willing to go as far with MJ being legal, but when you start getting into the really hard crap…nope.

That never works out well for anyone, and I can’t see the society as a whole benefiting from it.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Das macht nichts; “Druggie” and “Bad Hire” are interchangeable terms.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Well you may want to parse that a little more finely.

When you say “Druggie” are you referring to MJ users or all drugs in general?

As for “Bad Hire” I’ve had bad hires (applicants) approach me for work, some were as straight as can be…some, not so much.

I had one that barely lasted a full days work before making demands to be transferred to a different location…

…Instead he was transferred right out the damn door.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Again, I’m willing to go as far with MJ being legal, but when you start getting into the really hard crap…nope.

That never works out well for anyone, and I can’t see the society as a whole benefiting from it.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:35 PM

What differentiates a “soft” drug like MJ from a “hard” drug?

Murphy9 on January 15, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Nope, and if I were, I’d definitely would work against such legislation.

Again, I’m willing to go as far with MJ being legal, but when you start getting into the really hard crap…nope.

That never works out well for anyone, and I can’t see the society as a whole benefiting from it.

BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:35 PM

so this *is* like the glee mafia trying to get their personal kicks and then thinking it is moral to say “and NO MORE”…?

Ok not a very defensible position but “ok”…

my position is if we are going to play this game of “let’s pretend we are not breaking the law” WRT Federal pot laws how is that any more moral than other states playing “let’s pretend there are no restrictions on class III weapons?”

I mean if the answer is “The AG and Prezzy’s restraint” then congrats we are not a Republic we are an Imperial nation.

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:38 PM

States Rights is a nice fig leaf to cover one’s groin about giving the Libertine left its cookie.
harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Somehow creating even more destructive chemical abuse the “State’s Rights” hill to die on just doesn’t seem quite the noble effort the burnouts claim it to be.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 4:39 PM

When you say “Druggie” are you referring to MJ users or all drugs in general?
BlaxPac on January 15, 2014 at 4:38 PM

A drug addict is a drug addict.

whatcat on January 15, 2014 at 4:41 PM

my position is if we are going to play this game of “let’s pretend we are not breaking the law” WRT Federal pot laws how is that any more moral than other states playing “let’s pretend there are no restrictions on class III weapons?”

I mean if the answer is “The AG and Prezzy’s restraint” then congrats we are not a Republic we are an Imperial nation.

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 4:38 PM

I see your point, and agree that it’s time to take these anti-marijuana laws off the feds books.

mazer9 on January 15, 2014 at 4:47 PM

The reporterette is quite attractive, in a weeded-up milf sort of way.

Sacramento on January 15, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Secondhand smoke -> bad
Contact high -> DUUUUUUUUDE

normschaef on January 15, 2014 at 5:04 PM

I see your point, and agree that it’s time to take these anti-marijuana laws off the feds books.

mazer9 on January 15, 2014 at 4:47 PM

and once upon a time that would have solved it…

we are not in that time, if the law gets repealed THEN suddenly idiots will start arguing the XIVth amendment trumps state prohibitions and if Gay Marriage is an indicator you just roll the dice..

harlekwin15 on January 15, 2014 at 5:05 PM

The drug war is no better than then the alcohol war was. Both have resulted in unmanageable increases in organized crime and dramatic increases in the incarceration of non-violent citizens. We need to endorse more freedom and put an end to the drug war. We aren’t even close winning this war, even though spending on the war is ever increasing. When are we going to learn that we can’t force morality on society? Of course, allowing more freedom will result in harm to some who are innocent bystanders and to the users themselves. But, the drug war is already doing that. Someone please explain what we are gaining by continuing this decades long, unwinnable war.

NuclearPhysicist on January 15, 2014 at 5:23 PM

OMG Hilarious!!!!!

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Looks like a disgusting bunch of slobs getting high.

Sherman1864 on January 15, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Ok – who is HotAir is against having fun?

jake-the-goose on January 15, 2014 at 6:18 PM

How could prohibition states protect their jurisdictions from the spillover effects of neighboring legalized states?

blammm on January 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Suck it up, just as blue/dry cities, counties and States have had to do in the past. You can’t impede the right of people going in and out. Federal Republic is an messy solution, but it is better than any other, including democracy.

You’re offended by X and he’s offended by Y, but as long as X & Y are legal and hurts no one but the doer, shut up and live with it.

The so-con position should be: I’ll let you smoke, drink, dance & sleep around as long as you allow me to speak my mind and exercise my rights. So-cons should be about things that morally affect another person; abortion, welfare, curbing no-fault divorce etc

AH_C on January 15, 2014 at 6:18 PM

If they had a true Federalist bent, they could simply retreat to a Constitutionally defensible position of only regulating weed when it is in commerce between the states (or being imported, naturally). And they could simultaneously dump the idea that intra-state commerce “impacts” interstate commerce in such a way that they have any business regulating it. That would be a win for everyone.

GWB on January 15, 2014 at 4:12 PM

This

AH_C on January 15, 2014 at 6:21 PM

The drug war is no better than then the alcohol war was. Both have resulted in unmanageable increases in organized crime and dramatic increases in the incarceration of non-violent citizens. We need to endorse more freedom and put an end to the drug war. We aren’t even close winning this war, even though spending on the war is ever increasing. When are we going to learn that we can’t force morality on society? Of course, allowing more freedom will result in harm to some who are innocent bystanders and to the users themselves. But, the drug war is already doing that. Someone please explain what we are gaining by continuing this decades long, unwinnable war.

NuclearPhysicist on January 15, 2014 at 5:23 PM

This

AH_C on January 15, 2014 at 6:23 PM

I’m sorry, but I think those people are a bunch of pothead trash losers. Those women look ridiculous.

bluegill on January 15, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Schadenfreude

Bmore on January 15, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2