CAP Talk

What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned...

Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

My guess would be the same thing that they do in CAWG and everywhere else in the nation. They will maintain a drug free environment.

Regardless of state actions, Marijuana is still illegal throughout the United States under federal law.

See Gonzalez v. Raich (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html)) for a clear indication of how pre-emption works.

Despite that CO, as well as several other states, have legalized MJ, it is still an illegal drug by Federal Law.  It is NOT ok for use.  I would not allow anybody in my unit to use MJ, whether they had a license for it or not.  If they came to apply for membership using, outright rejection.  If they were a member, there would be a plan made to get them off, or termination.

Unless they are smoking in front of you how would you know.

The lingering stench is a dead giveaway.

IF.....IF.....it were to be decrimilised nation wide....I would assume that we simply follow the same rules as we do for other legal drugs.

IMSAFE and 8 hours bottle to throttle.

It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

And Rogue, would you ban a person from membership if they Were prescribed marijuana for a disability?

---

Pleased note, I'm just up for debate, I'm not arguing for legal fun use of marijuana, but I'm not really against it's use for medical purposes.

If it's legal, we stay out of it, though we could still encourage moderation like we do with other legal intoxicants.
Until it's legal on the Federal level, CAP will likely maintain its "no tolerance" stance.

From a CN perspective, since most, if not all, our CN work is done to support state and local agencies, if they aren't
enforcing the Federal law, then CN work will dry up in those states very quickly, however there's plenty of it to go around in other
states, and this issue not likely to be settled on a national level any time soon, if ever.

It'll wind up being a pretty interesting, and heated "state's rights" test for the Supreme Court.

In fact the next decade is likely to be very interesting in the (purported) "Chinese" way, where "May you live in interesting times.", which is considered a curse.

We have states refusing to enforce Federal laws, and the Federal government refusing to allow enforcement of state laws.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

State LE can't do anything about it but DEA, FBI, etc CAN as it is still a violation of Federal Statutes.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
And Rogue, would you ban a person from membership if they Were prescribed marijuana for a disability?

Yes.  Just like I would bar membership to a person using cocaine, heroin, etc.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

That's not how it works, Federal law crosses all the borders, that's the point.  There's supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" in California
where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts, but there's also been
a lot of complaining that the Feds are still doing arbitrary enforcement.

Given the manpower and the will, the Feds could shut down all of the "legal" marijuana operations tomorrow.

As to denying membership - I would refer the matter to the Wing CC and stay out of it. It's a national issue and should be
handled and considered by NHQ.  We can't knowingly allow members to be users / in possession of a banned substance,
just because the local state has decided it's OK.

In some areas, this could put a real burden on members of law enforcement who are also members and have a duty to act.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

And Rogue, would you ban a person from membership if they Were prescribed marijuana for a disability?

---

Pleased note, I'm just up for debate, I'm not arguing for legal fun use of marijuana, but I'm not really against it's use for medical purposes.

Manfred, sorry - see earlier post regarding preemption.  Federal law trumps state and applies throughout the land; federal law stops at no state's border.  MJ is still 100% illegal in every part of this country, even for medical use.   That certain states "legalize it" on their books only means state and local authorities will not prosecute; but a person in California or Colorado or wherever using MJ under state laws permitting it could still be arrested and tried on federal drug charges.  Whether or not the feds choose to actively pursue arresting and prosecuting in those states is a different matter, and often decided by an administration's executive policy.  However whether the feds actively pursue violators or not doesn't change the fact that marijuana is still illegal to grow, possess, deal, or use in every part of this country.

Imagine the nightmare of a member who uses it "legally", traveling for an NCSA or NESA, etc., and being caught with it
in a state where it's not legal.

We'd be fully complicit, have a huge PA stain, but could do little to intervene.  Further, the commanders and staff of those activities
might have legal issues as well. 

Heck, COV's, including aircraft, that were found with marijuana could be impounded and kept or sold under local and federal
seizure laws.

....

Quote from: Pylon on November 07, 2012, 03:52:59 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

And Rogue, would you ban a person from membership if they Were prescribed marijuana for a disability?

---

Pleased note, I'm just up for debate, I'm not arguing for legal fun use of marijuana, but I'm not really against it's use for medical purposes.

Manfred, sorry - see earlier post regarding preemption.  Federal law trumps state and applies throughout the land; federal law stops at no state's border.  MJ is still 100% illegal in every part of this country, even for medical use.   That certain states "legalize it" on their books only means state and local authorities will not prosecute; but a person in California or Colorado or wherever using MJ under state laws permitting it could still be arrested and tried on federal drug charges.  Whether or not the feds choose to actively pursue arresting and prosecuting in those states is a different matter, and often decided by an administration's executive policy.  However whether the feds actively pursue violators or not doesn't change the fact that marijuana is still illegal to grow, possess, deal, or use in every part of this country.

Yup

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 03:50:10 PM
where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts,

There's nothing to be "sorted in the courts".

The Supreme Court spoke very clearly in Gonzalez v. Raich.  Federal laws on possession of Marijuana are valid and in place, state laws to the contrary notwithstanding.  A state law permitting a drug does not supersede the clear federal prohibition.

QuoteCalifornia's Compassionate Use Act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson's cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents claim that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The District Court denied respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that they had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient's physician pursuant to valid California state law. The court relied heavily on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, to hold that this separate class of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power.

Held: Congress' Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6—31.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 03:50:10 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
It is legal for use within CO state borders. The federal law line is drawn at the state border.

That's not how it works, Federal law crosses all the borders, that's the point.  There's supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" in California
where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts, but there's also been
a lot of complaining that the Feds are still doing arbitrary enforcement.

Given the manpower and the will, the Feds could shut down all of the "legal" marijuana operations tomorrow.

As to denying membership - I would refer the matter to the Wing CC and stay out of it. It's a national issue and should be
handled and considered by NHQ.  We can't knowingly allow members to be users / in possession of a banned substance,
just because the local state has decided it's OK.

In some areas, this could put a real burden on members of law enforcement who are also members and have a duty to act.

CAP is a national organization.  The most responsible position for CAP to take is to defer to federal law. Not to mention the fact that we routinely use state, federal and military facilities and routinely interact with local, state, and federal LE agencies.  Medical MJ is legal in CA, but you cant use it as a cop.  You would be fired.   If CAP starts getting into "states rights" issues, or "wing rights" might be a better term, members crossing state lines will start causing issues. 

As far as CA, it is basically coming down to the counties.  In my county, we go after it 100% under the umbrella of the DEA.  We are assisting them with their investigations. I spent all summer slingin' weed!  There are other counties where people use weed as landscaping. 

Quote from: JeffDG on November 07, 2012, 04:02:06 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 03:50:10 PM
where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts,

There's nothing to be "sorted in the courts".

The Supreme Court spoke very clearly in Gonzalez v. Raich.  Federal laws on possession of Marijuana are valid and in place, state laws to the contrary notwithstanding.  A state law permitting a drug does not supersede the clear federal prohibition.

I agree 100%, but the Ogden memos have indicated that the Feds will not prosecute users or suppliers who are in compliance with state law, effectively
relinquishing control of the situation to the respective states.

QuoteWhat will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned... Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

Washington state also approved "recreational" marijuana yesterday but Oregon voters rejected it. 17 states and DC already allow MJ for medical purposes. In all of these locations the local laws are in violation of federal laws. For the most part, the feds have not been going after the medicinal users or even the licensed medical providers, unless there is some flagrant violation of the local laws.   

This is not an overnight surprise that CAP has to deal with.

Mike

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 04:08:27 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 07, 2012, 04:02:06 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 03:50:10 PM
where the feds have agreed to reduce or delay enforcement of marijuana laws until this is sorted in the courts,

There's nothing to be "sorted in the courts".

The Supreme Court spoke very clearly in Gonzalez v. Raich.  Federal laws on possession of Marijuana are valid and in place, state laws to the contrary notwithstanding.  A state law permitting a drug does not supersede the clear federal prohibition.

I agree 100%, but the Ogden memos have indicated that the Feds will not prosecute users or suppliers who are in compliance with state law, effectively
relinquishing control of the situation to the respective states.

Not the case in CA in my county.  We shut down the stores all the time under the umbrella of the DEA.   On the case of Washington, I wasnt following it there, but I just read that it was the "recreational use" of MJ :o  Wow......  so basically.... its 100% legal in WA then I guess as far as state law goes.  I wonder what the DEA is going to do about that?

Rob: having worked with the DEA for many years, I suspect that they will forge ahead and bust people in WA for growing and using, just like they do in CA.  Federal courts are routinely used in CA to prosecute MJ growers, sellers and users and the sentences are not trivial.  And you don't get time off for good behavior.

A lot of companies and organizations have rules, regs, and policies, that are more strict than what is allowed by state and federal law.

Even if it were completely legal, CAP might still forbid it if you want to continue CAP membership.

Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 05:54:24 PM
Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

And SM use around them.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 07, 2012, 05:55:42 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 05:54:24 PM
Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

And SM use around them.

Tobacco is all thats forbidden for SM use in proximity to cadets.

Quote from: tsrup on November 07, 2012, 05:59:06 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 07, 2012, 05:55:42 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 05:54:24 PM
Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

And SM use around them.

Tobacco is all thats forbidden for SM use in proximity to cadets.

True, should have specified. Not that the effects of alcohol are that much better than tobacco.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 07, 2012, 05:55:42 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 05:54:24 PM
Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

And SM use around them.

Use is discouraged for seniors, but neither is explicitly prohibited, except for tobacco use in CAP vehicles..

52-16 2.2

c. Adult Conduct. Senior members should exercise discretion when drinking alcoholic beverages or using tobacco products at CAP activities when cadets are present. Seniors should avoid drinking alcohol or using tobacco when they are directly working with cadets or when they are in a confined space with cadets. Additionally, seniors who are not working with cadets should avoid excessive alcohol consumption when they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets thereafter. Commanders may establish designated smoking and non-smoking areas and designate areas as "off-limits" to cadets.

Wow two pages and still in a decent debate, Thanks. That's what I was hoping for.

I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government's ability to trump state law. While I do support the idea that marijuana isa dangerous drug, and I don't think anyone should be able to use it just because they want to, it shows there is no reason to have individual states other than to have a sort of management system, one guy over fifty, fifty over thirtyish, and those thirtyish people each have however many are in their city or county, but it really leaves nothing to the checks and balance system that the states were set up to perform.

Isn't the state structure supposed to ensure that the federal government doesn't have too much power? Or am I missing something completely?

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 06:20:03 PM
Wow two pages and still in a decent debate, Thanks. That's what I was hoping for.

I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government's ability to trump state law. While I do support the idea that marijuana isa dangerous drug, and I don't think anyone should be able to use it just because they want to, it shows there is no reason to have individual states other than to have a sort of management system, one guy over fifty, fifty over thirtyish, and those thirtyish people each have however many are in their city or county, but it really leaves nothing to the checks and balance system that the states were set up to perform.

Isn't the state structure supposed to ensure that the federal government doesn't have too much power? Or am I missing something completely?

States can be stricter than the federal government.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 07, 2012, 06:21:26 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 06:20:03 PM
Wow two pages and still in a decent debate, Thanks. That's what I was hoping for.

I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government's ability to trump state law. While I do support the idea that marijuana isa dangerous drug, and I don't think anyone should be able to use it just because they want to, it shows there is no reason to have individual states other than to have a sort of management system, one guy over fifty, fifty over thirtyish, and those thirtyish people each have however many are in their city or county, but it really leaves nothing to the checks and balance system that tIIIhe states were set up to perform.

Isn't the state structure supposed to ensure that the federal government doesn't have too much power? Or am I missing something completely?

States can be stricter than the federal government.

Right, but they can't have a few laws that differ?

Not on something the Feds consider illegal.

Well, they CAN, but we have .08 Alcohol limit because everyone wants those highway funds.

Of course with the SCOTUS decision on the Medicare part of the Affordable Healthcare Act, who knows.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 06:24:33 PM
Right, but they can't have a few laws that differ?

Differ, sometimes, but just like any top-down bureaucracy, they generally can't loosen a law from a higher authority, only
strengthen or more clearly define (as long as that definition doesn't change the higher's definition).

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 06:31:55 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 06:24:33 PM
Right, but they can't have a few laws that differ?

Differ, sometimes, but just like any top-down bureaucracy, they generally can't loosen a law from a higher authority, only
strengthen or more clearly define (as long as that definition doesn't change the higher's definition).

That still lends much power to federal government and deteriorates the checks and balance system.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 06:38:29 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 07, 2012, 06:31:55 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 06:24:33 PM
Right, but they can't have a few laws that differ?

Differ, sometimes, but just like any top-down bureaucracy, they generally can't loosen a law from a higher authority, only
strengthen or more clearly define (as long as that definition doesn't change the higher's definition).

That still lends much power to federal government and deteriorates the checks and balance system.

States don't check or balance the Federal government outside of making up the federal government.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 06:38:29 PM
That still lends much power to federal government and deteriorates the checks and balance system.

Can't really argue that point, though I don't know that the original intention of fed vs. state was intended for checks and balances
in the same way as the 3-bladed government.

It was more about reservation of powers at the local level, with concern about building a new monarchy.

The realities of society and scale have evolved that over the last 236 some years. A lot of states would agree with you,
but then still want the support an resources, not the least of which is military protection of the Federal government.

Well the states can amend the constitution by constitutional convention...
so in that regard, yes they do check the federal government,
but it's not quite the same as you think of checks and balances between the three branches.

Quote from: coudano on November 07, 2012, 05:47:18 PM
A lot of companies and organizations have rules, regs, and policies, that are more strict than what is allowed by state and federal law.

Even if it were completely legal, CAP might still forbid it if you want to continue CAP membership.

This is exactly it.  Even if legal, as an organization, CAP can prohibit it use/influence by members.

Manfred-

The checks and balances apply only to the Federal system.

It only means that the Judicial system checks whether the laws made by the Legislature are fair and constitutional. That the Executive cannot overpower the Legislative except by the veto system. That the Executive cannot pull more than the Judicial, except maybe by naming judges favorable to him. And the Judicial can also check and deter the Executive from again unfair and unconstitutional exercise of powers.

Now I will hear from other "Bar room lawyers" criticizing this "bar room lawyer" on the interpretation of this aspect of the Constitution. But please bear in mind, the last time I read the Constitution was about eight years ago, when I was considering a copy for purchase for my library.

I am even willing to bet that other "bar room lawyers" will attempt to correct my explanation without even reading it...

::)

Flyer

Seems pretty spot on. The SCOTUS has expanded over some 220 years in what they do, but overall its Legislative, Executive, back to Legislative of a veto,  Judicial if its not constitutional, Legislative to start Constitutional amendment to make it constitutional. Fun stuff.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 07, 2012, 06:21:26 PM
States can be stricter than the federal government.

Not necessarily.  See Arizona v. United States.

Quote from: sardak on November 07, 2012, 04:15:33 PMFor the most part, the feds have not been going after the medicinal users or even the licensed medical providers, unless there is some flagrant violation of the local laws.

There is one federal agency that will not ignore licensed medical providers and it will go after them and that agency is the dreaded IRS. The Internal Revenue Code specifically states that no deductions are allowed for illegal (by federal law) drug activity. So all those medicinal dispensaries must report all of their sales as income and they are not allowed to deduct a dime's worth of expenses. The issue has already been litigated and the dispensaries lost.

Just want to add Washington Wing passed pot (I-502) as well

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned...

Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

What will CAP do about Colorado Wing? More CD and DDR Missions.  ;D

Will it be OK to have THC in your system? NO!!!

Quote from: usafcap1 on November 07, 2012, 09:32:44 PMJust want to add Washington Wing passed pot (I-502) as well

Ummm. No. Washington *Wing* didn't pass *anything* of the sort. A majority of the voters of the State of Washington expressed their desire to get in on the 420 excitement. Nothing to do with CAP.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 06:20:03 PM
Wow two pages and still in a decent debate, Thanks. That's what I was hoping for.

I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government's ability to trump state law. While I do support the idea that marijuana isa dangerous drug, and I don't think anyone should be able to use it just because they want to, it shows there is no reason to have individual states other than to have a sort of management system, one guy over fifty, fifty over thirtyish, and those thirtyish people each have however many are in their city or county, but it really leaves nothing to the checks and balance system that the states were set up to perform.

Isn't the state structure supposed to ensure that the federal government doesn't have too much power? Or am I missing something completely?

We live in a "Federal" government where the national government law supercedes that of the states or power emanates from the national government to the states. The states may pass laws in areas that the federal government does not as long as those laws don' violate the Constitution or contradict federal laws.

When states have more power than the national government, that is a "Confederacy" and power eminates from the states to the national government.

Sorry to go all social studies on you.

Quote from: usafcap1 on November 07, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
Just want to add Washington Wing passed pot (I-502) as well

The reason cited was that CAC meetings and Wing events were getting brutally mind numbing.  This is expected to increase participation, yet lower the standards expected by members at these events.  News sources also cite convenience stores stocking up on Doritos and cheese spread in a can.

You forgot PopTarts :(!!!

We will probably continue with a zero tolerance for the substance especially since a good chunk of our budget is federal dollars.  And while states may decree it legal for what ever purpose they deem.  State LE are still required to support DOJ in any planned operations against the substance.

Quote from: usafcap1 on November 07, 2012, 09:35:28 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned...

Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

What will CAP do about Colorado Wing? More CD and DDR Missions.  ;D

Will it be OK to have THC in your system? NO!!!

I know, I worded that wrong, it was meant more as a sarcastic question.... Hopefully no one would look over it, or allow it. To think I would say it's OK at meetings is a bit shocking. I hope I have made an image n here that shows I'm not for recreational use of any drug.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned...

Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

They would use the same rules that we have with alcohol.  Of course, going on your reasoning about grounds for dismissial, everybody who drinks would need to be 2b'd.
Good luck with that....

Quote from: PHall on November 08, 2012, 02:20:14 AM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned...

Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

They would use the same rules that we have with alcohol.  Of course, going on your reasoning about grounds for dismissial, everybody who drinks would need to be 2b'd.
Good luck with that....

Huh???
I don't know about you, but I know a few people who drink, and are in CAP, but they would never drink while at a meeting or be drunk at a meeting, so I don't see where you got the idea that I would kick everybody out that drinks. Please explain to me where you spun the wheel to jump to that conclusion.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 08, 2012, 03:09:36 AM

Quote from: PHall on November 08, 2012, 02:20:14 AM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned...

Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

They would use the same rules that we have with alcohol.  Of course, going on your reasoning about grounds for dismissial, everybody who drinks would need to be 2b'd.
Good luck with that....

Huh???
I don't know about you, but I know a few people who drink, and are in CAP, but they would never drink while at a meeting or be drunk at a meeting, so I don't see where you got the idea that I would kick everybody out that drinks. Please explain to me where you spun the wheel to jump to that conclusion.

The highlighted line....     

If I see anyone smoking a doobie near any CAP aircraft, I'll make sure to put them out with the fire extinguisher. If not that, then we'll lure them away from the aircraft with nacho cheese Doritos.

(Rolling my eyes at this entire thread.)

I imagine DOJ and DEA are losing their minds over CO and WA basically giving them the bird.  All kinds of "special attention" may be coming our way.  CAP will stay squeaky clean.

Quote from: denverpilot on November 08, 2012, 03:20:35 AM
If I see anyone smoking a doobie near any CAP aircraft, I'll make sure to put them out with the fire extinguisher. If not that, then we'll lure them away from the aircraft with nacho cheese Doritos.

(Rolling my eyes at this entire thread.)

You're not supposed to be smoking around the aircraft anyway...

Quote from: PHall on November 08, 2012, 04:06:24 AM

Quote from: denverpilot on November 08, 2012, 03:20:35 AM
If I see anyone smoking a doobie near any CAP aircraft, I'll make sure to put them out with the fire extinguisher. If not that, then we'll lure them away from the aircraft with nacho cheese Doritos.

(Rolling my eyes at this entire thread.)

You're not supposed to be smoking around the aircraft anyway...

Exactly. We treat all comers with equal "Safety". 

Might toss a bucket of water on them too, just to be sure. :)

If there's an extra fire truck nearby we might ask for their assistance too. ;) ;) ;)

(Did ya miss the humor the first time?) :) :) :)

Phall, I meant that as to be while at CAP, it should be implied, as we are talking about CAP... To think any different is just odd. Why would I be talking about what happens on someone's couch on captalk? Some times I wonder how much some people want to regulate our members off CAP time. ::)

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 08, 2012, 04:45:06 AM
Phall, I meant that as to be while at CAP, it should be implied, as we are talking about CAP... To think any different is just odd. Why would I be talking about what happens on someone's couch on captalk? Some times I wonder how much some people want to regulate our members off CAP time. ::)

I've seen alcohol consumed at CAP events, i.e. Wing Conference. You weren't specific so what was I to think?
If you're talking only about "CAP time", then say so...

Quote from: denverpilot on November 08, 2012, 04:29:16 AM

Quote from: PHall on November 08, 2012, 04:06:24 AM

Quote from: denverpilot on November 08, 2012, 03:20:35 AM
If I see anyone smoking a doobie near any CAP aircraft, I'll make sure to put them out with the fire extinguisher. If not that, then we'll lure them away from the aircraft with nacho cheese Doritos.

(Rolling my eyes at this entire thread.)

You're not supposed to be smoking around the aircraft anyway...

Exactly. We treat all comers with equal "Safety". 

Might toss a bucket of water on them too, just to be sure. :)

If there's an extra fire truck nearby we might ask for their assistance too. ;) ;) ;)

(Did ya miss the humor the first time?) :) :) :)

If you call that humor. Don't quit your day job.

 :o

^ +1

Whatever   ::)

Y'all are making my head hurt.

First off, the .gov and congress have been abusing and running roughshod over the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution for decades now. Granted, legal marijuana isn't exactly my cause celebre, but my assertion still remains.

Secondly, the only way we'd ever be able to prove positive that any member (or prospective member) partakes in the herb is to piss test every Senior and cadet. Not gonna happen. NHQ, Inc. doesn't have the money and I'm not paying to whizz in a cup to prove to NHQ, Inc. that I'm clean. I'll find other things to do with my time and money.

Third, I find it amusing that NHQ, Inc. tells our cadets drugs are bad, alcohol's bad and provide them with a complete moral leadership program while at the same time we held our National Board meetings exactly where in Reno and Los Vegas? Yeah, that big room between the casino floor, next to the bar and across the hall from the topless showgirls' review >:D

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2012, 05:15:07 PM
Y'all are making my head hurt.

First off, the .gov and congress have been abusing and running roughshod over the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution for decades now. Granted, legal marijuana isn't exactly my cause celebre, but my assertion still remains.

Secondly, the only way we'd ever be able to prove positive that any member (or prospective member) partakes in the herb is to piss test every Senior and cadet. Not gonna happen. NHQ, Inc. doesn't have the money and I'm not paying to whizz in a cup to prove to NHQ, Inc. that I'm clean. I'll find other things to do with my time and money.

Third, I find it amusing that NHQ, Inc. tells our cadets drugs are bad, alcohol's bad and provide them with a complete moral leadership program while at the same time we held our National Board meetings exactly where in Reno and Los Vegas? Yeah, that big room between the casino floor, next to the bar and across the hall from the topless showgirls' review >:D

Massive PR flaw on the part of the NHQ PIO...Can SOMEONE please tell me why this wasnt in the announcement for the National Board meeting? >:D

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 11, 2012, 05:34:38 PMMassive PR flaw on the part of the NHQ PIO...Can SOMEONE please tell me why this wasn't in the announcement for the National Board meeting? >:D

They would have surely sold out faster than Comic-Con on that one. Come on.  :o

The next National Conference is in Denver, CO, not Las Vegas or Reno, though I do agree that the previous conferences at these sites were ill advised.

Quote from: MSG Mac on November 11, 2012, 08:31:49 PM
The next National Conference is in Denver, CO, not Las Vegas or Reno, though I do agree that the previous conferences at these sites were ill advised.

Denver. Colorado. What am I missing here? :angel:

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 11, 2012, 08:58:55 PMDenver. Colorado. What am I missing here? :angel:

Pretty soon, it won't be that Rocky Mountain High ..

Wasn't NVWG's HQ right across the street from Bo-peeps Gentlemen's Club at some point?

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 12, 2012, 05:52:14 AM
Wasn't NVWG's HQ right across the street from Bo-peeps Gentlemen's Club at some point?

After meeting/SLS/CLC/TLC the members could go and relax?

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 12, 2012, 05:52:14 AM
Wasn't NVWG's HQ right across the street from Bo-peeps Gentlemen's Club at some point?

Is there anywhere in LV that isn't across the street from a "Gentlemen's Club"?

Don't all cities have strip clubs?

Not as prevalent as NV.

Las Vegas has an abundance of relatively cheap rooms and great airline service (read relatively cheap tickets) to most of the country. It a city like any other, with good points and bad points. There's no reason to stigmatize it - and especially not Reno. I went to a PCR meeting there last year, stated out of the casino and couldn't tell the difference between there and any other place with a hotel and a meeting room. The best RSC in the country takes place at Las Vegas as well, so everybody just relax.

Quote from: AirDX on November 12, 2012, 04:47:29 PM
Las Vegas has an abundance of relatively cheap rooms and great airline service (read relatively cheap tickets) to most of the country. It a city like any other, with good points and bad points. There's no reason to stigmatize it - and especially not Reno. I went to a PCR meeting there last year, stated out of the casino and couldn't tell the difference between there and any other place with a hotel and a meeting room. The best RSC in the country takes place at Las Vegas as well, so everybody just relax.

+1 (to the whole post)

We had a small discussion about what CAP would do due to the legalization of pot in CO and WA. While our constituency is mainly conservative, with me being the lone liberal in the arena, we pretty much all saw eye to eye on several things:

1. Would CAP foot the bill for drug testing for new members? Probably not, at least not for the majority of members. Perhaps for mission-critical slots like drivers and pilots, especially CD pilots, and perhaps those directly influencing cadets like the DCC, CC and leadership officers.

2. What would CAP do in the event of an accident involving corporate assets or the injury of members? We agreed that CAP should test for evidence of drug or alcohol in the system, but who would pay for it?

3. What about cadet use? Specifically, how would it relate to DDR? We already have CAP cadets who have either tried or are regular users of alcohol and other intoxicants, so does DDR realistically work? I'd hate to think that all the money CAP spends on this program would be torn asunder just because some hippie granola-crunching frisbee chucking yurt-toting cheeba monkeys wanted to experience a real Rocky Mountain high.

4. How would CAP treat recreational use outside of CAP? Specifically, would it be like alcohol use? Obviously, if the call came and you were not in the right frame of mind or sober, you could not participate on a mission, but how would this relate to recreational use of pot? I'm not sure how long the THC remains active in your system after using it, but what if 6 months down the line you're in a plane or van and you had an accident, and they tested you for intoxicants, and you came up positive? What would be the outcome if you were a brand-new 18 to 21 year old SM who made a decision to try it once at a party because it's legal and 6 months later you tested positive after accidentally damaging a van? This would not be a case of "he was high/drunk while he was operating a CAP asset and caused injury to CAP members" but more of a case of "Well, he had trace amounts of THC in his system but swears he has not touched the stuff in 6 months or so, so what do we do?" Do we require an admission of use as part of the membership process like ROTC and the military does, as part of the core values of integrity and honor?

Guess this really does require a lot of study and thought.

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 14, 2012, 10:28:09 PM
Guess this really does require a lot of study and thought.

Not nearly as much as you make out.

First:  Regardless of state laws, Marijuana is still illegal under the Controlled Substance Act everywhere in the United States.  Period, end of discussion.

All the state actions do is remove the concurrent state illegality, they do not impair the federal illegality in any way, shape, or form.  Even the receipt of a license from the state for medical marijuana does not impair illegality under the CSA, and those who exercise such a license are still subject to the full weight of federal criminal sanctions for their possession, distribution and/or cultivation.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 15, 2012, 12:21:57 AM
...  Period, end of discussion.

Maybe if there's an amendment to the Constitution, it will really end the discussion.  ::)

Part of it is easy......CAP as a private organization can ban any practice it doesnt want its members involved in (legal or illegal).  So easily enough it can say, NO; irregardless of state legality, you will not as a member be found voluntarily or involuntarily to have MJ in your system. If you do its a 2B offense.  Dont like the policy, dont be a member.

Prosecuting the same member for an "illegal" behavior is where the tricky part is...I feel fairly certain that if you live in CO and you call the FBI/DEA they are not going to come over to the local squadron to cite/arrest a member for a few joints in their cigarette case (unless of course you meet on a federal facility....whole new twist)

mk

No place in the organization.

Quote from: cm42 on November 15, 2012, 01:48:05 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 15, 2012, 12:21:57 AM
...  Period, end of discussion.

Maybe if there's an amendment to the Constitution, it will really end the discussion.  ::)

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled specifically on the issue, and they were quite clear that even a state license was no form of protection from federal prosecution, and what we're talking about in CO is purely recreational, so no licenses will be issued in that cease anyway.

While I agree that MJ or any other illegal drug has no place in CAP, IMHO we have few options when dealing with it in CAP. However I'm more concerned about a nonprofit corporation whose policies begin to entangle around the private lives of its membership without any legal authority to do so.

Random dope testing is expensive and the general membership won't stand for it, especially if they have to pay for it. I'm okay for mandatory whizz tests post accident provided NHQ pays for it and establishes a defined set of policies regarding it.

Cadets and DDR? The kids are either getting the DDR message or they're not. I'm of the mind they are and are leaving the stuff alone, or at least smart enough to keep it a thousand yards from CAP. That's as good as we can expect.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 15, 2012, 03:28:46 PM
While I agree that MJ or any other illegal drug has no place in CAP, IMHO we have few options when dealing with it in CAP. However I'm more concerned about a nonprofit corporation whose policies begin to entangle around the private lives of its membership without any legal authority to do so.

How is being a non-profit relevant to this conversation?

Define "legal authority".  CAP, or any other organization can absolutely define its own membership criteria, and being "a recreational user of an illegal substance" does not constitute "protected class".  Membership is a privilege, revocable on the (relative) whim of the corporation.

When you join, you agree to certain tenants of behavior, and to allow CAP to react to that behavior.   If they are too intrusive, spend your volunteer
some place else.

Or are you suggesting that illegal behavior should simply be ignored by CAP because it requires uncomfortable conversations?

Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

We can still say that we don't want our members using.  If they get caught, they get put out.

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 07, 2012, 02:53:52 PM
Despite that CO, as well as several other states, have legalized MJ, it is still an illegal drug by Federal Law.  It is NOT ok for use.  I would not allow anybody in my unit to use MJ, whether they had a license for it or not.  If they came to apply for membership using, outright rejection.  If they were a member, there would be a plan made to get them off, or termination.

What would you do if they were cancer patients and it was prescribed by an MD?  Do they get punished for something they have no control over?

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 15, 2012, 06:22:58 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

We can still say that we don't want our members using.  If they get caught, they get put out.

Just like any job, you use, you get caught, you probably get canned. My point, and the OP's, was that what does CAP do IF this movement becomes bigger. I suppose the wing king and region CC are reaching for the Maalox...

Quote from: Grumpy on November 15, 2012, 06:25:22 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 07, 2012, 02:53:52 PM
Despite that CO, as well as several other states, have legalized MJ, it is still an illegal drug by Federal Law.  It is NOT ok for use.  I would not allow anybody in my unit to use MJ, whether they had a license for it or not.  If they came to apply for membership using, outright rejection.  If they were a member, there would be a plan made to get them off, or termination.

What would you do if they were cancer patients and it was prescribed by an MD?  Do they get punished for something they have no control over?

It's still illegal under federal law.

Quote from: Grumpy on November 15, 2012, 06:25:22 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 07, 2012, 02:53:52 PM
Despite that CO, as well as several other states, have legalized MJ, it is still an illegal drug by Federal Law.  It is NOT ok for use.  I would not allow anybody in my unit to use MJ, whether they had a license for it or not.  If they came to apply for membership using, outright rejection.  If they were a member, there would be a plan made to get them off, or termination.

What would you do if they were cancer patients and it was prescribed by an MD?  Do they get punished for something they have no control over?

Federally speaking, a MD can not prescribe an illegal substance for any reason.  Use of such substance is ILLEGAL.

Yes, they are being punished, but not for something they have no control over.  Everyone using MJ (for either recreation or "medical" use) is in violation of Federal law. 

In those cases for short term "medical" use (ie 1-6 months), I would place them on a leave of absence until they are off of the drugs.  Anything longer or any other use, they need to resign and reapply if they stop using the drug. 

It has no place in CAP.

Oops, hit the wrong button.

Interesting isn't it?  I'd say simply follow the Air Forces lead and do what is AF policy.  They are our parent organization after all.

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 15, 2012, 06:28:04 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 15, 2012, 06:22:58 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

We can still say that we don't want our members using.  If they get caught, they get put out.

Just like any job, you use, you get caught, you probably get canned. My point, and the OP's, was that what does CAP do IF this movement becomes bigger. I suppose the wing king and region CC are reaching for the Maalox...

That's because it is currently a controlled substance. But if it attains the same status as alcohol and tobacco?

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2012, 08:18:21 PM
That's because it is currently a controlled substance. But if it attains the same status as alcohol and tobacco?

CAP could still prohibit its use for members if it was so inclined. especially in uniform.

Ask the question after it happens.

It's not legal anywhere in the United States today, so the entire conversation in a CAP context is irrelevant.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2012, 08:59:43 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2012, 08:18:21 PM
That's because it is currently a controlled substance. But if it attains the same status as alcohol and tobacco?

CAP could still prohibit its use for members if it was so inclined. especially in uniform.

Ask the question after it happens.

It's not legal anywhere in the United States today, so the entire conversation in a CAP context is irrelevant.

If CAP was around during prohibition, would we still consider 2B'ing members at the end who chose to drink?

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 16, 2012, 03:28:00 AMIf CAP was around during prohibition, would we still consider 2B'ing members at the end who chose to drink?

Yes, of course.

What I'm saying is that CAP, Inc. or anyone in CAP for that matter has no legal or other authority to start snooping around in the private affairs of its members outside of the organization.

I've gone around and around with many on the CPPT, of which we'll have to agree to disagree on CAP's ridiculous policies between relatioships between consenting adults. But we've also had threads on here regarding cadets caught with contraband off CAP time and how it should have been handled by CAP even though the courts and parents had the situation in hand. Now we're talking about how to deal with members who may partake in using a legal drug in their state yet is still illegal by Federal law. I will not get into the whole Interstate Commerce clause and the overreaching that is occurring for the sake of brevity.

I get the perception sometimes on here that its OK with CAP to meddle in what its adult members do in the privacy of their homes and use the rationale you offer below as their excuse. That attitude will neither add members to our rolls nor will it do anything to retain members, either.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2012, 05:51:52 PM

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 15, 2012, 03:28:46 PM
While I agree that MJ or any other illegal drug has no place in CAP, IMHO we have few options when dealing with it in CAP. However I'm more concerned about a nonprofit corporation whose policies begin to entangle around the private lives of its membership without any legal authority to do so.

How is being a non-profit relevant to this conversation?

Define "legal authority".  CAP, or any other organization can absolutely define its own membership criteria, and being "a recreational user of an illegal substance" does not constitute "protected class".  Membership is a privilege, revocable on the (relative) whim of the corporation.

When you join, you agree to certain tenants of behavior, and to allow CAP to react to that behavior.   If they are too intrusive, spend your volunteer
some place else.

Or are you suggesting that illegal behavior should simply be ignored by CAP because it requires uncomfortable conversations?

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 15, 2012, 06:22:58 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
Hypothetical question. If hell freezes over and MJ becomes legal nationwide. What then?

We can still say that we don't want our members using.  If they get caught, they get put out.

I rest my case. :o

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
What I'm saying is that CAP, Inc. or anyone in CAP for that matter has no legal or other authority to start snooping around in the private affairs of its members outside of the organization.

When people break the law it's a matter of The People of the State of Confusion versus Mr/Mrs Wascally Violator.  It's no longer a private affair.  Any organization that cares about it's public image has to draw the line somewhere.   

^^^^ OK, when they break the law and get caught, it becomes a public matter.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
What I'm saying is that CAP, Inc. or anyone in CAP for that matter has no legal or other authority to start snooping around in the private affairs of its members outside of the organization.

Your assertion is flawed, at best.  CAP is an "at will" organization, and therefore can establish any policies it deems fit.  If that fact is too onerous,
then the organization is not for you.  Further, as a benevolent organization with one of its stated goals to be the development and protection
of its most vulnerable members, there is a strong argument that CAP is duty-bound to take action whenever it becomes aware of situations
where "off-duty" behavior is dangerous or illegal, especially for cadets, but also for seniors who are frequently in charge of its cadets and / or other
members safety.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
I've gone around and around with many on the CPPT, of which we'll have to agree to disagree on CAP's ridiculous policies between relatioships between consenting adults.

CAP's rules in this regard are neither uncommon nor onerous, and are intended for the common good.  Life is not "Twilight", and CAP is not "holding back the star-crossed destinies of its members just to turn them into automatons".  Plenty of corporations, schools, and the military, actively prohibit or discourage the same sort of relationships, for the simple reason that any "romantic" entanglements where the parties are not on equal emotional ground are a bad idea, and that badness tends to cause collateral damage and unintended consequences.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
But we've also had threads on here regarding cadets caught with contraband off CAP time and how it should have been handled by CAP even though the courts and parents had the situation in hand. Now we're talking about how to deal with members who may partake in using a legal drug in their state yet is still illegal by Federal law.

what about when the situation is not "at hand"?  And while you're there, define "in hand".  How many convictions are necessary before its back "out of hand"? 
Again, CAP is not unique in this stand, and it protects everyone involved.  private corporations, most government agencies, schools, and similar organizations will all have a say or generate additional consequences for someone who violates the law, external to their direct involvement with the
respective organization.

Something deemed legal at the state level and illegal at the Fed level is..."illegal".  So arguing about it is pointless unless and only when that
simple fact changes.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
I will not get into the whole Interstate Commerce clause and the overreaching that is occurring for the sake of brevity.

Trying to argue about the way thing s"should be", in a discussion of "is", is also pointless.  The Federal Government's authority
is not likely to shrink in our lifetime, nor is an organization like CAP going to have a say in the matter, or champion a contrarian attitude.
So this simply "is".

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
I get the perception sometimes on here that its OK with CAP to meddle in what its adult members do in the privacy of their homes and use the rationale you offer below as their excuse. That attitude will neither add members to our rolls nor will it do anything to retain members, either.

Then it would appear the "attitude" is effective.  Adding or retaining people who engage in illegal activity or poor judgement does not serve CAP's
purposes.

And while any number or substances may be legal, it will never be in CAP's best interest to do anything but actively discourage the
use of anything which alters or intoxicates its members. 

What IF they no longer are breaking the law?

Say tomorrow ALL anti-MJ laws are removed. It becomes legal, sold right next to the cigarette display case in your local 7/11?

Then what?

Then it falls under the same catagory as all other legal drugs...alcohol, OTC meds, Perscription Meds.

IMSAFE.... if you are impared don't be at CAP.  End of debate.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2012, 04:06:07 PM
Then it falls under the same category as all other legal drugs...alcohol, OTC meds, Prescription Meds.

IMSAFE.... if you are impaired don't be at CAP.  End of debate.

Pretty much, though "illegal" and "bad idea" are not interdependent. 

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2012, 04:06:07 PM
Then it falls under the same catagory as all other legal drugs...alcohol, OTC meds, Perscription Meds.

IMSAFE.... if you are impared don't be at CAP.  End of debate.

That would be my understanding as well, but it seems a lot of people here are beating the "it WAS illegal, so it still SHOULD be, so 2B with you!".

I would just like to remind people that Alcohol was indeed illegal, and now it's not. I don't hear many here arguing to 2B anyone who ever touched a beer or five.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 16, 2012, 04:24:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2012, 04:06:07 PM
Then it falls under the same catagory as all other legal drugs...alcohol, OTC meds, Perscription Meds.

IMSAFE.... if you are impared don't be at CAP.  End of debate.

That would be my understanding as well, but it seems a lot of people here are beating the "it WAS illegal, so it still SHOULD be, so 2B with you!".

I would just like to remind people that Alcohol was indeed illegal, and now it's not. I don't hear many here arguing to 2B anyone who ever touched a beer or five.

It's the stigma. People associate pot with gangs and hippies and serious crime, smuggling by boat and airplane, killing each other over a few ounces, killing those who would stand in their way. Well, kind of like Capone and his ilk did in the olden days, although we have romanticized that period. I can't cite actual figures, but I keep hearing that alcohol and alcohol-related deaths are higher than those of pot users. I'm talking cirrhosis, brain damage, car wrecks, general jackassery, and heart disease. I'm not arguing FOR pot, not at all. I'm just saying that those who are arguing AGAINST it keep bringing up the images of drug runners with AK-47s and armored boats and gang wars and it being a gateway drug. Alcohol, at least wine, was created way back when because most of the water supply was very bad, from what I've heard. Jesus even turned water into wine, right? You take wine with Communion. Therefore, drinking wine is OK, but not to excess as it says in the Bible (no, I'm not a Bible thumper, just trying to make a point) but pot is not, according to popular conservative opinion.

It's still illegal to take alcohol and other controlled substances and re-sell them, like selling your Oxycontin prescription. Even if pot eventually becomes legal in most of the country, it'll still be illegal to sell, purchase, and use it in areas that it isn't legal to do so. We still have a problem with what I just said, the illegal sale and use of prescription meds. Perfectly legal to have and use with a doctor's note, illegal to possess and use without one.

I just woke up. Forgive me if I'm rambling or going over well-trod ground.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 16, 2012, 04:24:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2012, 04:06:07 PM
Then it falls under the same catagory as all other legal drugs...alcohol, OTC meds, Perscription Meds.

IMSAFE.... if you are impared don't be at CAP.  End of debate.

That would be my understanding as well, but it seems a lot of people here are beating the "it WAS illegal, so it still SHOULD be, so 2B with you!".

I would just like to remind people that Alcohol was indeed illegal, and now it's not. I don't hear many here arguing to 2B anyone who ever touched a beer or five.

It's not that it WAS illegal, it's that it IS illegal.

If and when it becomes legal federally and is re classed as something other than schedule 1, then this discussion would be relavent.  However we are a federal organization with a federal charter.  And when that time comes, I'm sure the guidance will be not to be impaired while on CAP business.

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 16, 2012, 05:34:08 PMIt's the stigma. People associate pot with gangs and hippies and serious crime, smuggling by boat and airplane, killing each other over a few ounces, killing those who would stand in their way. Well, kind of like Capone and his ilk did in the olden days, although we have romanticized that period. I can't cite actual figures, but I keep hearing that alcohol and alcohol-related deaths are higher than those of pot users.

Today.  Make it legal and easier to get and that will change quickly.

It combines the "fun" of smoking with the long-term effects of a hallucinogen on the brain.  Two-Fer!

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2012, 05:43:12 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 16, 2012, 05:34:08 PMIt's the stigma. People associate pot with gangs and hippies and serious crime, smuggling by boat and airplane, killing each other over a few ounces, killing those who would stand in their way. Well, kind of like Capone and his ilk did in the olden days, although we have romanticized that period. I can't cite actual figures, but I keep hearing that alcohol and alcohol-related deaths are higher than those of pot users.

Today.  Make it legal and easier to get and that will change quickly.

It combines the "fun" of smoking with the long-term effects of a hallucinogen on the brain.  Two-Fer!

"Oh, it's not as bad as you make it out to be! It's all natural, man, natural. That alcohol, man, is more dangerous than pot, man"

It kills your brain, slowly, by degrees. If you're unlucky, someone you smoke up with has laced your bowl with something heinous like LSD or PCP, and you have weird flashbacks. Don't ask, you're not ready.  :angel:

Then, once the deleterious effects have manifested themselves, WE have to pick up the tab for your treatment because in all likelihood, you've smoked away whatever money you have and can't afford rehab.

Tax the snot out of it? People still pay $5 and up per pack for legal smokes. Even if you taxed it to 1000%, people would still pay for the "privilege".

Ah, what's the point?

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 16, 2012, 06:07:03 PMTax the snot out of it? People still pay $5 and up per pack for legal smokes. Even if you taxed it to 1000%, people would still pay for the "privilege".

I'm actually fine with this.  If people want to pay the "stupid tax", whatever.  The problem with the math is that it as you escalate the
taxes, it puts an increasingly heavy burden on a decreasing group, which means that eventually you lose that revenue stream with nothing to replace it.

...... and then we could use all the profits to fund programs to help people quit smoking marijuana! ::)

Quote from: tsrup on November 16, 2012, 05:38:40 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 16, 2012, 04:24:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2012, 04:06:07 PM
Then it falls under the same catagory as all other legal drugs...alcohol, OTC meds, Perscription Meds.

IMSAFE.... if you are impared don't be at CAP.  End of debate.

That would be my understanding as well, but it seems a lot of people here are beating the "it WAS illegal, so it still SHOULD be, so 2B with you!".

I would just like to remind people that Alcohol was indeed illegal, and now it's not. I don't hear many here arguing to 2B anyone who ever touched a beer or five.

It's not that it WAS illegal, it's that it IS illegal.

If and when it becomes legal federally and is re classed as something other than schedule 1, then this discussion would be relavent.  However we are a federal organization with a federal charter.  And when that time comes, I'm sure the guidance will be not to be impaired while on CAP business.

You are missing the original post lordmonar was responding to.

So....talking about the situation as it is today.

A member SM or Cadet who is "known" to be smoking pot on or off CAP time is subject to a 2b even if he is in COWG or WAWG.

IF.....IF it is ever legalized by the federal government then it would be controlled or dealt with like any other legal drug.

Yep.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2012, 07:48:30 PM
So....talking about the situation as it is today.

A member SM or Cadet who is "known" to be smoking pot on or off CAP time is subject to a 2b even if he is in COWG or WAWG.

IF.....IF it is ever legalized by the federal government then it would be controlled or dealt with like any other legal drug.

I was going to take issue with "off time" but as I alluded to in a recent post on the matter, it does matter what you do in your off hours when it comes to partaking in legal or illegal substances.

So, basically, we all agree that stupid is stupid whether it's legal or not.

Quote from: ol'fido on November 16, 2012, 09:18:03 PM
So, basically, we all agree that stupid is stupid whether it's legal or not.

Momma always said "Stupid is as stupid does..."

To sum up this thread: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Quote from: AirDX on November 16, 2012, 10:38:39 PM
To sum up this thread: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

That's easy....measure a Angles's butt and then the head of a pin.....divide one into the other....QED.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2012, 07:48:30 PM
A member SM or Cadet who is "known" to be smoking pot on or off CAP time is subject to a 2b even if he is in COWG or WAWG.

That "known" is the problem. Who is the knowing one and how do they 'know'? What proof do they have? The 'everybody knows X is a pot head' shouldn't be good enough - but too often it is - just a handy way to get rid of someone 'they' don't want to have around.

If there is no conviction under the criminal code there is no proof anything illegal has occurred. I would include under 'conviction' the various and sundry diversion programs for first-time, youthful offenders etc.

So a member shows up at a meeting tipsy. You help him back to his car. You see an open can of beer. He smells of alcohol. Yet you cannot say he has been drinking?

In the same manner, you see a person in a different mood. You see the cigarettes. He/she reeks of MJ. You cannot tell he/she has been smoking weed?

Flyer

Quote from: flyer333555 on November 17, 2012, 04:52:00 AM
So a member shows up at a meeting tipsy. You help him back to his car. You see an open can of beer. He smells of alcohol. Yet you cannot say he has been drinking?

Open container law. Most cops would administer a field sobriety test, then arrest the induhvidual. And why on earth would you help him back to HIS car?

Quote
In the same manner, you see a person in a different mood. You see the cigarettes. He/she reeks of MJ. You cannot tell he/she has been smoking weed?

Flyer

Joints or cigarettes? Contact high and smelly clothes from being in the same room as someone smoking up? Circumstantial evidence on this one, in my opinion.

Not necessarily help him to his car, but there may be several reasons.

Ensure it is locked... Get something of value out. To sleep it off.

I did not say he had the ignition key, just that he/she is helped back to the car.

Anyway, do not throw smoke around the issue. You know when someone has been smoking and/or drinking. So can you tell with MJ.

Quote from: flyer333555 on November 17, 2012, 05:49:42 AM
Not necessarily help him to his car, but there may be several reasons.

Ensure it is locked... Get something of value out. To sleep it off.

I did not say he had the ignition key, just that he/she is helped back to the car.

Anyway, do not throw smoke around the issue. You know when someone has been smoking and/or drinking. So can you tell with MJ.

I'm not "throwing smoke". I've been there. It's not so easy to tell whether the person has been smoking or not unless there are more overt signs than what you gave. Red eyes, smiling like a loon for no reason, stumbling around, slurring words, mad munchies. I'm not being flip here. Cheech and Chong movies aside, these signs are real. Just smelling like it and acting a little off isn't a big indicator. Alcohol and prescription drug abuse gives more overt signs of intoxication. I've been around people who smoked pot so much they can't get high anymore, as well as a few who smoked and never displayed any signs of intoxication.

One of my cadets back in Wisconsin came from a questionable family. His mom showed up to a ceremony once and stumbled to the stage when she stood up and nearly fell. We honestly could not tell what she had been doing, even after the cadet admitted his mom had a "problem". We chalked it up to pills and the unit commander politely took her aside later and asked her not to come back in that state. She apparently realized she had a problem and never showed up in anything less than a sober state again.

They say if you want to protect yourself from burglary, you ask a burglar. If you want an honest answer as to how to spot the junkie, you ask a junkie. Sorry to say, I hung out with a bunch of questionable people in the seven years between high school graduation and getting back in CAP. I did some things I'm not proud of, but honestly, having BTDT to an extent, you really can't give a simple answer like yours without knowing a little more about the situation.

Quote from: RRLE on November 17, 2012, 01:00:55 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2012, 07:48:30 PM
A member SM or Cadet who is "known" to be smoking pot on or off CAP time is subject to a 2b even if he is in COWG or WAWG.

That "known" is the problem. Who is the knowing one and how do they 'know'? What proof do they have? The 'everybody knows X is a pot head' shouldn't be good enough - but too often it is - just a handy way to get rid of someone 'they' don't want to have around.

If there is no conviction under the criminal code there is no proof anything illegal has occurred. I would include under 'conviction' the various and sundry diversion programs for first-time, youthful offenders etc.

I disagree.  As a former commander I don't have the time or luxery of waiting for the justice system to do it's job.
That is why we have a 2b process.

As many Captalkers have noted, it remains a federal offense. How I or anyone else feel about it is irrelevant.

Except, there's one organization whose feelings *do* count a little bit more, and that's Ma Blue. And she has spoken...

"Colorado amendment changes nothing for service members" (AF News)

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123326759 (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123326759)

I don't think anyone's denying that it's still illegal under federal law.

What is unclear is whether or not it's going to stay that way in the future. This is certainly going to end up in the courts, and these states that have legalized marijuana are going to challenge the federal government to prove that the need is there to make the drug illegal. If the DEA flounders (which they likely will, considering that alcohol, as a legal drug, will have to serve as the standard for legalization), then chances are the federal government is going to have to do some real soul-searching on this topic.

I'm highly doubting that the federal government is going to go against the states on this one.

CAP has always taken the "drugs are bad" approach rather than the "drugs are illegal, and breaking the law is bad" approach. Now it's going to force leaders to contend with how marijuana is still "bad' while also at the same time as legal as alcohol (in the likely future), which isn't even prohibited for legal drinkers at CAP activities. That's the more interesting conversation, and the one that seems to be getting missed here.

Quote from: Nathan on November 20, 2012, 01:30:13 AM
I don't think anyone's denying that it's still illegal under federal law.

What is unclear is whether or not it's going to stay that way in the future. This is certainly going to end up in the courts, and these states that have legalized marijuana are going to challenge the federal government to prove that the need is there to make the drug illegal. If the DEA flounders (which they likely will, considering that alcohol, as a legal drug, will have to serve as the standard for legalization), then chances are the federal government is going to have to do some real soul-searching on this topic.

I'm highly doubting that the federal government is going to go against the states on this one.

CAP has always taken the "drugs are bad" approach rather than the "drugs are illegal, and breaking the law is bad" approach. Now it's going to force leaders to contend with how marijuana is still "bad' while also at the same time as legal as alcohol (in the likely future), which isn't even prohibited for legal drinkers at CAP activities. That's the more interesting conversation, and the one that seems to be getting missed here.

The courts have already made perfectly clear that federal drug laws, including MJ laws specifically, are entirely within the federal government's authority to prohibit. 

"When" it becomes legal nationwide is an academic question.  Right now, it isn't.  We operate under "what is," not "what should/shouldn't be."

The Federal Government says it's illegal.  The Air Force says it's illegal.  That's all we need to know.  We are not a state organisation, though I'd bet that state Adjutant Generals have plenty to say about their National Guard and SDF personnel toking up.

The Netherlands are often used as an example of what pot laws "should be."  That said...I'm still willing to lay odds that the Royal Netherlands Air Force are not "down" with someone who has toked up AND/OR put away a few pints of Heineken in the cockpit of one of their F-16's.

Quote from: jeders on November 07, 2012, 02:37:33 PM
My guess would be the same thing that they do in CAWG and everywhere else in the nation. They will maintain a drug

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned...

Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

So, my friend suffers from anxiety disorder and takes Xanax, a mind altering drug. Should he be dismissed?

Quote from: flyguy06 on November 24, 2012, 02:37:51 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 07, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
What will CAP do about Colorado Wing?  Will it be OK to have THC in your system?  While at meetings of course. Operations should be outright banned...

Personally, I think if your mind is obviously altered due to a drug, no matter it's legality,  it should be grounds for dismissal. What will CAP do in Colorado?

So, my friend suffers from anxiety disorder and takes Xanax, a mind altering drug. Should he be dismissed?

As long as he has a script and is taking per Dr's orders no.

Easy question to answer for flight crew. FARs apply. The tolerance is zero. Pilots will loose license and should if they are users.   Someone somewhere before in all these posts probably said this, I hope.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 17, 2012, 06:28:44 PM

Quote from: RRLE on November 17, 2012, 01:00:55 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2012, 07:48:30 PM
A member SM or Cadet who is "known" to be smoking pot on or off CAP time is subject to a 2b even if he is in COWG or WAWG.

That "known" is the problem. Who is the knowing one and how do they 'know'? What proof do they have? The 'everybody knows X is a pot head' shouldn't be good enough - but too often it is - just a handy way to get rid of someone 'they' don't want to have around.

If there is no conviction under the criminal code there is no proof anything illegal has occurred. I would include under 'conviction' the various and sundry diversion programs for first-time, youthful offenders etc.

I disagree.  As a former commander I don't have the time or luxery of waiting for the justice system to do it's job.
That is why we have a 2b process.

So based solely on unit scuttlebutt or your sense of smell you'd 2B Joe Senior Member?

Good luck fighting that IG complaint.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2012, 03:24:38 PM

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
What I'm saying is that CAP, Inc. or anyone in CAP for that matter has no legal or other authority to start snooping around in the private affairs of its members outside of the organization.

Your assertion is flawed, at best.  CAP is an "at will" organization, and therefore can establish any policies it deems fit.  If that fact is too onerous,
then the organization is not for you.  Further, as a benevolent organization with one of its stated goals to be the development and protection
of its most vulnerable members, there is a strong argument that CAP is duty-bound to take action whenever it becomes aware of situations
where "off-duty" behavior is dangerous or illegal, especially for cadets, but also for seniors who are frequently in charge of its cadets and / or other
members safety.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
I've gone around and around with many on the CPPT, of which we'll have to agree to disagree on CAP's ridiculous policies between relatioships between consenting adults.

CAP's rules in this regard are neither uncommon nor onerous, and are intended for the common good.  Life is not "Twilight", and CAP is not "holding back the star-crossed destinies of its members just to turn them into automatons".  Plenty of corporations, schools, and the military, actively prohibit or discourage the same sort of relationships, for the simple reason that any "romantic" entanglements where the parties are not on equal emotional ground are a bad idea, and that badness tends to cause collateral damage and unintended consequences.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
But we've also had threads on here regarding cadets caught with contraband off CAP time and how it should have been handled by CAP even though the courts and parents had the situation in hand. Now we're talking about how to deal with members who may partake in using a legal drug in their state yet is still illegal by Federal law.

what about when the situation is not "at hand"?  And while you're there, define "in hand".  How many convictions are necessary before its back "out of hand"? 
Again, CAP is not unique in this stand, and it protects everyone involved.  private corporations, most government agencies, schools, and similar organizations will all have a say or generate additional consequences for someone who violates the law, external to their direct involvement with the
respective organization.

Something deemed legal at the state level and illegal at the Fed level is..."illegal".  So arguing about it is pointless unless and only when that
simple fact changes.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
I will not get into the whole Interstate Commerce clause and the overreaching that is occurring for the sake of brevity.

Trying to argue about the way thing s"should be", in a discussion of "is", is also pointless.  The Federal Government's authority
is not likely to shrink in our lifetime, nor is an organization like CAP going to have a say in the matter, or champion a contrarian attitude.
So this simply "is".

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 16, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
I get the perception sometimes on here that its OK with CAP to meddle in what its adult members do in the privacy of their homes and use the rationale you offer below as their excuse. That attitude will neither add members to our rolls nor will it do anything to retain members, either.

Then it would appear the "attitude" is effective.  Adding or retaining people who engage in illegal activity or poor judgement does not serve CAP's
purposes.

And while any number or substances may be legal, it will never be in CAP's best interest to do anything but actively discourage the
use of anything which alters or intoxicates its members.

At what point do these "at will" policies supposedly in the name of safety  become over reaching and well outside the business of CAP, Inc.? When they tell me what medicines I can take or not, who I can associate with, or where I live?

The only surefire way you're going to 2B a member for weed is a) they get caught at an activity with it, arrested and convicted or b) you start making members pee in a cup. NHQ ain't gonna pay for that and neither's the members. Personally, I think members who feel the need to do random sniff checks of other members to see if they might have smoked MJ sometime is a little creepy, but I guess if it's some new CAP, Inc. policy that's going to make CAP, Inc. safe from a lawsuit...:-\

 

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 25, 2012, 06:17:12 AM

At what point do these "at will" policies supposedly in the name of safety  become over reaching and well outside the business of CAP, Inc.? When they tell me what medicines I can take or not, who I can associate with, or where I live?

The only surefire way you're going to 2B a member for weed is a) they get caught at an activity with it, arrested and convicted or b) you start making members pee in a cup. NHQ ain't gonna pay for that and neither's the members. Personally, I think members who feel the need to do random sniff checks of other members to see if they might have smoked MJ sometime is a little creepy, but I guess if it's some new CAP, Inc. policy that's going to make CAP, Inc. safe from a lawsuit...:-\

Point 1: Stuff you do outside your employment, enlistment, or volunteer service can have a detrimental effect on the aforementioned list. Let's say you are an average human, for the sake of argument. You go to a party, you drink or smoke something, and go home. On the way home, you're involved in an accident. Maybe your fault, maybe not. You're not really drunk, mostly buzzed, as you've only had one or two drinks or maybe you took just a couple hits off the MJ pipe that was passed around. The responding officer notices the smell of alcohol on your breath or perhaps your glassy eyes. He administers a field sobriety test, which you fail due to a combination of the late hour, stress of the situation, and your intake of the evening. You're taken into custody, and sometime in the wee small hours you are able to get hold of your boss to tell him you might not make it into work, or at least you're going to be very late. The boss recognizes you have a history of this, and promptly tells you that up with this he will not put, and fires you. You have to go home and explain to the wife that you're not employed anymore and she says "see ya" and kicks you out of the house.

You just happen to be a functioning alcoholic and pot smoker who has managed to skate by for many years and managed to hold it together long enough to serve in CAP for many years. You've snowed everyone into believing you're the upstanding citizen you portray to your unit and wing. For some reason or another, the unit busybody, who just happens to work in HR at your now-former company, starts telling people what happened, which is in direct conflict with the story you told. She just happened to be at that party and saw you hit the ol' bong before you left. She feels that perhaps the unit CC should just for the sake of $#!ts and giggles to dig back a few weeks to that little accident you had with the unit van, which caused a few hundred dollars worth of damage, just to see if something is amiss. The CC goes back and looks at the accident report and re-questions the witnesses, one of whom seems to recall you stumbling down the stairs of the restaurant after lunch slightly and doesn't recall seeing the dog you swerved to miss, even though you were in the front seat. He says he recalls smelling alcohol on your breath as well but you chalked it up to the cough medicine he saw you taking earlier.

What does the responsible CC do in this situation? In this situation, assume CAP has instituted a policy of drug screening for members involved in sensitive positions, and allows commanders to test members who are involved in MVAs and aircraft incidents. Discuss.

Point 2. We had a cadet shoplift not 2 hours after arriving to an activity and had make the hard call to his parents telling him he was arrested. There was a group of cadets in my unit who were busted for drinking ON A MILITARY BASE at a wing conference. CAP's jurisdiction begins at the start of the activity and ends when the CC of the unit involved has concluded his investigation. Punitive action we can't do, but we can 2B the offenders. How that action is completed is yet to be determined, but you can bet if corporate assets are involved, like a plane or even cadets, someone is going to foot the bill for a urine test.

There is very little you can do to avoid a lawsuit in CAP these days. You make a cadet angry and there is nothing stopping him/her from making a false accusation of cadet abuse and there goes your membership. You pass someone over for promotion to a new position and they can file charges of discrimination. The wrong person sees you do the wrong thing, even during non-CAP time, and can raise questions about your fitness to be in the program.

I'm sure Eclipse will either render my argument moot or back me up on some of this. I said some.  >:D

Quote from: JeffDG on November 20, 2012, 01:33:53 AM
The courts have already made perfectly clear that federal drug laws, including MJ laws specifically, are entirely within the federal government's authority to prohibit.

Again, nobody is arguing that.

The point is that even some of my DEA friends believe that it's a "when", not "if" question regarding marijuana legalization now that the states are willing to challenge the federal government on it. This will bring out the need for evidence establishing why marijuana deserves to be classified at the same level of addictiveness and danger as heroin while alcohol is legalized. IF the federal government chooses to fight (which I doubt it will), then it's either going to pull out something that has remained completely invisible to the mainstream scientific community that establishes its case, or it's going to fail to prove that the prohibition of marijuana is justified.

And just because this is "academic" doesn't mean it's "theoretical." This is an issue that CAP will likely have to confront within the next five years, maybe sooner. Since we've been operating off of the apparent belief that the legalization of marijuana would NEVER occur, then we're kind of at a weird place if it becomes legal for our adult members to use.

Remember that the belief of marijuana somehow being more addictive or potent than alcohol, or many psychoactive drugs, or prescription painkillers is simply not true, and we don't limit the use of these drugs for our members, even at CAP activities. The ONLY time that CAP needs to be involved if there is a demonstrated incident, backed by evidence, that establishes the drug use is causing problems for the member's ability to function in CAP.

It's probably also important to note that a "demonstrated effect on CAP function" CANNOT include the bias of other members against the member in question's personal behaviors. Otherwise, we could claim that a member being a Wiccan is a disruption to CAP function because someone else is uncomfortable with their religion, which is not a road we can go down. If you don't like that someone is smoking marijuana legally, but the member is still performing his/her job to expectations, then it's not the member's job to mold to your ideal behaviors.

If the member is not breaking the law, and his/her work at CAP is not being demonstrably affected, then CAP simply isn't going to have a case against marijuana, so long as they want to maintain the allowance of alcohol, prescription medications, and even some psychoactive over-the-counter supplements.

The whole discussion falls apart as soon as the "its still illegal" card is played.

If it becomes legal, then it will likely be handled in the same way alcohol is, however it's never going to be legal at the Federal level in this country in the lifetime of anyone reading this message today.

Never. 

So all these misguided arguments about "rights" and "What will CAP do?" are irrelevant.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 25, 2012, 11:29:50 PM
The whole discussion falls apart as soon as the "its still illegal" card is played.

If it becomes legal, then it will likely be handled in the same way alcohol is, however it's never going to be legal at the Federal level in this country in the lifetime of anyone reading this message today.

Never. 

So all these misguided arguments about "rights" and "What will CAP do?" are irrelevant.

Pretty sure you're wrong on this one. It's historic that it was voted legal in the states it was. Public opinion is changing on a LOT of social issues, including this one. Again, I'll be surprised if the federal government doesn't handle this the same way it handled DADT.

Why do we have to spend time at the present on arguing this back and forth? Cant we let this die until that time it becomes legal in Federal organizations? I am tired of having to wade through messages to find this thread!

Flyer

Then don't read the thread :)

...It takes half a minute of my very busy daily day to figure out what it is about, and whether I should read it or ignore it!

:angel:

Flyer

   excellent points, nathan.

   heres what the sentiment was in the early 70's...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Marihuana_and_Drug_Abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Marihuana_and_Drug_Abuse)

bill

Quote from: Nathan on November 26, 2012, 12:11:36 AMPretty sure you're wrong on this one. It's historic that it was voted legal in the states it was.

Pretty sure I'm not.  And further pretty sure this is nothing like DADT.

A few states populated by hipsters may have been historic from the perspective of the vote itself, but it's not indicative of the general
feeling in the country, nor is it going to change things at the Federal level.  I know a lot of my peers are tired of the conversations, but that
fatigue should not be construed as a change of attitude.

Medicinal use has been "legal" in CA for years, and abuses of the prescriptions are now common and common knowledge, that hasn't moved
the needle an iota at the Federal level, beyond the current administration deciding they will not enforce the laws as written.  A new, less liberal
administration could change that overnight.  Frankly, with all that is going on in the US and the world, I don't necessarily disagree with
the president picking his battles right now, but that doesn't change the law.

And considering that this is a state's rights discussion, one which could potentially change the balance of power at the most fundamental level,
it's not something the feds are just going to let happen without a fight.

Perhaps in the sheltered world of academia, where recreational use, and therefore the flaunting of the law, are apparently commonplace and encouraged, the idea is that the landscape is changing, but that's not, by a longshot the attitude in the "real" world, especially in states populated
by more people and less hipsters.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 26, 2012, 12:49:03 AMMedicinal use has been "legal" in CA for years, and abuses of the prescriptions are now common and common knowledge, that hasn't moved
the needle an iota at the Federal level, beyond the current administration deciding they will not enforce the laws as written.

That would be California and 13 or so other states.
(I'm too lazy to look up the exact number.)

Quote from: PHall on November 26, 2012, 01:16:16 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 26, 2012, 12:49:03 AMMedicinal use has been "legal" in CA for years, and abuses of the prescriptions are now common and common knowledge, that hasn't moved
the needle an iota at the Federal level, beyond the current administration deciding they will not enforce the laws as written.

That would be California and 13 or so other states.
(I'm too lazy to look up the exact number.)

Some states have decriminalized its use, but not necessarily legalized it.  That's a big difference, especially for recidivists.

Either way being legal on the state level is different from being legal on the federal level.  Which has been pointed out, but lets look at it like this, would any of you feel comfortable allowing your child/cadet climb into a vehicle or aircraft if you had the suspicion that the operator was impaired by Marijuana? Let's say said person has an accident and was found under the influence of said marijuana who takes liability for it? At the end of the day we are funded primarily by tax payers dollars by the USAF and the AF policy is zero tolerance for substance abuse of any kind.  So until the laws change federally we should stick to a zero tolerance policy.  You want to toke up on your spare time, don't come to a meeting and operate corp equipment.  2B someone for it only if proven they are a user, suspend or limit activities until proven otherwise.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 26, 2012, 12:49:03 AM
A few states populated by hipsters may have been historic from the perspective of the vote itself, but it's not indicative of the general
feeling in the country, nor is it going to change things at the Federal level. 

Actually, it is indicative of the general trend in public opinion on this issue: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx)

Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2012, 02:37:21 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 26, 2012, 12:49:03 AM
A few states populated by hipsters may have been historic from the perspective of the vote itself, but it's not indicative of the general
feeling in the country, nor is it going to change things at the Federal level. 

Actually, it is indicative of the general trend in public opinion on this issue: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx)

Fair enough, though the trending also somewhat supports my assertion that no change will be relevant to anyone's CAP career who
is reading this today.  The 18-29 year olds in favor tend to make a lot of noise, but have little political power, which is why the media
and social networks can make it appear that change is afoot, while those in actual power - 40+ - aren't interested in the conversation
except to look relevant to the hipsters.  OWS was very noisy and had little impact.

That will change as that generation ages and takes power, but, with age comes experience and maturity, and many will change their tune
as the common sense of real life conflicts with what the professors told them their first year of college. 

Assuming that curve follows, that's probably a 20 year evolution, ten at the minimum.

We also should not discount the military / industrial / law enforcement complex built up around this issue - that's not something that will
go quietly just because some people need a crunchy groove.  Big pharma wants in on the medicinal and recreational use, but they have
another bureaucracy to fight to get there.

Meanwhile people with common sense aren't interested to start with.

QuoteThat would be California and 13 or so other states.
(I'm too lazy to look up the exact number.)

Really easy to find a table with the details. It's 18 plus DC (up one from when I posted the number 6 pages back).

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881 (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881)

Mike

Quote from: Eclipse on November 25, 2012, 11:29:50 PM
If it becomes legal, then it will likely be handled in the same way alcohol is, however it's never going to be legal at the Federal level in this country in the lifetime of anyone reading this message today.

Just imagine the reefer madness that would begin...

Quote from: Eclipse on November 26, 2012, 12:49:03 AM
Perhaps in the sheltered world of academia, where recreational use, and therefore the flaunting of the law, are apparently commonplace and encouraged, the idea is that the landscape is changing, but that's not, by a longshot the attitude in the "real" world, especially in states populated
by more people and less hipsters.

Give me a break. The ONLY one of my college professors who talked about marijuana was a specialist in neurological pharmacology and toxicology, which gives him a LOT more credibility to speak on the subject than you.

The real difference is that my generation didn't grow up with ridiculous, misleading videos like this guiding our perceptions of the situation:

The terrible truth about marijuana (1951) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGRvAlqf9ME#)

The fact is that, by definition, the conservative viewpoint is about "tradition" and "established culture", and the evidence simply doesn't support the traditional and established view on marijuana. Period. End of story. Done.

So IF this goes to the courts, and the federal government is forced to come up with evidence backing up its decision to keep marijuana illegal while allowing the sale of alcohol (and even tobacco), then it's going to be using an evidence that nobody in the scientific community has yet seen as far as the dangers of marijuana, and if they had that, they would have given it to me for my DDR presentations a long time ago so I have something more to say to cadets about it than, "It's illegal, and it will probably make you gain weight."

Quote from: abdsp51Either way being legal on the state level is different from being legal on the federal level.  Which has been pointed out, but lets look at it like this, would any of you feel comfortable allowing your child/cadet climb into a vehicle or aircraft if you had the suspicion that the operator was impaired by Marijuana? Let's say said person has an accident and was found under the influence of said marijuana who takes liability for it? At the end of the day we are funded primarily by tax payers dollars by the USAF and the AF policy is zero tolerance for substance abuse of any kind.  So until the laws change federally we should stick to a zero tolerance policy.  You want to toke up on your spare time, don't come to a meeting and operate corp equipment.  2B someone for it only if proven they are a user, suspend or limit activities until proven otherwise.

The argument differs not at all from alcohol. We don't have to allow for anyone to be impaired at any time to legalize the drug. We only have to put it under the same restrictions as alcohol.

If you would have a problem putting your cadet in an aircraft with a drunk pilot, you're completely sane. If you have a problem putting your cadet in an aircraft with a pilot who drank three days ago, you are probably a little overprotective. It's the same situation with marijuana. The fact that someone "smokes" doesn't say anything else than when you say someone "drinks." It says nothing about their current level of inebriation.

Quote from: Nathan on November 25, 2012, 10:00:29 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 20, 2012, 01:33:53 AM
The courts have already made perfectly clear that federal drug laws, including MJ laws specifically, are entirely within the federal government's authority to prohibit.

Again, nobody is arguing that.

The point is that even some of my DEA friends believe that it's a "when", not "if" question regarding marijuana legalization now that the states are willing to challenge the federal government on it. This will bring out the need for evidence establishing why marijuana deserves to be classified at the same level of addictiveness and danger as heroin while alcohol is legalized.

Where are you getting legal advice?  The Congress does not need to do such justification.  They have, by law, designated THC in the same category as heroin.  They have successfully defended such laws multiple times, including in the face of state "medical" licenses.  It's done, they don't need to do it anymore.  Such policy justifications are the province of Congress, not the Courts.

Yep.

Quote from: Nathan on November 26, 2012, 01:26:42 PMThe fact that someone "smokes" doesn't say anything else than when you say someone "drinks." It says nothing about their current level of inebriation.

It does, however, say something about the individual's commitment to following the law of the land.  If they're willing to violate federal criminal law, what's the big deal with discarding administrative regulations from the FAA, or regulations promulgated by CAP.

Quote from: Nathan on November 26, 2012, 01:26:42 PM

the conservative viewpoint is about "tradition" and "established culture", and the evidence simply doesn't support the traditional and established view on marijuana. Period. End of story. Done.

I love liberal arguments. The liberal side is "tradition and established culture is wrong and needs to change because WE say so." The 2nd liberal argument is that "everyone does it a little, and it does not hurt like alcohol, so why not?"

These 2 arguments have failed when given over the general American populace time and time again. They make no sense. Change for change sake is beyond worthless, and no, not everyone has tried or does pot. Nathan, you live in one of the most conservative states in the union where you are in the very tiny minority of liberals. Kansas has one of the lowest drug use rates in the nation, and also one of the lowest crime rates, so the "established culture" seems to be working there...

Quote from: NCRblues on November 26, 2012, 08:52:15 PM
Kansas has one of the lowest drug use rates in the nation, and also one of the lowest crime rates, so the "established culture" seems to be working there...

Kansas has a higher per capita crime rate than both states that just legalized Marijuana.  Is Marijuana really the problem impacting Violent or property crime rates in Kansas?

Quote from: NCRblues on November 26, 2012, 08:52:15 PM
I love liberal arguments. The liberal side is "tradition and established culture is wrong and needs to change because WE say so."

Actually, I said nothing about needing to change the established culture just because I say so (especially considering I'm to the right on at least one social issue). I said that if the evidence doesn't support what the traditional viewpoint claims to be true, then it's perhaps time to take another look. Traditional views aren't bad by default, but if they are based off of faulty beliefs as compared to what the real evidence says, then nobody is being helped by sticking with them.

Quote from: NCRBluesThe 2nd liberal argument is that "everyone does it a little, and it does not hurt like alcohol, so why not?"

I said nothing of the sort. I didn't make any main arguments about why pot SHOULD be legal, because that's outside the scope of how CAP is to deal with it (which you seem to have forgotten was the point of this thread). If I were to make a main argument, I would talk about the massive amount of taxpayer money spent on fighting and jailing the users of a drug that is less dangerous, potent, or addictive than most of the psychoactive drugs we can get legally, some without a prescription. But again, what I'm trying to illustrate is that the legalization of marijuana (and possibly some other recreational drugs) is likely to be a lot closer than you're allowing yourself to believe, and covering your ears isn't really a productive way of dealing with it.

Quote from: NCRBluesThese 2 arguments have failed when given over the general American populace time and time again. They make no sense. Change for change sake is beyond worthless

You see it as change for change's sake, but believe it or not, you CAN fix things that aren't broken, especially when it involves a lot of taxpayer money. The P51 was a pretty good fighter, and it wasn't broken, yet we found we could do better and tried it out anyway. It's insane to think you can't improve upon systems with redundancies and misbeliefs.

Quote from: NCRBluesand no, not everyone has tried or does pot.

I honestly think you're imaging things based on what you think I believe. Please point out where I said anything that would remotely warrant that response.

Quote from: NCRBluesNathan, you live in one of the most conservative states in the union where you are in the very tiny minority of liberals. Kansas has one of the lowest drug use rates in the nation, and also one of the lowest crime rates, so the "established culture" seems to be working there...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for, "You just made the kind of fallacy that makes people not take any of your arguments seriously."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Quote from: Nathan on November 27, 2012, 12:20:24 AMI said nothing of the sort. I didn't make any main arguments about why pot SHOULD be legal, because that's outside the scope of how CAP is to deal with it (which you seem to have forgotten was the point of this thread). If I were to make a main argument, I would talk about the massive amount of taxpayer money spent on fighting and jailing the users of a drug that is less dangerous, potent, or addictive than most of the psychoactive drugs we can get legally, some without a prescription. But again, what I'm trying to illustrate is that the legalization of marijuana (and possibly some other recreational drugs) is likely to be a lot closer than you're allowing yourself to believe, and covering your ears isn't really a productive way of dealing with it.

Cite please: What drug can you obtain legally, without prescription, that is more psychoactive then marijuana?  And bringing prescription medications into the discussion is 100% irrelevant.

As to the cost of enforcement, that is caused by the lack of will to actually enforce the laws as written, along with politically motivated selective enforcement.  The drug war, like the immigration issue, is easily solvable, however it takes the full will of everyone who should be doing the enforcement
to actually be doing their jobs, without personal or political filter, but when you have a part of the population who value cheap labor / cheap fruit over following the law, they are effectively digging the holes under the fences themselves, and when you have a part of the population who value self-intoxication over common sense and their own personal well-being, then they are actively working against enforcement and costing us all billions.

"Main argument"?  You've made no bones that you don't feel marijuana use is a big deal, citing medical practitioners who use as some sort of golden example.  You also continue to compare it to other substances as if that is relevant.  Just because one potentially bad idea thing is already legal doesn't mean the courts or the legislature have a mandate to make things worse by adding to the pile of bad ideas.

Further to the comparison, there is absolutely no reason to use cannabis other then self-intoxication and impairment.  That's not to say that plenty of
people don't binge drink, especially in college, but there is a connoisseur component, and it is entirely possible and not uncommon to drink alcoholic beverages your entire life, in moderation, and never once even be buzzed, let alone drunk.  People don't smoke weed for the appreciation of the craftsmanship of a fine wine, they want to get stoned, and stoned quickly, that or their job at the mine isn't getting the lung cancer fast enough.  That fact alone means they have an impaired ability to make good judgement.

Quote from: Nathan on November 26, 2012, 01:26:42 PM
The real difference is that my generation didn't grow up with ridiculous, misleading videos like this guiding our perceptions of the situation:

You might as well educate us on what is misleading in the video.  It's typical of the era, but I don't see a lot in there that isn't, at it's core, true.

Uh, marijuana is bad, mkay?

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 27, 2012, 12:58:54 AM
Uh, marijuana is bad, mkay?

Is it?

Quote from: PHall on November 27, 2012, 01:49:53 AM

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 27, 2012, 12:58:54 AM
Uh, marijuana is bad, mkay?

Is it?

Per what was the cause of an accident in my neighborhood, my sisters life, her boyfriends life, and one of her friends who is about to make a mockery of herself on one of those "Jerry" type shows: Yes.

I'd be more inclined to attribute the event(s) to poor decision making than an inherent badness in marijuana.
In that respect, it's the same as alcohol.

I've been drinking for about 45 years, and have managed to have zero incidents with long term consequences, and only three short term - a night in the drunk tank in college, and two instances of DUI where nothing happened. The alcohol wasn't at fault. My decision making was.

Should I ever choose to partake in marijuana, I will ensure that the conditions are appropriate, so that there are no measurable consequences. Pretty simple.

   heres a link to some info on marijuana use in india. it describes a society that, for the past several thousand years, has wished for its citizens to use marijuana to help live without fear, without anxiety, free to, to coin a phrase, pursue happiness. a noble concept, indeed.

   http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201106/history-cannabis-in-india (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201106/history-cannabis-in-india)


bill

Quote from: NCRblues on November 26, 2012, 08:52:15 PM

Quote from: Nathan on November 26, 2012, 01:26:42 PM

the conservative viewpoint is about "tradition" and "established culture", and the evidence simply doesn't support the traditional and established view on marijuana. Period. End of story. Done.

I love liberal arguments. The liberal side is "tradition and established culture is wrong and needs to change because WE say so." The 2nd liberal argument is that "everyone does it a little, and it does not hurt like alcohol, so why not?"

These 2 arguments have failed when given over the general American populace time and time again. They make no sense. Change for change sake is beyond worthless, and no, not everyone has tried or does pot. Nathan, you live in one of the most conservative states in the union where you are in the very tiny minority of liberals. Kansas has one of the lowest drug use rates in the nation, and also one of the lowest crime rates, so the "established culture" seems to be working there...

Conservative thinking is supposed to have a basis in empirical rationalized thought, which I think is what Nathan is arguing for.

   for those with an interest in the history of marijuana, i offer this link to "the first twelve thousand years," which does an exceptionally well referenced job of reporting on the interaction between humans and marijuana since the end of the last ice age.

   http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/abel.htm (http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/abel.htm)

   if ur interests are mainly in the legal aspects in the usa, u might jump to section 13....

   http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/13.htm (http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/13.htm)

   i find the arguments of dr woodward, of the ama, particularly convincing, but thats just my opinion.

bill

Quote from: Eclipse on November 27, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
Cite please: What drug can you obtain legally, without prescription, that is more psychoactive then marijuana?

Depends on what you mean by "more psychoactive than marijuana". Two quantitative measures would be toxicity and addictiveness. Unfortunately, alcohol and nicotine are worse than marijuana in both cases. Toxicity is especially telling, as death rates from marijuana overdose are nonexistent. What exactly do you propose?

QuoteYou also continue to compare it to other substances as if that is relevant.  Just because one potentially bad idea thing is already legal doesn't mean the courts or the legislature have a mandate to make things worse by adding to the pile of bad ideas.

The principle here is not that we're making more bad things legal and thus increasing the total "bad ideas". The principle is that prohibition of certain substances can cause more problems than it solves. We previously learned that lesson with alcohol, and we are currently learning it with marijuana.

QuoteFurther to the comparison, there is absolutely no reason to use cannabis other then self-intoxication and impairment.

As opposed to alcohol and cigarettes?

QuoteThat's not to say that plenty of people don't binge drink, especially in college, but there is a connoisseur component, and it is entirely possible and not uncommon to drink alcoholic beverages your entire life, in moderation, and never once even be buzzed, let alone drunk.  People don't smoke weed for the appreciation of the craftsmanship of a fine wine, they want to get stoned, and stoned quickly, that or their job at the mine isn't getting the lung cancer fast enough.  That fact alone means they have an impaired ability to make good judgement.

You should publish these studies of how you have come to these conclusions for the entirety of human-kind. ::)

^ You don't get to redefine the meaning of the words to make your argument, however the comparison you make negates most of the rest of your point.
If nicotine and alcohol were more psychoactive than cannabis, no one would bother with cannabis.

Prohibition only causes more problems when people ignore the law and then hurt themselves with the mental math used to justify their positions.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2012, 01:16:52 AM
^ You don't get to redefine the meaning of the words to make your argument, however the comparison you make negates most of the rest of your point.
If nicotine and alcohol were more psychoactive than cannabis, no one would bother with cannabis.

How can I redefine something you haven't defined in the first place?

QuoteProhibition only causes more problems when people ignore the law and then hurt themselves with the mental math used to justify their positions.

So prohibition wouldn't be a problem if everyone would just obey it. Brilliant.

I suppose I misspoke in my previous post; most people learned the lesson of prohibition and alcohol.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2012, 01:16:52 AM
^ You don't get to redefine the meaning of the words to make your argument, however the comparison you make negates most of the rest of your point.
If nicotine and alcohol were more psychoactive than cannabis, no one would bother with cannabis.

Just like how if acetominophen actually worked, people wouldn't bother buying ibuprofen. Or if Call of Duty 3 was any good, people wouldn't have bothered buying Battlefield 3. Or Miller was any good, people wouldn't bother with Coors. If Kias were really that good, people wouldn't bother with Hondas.

Basically, you're just showing a profound ignorance about this subject, which is unfortunate, since you've attacked the academic approach, which people like me utilize after having a few years studying psychology and the behavior of drugs on the brain. The academic approach would show you WHY you're wrong, so let me help you figure it out.

If you break down "psychoactive", you're saying it's a substance that enters the brain and affects behavior and emotional status. Alcohol does this, St. John's Wort does this (with results about as good as any prescription antidepressent), and so forth. Comparing marijuana to alcohol is somewhat like comparing Ritalin to Percocet. Both are psychoactive, yet the effect on the brain is quite different, and people abuse these drugs recreational for completely different effects.

While alcohol is a depressant, marijuana can affect a person in multiple ways, because it affects the brain in totally different ways. And while alcohol is PURELY recreational, marijuana has been shown to be helpful in managing depression, eating disorders, anxiety, multiple sclerosis, morning sickness, and other various issues.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2012, 01:16:52 AMProhibition only causes more problems when people ignore the law and then hurt themselves with the mental math used to justify their positions.

I'm curious, if there were to be a ban against all unhealthy foods (because it's just a way for people to hurt themselves recreationally for no real reason), would you support it? There's literally no difference in the logic.

Again, unrelated comparisons just to try and make the argument.

Thankfully this will continue to be a non-issue for CAP for the long-term future.

The "I'm right, you're wrong" argument stops working when you're six. The comparisons are completely warranted if you actually know anything about the subject beyond what the 1950's propaganda videos told you.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2012, 01:58:16 PM
Again, unrelated comparisons just to try and make the argument.

How is it unrelated? The concept is very much the same.

Earlier you said that people who drink can be connoisseurs, but people who smoke weed are just looking to get high.

What about the connoisseurs of Cigars? Are they just looking for a buzz?

From my very limited knowledge, I know that MJ can be grown in dozens of different ways, and anything from the soil, to the nutrients, the lighting, the season, and plant genetic mix can apparently make the plant more potent/taste differently.  There are names for these various breeds much like there are names for hookah tobacco mixes.

So besides some long heard mantra of "Drugs are bad, mkay?", what about MJ makes it so much worse than regular tobacco or alcohol?

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2012, 01:16:52 AM
^ You don't get to redefine the meaning of the words to make your argument, however the comparison you make negates most of the rest of your point.
If nicotine and alcohol were more psychoactive than cannabis, no one would bother with cannabis.

Prohibition only causes more problems when people ignore the law and then hurt themselves with the mental math used to justify their positions.

????

Let's ask Mexico how prohibition is working out for them.  Columbia, Ecuidor?

Prohibition does cause problems....you don't stop something simply by making it illegal.....where there is a demand you will find a supplier.

If you want to reduce the drug trade you have to attack the DEMAND side of it not the supply/logistics side of.

As for cannabis vs alcohol....the mental gymnastics used to ban one and promote the use of the other simply astounds me.

The most conservative counties in the State of Colorado voted the measure in. Here in Colorado, to some it was recreational use, to others it was the idea that prohibition doesn't work and the costs associated with it. In regards to the medical use, a good friend of mine has a MJ prescription for chronic pain due to spine issues. It's use has negated the need to take a pain killer for the pain, and then the anti-depressant required for living with the long term chronic pain.

Getting to the point, how will CAP deal with the legalization. Looking at it from an individual use, if people are taking it for chronic pain issues, they have probably stopped most, if not all participation in Emergency Services. Working around Cadets and Aerospace Education activities, no one is going to use it around youth.

Another relevant point, people take prescription medications to function on a daily basis. Some with the same potency as MJ. Opening a prescription bottle and taking your medications with a glass of water has no stigma. Employers still require not to be under the influence when operating equipment, which can effect employment, regardless if prescription or MJ. As far as driving your vehicle, you can be cited for driving under the influence of drugs, prescription or illegal.

: - )

Quote from: FARRIER on November 30, 2012, 01:32:59 AM
Getting to the point, how will CAP deal with the legalization.

The ACTUAL point is...How will CAP deal with what legalization?

Nowhere in the United States is marijuana legal in any way, shape or fashion.  With or without a prescription, it's is still illegal to posses, use, or distribute.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 30, 2012, 01:41:38 PM

Quote from: FARRIER on November 30, 2012, 01:32:59 AM
Getting to the point, how will CAP deal with the legalization.

The ACTUAL point is...How will CAP deal with what legalization?

Nowhere in the United States is marijuana legal in any way, shape or fashion.  With or without a prescription, it's is still illegal to posses, use, or distribute.

Which, AGAIN, no one is arguing.

But considering that there are actual challenges (rather than just debates) occurring, and the general trend toward the liberalization of many social issues, it seems that we are far closer to legalization than we ever have been. And the point I have been making is that CAP (and many organizations, really) may not be in a good position to react to the change.

When you operate on the policy that "drugs are bad" because "drugs are illegal" (two different things), we don't really have a way to handle drugs NOT being illegal anymore. CAP would have no justification for the continued demonizing or banning the use of the drug when it would allow something like alcohol to be consumed at CAP activities (which is why the comparison between alcohol and marijuana IS relevant).

I had been saying for a while now that we never should try to establish a moral value on the drug use itself, but rather say that breaking the law is bad, and with all drug use there comes a health risk. Then we would HONESTLY present that health risk based on credible evidence, as well as risk to career paths that they may be interested in taking. Then, if (and probably when) marijuana does become legal, we don't have to change our drug presentation ONE IOTA. We simply continue to tell them that breaking the law is illegal, and present an honest assessment of the risks of using marijuana, as we currently do with nicotine and alcohol.

It's a much more logical way to prevent the problem from ever occurring, rather than covering our ears and pretending that this problem doesn't exist.

I'm on board with Nathan's post 100%.

Quote from: Nathan on November 30, 2012, 02:37:42 PMBut considering that there are actual challenges (rather than just debates) occurring, and the general trend toward the liberalization of many social issues, it seems that we are far closer to legalization than we ever have been. And the point I have been making is that CAP (and many organizations, really) may not be in a good position to react to the change.

There is currently no "challenge" occurring that affects CAP in anyway, that is the primary fallacy of this entire discussion, nor will there be one in the foreseeable future.  Propagating the idea that there is a challenge at all is actually just a back-door way of pushing the agenda by insinuating it is inevitable, and therefore we must prepare for it, which in turn raises the idea that it is a forgone conclusion.

Quote from: Nathan on November 30, 2012, 02:37:42 PMI had been saying for a while now that we never should try to establish a moral value on the drug use itself, but rather say that breaking the law is bad, and with all drug use there comes a health risk.

Right, because relativism means everyone goes home with a T-shirt and no one feels bad.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2012, 03:09:20 PM

Quote from: Nathan on November 30, 2012, 02:37:42 PMBut considering that there are actual challenges (rather than just debates) occurring, and the general trend toward the liberalization of many social issues, it seems that we are far closer to legalization than we ever have been. And the point I have been making is that CAP (and many organizations, really) may not be in a good position to react to the change.

There is currently no "challenge" occurring that affects CAP in anyway, that is the primary fallacy of this entire discussion, nor will there be one in the foreseeable future.  Propagating the idea that there is a challenge at all is actually just a back-door way of pushing the agenda by insinuating it is inevitable, and therefore we must prepare for it, which in turn raises the idea that it is a forgone conclusion.

Quote from: Nathan on November 30, 2012, 02:37:42 PMI had been saying for a while now that we never should try to establish a moral value on the drug use itself, but rather say that breaking the law is bad, and with all drug use there comes a health risk.

Right, because relativism means everyone goes home with a T-shirt and no one feels bad.

Perhaps CAP will have the ability to set a slightly higher standard than the weakest link view of the rest of the nation.  There are several LE agencies that are "no tobacco" agencies.  If you get caught smoking, chewing or doing anything related to using tobacco.... you are fired.  Even off duty.  I dont see a 501(c)(3) volunteer organization having issues with making MJ restricted, even if it did become legal. 

I can see the tobacco argument. If you physical health is important to the agebcy .

That, and I believe it has to do with the insurance rates they get by having a no tobacco policy.  Regardless of the reasoning behind it, you accept the job knowing the requirements.  You dont like that stipulation, then there is a whole list of other agencies you can apply too.  Just like CAP. You dont like our rules, dont join. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 30, 2012, 07:45:40 PM
That, and I believe it has to do with the insurance rates they get by having a no tobacco policy.  Regardless of the reasoning behind it, you accept the job knowing the requirements.  You dont like that stipulation, then there is a whole list of other agencies you can apply too.  Just like CAP. You dont like our rules, dont join.

Group policies are silly. I figured insurance factored into it, but it shouldn't be hard to have someone pay extra for their habit.

I dont have an issue with it.  But then again, I am also all for cops passing PFTs, doing random drug testing, etc etc.  If you fail, you get shown the door. But thats just me.   However.... Other cops are fine with being grossly obese chain smokers who take psych meds.  And yes.... they are out there. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 30, 2012, 08:16:35 PM
I dont have an issue with it.  But then again, I am also all for cops passing PFTs, doing random drug testing, etc etc.  If you fail, you get shown the door. But thats just me.   However.... Other cops are fine with being grossly obese chain smokers who take psych meds.  And yes.... they are out there.

That would never happen...

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdnbq4rDIT1ql8dcfo1_400.jpg)

WOW I was just kidding and you had to get all serious!!  ;D :clap:

That's quite funny. Too bad it looks like he already has the kid's ID. Lol.

I heard from an old road weary cop one time the following sage advice: "You might be able to outrun a Chevy or a Ford, but you can't outrun a Motorola. If you get lucky and do get away, I"ll still be out there tomorrow and I'll be a lot LESS friendly."

Quote from: ol'fido on December 01, 2012, 12:34:23 AM
I heard from an old road weary cop one time the following sage advice: "You might be able to outrun a Chevy or a Ford, but you can't outrun a Motorola. If you get lucky and do get away, I"ll still be out there tomorrow and I'll be a lot LESS friendly."

BTDT. Not cheap.

(http://militarytimes.com/blogs/flightlines/files/2012/12/00213-copy.jpg)

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 30, 2012, 07:45:40 PM
That, and I believe it has to do with the insurance rates they get by having a no tobacco policy.  Regardless of the reasoning behind it, you accept the job knowing the requirements.  You dont like that stipulation, then there is a whole list of other agencies you can apply too.  Just like CAP. You dont like our rules, dont join.

New rules were issued in March 2012, will get more strict in 2013.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123330658 (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123330658)

"Tobacco use is also prohibited for Airmen in uniform or during school duty hours in formal training courses to include professional military education, officer training school, technical training and inter-service training programs. "