Marijuana Bill Passes Texas House Committee

[Harry]

AUSTIN(CBSDFW.COM/AP) The Texas House of Representatives Criminal Jurisprudence Committee approved a bill Wednesday that would end marijuana prohibition in the state.

Republican state Rep. David Simpson of Longview argues marijuana comes from God and therefore shouldnt be banned by government.

The tea party stalwart has repeatedly championed what he calls the Christian case for legalization.

Marijuana prohibitions days are numbered in the Lone Star State, said Heather Fazio, Texas Political Director for the Marijuana Policy Project. Texas voters recognize that punishing adults for consuming a substance that is safer than alcohol is a waste of law enforcement resources and an affront to individual liberty. It appears most of the committee members agree.

Read more: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/05/06/marijuana-bill-passes-texas-house-committee/

[2012gradUNT]

I never thought I would see the day that Texas, of all places, would be one of the first the legalize mary jane

[Army of Dad]

I never thought I would see the day that Texas, of all places, would be one of the first the legalize mary jane

I wouldn't count on that bill doing anything this session. Time is running out and quite frankly there are more important and popular bills that will get the legislature's attention before this one.

[Cerebus]

I never thought I would see the day that Texas, of all places, would be one of the first the legalize mary jane

You haven't:

A lot of misleading headlines about that marijuana bill.

It got reported out of the Criminal Jurisprudence sub. That's it.

There is zero chance it will ever be brought to the house floor for a debate, much less a vote, much less that 60+ republicans would cross and vote for it.

There isn't even a Senate companion bill.

And, over all of this, Abbott has already said he would veto it if by some act of god it actually came before him.

[Harry]

[oldguystudent]

Dallas has cite and release in place right now. The letter of that law is still a $2,000 fine and a class B misdemeanor, but the reality is that if you go to Deep Ellum on a Friday night, the smoking patios are nearly devoid of cigarettes, but rather filled with glass pipes. The police walk by without a care in the world. Dallas, at least in certain areas, has made pot de facto legal to possess and consume.

I'm no habitual pothead by any means, but I would love the opportunity to indulge every once in a great while without worrying about spending six months in jail and losing my child over the matter. Until then, I'll just have to stick to the legal, obviously much, much less dangerous alcohol.

[UNTFan23]

Even if we were to remove the criminality from Marijuana, companies are still going to fire people (with cause) for coming to work under the influence of weed. Sure, you might get punted to a substance abuse class for the first offense, but if you continually have positive tests your employment with a single company will likely be short lived. I don't see the business community changing its drug abuse policies to align with the legalize weed movement.

[Cerebus]

Even if we were to remove the criminality from Marijuana, companies are still going to fire people (with cause) for coming to work under the influence of weed.

They'll fire you if you come under the influence of alcohol too.

[Quoner]

Even if we were to remove the criminality from Marijuana, companies are still going to fire people (with cause) for coming to work under the influence of weed. Sure, you might get punted to a substance abuse class for the first offense, but if you continually have positive tests your employment with a single company will likely be short lived. I don't see the business community changing its drug abuse policies to align with the legalize weed movement.

I can't come to work drunk either, so, ok.

[ColoradoEagle]

There's a big difference between coming to work high and testing positive for having used it.

[Army of Dad]

There's a big difference between coming to work high and testing positive for having used it.

Either of which is likely to get a person fired.

[oldguystudent]

Even if we were to remove the criminality from Marijuana, companies are still going to fire people (with cause) for coming to work under the influence of weed. Sure, you might get punted to a substance abuse class for the first offense, but if you continually have positive tests your employment with a single company will likely be short lived. I don't see the business community changing its drug abuse policies to align with the legalize weed movement.

Sure, it wouldn't be a protected class. Companies are currently free to test for marijuana and will continue to be free to do so. Scots now fires and will not hire for people who test positive for nicotine. It is their prerogative to do so.

That said, not every company tests for nicotine, not every company tests for THC. The thing about testing for THC is that you can test if it has been in your system, but to my knowledge, there isn't a current test that can test impairment a la the BAC of alcohol.

Ergo, companies that don't currently test for marijuana (most of them above pay-grade cashier and/or motor vehicle operator) aren't going to start. If, however, an employee comes to work exhibiting behavior indicative of being under the influence (which is not what I think anybody here is pining for), then that would indeed be, as it is today, a matter to bring to HR's attention.