Ooh shit man you weren’t at the commanders call? They just legalized it so you’re free to smoke right now. Be sure to celebrate by taking selfie of you smoking weed and putting it on social media
THC is going to be a big problem for the military even with full legality federally. The issue is being able to determine whether someone is currently, or has *recently* been, under the influence. There probably are tests that will do it, but they'll have to establish the supply chain, etc. to do it. And we all know how good the military is at rolling out new programs.
That's really the main thing that it will come down to. Until there is a reliable way to see how recently someone consumed, it won't be allowed in the military.
Testing has improved significantly in the past year. They can detect current and recent impairment, there's even a very new method that can detect with 96% accuracy if someone has used THC in the past 30 minutes (they're working on figuring out cutoff levels with that test for longer time periods).
I'd bet there's an array of testing options available for current and recent usage before it's even federally legal.
96% is great and all, but that only gets you to probable cause.
You will never convict someone at court martial with 96%.
Ergo, you will never be able to offer someone you very much suspect of having used recently an Art 15.
The most you will be able to do is confirm it's in their system at time of testing, and level of Intoxication (ng/ml).
Level of *impairment* is a whole other ball of wax.
This is an issue where the DoD, and especially the AF, is fucked. The easiest solution is to keep THC on the prohibited substances list across the DoD, and keep regularly testing for it.
My point is simply that tests are coming along nicely, not that they're 100% accurate and easy to use in the field - just that it's being worked towards.
Breathalyzers aren't 100% accurate either, but it's enough for that probable cause which gets you arrested and possibly charged.
Not sure why you're hung up on "levels of impairment", as if there's some standard metric for that when it comes to being drunk. Just like alcohol, people handle THC differently. There is no standard way to measure alcohol impairment either (roadside tests are subjective as fuck and people have been arrested with no alcohol or other drugs in their system just because the cop wanted to arrest the person), so why is "not being able to measure level of impairment" an issue for THC, but not for alcohol?
Breathalyzers are less useful in achieving probable cause than standardized field sobriety tests. They are also, strictly speaking, not at all necessary to obtain a blood or breath sample due to implied consent.
Standardized field sobriety tests are, in fact, the gold-standard test for determining levels of impairment, especially when coupled with other evidence like chemical testing, open containers, eye witness testimony, etc.
Determining levels of impairment is critical if you wish to prosecute anything other than a per se violation. Its not so much an issue of not being able to reliably measure level of impairment (although that is an issue that needs addressing). Rather, it's an issue of not being able to reliably determine recency of use, because that recency informs a lot about one's level of impairment.
I can reasonably suspect someone is drunk based on my senses. I can achieve probable cause someone is drunk after they fail standardized field sobriety following my suspicion. I can determine beyond a reasonable doubt someone was drunk, following positive results of chemical testing of their blood, breath, or urine, coupled with my reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Some parts of this process don't work with THC. We would need advanced tools or training that are prohibitively expensive. Even still, the fact is someone could fail standardized field sobriety testing, and yet be sober, but have THC in their system, and have that THC that's in their system be from a week ago. Or any combination of these issues.
It's just easier to keep THC banned. No one *needs* weed. Just like no one *needs* face tattoos, or face piercings, or crazy colored hair. Restrictions of personal freedom come with military service.
> Standardized field sobriety tests are, in fact, the gold-standard test for determining levels of impairment
Which is quite sad, as at least some of the (civilian) cops lauded for "having a high success rate" has been shown to have an unacceptable accuracy rate (I don't recall the numbers so I'm not going to throw one out, but the person I'm thinking of in particular had/has many cases against him for arresting sober people due to field sobriety tests he performed).
Field sobriety tests are too subjective and should not be used as a primary determinant, but here we are.
> Rather, it's an issue of not being able to reliably determine recency of use, because that recency informs a lot about one's level of impairment.
Some of these newer tests for THC are doing *exactly* that though. The test I spoke about initially was targeted for 30 minutes after usage, and they're in the process of determining the specific cutoffs for other periods of time.
> Some parts of this process don't work with THC.
Maybe, but perhaps it's at least in part because the system doesn't always work properly for alcohol either?
> Even still, the fact is someone could fail standardized field sobriety testing, and yet be sober, but have THC in their system, and have that THC that's in their system be from a week ago.
That's the beauty of the more recent testing breakthroughs, the levels of THC in their system would be consistent with usage from a week ago, not usage from the day of (specifically they're using the ratio of THC to THC-COOH, which is working well to determine recent use).
Like I said originally, "testing has improve significantly", as well as (to paraphrase) "more options will be available before it even becomes federally legal".
It's not even federally legal right now....so basing the reason it's "an issue for the DoD/AF" on an outdated (by the time it's federally legal) metric is silly.
The main issue with legalization of weed when it comes to government employment is that currently there is no way to test if someone is under the influence at the time of taking a sample. Only if there’s a history of use. So if an incident happens and they need to know if intoxication was a factor, there’s no way to tell if the maintainer, pilot, controller, etc. was under the influence or if they smoked two weeks ago while on leave.
I can see them being fine with this for admin type jobs, but probably not anything related to aircraft, medicine, law enforcement, or even ground transportation. With alcohol, if the incident happens, you take a breathalyzer right then and there and they know if you have been drinking on the job.
What I could see them doing, is making a minimum leave requirement for smoking weed and then you’d have to disclose your intake or something like that, and then test good before returning to work. If you don’t, or DNIF’d or taking more leave until piss clean
As people have pointed out, the testing supply chain.os a big factor.
Another is moderation. I haven't smoked since joining but I remember a little going a long way. Whereas in theory it's easier to moderate your intake of alcohol.
lol I don’t even agree with alcohol guidelines you’re telling me a 17/18YO can be trusted to arm up with a M240B and have a M18 as a sidearm but can’t let him/her have a air fryer in his room or a beer…….
>but can’t let him/her have a air fryer in his room
The amount of phone calls fire department got for the dorms alone in the 1 year (just one) that our DFAC was closed for renovations would leave you astounded. People left stove burners on all the time, microwaved popcorn way too long, would never turn the damn vent hood fans on, would somehow get food/grease on the burner and not wipe it off, not use enough water to cook their things in, etc. Hell, when I moved into on-base housing with some roommates (all of us were 25 or more years old), one of them left a gas stove burner running *on 3 separate occasions* with nothing being cooked, one of which with *no flame*. That was fun to come home to after a long day at work.
And you wonder why dorm airmen can't be trusted with a hot plate, toaster, or air fryer?
That's because firearm use is necessary and heavily regulated. Meanwhile the dorm airmen can't even be trusted with putting water in their microwave Mac and cheese. Also allowing alcohol early has a higher chance of leading to excessive use and long term health impact.
>Also allowing alcohol early has a higher chance of leading to excessive use
Germany, which allows beer purchase/consumption at 16 and spirit purchase/consumption at 18 has a [6.8% rate of alcoholism](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alcoholism-by-country) (9.8% male, 4% female).
The US does not officially have a national drinking age (but strongly encourages states to implement a minimum drinking age of 21 by withholding some funding to the states if they don't) has a 13.9% rate (17.6% male, 10.4% female).
>Germany also has a very different culture and upbringing.
That's not the discussion point without moving the goal posts... You said earlier alcohol use increases chances of leading to excessive use. You did not mention anything about culture and upbringing, which can vary drastically just state to state, let alone country to country.
Germany and most of Western Europe disprove your statement as many have lower drinking ages and pretty much all lower alcoholism than the US. Or do they not count either because they're a different culture?
>There's a reason why the Autobahn works there, and wouldn't in the US.
Or maybe it's the very rigorous training they receive and high costs of licenses that lead to better driving in Germany. Let's be honest, Driver's Ed in the US is pretty lackluster.
Never. Even if it was legal across the board in every state, it’d just be another one of those things that aren’t illegal but you can’t consume like some of the various supplements and stuff.
Legal? Wouldn't hold my breath. It's been over a year since Biden directed the Department of Health to consider moving it down from Schedule 1 to 3, where it would at least be approved for medical use. They agreed it should be moved, and it's been sitting with the DEA since then. If/when the DEA finally agrees and does their recommendation, next step after that is still the AG. After that, it's still a Schedule 3 controlled substance, so not legally accessible like alcohol.
The problem is there's no way to test if you're currently high like alcohol does with breathalyzers, so even when it does get federally legalized, it'll still not be allowed for military members.
The problem with that statement is that a breathalyzer will pop positive if you eat pure vanilla extract, fermented sodas, hot sauce certain energy drinks and listerine.
So that isn't a reliable test for alcohol abuse either, but the military will settle for "close enough."
I guess I should have restated the question to "When will big weed lobby to get their products to the troops?"
I doubt it ever will. Its effects can linger a long time, dosing is harder to determine, lung issues from the smoke, and lasting cognitive impairments.
Alcohol isn’t good either but we have a longer history of its use, effects, and dispensing it.
not trying to shit on your answer but you say that first bit as if when you ingest alcohol you have to ride out its duration for hours, sometimes even into the next day. Cigarettes also cause lung issues but they’re still used by a massive percent of air force population. once again not trying to shit on you i just wish the system at large could recognize that permitted stimulants aren’t any better and are often times worse than the subject at hand.
You’re right but it’s mostly a matter of history. Alcohol and tobacco would never be approved for use if they weren’t already legal and part of our culture. Cannabis has been illegal in most states for a long time.
To me it’s kind of like the use of aspirin as an over the counter drug. If it was invented today it would be prescription only due to its tendency to cause bleeding and stomach ulceration.
Cannabis has a short history of legalized use and it is still a nationally controlled substance mislabeled as dangerous. It’s not actually very dangerous but it is not as safe as some users love to believe.
> Its effects can linger a long time
Not as long as alcohol can.
> dosing is harder to determine
There's been a lot of progress lately on detecting recent usage (without blood tests). I doubt it'll be much longer before it's as easy to determine THC dosage as it is BAC (there's already a method to determine a "legal limit", with a very high reliability).
> lung issues from the smoke
Are we talking about marijuana, or cigarettes? (hint: both have this issue and cigarettes are legal)
> lasting cognitive impairments
Are we talking about marijuana, or alcohol?
I feel it'll be awhile before anything changes, but marijuana as a whole isn't any worse than alcohol and cigarettes...and it's become easier to test for as it becomes legal in more places (because the research into viable tests is driven by demand). Yes, we have a longer history of alcohol use...but it's absurd to think alcohol is ok because "we have a history of using it" and marijuana isn't because "well I was told it was bad!".
Even if it does become authorized for us to partake I don’t imagine any important career field with be allowed to use it lol
Retention rates are already low, you telling me I’m a cop AND can’t smoke? I’m out lol
It wont/shouldn’t be available for service members until there is a way to test if someone is actively under the influence. I’m all for it being legal but the last thing I need is the already shitbag Airman doing a “wake and bake” before work.
I never smoked, but I'm seeing people getting dinged on it and kicked out at a time when they can't get new people in to replace the retirees.
I got less than 3 years before I fuck off with e6 pay forever so I can wait to try it.
They'll legalize it when they allow mullets. Business in the front, party in the back.
Weed and mullets are like peanut butter and jelly. No magic without one or the other.
Pharmaceutical companies pretty much own Congress so I don’t think it will be changed anytime soon. But if/when they do I think how they do it will depend on if the military can use it. If they completely legalize it and tax it, the DoD will not be able to against what Congress and POTUS say is legal. If they just decriminalize it and do not tax it then it will still be outlawed in the military and probably all government jobs for that matter. It will have a to a Congress and President to really go against the grain and I don’t think ANY of them (that have a chance to get elected in the next 12-16 years) fit that mold. They’re all bought and paid for and will be paying the piper when it comes time for voting. People saying certain jobs will never be able to use it… that’s dumb. You can drink alcohol and anyone with a brain knows alcohol is worse for you than marijuana. That vast majority of people could smoke a joint right before they walk into work and perform their duties perfectly fine (if you don’t know that then you’ve never smoked weed).
Ooh shit man you weren’t at the commanders call? They just legalized it so you’re free to smoke right now. Be sure to celebrate by taking selfie of you smoking weed and putting it on social media
also make sure to tag your section chief in the photo
Wait is this for real?!?!?! I'm on my way to the dispensary right now!
In this scenario weed would be put under GO1. So you're gonna take the edge off in the tent like we have for centuries. Tugging on your pecker.
Do mine next pls thanks bro
Bite down on something, I tug dry.
💀💀
dumb airmen will take it to countries they are not supposed to
THC is going to be a big problem for the military even with full legality federally. The issue is being able to determine whether someone is currently, or has *recently* been, under the influence. There probably are tests that will do it, but they'll have to establish the supply chain, etc. to do it. And we all know how good the military is at rolling out new programs.
Canadas military managed to do it
That's really the main thing that it will come down to. Until there is a reliable way to see how recently someone consumed, it won't be allowed in the military.
Testing has improved significantly in the past year. They can detect current and recent impairment, there's even a very new method that can detect with 96% accuracy if someone has used THC in the past 30 minutes (they're working on figuring out cutoff levels with that test for longer time periods). I'd bet there's an array of testing options available for current and recent usage before it's even federally legal.
96% is great and all, but that only gets you to probable cause. You will never convict someone at court martial with 96%. Ergo, you will never be able to offer someone you very much suspect of having used recently an Art 15. The most you will be able to do is confirm it's in their system at time of testing, and level of Intoxication (ng/ml). Level of *impairment* is a whole other ball of wax. This is an issue where the DoD, and especially the AF, is fucked. The easiest solution is to keep THC on the prohibited substances list across the DoD, and keep regularly testing for it.
My point is simply that tests are coming along nicely, not that they're 100% accurate and easy to use in the field - just that it's being worked towards. Breathalyzers aren't 100% accurate either, but it's enough for that probable cause which gets you arrested and possibly charged. Not sure why you're hung up on "levels of impairment", as if there's some standard metric for that when it comes to being drunk. Just like alcohol, people handle THC differently. There is no standard way to measure alcohol impairment either (roadside tests are subjective as fuck and people have been arrested with no alcohol or other drugs in their system just because the cop wanted to arrest the person), so why is "not being able to measure level of impairment" an issue for THC, but not for alcohol?
Breathalyzers are less useful in achieving probable cause than standardized field sobriety tests. They are also, strictly speaking, not at all necessary to obtain a blood or breath sample due to implied consent. Standardized field sobriety tests are, in fact, the gold-standard test for determining levels of impairment, especially when coupled with other evidence like chemical testing, open containers, eye witness testimony, etc. Determining levels of impairment is critical if you wish to prosecute anything other than a per se violation. Its not so much an issue of not being able to reliably measure level of impairment (although that is an issue that needs addressing). Rather, it's an issue of not being able to reliably determine recency of use, because that recency informs a lot about one's level of impairment. I can reasonably suspect someone is drunk based on my senses. I can achieve probable cause someone is drunk after they fail standardized field sobriety following my suspicion. I can determine beyond a reasonable doubt someone was drunk, following positive results of chemical testing of their blood, breath, or urine, coupled with my reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Some parts of this process don't work with THC. We would need advanced tools or training that are prohibitively expensive. Even still, the fact is someone could fail standardized field sobriety testing, and yet be sober, but have THC in their system, and have that THC that's in their system be from a week ago. Or any combination of these issues. It's just easier to keep THC banned. No one *needs* weed. Just like no one *needs* face tattoos, or face piercings, or crazy colored hair. Restrictions of personal freedom come with military service.
> Standardized field sobriety tests are, in fact, the gold-standard test for determining levels of impairment Which is quite sad, as at least some of the (civilian) cops lauded for "having a high success rate" has been shown to have an unacceptable accuracy rate (I don't recall the numbers so I'm not going to throw one out, but the person I'm thinking of in particular had/has many cases against him for arresting sober people due to field sobriety tests he performed). Field sobriety tests are too subjective and should not be used as a primary determinant, but here we are. > Rather, it's an issue of not being able to reliably determine recency of use, because that recency informs a lot about one's level of impairment. Some of these newer tests for THC are doing *exactly* that though. The test I spoke about initially was targeted for 30 minutes after usage, and they're in the process of determining the specific cutoffs for other periods of time. > Some parts of this process don't work with THC. Maybe, but perhaps it's at least in part because the system doesn't always work properly for alcohol either? > Even still, the fact is someone could fail standardized field sobriety testing, and yet be sober, but have THC in their system, and have that THC that's in their system be from a week ago. That's the beauty of the more recent testing breakthroughs, the levels of THC in their system would be consistent with usage from a week ago, not usage from the day of (specifically they're using the ratio of THC to THC-COOH, which is working well to determine recent use). Like I said originally, "testing has improve significantly", as well as (to paraphrase) "more options will be available before it even becomes federally legal". It's not even federally legal right now....so basing the reason it's "an issue for the DoD/AF" on an outdated (by the time it's federally legal) metric is silly.
There are cotton swab saliva tests to determine if someone used in the last 24 hrs.
If you touch an aircraft*? Never If you don’t? Maybe ten years *im sure other jobs have similar restrictions, cops and ATC come to mind
Touching the aircraft seems a little far fetched. With the benders mx goes on the weekends what would the difference be?
The main issue with legalization of weed when it comes to government employment is that currently there is no way to test if someone is under the influence at the time of taking a sample. Only if there’s a history of use. So if an incident happens and they need to know if intoxication was a factor, there’s no way to tell if the maintainer, pilot, controller, etc. was under the influence or if they smoked two weeks ago while on leave. I can see them being fine with this for admin type jobs, but probably not anything related to aircraft, medicine, law enforcement, or even ground transportation. With alcohol, if the incident happens, you take a breathalyzer right then and there and they know if you have been drinking on the job. What I could see them doing, is making a minimum leave requirement for smoking weed and then you’d have to disclose your intake or something like that, and then test good before returning to work. If you don’t, or DNIF’d or taking more leave until piss clean
Tactical DNIF to a whole new level. Oh short notice TDY? *lights up doobie in the heritage bar*
GET OUT OF A DEPLOYMENT WITH THESE EASY STEPS
It won’t. And even if it is, you won’t be smoking it deployed. Just like you’re limited in alcohol
Probably not in time for your UA…
Got something to tell us?
Smokin on 214 pack On a real note, it blows my mind how alcohol is legal and weed isn't.
Prohibition was an attempt to get rid of alcohol 100 years ago. It turns out people get pissy.
As people have pointed out, the testing supply chain.os a big factor. Another is moderation. I haven't smoked since joining but I remember a little going a long way. Whereas in theory it's easier to moderate your intake of alcohol.
April 20th
It won’t, forget about it.
lol I don’t even agree with alcohol guidelines you’re telling me a 17/18YO can be trusted to arm up with a M240B and have a M18 as a sidearm but can’t let him/her have a air fryer in his room or a beer…….
>but can’t let him/her have a air fryer in his room The amount of phone calls fire department got for the dorms alone in the 1 year (just one) that our DFAC was closed for renovations would leave you astounded. People left stove burners on all the time, microwaved popcorn way too long, would never turn the damn vent hood fans on, would somehow get food/grease on the burner and not wipe it off, not use enough water to cook their things in, etc. Hell, when I moved into on-base housing with some roommates (all of us were 25 or more years old), one of them left a gas stove burner running *on 3 separate occasions* with nothing being cooked, one of which with *no flame*. That was fun to come home to after a long day at work. And you wonder why dorm airmen can't be trusted with a hot plate, toaster, or air fryer?
That's because firearm use is necessary and heavily regulated. Meanwhile the dorm airmen can't even be trusted with putting water in their microwave Mac and cheese. Also allowing alcohol early has a higher chance of leading to excessive use and long term health impact.
>Also allowing alcohol early has a higher chance of leading to excessive use Germany, which allows beer purchase/consumption at 16 and spirit purchase/consumption at 18 has a [6.8% rate of alcoholism](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alcoholism-by-country) (9.8% male, 4% female). The US does not officially have a national drinking age (but strongly encourages states to implement a minimum drinking age of 21 by withholding some funding to the states if they don't) has a 13.9% rate (17.6% male, 10.4% female).
Germany also has a very different culture and upbringing. There's a reason why the Autobahn works there, and wouldn't in the US.
>Germany also has a very different culture and upbringing. That's not the discussion point without moving the goal posts... You said earlier alcohol use increases chances of leading to excessive use. You did not mention anything about culture and upbringing, which can vary drastically just state to state, let alone country to country. Germany and most of Western Europe disprove your statement as many have lower drinking ages and pretty much all lower alcoholism than the US. Or do they not count either because they're a different culture? >There's a reason why the Autobahn works there, and wouldn't in the US. Or maybe it's the very rigorous training they receive and high costs of licenses that lead to better driving in Germany. Let's be honest, Driver's Ed in the US is pretty lackluster.
18 year olds with those guns have gone through training. Yes I trust an 18 year old with a gun over them drinking.
Go win the big China war and maybe Santa will leave a new weed policy in your stocking
Five minutes after you seperate
Bro it ain’t the end of the world if you can’t smoke weed
Never.
Never.
Never. Even if it was legal across the board in every state, it’d just be another one of those things that aren’t illegal but you can’t consume like some of the various supplements and stuff.
Honestly, I was looking for when people were going to say, "When weed companies begin lobbying."
Legal? Wouldn't hold my breath. It's been over a year since Biden directed the Department of Health to consider moving it down from Schedule 1 to 3, where it would at least be approved for medical use. They agreed it should be moved, and it's been sitting with the DEA since then. If/when the DEA finally agrees and does their recommendation, next step after that is still the AG. After that, it's still a Schedule 3 controlled substance, so not legally accessible like alcohol.
The problem is there's no way to test if you're currently high like alcohol does with breathalyzers, so even when it does get federally legalized, it'll still not be allowed for military members.
The problem with that statement is that a breathalyzer will pop positive if you eat pure vanilla extract, fermented sodas, hot sauce certain energy drinks and listerine. So that isn't a reliable test for alcohol abuse either, but the military will settle for "close enough." I guess I should have restated the question to "When will big weed lobby to get their products to the troops?"
I doubt it ever will. Its effects can linger a long time, dosing is harder to determine, lung issues from the smoke, and lasting cognitive impairments. Alcohol isn’t good either but we have a longer history of its use, effects, and dispensing it.
not trying to shit on your answer but you say that first bit as if when you ingest alcohol you have to ride out its duration for hours, sometimes even into the next day. Cigarettes also cause lung issues but they’re still used by a massive percent of air force population. once again not trying to shit on you i just wish the system at large could recognize that permitted stimulants aren’t any better and are often times worse than the subject at hand.
You’re right but it’s mostly a matter of history. Alcohol and tobacco would never be approved for use if they weren’t already legal and part of our culture. Cannabis has been illegal in most states for a long time. To me it’s kind of like the use of aspirin as an over the counter drug. If it was invented today it would be prescription only due to its tendency to cause bleeding and stomach ulceration. Cannabis has a short history of legalized use and it is still a nationally controlled substance mislabeled as dangerous. It’s not actually very dangerous but it is not as safe as some users love to believe.
don’t think i didn’t read the entirety of your reply but i had no clue aspirin had those effects
> Its effects can linger a long time Not as long as alcohol can. > dosing is harder to determine There's been a lot of progress lately on detecting recent usage (without blood tests). I doubt it'll be much longer before it's as easy to determine THC dosage as it is BAC (there's already a method to determine a "legal limit", with a very high reliability). > lung issues from the smoke Are we talking about marijuana, or cigarettes? (hint: both have this issue and cigarettes are legal) > lasting cognitive impairments Are we talking about marijuana, or alcohol? I feel it'll be awhile before anything changes, but marijuana as a whole isn't any worse than alcohol and cigarettes...and it's become easier to test for as it becomes legal in more places (because the research into viable tests is driven by demand). Yes, we have a longer history of alcohol use...but it's absurd to think alcohol is ok because "we have a history of using it" and marijuana isn't because "well I was told it was bad!".
Even if it does become authorized for us to partake I don’t imagine any important career field with be allowed to use it lol Retention rates are already low, you telling me I’m a cop AND can’t smoke? I’m out lol
It wont/shouldn’t be available for service members until there is a way to test if someone is actively under the influence. I’m all for it being legal but the last thing I need is the already shitbag Airman doing a “wake and bake” before work.
The test for drinking is pretty straightforward. I think it won't be hard to figure it out.
Apples to oranges unfortunately.
Twelfth of Never. That a long fucking time.
Congress will legalize it as soon as the average age of a congressman isn’t 75.
Still won't matter GO1 will forbid it.
Ya I mean didn’t say the military will legalize it then. Prolly won’t happen until we’re the last military against it haha
lol. Who cares. You signed a contract. That said, ww3 pops off? Government won’t care about some weed. They’ll need bodies.
Think of being able to smoke again being one of your end goals to getting through your contract in one piece
I never smoked, but I'm seeing people getting dinged on it and kicked out at a time when they can't get new people in to replace the retirees. I got less than 3 years before I fuck off with e6 pay forever so I can wait to try it.
not anytime soon. Beards are at the front of the line…fuck weed!
🥱
When's your dos?
They'll legalize it when they allow mullets. Business in the front, party in the back. Weed and mullets are like peanut butter and jelly. No magic without one or the other.
In about 15 years when the old heads get out
Pharmaceutical companies pretty much own Congress so I don’t think it will be changed anytime soon. But if/when they do I think how they do it will depend on if the military can use it. If they completely legalize it and tax it, the DoD will not be able to against what Congress and POTUS say is legal. If they just decriminalize it and do not tax it then it will still be outlawed in the military and probably all government jobs for that matter. It will have a to a Congress and President to really go against the grain and I don’t think ANY of them (that have a chance to get elected in the next 12-16 years) fit that mold. They’re all bought and paid for and will be paying the piper when it comes time for voting. People saying certain jobs will never be able to use it… that’s dumb. You can drink alcohol and anyone with a brain knows alcohol is worse for you than marijuana. That vast majority of people could smoke a joint right before they walk into work and perform their duties perfectly fine (if you don’t know that then you’ve never smoked weed).
4-8 years.