SCOTUS stikes down key parts of AZ immigration law

[peacepipe]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/arizona-immigration-law-ruling_n_1614067.html

"The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse.Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."some of it stood but some got thrown out.

[orinjkrush]

Immigration

The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

[peacepipe]

Immigration

The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

so,..because the word "immigration" isn't in the constitution SCOTUS was wrong?

[Smiling Assassin27]

Not a knockout, or even a TKO, but Obama admin wins convincingly on points in this case.

[That One Guy]

Not a knockout, or even a TKO, but Obama admin wins convincingly on points in this case.

It all comes down to what happens from here in regards to an illegal being detected. If there's a process by which the identification of an illegal actually leads to action, the law is plenty formidable and nobody won or lost. If anything, at that point, it might've been better for the Feds to let the states keep some of the workload.

However (and this is what I expect), if it became a thing where local police are finding people merely to forward it to the Feds and they just get an "OK, got it, thanks" but nothing ever happens then it's definitely a victory for the White House.

[barryr]

So does this help make our country more secure or we have an even more of a open border system?

[BroncoLifer]

The Court ruled pretty much as I expected -- federal supremacy in border control and immigration is obvious. The real problem is political, not legal.

[barryr]

The Court ruled pretty much as I expected -- federal supremacy in border control and immigration is obvious. The real problem is political, not legal.

You are right I'm afraid. The security of this nation is being compromised for political reasons, which does not make us safer. The states will suffer and be told they can't do anything about it.

[kappys]

So does this help make our country more secure or we have an even more of a open border system?

Doesn't seem like it will change very much. Cops can ask about immigration status but it doesn't seem like they can do very much with it afterwards. Enforcement, it would seem, still rests with the Feds.

[Rigs11]

Mittens said the usual: "obama bad, me good, yet I will not take a stand either way"

[ant1999e]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona. Other parts of the law, including a provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the justices affirmed the federal government's supremacy over immigration policy.

[DBruleU]

Justice Scalia has scathing comments regarding Obama's recent lack of enforcement in illegal immigration.

http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-scalia-arizona-immigration-obama-sb1070-2012-6

In a scathing dissent of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down key provisions of the Arizona immigration law today, Justice Antonin Scalia advocated keeping the entire law in effect and took a shot at President Barack Obama's recent policy shift on deporting some young illegal immigrants.


On Obama's new immigration directive:

The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administra­tion’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc­ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

On the Supreme Court's decision, Scalia wrote that states would have "rushed to the exits" if the Constitution contained the court's ruling:

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.”

Scalia goes on to argue that Arizona was in "complete compliance" with federal law because it had moved to "protect its sovereignty."

"The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce
those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent," Scalia concluded.

[peacepipe]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html

nice try at putting a positive spin to this ruling.

their were 4 provisions in question,3 were rejected,1 was more of a tie,with SCOTUS ruling that they will let stand for the time being & wait to see how it is implemented before making a final ruling on it.

[peacepipe]

Justice Scalia has scathing comments regarding Obama's recent lack of enforcement in illegal immigration.

http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-scalia-arizona-immigration-obama-sb1070-2012-6

In a scathing dissent of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down key provisions of the Arizona immigration law today, Justice Antonin Scalia advocated keeping the entire law in effect and took a shot at President Barack Obama's recent policy shift on deporting some young illegal immigrants.


On Obama's new immigration directive:

The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administra­tion’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc­ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

On the Supreme Court's decision, Scalia wrote that states would have "rushed to the exits" if the Constitution contained the court's ruling:

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.”

Scalia goes on to argue that Arizona was in "complete compliance" with federal law because it had moved to "protect its sovereignty."

"The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce
those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent," Scalia concluded.

he's entitled to his opinion. unless it's a 9-0 vote eitherway, there's always going to be a dissenting view.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/legal-scholar-scalia-has-finally-jumped-shark

Scalia has finally jumped the shark. He claims to respect the founding fathers, but his dissent channels the opponents of the Constitution. Back then, opponents argued that the Constitution denied states their sovereignty by giving too much power to the federal government, as with immigration. Now Scalia echoes their complaints that states are being denied their sovereignty. States are not sovereign when it comes to powers vested in Congress, such as the authority over immigration and naturalization.
It’s mind-boggling to see Scalia rail against the Executive’s power to enforce the law. That is the core role of the president. He, not the state of Arizona, is the enforcer of our laws. Due to limited resources, every executive – state, federal, municipal – must make choices about how aggressively to enforce the law. Cities don’t uniformly ticket every car that parks illegally. States don’t lock up everyone who ever commits a crime. And the federal government simply can’t use its limited funds to enforce every immigration violation without costs to other, more important laws.

Scalia is an originalist: he has his own original view of the Constitution, ungrounded in history and steeped in conservative politics.

[ant1999e]

nice try at putting a positive spin to this ruling.

their were 4 provisions in question,3 were rejected,1 was more of a tie,with SCOTUS ruling that they will let stand for the time being & wait to see how it is implemented before making a final ruling on it.

Wasn't putting any spin on it. Just posted a different article. What was the one thing everyone against this was complaining about? Police asking people about their residency status.
I'm OK with this ruling.

[That One Guy]

he's entitled to his opinion. unless it's a 9-0 vote eitherway, there's always going to be a dissenting view.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/legal-scholar-scalia-has-finally-jumped-shark

This question goes beyond congressional powers, though, because the Feds aren't doing what they're tasked with doing. I don't know if things have been done the same in the past but it really seems like this administration is finding ways to skirt laws since they can't get things sincerely changed through the congressional blockade. That leaves one immigration policy for Obama and, possibly, a completely different policy if Romney happens to win. That's a very slippery slope.

It's the same situation with the DOMA. Is the Justice Department going to have to ramp up to speed and begin defending it again if Romney wins? Beyond any policy considerations, I don't like government being run that way. Too much variation causes problems.

By letting the states assist the Feds in doing Fed tasks, it would happen more efficiently (more people on the ground in those areas participating) and, if the Feds ever lapse because of funding or choice, the policy is still implemented as it was intended when written. If the written form no longer suffices, it should have to be changed.

[peacepipe]

This question goes beyond congressional powers, though, because the Feds aren't doing what they're tasked with doing. I don't know if things have been done the same in the past but it really seems like this administration is finding ways to skirt laws since they can't get things sincerely changed through the congressional blockade. That leaves one immigration policy for Obama and, possibly, a completely different policy if Romney happens to win. That's a very slippery slope.

It's the same situation with the DOMA. Is the Justice Department going to have to ramp up to speed and begin defending it again if Romney wins? Beyond any policy considerations, I don't like government being run that way. Too much variation causes problems.

By letting the states assist the Feds in doing Fed tasks, it would happen more efficiently (more people on the ground in those areas participating) and, if the Feds ever lapse because of funding or choice, the policy is still implemented as it was intended when written. If the written form no longer suffices, it should have to be changed.call your local republican rep. and tell him to work with dems to get something past. thats been the major problem the last 20-30 yrs. GWB had a plan in place & his own party,republicans, revolted against it. this whole states rights/sovierngty crap is exactly that, crap. its within the DOJ authority,that if they believe a law to be unconstitutional they don't need to defend it.

[Spider]

Well imagration is s fed matter ...Just like with the ICC
...D.O.T. still runs the show but each state has their own laws and it is all about revenue ..for example D10 hulldozer ...permits in cali to haul it 32.00 wyoming 1,289 if you stay on I 80 ...right now deportation is up under Obama

[houghtam]

Wasn't putting any spin on it. Just posted a different article. What was the one thing everyone against this was complaining about? Police asking people about their residency status.
I'm OK with this ruling.

My concern with the "papers please" provision is that it raises the potential of racial profiling as an infringement on US Citizens' civil rights.

"There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced...this opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect"

It appears that the Court has left the decision open, so that in the case of this provision, if it is enforced unfairly, that it could also be struck down, as well. My opinion is all it is going to take is one harassing stop of a legal citizen and a charge of racial profiling and the entire law will go out the window.

[houghtam]

This question goes beyond congressional powers, though, because the Feds aren't doing what they're tasked with doing. I don't know if things have been done the same in the past but it really seems like this administration is finding ways to skirt laws since they can't get things sincerely changed through the congressional blockade. That leaves one immigration policy for Obama and, possibly, a completely different policy if Romney happens to win. That's a very slippery slope.

It's the same situation with the DOMA. Is the Justice Department going to have to ramp up to speed and begin defending it again if Romney wins? Beyond any policy considerations, I don't like government being run that way. Too much variation causes problems.

By letting the states assist the Feds in doing Fed tasks, it would happen more efficiently (more people on the ground in those areas participating) and, if the Feds ever lapse because of funding or choice, the policy is still implemented as it was intended when written. If the written form no longer suffices, it should have to be changed.

The Executive Branch is notorious for selectively enforcing Federal laws. This is nothing really new, and isn't even always done on party lines. Both parties have selectively enforced marijuana laws on a Federal level for yeeeeeeeears.

[ant1999e]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-hails-supreme-court-ruling-arizona-immigration-law-171927671.html

President Barack Obama and some of his top Democratic allies in Congress claimed victory Monday after the Supreme Court struck down key parts of a controversial Arizona law aimed at curbing undocumented immigration. But the justices' 5-3 ruling gave Republicans something to cheer by letting stand—for now—a core provision that allows police to check the immigration status of someone they stop. After the ruling, both sides touted the decision as a win.

Why have we made everything a R vs D thing?

[Garcia Bronco]

The Executive Branch is notorious for selectively enforcing Federal laws. This is nothing really new, and isn't even always done on party lines. Both parties have selectively enforced marijuana laws on a Federal level for yeeeeeeeears.

And Obama has "selectively" decide "not to concentrate" on pot. Pot is such a money loser in this country that could be a cash cow.

[houghtam]

And Obama has "selectively" decide "not to concentrate" on pot. Pot is such a money loser in this country that could be a cash cow.

Hey, I agree with you. I didn't say I agreed with every one of Obama's policies...some things he's too unwilling or unable to fight for, and some things he's not far enough left for me.

It's a lot of money we're missing out on, only at the cost of regulating something that many people already do. Almost everyone I know at least that has never tried pot or no longer does, has said legalizing it wouldn't make them start or get back into it.

It'd still be okay for companies to require drug tests as a requirement for employment, it would still be illegal to drive under the influence, and you wouldn't be able to just grow it on your own.

1) Legalize it
2) Regulate it
3) Tax the holy eff out of it
4) :puff:
5) ? ? ? ? ?
6) Profit

[Garcia Bronco]

No doubt. I should have started that "Just like Obama...."

[ant1999e]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/arizona-dissent-scalia-blasts-obama-deportation-stay-immigration-185431255.html

Scalia went on to write:
Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona's estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en­forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari­zona citizens for employment.

[BroncoLifer]

Scalia went on to write:
Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona's estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en­forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari­zona citizens for employment.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.

[gyldenlove]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/arizona-dissent-scalia-blasts-obama-deportation-stay-immigration-185431255.html

California probably has something to say about that.

[gyldenlove]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-hails-supreme-court-ruling-arizona-immigration-law-171927671.html



Why have we made everything a R vs D thing?

Because instead of solid real-politics and keeping Americas best interest at the forefront of political decisions and debate, people have realized that polarizing statements, barefaced lies and shameless moneygrabbing is how politics in America should be done.

There is so very little focus on issues, and so very much focus on personality.

[peacepipe]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/arizona-dissent-scalia-blasts-obama-deportation-stay-immigration-185431255.htmlcouple yrs & no one will remember this. the minority position is never remembered.

[orinjkrush]

a house divided can not stand.

this is how Rome and Athens fell.

we have no direction, we are adrift. if you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.

either eliminate all immigration restrictions or enforce them. pick one.

[Bronco Yoda]

So.... do we get to shoot people or not? And if so, do we have to move to Arizona to do it?

[Boomhauer]

From - http://www.smh.com.au/world/arizona-declares-war-of-attrition-to-force-illegal-immigrants-out-20120626-20z8c.html
Arizona declares war of attrition to force illegal immigrants out
"In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the country's highest court by an 8-0 vote upheld the part of the law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for any reason.

But in a split verdict, the justices also ruled that the three other provisions ... went too far. These three provisions required immigrants to carry immigration papers at all times, banned illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places, and allowed police arrest of immigrants without warrants if officers believed they committed crimes that would make them deportable."

The police are now required to check immigration status, can continue to make arrests for false documentation or lack of identification, always make arrests for the types of crimes whose conviction results in deportation, but can't make arrests based just on being an illegal alien. So everything that goes with being an illegal immigrant will get them arrested, just not their status alone.

[peacepipe]

From - http://www.smh.com.au/world/arizona-declares-war-of-attrition-to-force-illegal-immigrants-out-20120626-20z8c.html
Arizona declares war of attrition to force illegal immigrants out
"In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the country's highest court by an 8-0 vote upheld the part of the law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for any reason.

But in a split verdict, the justices also ruled that the three other provisions ... went too far. These three provisions required immigrants to carry immigration papers at all times, banned illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places, and allowed police arrest of immigrants without warrants if officers believed they committed crimes that would make them deportable."

The police are now required to check immigration status, can continue to make arrests for false documentation or lack of identification, always make arrests for the types of crimes whose conviction results in deportation, but can't make arrests based just on being an illegal alien. So everything that goes with being an illegal immigrant will get them arrested, just not their status alone.

at the end of the day 3 provision were rejected,5-3 or 8-0, they carry the sames weight. one was upheld,but they left left the door open to rejecting it at a later time depending on how it is implemented.

[peacepipe]

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/silver-lining-az-can-only-enforce-pap
This is certainly a silver lining. Despite SCOTUS upholding the "your papers, please" provision in the Arizona immigration law, in practical application, it means the Department of Homeland Security can keep Arizona law enforcement on a very short leash:

PHOENIX (AP) -- For all the declarations of victory, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to preserve the "show me your papers" provision in Arizona's immigration law means the state can enforce the statute only with the help of its chief critic: the federal government.

The court's decision Monday struck down parts of the law, but preserved one that requires local police to check the immigration status of people stopped for various reasons and whom officers believe are in the country illegally.

There was a catch, however. The court decided that officers cannot detain anyone on an immigration violation. That is, unless federal immigration officials say so.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the controversial lawman known for his anti-immigration raids, said he was concerned whether federal agents will decline to pick up some illegal immigrants who are stopped by his deputies.

"I have my suspicions," he said.

Hours after the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security canceled agreements with seven Arizona police departments that deputized officers to arrest people on immigration violations while on street patrol.

Federal immigration officers will help, but only if doing so conforms to the department's priorities, including catching repeat violators and identifying and removing those who threaten public safety and national security, the department said.

[cutthemdown]

And Obama has "selectively" decide "not to concentrate" on pot. Pot is such a money loser in this country that could be a cash cow.

Only 30 million at most use pot regular enough to be a customer base. The problem with thinking its a cash cow is believing it's worth 10-25 bucks a gram for the product. In reality once legal people would grow it themselves and prices would drop. Unless that is you said regular people can't grow and sell to their friends.

It's not like alcohol or ciggarettes, or cigars, that need processing and skill to make into a product people see as good enough to buy.

I just don't see how they enforce the tax, how big business would rule it to make revenue for govt. I think there would be so much weed around it would be dirt cheap and govt would make very little. Local govt could make some saying you need a permit to grow it i guess. Seriously though its not a hard product to produce and is only expensive because its illegal. Make it legal and it probably loses the govt money in the long run. They make more now off the sales tax all the pot growers spend their money on. All that money actually keeps cities in northern calif afloat. Take that revenue away they go under.

What makes you think it would be a big money maker for the govt. Explain to me how they keep price high enough for a tax to make money.

[cutthemdown]

Hey, I agree with you. I didn't say I agreed with every one of Obama's policies...some things he's too unwilling or unable to fight for, and some things he's not far enough left for me.

It's a lot of money we're missing out on, only at the cost of regulating something that many people already do. Almost everyone I know at least that has never tried pot or no longer does, has said legalizing it wouldn't make them start or get back into it.

It'd still be okay for companies to require drug tests as a requirement for employment, it would still be illegal to drive under the influence, and you wouldn't be able to just grow it on your own.

1) Legalize it
2) Regulate it
3) Tax the holy eff out of it
4) :puff:
5) ? ? ? ? ?
6) Profit

How could a company say you can't work if pot was legal? That would also mean then a company could say we don't want drinkers. I think one reason you see Obama not tackle pot, is because its a can of worms.

You legalize it the price drops. People start growing it everywhere. Weed is everywhere and goes mainstream, but govt never makes a ton off it because its so cheap to produce. Also unlike ciggs one joint can get 3-4 people high and most will only smoke a few times a week at most. Then you have employment, can people smoke weed now? and still get a job? If not isn't that discrimination and favorable to drinkers over smokers? Then what about our treaties with other countries to fight trafficking. Can we just on our own change that, and remove weed? Could Mexico then say listen if you guys are sick of the drug war we are too, no more fighting cocaine.

Not to mention the result of dropping weed prices would sort of end a micro economy that has sprung up underground.

I really feel keeping it illegal, but with a punishment that is more slap on the wrist and a big fine. That way if you know you get 6 mos in prison and a big fine, most people won't do it. Price stays high bringing that money into local economies where pot growers spend their money. That sales tax from high priced weed, i mean the money made off weed, spent somewhere else, is IMO bigger then what a tax would be off a legal product.

How much do people think a pack of weed would cost if legal. Don't you think people would just grow a plant each spring and summer? I mean i read you can get 1 pound per plant. How much friggin weed can you smoke. 1 pound would be enough for me and all my friends for a whole yr.

I just don't see it staying expensive.

Still though i have no problem with legalization. Just pointing out its not as easy an issue as people think, and also that it won't be a cash cow for govt.

[kappys]

How could a company say you can't work if pot was legal? That would also mean then a company could say we don't want drinkers. I think one reason you see Obama not tackle pot, is because its a can of worms.
.

Tobacco is legal and companies are well within their rights to refuse to hire or retain smokers on the basis of urine cotinine(nicotine) testing. I don't see why pot would be any different.

[cutthemdown]

Tobacco is legal and companies are well within their rights to refuse to hire or retain smokers on the basis of urine cotinine(nicotine) testing. I don't see why pot would be any different.

Wow i did not know some companies will fire you for smoking cigarettes or a cigar. Have any done that for alcohol yet?

What companies?