Amazon backs marijuana legalization, drops weed testing for some jobs

https://www.reuters.com/technology/amazon-backs-marijuana-legalization-drops-weed-testing-some-jobs-2021-06-02/

by samizdis • 5 years ago

113 126 5 years ago

vmception7• 5 years ago

Laws pass when well funded special interests get behind them.

Put another way, the will of the people never results in anything unless it coincidentally matches the causes of well funded special interests.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

canadianfella• 5 years ago

the will of the people never results in anything unless it coincidentally matches the causes of well funded special interests.

That’s just false.

vmception7• 5 years ago

You want to split hairs over the word never versus little or no independent influence?

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

Clewza313• 5 years ago

Well funded special interests don't operate in a vacuum. Amazon sees the way the wind is blowing, the cost in firing people who are smoking weed recreationally outside work hours, and the profit to be made if they do start selling it, so why not support it?

vmception7• 5 years ago

Right, occasionally the people influence special interests which can be seen here

The Princeton study is pretty clear that the special interests are typically operating in their own vacuum that is way more effective

They break down the types of special interests too. Broad population ones are no different than populist movements with no effectiveness

wutbrodo• 5 years ago

Amazon claims that this is because state laws have been changing, and even if you don't take them at their word, it seems pretty straightforward. Why would they want to get involved in shifting this particular norm? Why didn't they do it before a huge chunk of the country legalized it at the state level?

It just doesn't seem like an especially relevant analysis of this event.

cies5• 5 years ago

Why would they want to get involved in shifting this particular norm?

Indeed they dont. They just want to benefit (instead of being harmed) by the shift. Same we see with "rainbow" colored logos on big corps and big corps supporting "racial equality": they only do so once the norm has largely shifted.

Big corps dont push for social change unless they get better from it (i.e.: makes them look good).

seibelj2• 5 years ago

Libertarians, although a much-derided and mocked perpetual third party in the US political system, have been banging the drum on drug legalization for decades. Plus their opposition to the incarceration state, excessive police power, unconstitutional search and seizure, and their support of gay rights and overall being ideologically supportive of the individual.

What do libertarians predict next? I would suggest the elimination of the modern-day guild system, also known as occupational licensing, as well as the legalization of sex work in various forms. It would not surprise me whatsoever if within 10 years legalized prostitution is a tax-paying and government-supported industry in major coastal cities.

Amazon’s move is a recognition that the laws of the state in regards to drugs are woefully backwards and they - possibly the most litigated and attacked business in the world - doesn’t need to respect these laws.

kube-system3• 5 years ago

The progressive-left has supported a lot of those social issues too. It just wasn’t mainstream enough to get significant Democratic support until more recently. Meanwhile Libertarians never put much consideration into their mainstream palatability.

seibelj2• 5 years ago

The progressive-left does not care a lot about their electability either, although socialists have had more recent electoral success than libertarians.

AlexandrB• 5 years ago

You're giving Amazon way too much credit here. They didn't need to drug test most of their employees in the first place. That policy was their choice.

Also:

Amazon was hit with a proposed class action suit, which claimed that the company was violating a New York City law by testing applicants for jobs at local facilities for marijuana, according to a Westlaw report.

So it seems like their hand was forced by the dissonance between federal and state law. This is not leadership or some kind of principled stand, it's liability minimization.

jjulius• 5 years ago

That's my read as well. It seems like Amazon would rather not deal with having to keep track of where it is and isn't legal to smoke weed, so they're just saying, "Ah, fuck it," almost entirely.

redisman2• 5 years ago

Wow, Seattle based company supports legal weed 8 years after WA legalized it. Golf clap

DonHopkins8• 5 years ago

If Libertarians actually supported gay rights and drug legalization more than low taxes, then they wouldn't vote Republican all the time.

epicureanideal2• 5 years ago

I don’t think it’s such a clearly Democrat vs Republican issue. Plenty of Democrats have been in favor of harsher penalties for drug and other crimes. Biden and Harris among them. The Republicans are of course just as bad on this topic.

I do think the Republicans, especially when they were more heavily influenced by the “religious right” had a noticeably worse position when it came to gay rights. However, that appears to be in the past. Let’s remember that in 2004 even Obama was opposed to gay marriage. Society took a while to evolve on the issue. And both parties have evolved since what they were in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

jokethrowaway2• 5 years ago

I'll explain my reasoning as someone who would have voted liberal ages 30 years ago and not now.

Gay rights are mainstream in both parties these days and not a concern. That would have been a great factor in shifting me to the left.

While I'm much in favour for complete drug legalisation, between the chance of getting legal drugs + higher taxes and no legal drugs + same or lower taxes, I'd always pick the second one.

After legal drugs are a mainstream topic and given for granted, I would have even less arguments for voting liberal.

Conservatives are not great in social policies, liberals are not great in economic policies.

Moreover liberals became against free speech, against gun rights and pro cancel culture which is ruining their only appeal - freedom in social policies. They're also pro in a lot of things I find morally abhorrent, like abortion (infringement on the unborn baby's freedom) and transitioning transgender underage kids.

akomtu• 5 years ago

For many people in the US prisons it must be fun to realize that theyve spent half life behind bars for something that's become legal.

systemvoltage• 5 years ago

For many people in the world - weed is still illegal including most of EU, Asia, Africa, Middle East and Australia. We're making progress. No point in looking back except for the fact that we should learn from it.

tdeck• 5 years ago

I think OP was alluding to the fact that people are still in prison for possession that would now be legal.

kube-system3• 5 years ago

There are apparently a couple of countries that put people to death for cannabis offenses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_canna...

wyldfire• 5 years ago

As US states legalize weed, they tend to free prisoners and expunge records regarding former drug use/possession crimes.

yurishimo2• 5 years ago

That doesn't give any of those people the years they missed behind bars that time back. I think monetary compensation isn't out of the question for the vast majority of those "offenders". I'm not saying you gotta pay them a million bucks each, but $10-20k for each year behind bars would go a long way to helping them get back on their feet. That's a downpayment on a house and less stress on finding a job as fast as humanly possible upon release. If you don't pay them directly, then setup some sort of fund as a category under the unemployment system to provide resources.

Ekaros2• 5 years ago

Weed should be only first step. We should next move to legalizing and taxing all recreational drugs. I don't see why we should treat them any different from ethanol.

vmception7• 5 years ago

The state should be regulating the supply chain at the very least and treat corrupted drugs as an ongoing terrorist attack

Consumers need to know what they are buying and this is not possible under decriminalized frameworks, only recreationally legalized frameworks

Ekaros2• 5 years ago

I'm all for proper regulation and testing. The drugs should provably contain no harmful substances outside approved mixes and should regularly be tested. They also should be uniform strength.

pas• 5 years ago

Not just ethanol, but also caffeine, tobacco, sugar, etc.

sergiomattei• 5 years ago

I'm still a little apprehensive on full legalization of drugs like heroin, but legalizing them would allow the state to build better mechanisms to fight opioid dependence and provide recovery help for those in need, without prejudice.

That would be a massive public health win.

gremlinsinc2• 5 years ago

Don't legalize distribution, but addiction and use by those addicted, it should be treated as a medical issue, NOT a criminal one.

keyle• 5 years ago

I always thought the packing was interesting, with huge boxes for tiny packages... It's about to get even more interesting!

Fatboyrunning• 5 years ago

Amazon's support likely comes because they've identified an opportunity to profit from distribution.

Just another chapter of hypocrisy in the history of drug dealing.

Great news though.

toast0• 5 years ago

Buying marijuana from Amazon seems like a non-starter given their inventory management; I've never used the stuff, but I get the impression that most users would like to know what they're getting, and comingled inventory is like a box of chocolates.

wut42• 5 years ago

Packaged correctly with good product numbers I don't see how this can be an issue.

rorykoehler5• 5 years ago

They won't be legally allowed to comingle. I could be wrong but I read that legal weed needs to tagged and closely tracked from seed to point of sale. I'm sure there are many cases where companies are skirting the rules but I doubt a company as big as Amazon would risk it. They would probably setup siloed distribution infra for weed.

DonHopkins8• 5 years ago

Justin Hall registered bud.com in 1994 when he was a 19-year-old intern working at Wired Magazine. He also published "Justin's Links from the Underground" at links.net, becoming one of the internet's earliest bloggers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Hall

http://www.links.net/

Instead of selling out to Budweiser for peanuts, he stashed it away safely in a cool dry place for later. Now he runs Bud.com as a California benefit corporation delivering recreational cannabis!

https://bud.com

What is bud.com?
bud.com helps you find legal, lab-tested, quality cannabis for delivery in your area.
Order from your smartphone, tablet or computer. Pick from curated products across all categories and price ranges, then proceed to checkout. You'll need to indicate a delivery address, provide a valid ID (21+) for upload, then choose your payment method.
Our customer service team is here to help you have a positive order experience. We look forward to bringing you quality products from local dispensaries.

History of bud.com:

https://bud.com/history-of-bud-com/

I was 19 years old, working as an intern at Wired Magazine in San Francisco. We were launching arguably the first commercial publication on the web; we ran the first banner ads. I learned how to register domains in that office, and I didn’t register very many. I was depressed that justin.com was taken; instead I got justin.org & links.net – both pointed to my personal web site.
A whois lookup shows I registered bud.com on 2 December 1994. It was free to claim; no one had used it before. I had to write a letter explaining what I was going to use it for. I can’t remember what I said I was going to use it for, but I liked pot and I liked the internet so it was fun to have this great, short domain name. I immediately made my email address justin at buddotcom which I’ve used since then. [...]
In 1999 I was contacted by a lawyer Steven M. Weinberg, representing Anheuser-Busch, makers of Bud beer. We chatted by phone: “So, you’re a college student!” Actually I graduated the year before.
He continued: “Well, how does $50,000 sound for bud.com?”
I replied that $50k should be the interest generated by the money someone pays for bud.com. This is a three letter, actual word, dot com domain, and if I’m going to see it on every beer can you make forever, I should at least be well compensated. I remember reading that the marketing budget for Budweiser beer that quarter was $16.1 million. BUD was the company’s stock symbol.
I wasn’t going to sell lightly, and they weren’t going to bid against themselves, so we didn’t get anywhere.

First recorded content on bud.com (check that 1996 archive link to Cyborganic's "spacebar" if you love retro web design):

https://web.archive.org/web/19961219041227/http://www.bud.co...

A story of bud.com:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v9gzfYF6aY&ab_channel=Justi...

I've owned the web domain bud.com since 1994. Here's a story of what I've done with it so far, and what we might do with it together going forward!

stadium2• 5 years ago

Weed testing, or any drug testing for that matter, was never done for corporate employees like software engineers, accountants, and the like.

kodah3• 5 years ago

That is absolutely not true. Maybe in certain areas, but in much of the country a drug test is required for at least software engineering. I don't know about accounting.

Edit: At Amazon that may be true, but OP's statement seemed much wider than that.

URSpider94• 5 years ago

I think OP means “at Amazon”.

wearywanderer2• 5 years ago

Software engineers were not drug tested at Amazon 10 years ago, and as far as I'm aware they never were. In what part of the country are companies required to drug test programmers? I have never heard of this being legally required for programmers anywhere. Maybe if you're working on federal contracts?

sterlind• 5 years ago

much of which country? I live in the US and I've never been drug tested as a software engineer, nor have any of my peers or friends (unless you're getting a security clearance or something.)

bpodgursky• 5 years ago

I had to take a drug test, as a software engineer. Afaik many companies on the receiving end of federal contracts have to drug test employees (or at least, interpret the rules as such).

DonHopkins8• 5 years ago

They certainly used to, and still do in many places. I turned down a job at Xerox PARC in 1990 because of their ill conceived drug testing policy, after taking and passing their drug test. The actual employees at PARC were overwhelmingly against the corporate drug testing policy, and regretted but supported me turning down the job offer, and Xerox eventually changed their ill conceived policy.

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/hemp/urine-saga.html

Conclusion

At both urine tests I've taken (the practice test at the University of Maryland Health Center, and the real drug screening test for Xerox at Bethesda Roche Labs), the person in charge didn't want to let me submit to the test. Both times, I had to ask their supervisors to override their decisions, appealing for special permission to piss in a bottle. I was always forthright about my belief that urine testing is a violation of my privacy, even though I was compromising my principles and submitting to the test anyway.

The way I've been treated in both cases confirms my belief that urine tests are intended to discourage people like me from even applying in the first place. Unfortunatly Xerox didn't notify me of their drug testing policy until after I had applied for the job, been accepted, and chosen a project. Had I known about their drug testing policy in advance, I would have acted on what I believe, by never applying to Xerox for employment.

The people who administer my drug tests treated me as if they didn't expect people like me to ever submit to them, unless we're crazed criminals trying to cheat our way into urine sensative positions. Anyone with the integrity to refuse a urine is in the same class as unqualified applicants and drug abusers: unfit to work at Xerox. The only drug abusers Xerox will employ are those unscrupulous enough to cheat on the test (which is certainly possible despite the chain of custody procedure followed by Roche Labs).

If you don't want you or your children to be treated this way, please help end the drug war!

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/hemp/xerox-letter.html

Dear Mr. Allaire:

In February of 1990, I applied for a summer internship at Xerox PARC by sending in my resume along with recommendations from Ben Shneiderman (faculty and supervisor), P. S. Krishnaprasad (faculty), Mitch Bradley (supervisor), Gudrun Polak (supervisor), and Mark Weiser (faculty, supervisor, and CSL lab director).

I was accepted and invited to join PARC for the summer, and given a list of three projects proposed by groups that wanted to sponsor me. I was excited by all three, and Christian Jacobi's proposal meshed perfectly with my interests and experience. However, when I discussed the position with Eric Bier, I learned that to qualify for the job, I would have to consent to having my urine collected and tested for evidence of drug use.

I object to not being notified of the drug test until after I had applied for the job, been accepted, and chosen a project. The announcement of summer internships at PARC broadcast to the Internet should have mentioned the drug testing requirement, along with the resume and reference requirements, so that I would have known not to apply to Xerox in the first place.

Because I wanted to work at PARC, and I had already gone through much effort to qualify for the job, I took the drug test, against my principles, and passed. I regret taking the test, compromising myself, and selling out to a company that does not respect the privacy of its employees.

I went to Roche Labs in Bethesda, Maryland to submit to the test, where I was treated rudely by the lab technician. She refused to administer the test, but after two hours her supervisor finally intervened and I was permitted to drain my bladder into a specimen jar. I related the details of my experience to Bill Skinner, and he requested that Bethesda Roche Labs be removed from Xerox's list of approved urine collection agencies. But, unfortunately, he could do nothing to address the real problem that most troubles me: Xerox's ill-conceived urine testing policy.

Screening for drug use before employment is an ineffective method of providing a drug free work place. It also invades my privacy, casts doubt on my integrity, and violates my dignity. The policy makes it harder for Xerox to hire good honest people, because it discourages them from even applying for the job. Had I known that Xerox had such a policy, before I had otherwise qualified for and been accepted to the job, I would have been sorry, but would not have wasted my time.

Even though I passed the drug test, and am completely qualified for the summer internship at Xerox PARC, I must turn it down because of the drug testing policy. I couldn't feel good about working for Xerox after the violation of my privacy, the ordeal I've been through, and the lack of respect I've been shown. The decision was a painful one: regardless of the cloud of urine testing hanging over it, Xerox PARC is a most prestigious place, where I could have been exposed to many great ideas, and met some of the best people in the profession.

I wish I could have spent the summer at Xerox PARC, but instead I have taken a full time job at Sun Microsystems, a company that respects its employees enough to provide a drug free work place without invading their privacy. I won't be looking for other employment in the forseeable future, but I would be delighted to hear when Xerox has changed its drug testing policy. Until such a time, I hope that potential job applicants learn about the policy before they decide to apply.

I sympathize with my colleagues who work in positions they would no longer be willing to accept on moral grounds, and who have been forced to compromise their principles because of other responsibilities.

"What are politicians going to tell people when the Constitution is gone and we still have a drug problem?"

-- William Simpson, A.C.L.U.

Sincerely and regretfully,

Don Hopkins

pjc502• 5 years ago

A mandatory test that they refused to let you take? Mind boggling. Unless it's the usual hidden factor, the R word?

raverbashing• 5 years ago

That I know of, one big American oil company with a two-part name used to do it for their worldwide employees (incl. IT employees).

stadium2• 5 years ago

Edit: weed testing at Amazon

wearywanderer2• 5 years ago

10 years ago when I worked for amazon as an SDE, they never drug tested me for anything. I remember that because at the time I would have failed. I guess there was a class component to who they decided test, white collar office workers don't get tested but the blue collar workers did?

lotsofpulp• 5 years ago

It's probably a liability based decision. If someone that works with machinery gets injured or causes damage, the insurance company might have stipulated they will not cover damages (at whatever premium they agreed on) if the company is not drug testing.

rejectedandsad• 5 years ago

I think both are correct. I’ve worked other software jobs that do drug test. From what I remember even Goldman Sachs does for SDEs.

creato• 5 years ago

It is not explicitly a class issue, it is insurance companies looking for any reason to get out of paying a claim, and testing positive for drugs is one of those reasons.

My guess is this comes about because insurance companies will dodge claims due to a positive drug test, but an injured worker could still sue the company. So, companies don't want workers that would test positive for drugs in the event of a work related injury.

Warehouse workers are relatively likely to get injured at work. SDEs are not.

adamcstephens• 5 years ago

Warehouses have a solution for that, which doesn’t require drug testing everyone. If you get injured, you’re required to immediately get a drug test. If you fail, you’re fired and they don’t have to cover anything.

nvoid• 5 years ago

My only objection to the legalization of weed will that the smell is horrific (IMPO!) and it will begin to plague busy streets. How would lawmakers address this because I don't see them making designated areas?

kevinventullo• 5 years ago

I guess a reasonable default would be to only allow it in the same places that cigarette smoking is currently allowed.

vmception7• 5 years ago

That’s what already has happened

xmprt• 5 years ago

Smoking cigarettes is legal but I don't see people smoking in public that often. Besides, most people smoke weed at home so I think the concern, while valid, is overblown.

powersnail• 5 years ago

Weed has a much stronger smell than cigarette; I can easily smell my neighbor's weed when I walk on the sidewalk, even though they are smoking inside, and there are about 10 meters from their house to the sidewalk.

That said, I still support the legalization. As much as I find weed's smell revolting and disgusting, the freedom simply outweighs the concern.

redisman2• 5 years ago

It’s extremely available already so there’s not a big market that’s just waiting for it to be legal and it’s not really an issue in states where it’s legal and easily accessible. Legal weed also enables manufacturing smokeless versions at scale. Edibles and vapes are basically odorless and very popular

yurishimo2• 5 years ago

I think it will go the way of cigarette smoke once full legalization is achieved nationwide. You'll get a whiff occasionally, but as the novelty wears off, most people will smoke indoors in the comfort of their own homes. I think weed inhibits some motor functions too much for it to become commonplace in work places or in public areas like cigarettes were.

There are also vapes, which don't have any of the smell, and coincidentally are much more convenient to smoke in public, likely for that very reason.

I live in a large apartment building. Every once in a while, I'll walk outside my door into the shared indoor hallway and get a whiff of something. This is rare, though if I was a betting man, I would bet that of everyone on my floor, someone is likely smoking every day. Some days it's stronger, other days it's faint. I can't smell it in my apartment at all, and it doesn't seem to linger as long as the area is well ventilated.

Would I prefer it didn't smell? Yes. But, it's not much different than when some other neighbor decides to smoke a brisket on their balcony. It's just a different smell. And for the record, I also don't like the smell of weed.

gary_0• 5 years ago

I live in Canada on a busy urban street, and I don't smell it any more often than I did before it was legalized here. (It might help that our smoking laws disallow smoking anything near building entrances.)

edaemon• 5 years ago

In Oregon where it's recreationally legal it isn't an issue. You'll catch a whiff of it here and there but it's far from common.

cies5• 5 years ago

the smell is horrific

Okay. How do you feel about ciggies, cigars and pipe? That also smells horrendous? Or car exhaust fumes?

The thing here is: you can be against something because it will be "yet another annoying thing"... But that ignores the freedom aspect: if behavior X is less-than-or-equally annoying (unhealthy, addictive, etc.) compared to Y, and Y is legal, then that is a good argument that X should be legal too. If not we get into "unfair discrimination against behavior X" territory.

username904• 5 years ago

Or you make Y illegal as well. Smoking is all but illegal today in Sweden, they banned smoking in restaurants 16 years ago and has since extended that ban to most public places.

rorykoehler5• 5 years ago

We have ICE cars clogging up our cities. I don't think this is a valid argument when looked at in this context.

varispeed2• 5 years ago

Smoking could be still illegal, but vaping doesn't smell - at least the smell don't stay.

Cannabis can also be processed so that the smell is minimal (some medical varieties get such treatment)

graphtrader• 5 years ago

Yes, people should go to jail so you don't have to smell things you don't like.

Unbelievable.

GordonS• 5 years ago

I actually like the smell - depends to some degree on the strain, but it generally it reminds me of pine and juniper.

Also, isn't vaping more popular than smoking these days? When vaping, the smell is greatly reduced, and dissipates in seconds.

bobbytakeitwith2• 5 years ago

Why not just make it outright illegal to advertise substances manufactured for medical or recreational consumption?

I think it would lead to a better common ground to legalization of recreational drugs.

TaylorAlexander2• 5 years ago

I really want the state to get out of the game in messing with drugs. Marijuana shops in California all use advertising to find customers. I’m not sure what we would gain by making that illegal.

bobbytakeitwith2• 5 years ago

I’m not sure what we would gain by making that illegal.

To avoid creating new customers? IMHO, it shouldn't be a goal of society to tempt people into ingesting things that they don't need to.

To me, glorifying substances through marketing doesn't help the consumer. If a person understands that they want to use a substance, they can discover a vendor.

DonHopkins8• 5 years ago

If they don't test weed, how do they know they're getting the best strains?

MonkeyClub• 5 years ago

Ali G in da house

apexalpha• 5 years ago

The e-commerce company's public policy team will be actively supporting The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021 (MORE Act), which seeks to legalize marijuana at the federal level, its consumer boss Dave Clark said in a blog post.

It's so weird that these companies just publicly have full, dedicated teams to support or kill whatevers laws they feel like. Is Amazon even vaguely related to Weed?

nexuist• 5 years ago

Is Amazon even vaguely related to Weed?
The e-commerce company

411111111111111• 5 years ago

The bigger involvement is indirect I think and was also plainly stated in the quote.

Amazon employs humans, which are potential users of this substance. If using this substance significantly reduces the cognitive ability of their workforce, they'd have an issue.

gremlinsinc2• 5 years ago

Is Amazon even vaguely related to Weed

Can you sell it? If so - Amazon is related to it or would like to be.

WesleyHale2• 5 years ago

The real reason behind this is most likely associate retention and the application:hire ratio. I doubt it has any political basis what-so-ever.

bananapub2• 5 years ago

why do US employers have the time, money and energy to do drug testing for anything other than dangerous jobs? it's such a totally bizarre effort to to make, even aside from invading the privacy of your employers.

efficax• 5 years ago

State and Federal requirements. If you want govt contracts you often have to drug test

aerostable_slug• 5 years ago

That has more to do with how the Drug-Free Workplace regs are interpreted by HR & compliance managers.

One can have corporate policy stating the company is a Drug-Free Workplace, that employees are subject to testing for cause (w/ consequences for popping hot), and get your .mil/.gov contract just fine (BTDT).

bananapub2• 5 years ago

how could that be it? lots of government contractors don't do drug tests and don't get sued and do get contracts.

deelowe• 5 years ago

The corporate insurance providers require it. Drug testing allows them to avoid a lot of disability claims. This is also why employers do random drug tests. They want to ensure if someone gets hurt, the insurance will cover the disability pay and medical expense. So, they do their best to ensure no one on payroll is using any illegal substances.

The thing that frustrates me about all this is that none of it has anything to do with safety or well being.

ck2• 5 years ago

I don't care what you do in your own home.

But if you drive stoned, I want you to go to jail.

No, it's not okay.

isoblvck• 5 years ago

hq in Seattle no wonder half the workforce there would be out of a job

Amazon backs marijuana legalization, drops weed testing for some jobs

Related Stories