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?
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.
Amazon (amazon.com side)'s revenue depends on consumer behavior. If marijuana use in the general population is thought to change consumer behavior in their favor, then they would be foolish not to support it. This effect probably outweighs any worker productivity issues that might be introduced.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Employees are less likely to report an injury if they fear they may fail a drug test and continue working while hurt. In fact, they encourage corporations to not drug test unless they have reason to believe drugs were a contributing factor.
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.
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.
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.)
Anecdotal, but I had a job offer for a software engineering position with McKesson back in 2010 and they told me I would have to pass a drug test in order to obtain the position.
I was a marijuana user at the time, so I took a competing offer that paid less (though ended up being a much better fit for me -- still with the company now 11 years later)
Some of those detox drinks actually do work well. There's also the possibility of using fake piss. Both of these have worked for my friends in the past. The one friend who failed a test used real clean urine, but did not warm it up enough before the test. They just gave him another shot to pass the test.
It varies. I've seen software engineering with a security clearance that didn't require a drug test. Of course, all the friends of your friends were going to be interviewed in person, and they'd be asked about your behavior regarding drugs and more.
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?
At Amazon sure, but what I got from OP's statement was not at Amazon. When I was in Dallas it was pretty routine to get drug tested and I worked for a variety of companies. It was only when I got into product and engineering firms that I stopped getting drug tested.
I wonder how the stats actually hash out. I’m on the east coast and never seen a drug test except for my very first job which was a direct government contract.
I’m in finance now and doubt any of the senior partners could pass drug tests for cocaine much less something as banal as marijuana.
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).
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.
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!
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?"
The University of Maryland Health Center distributed a drug abuse information pamphlet that said some students voluntarily request testing, and that I could ask to be tested at the University health center, so I walked in and did that.
However, the "Urine Czar" Dan Calvin refused to test me because he falsely claimed there was a policy of not testing students who volunteered to be tested, because some of them just wanted to know if they were clean for other tests they were required to take.
After a long frustrating abusive argument in which he kept interrupting me to prevent me from reading a Scientific American article to him that contradicted his lies, he conceded he couldn't counter my arguments, but tried to discourage me from taking and passing the test then turning down the job by claiming that "whatever I did, it would only be a drop in the bucket, and wouldn't mean anything".
I told him that at least it would be a drop in the right bucket.
Then I went over his head, told the director of the Health Clinic about my interaction with him, and she personally walked me down and gave me my urine test immediately, for free.
>I told him that I have been told by many Xerox PARC employees that they would walk, if Xerox instituted random drug testing.
>He said he didn't think they would, that people just talk a lot and never acted on what they believe. He said that Xerox could just hire more people.
(Check out the photo of the Urine Czar's coffee mug on top of his urine storage locker! His official day-to-day duty was observing the penises of college athletes while they urinated into cups, to make sure they didn't cheat. Great work if you can get it, huh?)
When I took the official test at Roche Labs, the lab technician treated me like a criminal, which I described in detail here, but I don't have the inclination to summarize it in detail, because it was so humiliating and physically painful:
Again, I had to go over her head to force her to let me take the test, exactly like at the University health center. She even refused to let me use her phone to call her superior, so I had to walk out to the street and use a payphone, all this while really needing to pee extremely badly. Her superior called her back and forced her to administer the drug test against her will, during which she treated me with spite and contempt.
I passed both tests, then wrote and faxed a letter to the CEO of Xerox Paul Allaire, telling him my story and turning down the job.
When you're pissing in the right bucket against the will of people who want to force you to piss in a cup, it's best to piss as hard and as much as possible.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The progressive-left does not care a lot about their electability either, although socialists have had more recent electoral success than libertarians.
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.
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.
That's unmitigated bullshit and you know it, and you're living in a fantasy world.
Why do you find it necessary to lie like that? Especially when it's so mendacious on its face and so easily disproven.
Trump used to be pro-gay, and claimed during the campaign that he was the best friend of gays, but then he actually "de-evolved" to support and empower the anti-gay evangelical bigots who STILL run the Republican party, so your argument is incoherent nonsense that flies in the face of reality and fools nobody, in the defense of bigotry.
It's really insulting you'd attempt such a poorly executed Gish Gallop, and you don't deserve any proof that you're wrong in response, because you're just making shit up to defend and exonerate terrible bigots.
> but then he actually "de-evolved" to support and empower the anti-gay evangelical bigots who STILL run the Republican party, so your argument is incoherent nonsense that flies in the face of reality and fools nobody, in the defense of bigotry.
I'd love to see something about this
Are you maybe conflating transgender demands vs gay rights?
There is definitely opposition to "gender is what you identify with and not something objective", which I think it's reasonable - there are biologically 2 genders (not including extra chromosome anomalies).
At the same time, everyone is free to believe and say what they want and noone is trying to change that.
The main opposition is around compelling speech according to someone preference not to trigger them or allowing parents to inject hormones in underage kids.
I agree with you but it cuts both ways. GOP and Dems do whatever they think they need to do to stay in power. Hilary Clinton changed her position on LGBT rights when the winds started to blow in a different direction too.
And Donald Trump changed his position on LGBT rights in exactly the opposite direction, but HE was PRESIDENT and LEADER of the Republican Party (and still thinks he is), and his DE-EVOLUTION hurt many people.
Hillary IMPROVED. Trump GOT WORSE. There is no equivalence. They're OPPOSITES.
So no, the Republican Party doesn't get credit for being just the same as the Democratic Party, and it most certainly cuts much worse in one way than the other. So please spare us the false equivalences and revisionist whitewashing of institutionalized GOP bigotry.
Of course they are equivalent because they are completely self serving and insincere. We should want and expect leaders with the courage of their convictions. I don't trust anyone who can change so readily and without second thought when it suits them. They'll just change back again when it suits.
They certainly don't have equivalent intentions or outcomes. So no, they're not equivalent at all, no matter how hard you try to justify and whitewash one-sided Republican bigotry by claiming to know everyone's true motivations. You're still making a false equivalence.
Then name some openly gay Republicans in power, and tell me what they've done to tangibly improve LGBT lives. (Who didn't switch to the Democratic party after coming out, like Charlie Crist, and who don't deny it, like Larry Craig or Lindsey Graham.)
Are the Log Cabin Republicans finally being taken seriously?
Republican LGBTQ rights group’s executive director is the latest to leave after its endorsement of Trump
I'd vote Democrat over Republican every day of the week but it's denialism to pretend this doesn't enable this sociopathic approach to governance. You're appealing to tribalism because it fits your values. I wholeheartedly disagree that this is a healthy way to approach politics.
I'll take a self serving and insincere politician who moves in the right direction over one who moves in the wrong direction every time. Those are absolutely not equivalent.
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.
> 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.
Would it be so bad to ban advertising for unhealthy foods? Anybody who wanted to eat them would still be able to, they just wouldn't constantly be bombarded with the temptation when they may not otherwise have been thinking about it.
I'll reply with a popular joke that should apply to the three current replies about "why would that be bad":
"The doctor told me to stop drinking, smoking and having sex. I asked him if it would make me live longer and he said: no, but the time will feel longer."
So just optimise for what you want, but forbidding these sort of things forces others to leave the same dull life you want to live.
Right, but forbidding advertising them is very different to forbidding them. The idea is to allow people to make a freer choice about what they truly want rather than being influenced into doing them.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!
>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.
>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):
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?
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.
> 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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Smoking weed in your home is already all but legal in Sweden. In the super unlikely case you get caught you pay a small fine and is free to go, the people I know who smoke weed aren't worried about the Police, more annoyed than anything. And regular tobacco smoking has mostly disappeared since it has became so inconvenient.
You mentioned tobacco, which is recently saw laws made against it in Sweden.
I then also take the approach in what laws should then be remove in order not to unfairly "discriminate against certain behavior" (which is sadly so common nowadays).
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.)
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.
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.
Weed smell dissipates way faster in my experience since it doesn't tend to cling as well to fabrics. You smoke a bong in your apartment with the window open, an hour later someone can walk into the room and probably couldn't tell. You smoke one cigarette inside and everything from your clothes to furniture reeks for weeks.
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
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.
Singapore always amazes me. Incredibly well developed with high per capita income but too much of a nanny state. Maybe the people there are happy with some advantages that come with being a nanny state and don't wish to change that.
It was a British colony that after freedom became an electoral one party state. While opposition politics isn't exactly suppressed, there's very little room for it .. socially? As you say, strange place.
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.
They messed up and they should pay. In my eyes people who keep this going are the real criminals and in our interest should be that those people are held accountable for what they done.
If they don't pay, they should do time.
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?