I disagree. I think that the reason "old ex pot smokers" don't legalize it is because there are still too many brainwashed anti-smokers that vote. Most of them AARP members. They also come to power and start to profit off of it being illegal themselves. So what's the benefit of a young lawmaker pissing off his older constituents, and upsetting the money making machine that they joined when they became part of the gov't? _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Normally Jason SSR has good points, but this is bad. You really think people that smoked pot in their younger years are now growing up to vote against it? Maybe they aren't pushing legalization anymore but they certainly aren't the ones out there claiming there's a problem with it.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 5291 City: hendersonville
Posted: Oct 13, 2012 6:15 pm Post subject:
Strangely I have to disagree with Jason and agree with Neo. Everyone knows a hell of a lot more people that smoke pot than they realize, and the education about it grows daily. I do feel we are inching toward legalization, there's just no good guess as to when or what will happen. I just hope they start decriminalizing it more soon, as the last thing we need to waste taxpayer money on is pot.
Interesting fact: In my area(cant speak elsewhere), the "synthetic weed" they came out with is now classified as a higher class than normal weed, even though it was legal a little over a year ago. It's like they're encouraging people to get the real stuff. You will do more time for synth stuff, that is only illegal statewide, than the real, and you will do more time for bath salts than you will for actual meth. I just found that strange. _________________
eeven73 wrote:
At least 50% of the population is retarded so I discount what they think or feel automatically.
I see only one big difference from alcohol regulation.
Unless I am just not informed, I do not know of a simple, cheap, quantitative, instant, roadside measurement (like the breathalizer) that could be used to measure consumption.
'He looked drunk' or 'He failed the 1 leg crane test' is worthless in a DUI charge, without a test to back it up.
The problem with this argument is that this applies whether it is legal or not. Police officers today still have to identify drivers who under are the under influence of any drug that impairs motor function.
Joined: 20 Jan 2003 Posts: 3163 City: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Oct 14, 2012 3:34 am Post subject:
howabouttheiris wrote:
I see only one big difference from alcohol regulation.
Unless I am just not informed, I do not know of a simple, cheap, quantitative, instant, roadside measurement (like the breathalizer) that could be used to measure consumption.
'He looked drunk' or 'He failed the 1 leg crane test' is worthless in a DUI charge, without a test to back it up.
Just look around you. It's not so much of an opinion as an observation. The youth of the 60's smoked lots of weed. Those that didn't were indifferent to it anyway. When they gained control, they didn't want their kids smoking regardless of their previous opinion. So it wasn't legalized in the 80s even though 60's hippies were in charge. The youth of the 80s also pushed legalization. They too partook, but when making the rules, they too did not want this for their kids. Now the people my age who were all "legalize it!" Are now parents and do not want this for their kids. You guys will all grow up and not want it for your kids.
Again, I think prohibiting a substance is stupid, but the will of the old to protect their young will never be silenced.
Plus I think it's a good placebo for rebellion. Keeping it illegal gives the kids something harmless to do in defiance. Tearing tags off mattresses just wasn't cutting it. _________________ TONA
Well if you look at the polls, public opinion has certainly moved on the issue since the 60s. Though it may take some time yet before legalization gains enough support to make it attractive for any mainstream politician to touch.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 5291 City: hendersonville
Posted: Oct 14, 2012 8:03 pm Post subject:
jason_ssr, the problem is, during those times the government was also coming out with hate against marijuana talking about addiction, ruined lives, and the brain cells it kills. They made pot look like it was a horrid substance that will ruin our youth. Only in the recent years have the truths started coming to light. People are starting to realize just how unhazardous the stuff really is. A few people are even seeing how useful the entire plant is in many different industries.
You might remember hearing about lots of people in rehab for pot. What they dont say is the perps are offered to go to rehab or jail. Hmm, where are they gonna choose? Just another way to skew "facts" and slant it their way. Same thing with killing brain cells.
I dont know if it will be soon, but it's get there a step at a time. _________________
eeven73 wrote:
At least 50% of the population is retarded so I discount what they think or feel automatically.
It seems every generation thinks they are a step closer, but none really are. Im not against it, as I said, I think everything should be legal. I just dont think it will ever happen regardless of "facts". Until parents look at these facts, believe its harmless, and say, "I dont mind if my child smokes pot", it wont change. What are the chances of that? Any pot smokers here with children that dont mind if their kids smoke weed? _________________ TONA
jason_ssr, you think everything should be legal? Opiats?
Why make it illegal? Making the law does not stop people from doing or acquring things that are illegal. Most things that are legal can be easily obtained in short time in any major city. All the law does is create a black market that results in violence surrounding the black market.
jason_ssr, you think everything should be legal? Opiats?
Why make it illegal? Making the law does not stop people from doing or acquring things that are illegal. Most things that are legal can be easily obtained in short time in any major city. All the law does is create a black market that results in violence surrounding the black market.
Why make anything illegal? People are going to do it anyway...murder, theft, rape
You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting other people. If you want to do heroine why should the collective power of the people tell you not to. If you spend all your money on heroine and your kids are starving that is not ok. But that would be child abuse or neglect which is a crime in which there is a victim.
I don't think this is necessarily true to any significant extent.
Also, there is a difference between doing something that hurts another person, and doing something that hurts nobody, or just oneself, don't you agree? _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Also, there is a difference between doing something that hurts another person, and doing something that hurts nobody, or just oneself, don't you agree?
Yes I agree, I wrote that to make a point. I think the make it legal because people will do it anyway argument is just dumb.
So how does me owning a rocket launcher hurt anyone? Nooga, do you think it should be legal for me to own a rocket launcher?
Also that person spending all their money on heroine will hurt me, because it will be my tax dollars that are spent supporting his drug addicted a$s
I know you wrote it to make a point, but it is a ridiculous point.
Quote:
I think the make it legal because people will do it anyway argument is just dumb.
That's not the entirety of the "people do it anyway" argument. It really is "people do it anyway, and making it illegal costs the rest of us money and takes resources away from other things."
Quote:
So how does me owning a rocket launcher hurt anyone?
Well, first, it could very well hurt people if you decided to use it, a lot more people than if you decided to use your low capacity magazine rifle.
Second, it makes the job of policing the population more difficult if they are better armed than you... HOWEVER, recently I'm thinking that might not be entirely bad...
Quote:
Also that person spending all their money on heroine will hurt me, because it will be my tax dollars that are spent supporting his drug addicted a$s
I don't think you realize that they cost you MORE money the way it is now, as well as pose a danger to the rest of us. So, the way it is now, they cost us MORE money, and it introduces a potentially dangerous situation. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Second, it makes the job of policing the population more difficult if they are better armed than you... HOWEVER, recently I'm thinking that might not be entirely bad...
CB, that thought you're having is exactly why the 2nd Amendment exists. When the government and police are able to be more heavily armed than its citizens, it does lay the groundwork for all kinds of bad possibilities. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Yes, making a substance illegal does not stop its use by ANYONE who wants to try/use it.
IMO you make everything legal, and allow people\markets regulate use. Just like steroid use is not illegal, but if you want a job in sports you better not use it (yes somewhat poor example, but you get the idea). If you want the capability of retaining a job, or a drivers license or any other designated priviledge, you stay clean.
Again, it creates tremendous demand for clean workers in the workplace. It will work much like the current welfare system in that one can earn a good check for being nothing but clean\honest. After a couple of generations, its all they will know and drug fads will fade.
The great thing is that one can always get clean and join the workforce again. And if one works 7/12s for a few months and wants to take a few months off to sit in his appt and smoke, he can! _________________ TONA
jason_ssr, maybe we should just let the people/markets regulate everything, no regulation at all (anti-trust, environmental, education, healthcare, etc.)
Arent steroids illegal w/o a script? just like opiates?
jason_ssr, maybe we should just let the people/markets regulate everything, no regulation at all (anti-trust, environmental, education, healthcare, etc.)
Arent steroids illegal w/o a script? just like opiates?
They are not a federally banned substance. Look around you, you think the war on drugs includes meatheads?
Im saying they shouldnt be regulating substances/matter/plants/dirt/manure, etc.
Its also foolish and arbitrary to try and regulate inanimate objects like weapons. You can do any amount of damage you like with feed store supplies. _________________ TONA
I'm pretty sure steroids are federall banned and controlled under the Controlled Substance Act, just like opiates.
And yes, sometimes it does feel like the war on drugs includes people who use steroids, just ask Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, the list goes on and on.
So you think its just as easy to make and use a bomb from feed store supplies as it would be to simply purchase and use a rocket launcher? You also think that criminals should be able to freely purchase all types of guns?
According to the all knowing Wiki, steroids are a class III controlled substance:
After a couple of generations, its all they will know and drug fads will fade.
Seems to have worked well for alcohol. Does anyone ever drink anymore? Why, the job market has all but eliminated alcohol use in the united states. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Again, it creates tremendous demand for clean workers in the workplace. It will work much like the current welfare system in that one can earn a good check for being nothing but clean\honest.
Why should people be forced to prove they are "clean"? Shouldn't we judge their actions instead? If they are using drugs but it doesn't affect their performance in any measurable way, should we care?
jason_ssr wrote:
After a couple of generations, its all they will know and drug fads will fade.
People have been using hallucinogenic agents since recorded time, I don't think it's going to go away in the near future no matter what we do.
I'm pretty sure steroids are federall banned and controlled under the Controlled Substance Act, just like opiates.
And yes, sometimes it does feel like the war on drugs includes people who use steroids, just ask Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, the list goes on and on.
So you think its just as easy to make and use a bomb from feed store supplies as it would be to simply purchase and use a rocket launcher? You also think that criminals should be able to freely purchase all types of guns?
According to the all knowing Wiki, steroids are a class III controlled substance:
LOL, so is hydrocodone, and I have a box full of bottles of it in the medicine cabinet (I don't take pain meds but they give me a bottle every time I bust something up).
The attention to athletes is in regards to cheating, not breaking the law by taking them (some were perjury, but that has nothing to do with the drugs themselves).
Its easier (cheaper, more simple)with feedstore products. Full-auto guns are not illegal, its just nobody can afford them. Do we have gangsters doing drive-bys with $25k-$500k full autos? No. RPGs do not have to be affordable to be "legal". In fact, if you were creative enough you could probably get one past the NFA on an AODD Form 1.
The point is banning substances does nothing to curb usage. Banning weapons does nothing to curb destruction.
Neognosis, I know of no companies who ban its employees from drinking alcohol. You dont remember all the drugs we used to hear about growing up that just arent prevalent anymore? remember PCP? They just kinda faded away. _________________ TONA
Again, it creates tremendous demand for clean workers in the workplace. It will work much like the current welfare system in that one can earn a good check for being nothing but clean\honest.
Why should people be forced to prove they are "clean"? Shouldn't we judge their actions instead? If they are using drugs but it doesn't affect their performance in any measurable way, should we care?
Its preventative. Just because a guy can drive a forklift through a obstacle course stoned out of his mind doesn't mean I want him operating that equipment around other workers. Its using what we know these drugs do to your mind, regardless of if we care if its harmful to the individual or not. _________________ TONA
Neognosis, I know of no companies who ban its employees from drinking alcohol. You dont remember all the drugs we used to hear about growing up that just arent prevalent anymore? remember PCP? They just kinda faded away.
We still do shrooms, acid, pot, coke, heroine.
We replaced pcp (which never made sense to me) with crack and meth. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Its preventative. Just because a guy can drive a forklift through a obstacle course stoned out of his mind doesn't mean I want him operating that equipment around other workers. Its using what we know these drugs do to your mind, regardless of if we care if its harmful to the individual or not.
I know it's supposed to be preventative but there are privacy rights that drug testing invades IMO. If you do your job well it should be none of the companies business what you do outside work hours provided you don't do in a public area where it may reflect poorly on the company. Particularly since the drug tests administered are not very good at detecting acute use.
Companies if granted access, will take as much personal information from an employee as possible. I'm digressing a bit here, but there will be a point in the very near future where people can be tested rather quickly for several markers and/or genes of various traits and conditions. This technology already exists and is in use on a smaller scale, and will become more widespread once it becomes cheaper and more comprehensive in terms of genetic markers and their relation to some specific trait/condition. Once they see the value in this information, I would imagine that is certainly something companies would like to know, e.g. which employees are genetically the least likely to cause a workplace disturbance or to remain healthy.
I get that, and its really already begun. Ask anyone who has just completed their 2013 healthcare enrollment for big companies in the US. You now pay an extra premium if you smoke. You also get a substantial credit if you voluntarily take their physical which takes many stats on you not directly related to providing your care, like height, weight, waist size, etc and it tabulates your health risk to the insurance company. If your risk exceeds a certain level, you are assigned a "life coach".
The point is to give people the freedom to do whatever they want to themselves, but still keep the portion of their decisions that can negatively affect others in check. _________________ TONA
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 5291 City: hendersonville
Posted: Oct 15, 2012 3:53 pm Post subject:
microman, as a business owner I think it's in no way an invasion of privacy. At my wood shop one slip means you loose a finger or hand, or hurt someone else. There is no room for error, no .08% BAC before I get pissed. I wont even allow a beer at lunch. You come in with red glazed eyes, you can expect a mouth swab. This is all announced up front in the hiring process. Working here is a voluntary action. Dont agree, there's always the door.
That being said, I really dont care much what people do at home where it affects work 0%. It's their own business. That's why I would never fire someone for failing a piss test after getting hurt(had one guy do it, pissed for insurance, positive for MJ. kept him for months although him/us knowing insurance no longer covered him). I only care if they had it in them at the time.
And microman, if that ever becomes genetically possible, I think the people worth a damn would offer it up sorta like a boost to a resume wouldnt ya think?
Just an FYI on drug tests, I've watched a friend smoke a joint and then pass a mouth swab test. Not exactly what I'd call reliable. _________________
eeven73 wrote:
At least 50% of the population is retarded so I discount what they think or feel automatically.
microman, as a business owner I think it's in no way an invasion of privacy. At my wood shop one slip means you loose a finger or hand, or hurt someone else. There is no room for error, no .08% BAC before I get pissed. I wont even allow a beer at lunch. You come in with red glazed eyes, you can expect a mouth swab. This is all announced up front in the hiring process. Working here is a voluntary action. Dont agree, there's always the door.
pyrocasto I certainly can appreciate that POV and where there may be safety issues I'm more understanding. It just seems to me that drug testing appears to becoming more widespread, even for jobs that involve no safety hazards.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 5291 City: hendersonville
Posted: Oct 16, 2012 6:10 am Post subject:
microman, IMO a resume to check up on, and a background check and I'm happy overall. Background check can simply warn you of absolute losers.
Last guy I was going to hire everything looked good, until I saw that he'd sold more drugs than tony montana, and gets busted every 3-4 years for the last 15...
I think legalization of pot would be helpful in this area, as more companies would care less if someone failed for marijuana(which is probably the most common). _________________
eeven73 wrote:
At least 50% of the population is retarded so I discount what they think or feel automatically.
Texas State Representative David Simpson (R-Longview) introduced a bill on Monday to repeal Texas statutes relating to the prohibition of marijuana. The bill, HR-2156, would strike all language relating marijuana in current Texas laws.
Rep. Simpson continued, “Current marijuana policies are not based on science or sound evidence, but rather misinformation and fear. All that God created is good, including marijuana. God did not make a mistake when he made marijuana that the government needs to fix. Let’s allow the plant to be utilized for good—helping people with seizures, treating warriors with PTSD, producing fiber and other products—or simply for beauty and enjoyment. Government prohibition should be for violent actions that harm your neighbor—not of the possession, cultivation, and responsible use of plants.”
Orly? Wait till someone tells him god made poppy as well...
He's got a good idea, I guess he's forced to couch it such that the baptists don't rise up against him in the next election. _________________
Rhawn wrote:
You should have a less retarded friend read over your posts before you hit "Submit"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum