Marijuana poll

[detlef]

For the record I am not against legalization, nor am I necessarily for it. I just don't think it's as small an issue as pot smokers tell everyone it is. It's not as simple as that & it does come with some pretty heavy implications.

 

 

How can you possibly compare the lift on beer alcohol percentages with the complete legalization of Josh Gordon, or even alcohol for that matter?

 

 

Exactly my thoughts, although I doubt I would ever do it again. I prefer drinking as I like the taste of various alcohol related products & I get any buzz I might want from that.

 

 

 

You've got to be kidding right? Are you trying to argue that legalizing alcohol did not make it more readily available & cause more people to drink?

Just curious. Have you actually referenced anything credible or even drawn upon personal experience to back up any of your points or are you just tossing around opinions like their facts. I can possibly compare what happened with beer abv with what's going on because it makes sense. We were unable to get what we wanted, then we got it, then we celebrated what we were newly allowed to have, then we went back to being normal. It is my opinion that this is what would happen with pot. Like 10% ale, pot's just not for everyone.

 

You seem to think that the only thing that keeps people from becoming complete stoners is the fact that they're not allowed to have it. I'm saying that those predisposed to being total stoners don't give two poops whether it's illegal or not. That those, like swammi who stopped smoking because it was illegal were likely at a stage in their life where they pretty much couldn't get away with smoking all the time anyway so there's little reason to expect guys like him to hit it more than every once in a while anyway.

 

Are you honestly implying that there's a bunch of people who'd be getting stoned all the time if only it was legal? Why aren't these same people not already drunk all day? That's legal, right? And if they're already drunk all day, what difference does it make? They're already f'ing losers anyway.

Edited March 16, 2009 by detlef

[detlef]

Aren't there already enough annoying little 13 year old potheads? You guys really want that number to triple?

 

 

Whether or not the effects of pot are physically "dangerous" is irrelevant. They are not "good" for a society. Alcohol is legal, but doesn't make it "good". Guys, it is a drug. It has effects. Many of the effects are not conducive to a person contributing to our communities, but rather the opposite.

 

How can any possible good come from this, other than monetary value? Is that monetary value worth the risk of turning our youth into potheads, even more so than they already are?

 

Parents, chime in.

My guess, like booze, is that it would as illegal for 13 year olds then as it is now. And why would the number triple? Don't you think you're arguments would have more impact if you weren't just pulling them out of your ass?

 

For me, the money issue is nice. Both in revenue as well as all the money saved from not having to fight it. However, it really comes down to not having guys like you tell me what is "good" and "bad".

[westvirginia]

For the record I am not against legalization, nor am I necessarily for it. I just don't think it's as small an issue as pot smokers tell everyone it is. It's not as simple as that & it does come with some pretty heavy implications.

 

 

How can you possibly compare the lift on beer alcohol percentages with the complete legalization of Josh Gordon, or even alcohol for that matter?

Exactly my thoughts, although I doubt I would ever do it again. I prefer drinking as I like the taste of various alcohol related products & I get any buzz I might want from that.

 

 

 

You've got to be kidding right? Are you trying to argue that legalizing alcohol did not make it more readily available & cause more people to drink?

 

My understanding is that alcohol use was UP under prohibition. I'd be happy to look at other evidence.

 

[Kid Cid]

If any of our employees other than laborers get three speeding tickets withing two years, they are terminated, regardless of whether they do it on our time or their own time. Our insurance company requires this of us.

 

I'm not sure. How can a company tell an employee that they can not do something that is legal on their own time? I can see the pot smokers of this country uniting as a minority and saying that they are being discriminated against.

 

perch, you probably know more about this than I do so feel free to weigh in on this.

 

An employee/employer relationship is essentially a legally binding contract where the employee gives his or her work to the employer in exchange for monetary and other compensation. It is at either party's discression to terminate this contract although the employee has far more leniency in the reasons that they may terminate it. The employer is bound by a set of rules (i.e. non-discrimination) but has a fair amount of freedom in the reasons for terminating employment.

 

Now if both parties agreed in writing that a condition of employment were that the person remained pot free 24-7 then yes, any failure of a drug test would still be grounds for dismissal, even if the incident occurred during that person's time and not on company grounds. For instance, I can definitely see that still being a condition of a security clearance for government work even if pot were legalized.

[westvirginia]

My guess, like booze, is that it would as illegal for 13 year olds then as it is now. And why would the number triple? Don't you think you're arguments would have more impact if you weren't just pulling them out of your ass?

 

For me, the money issue is nice. Both in revenue as well as all the money saved from not having to fight it. However, it really comes down to not having guys like you tell me what is "good" and "bad".

 

+1 - well spoken

[Perchoutofwater]

perch, you probably know more about this than I do so feel free to weigh in on this.

 

An employee/employer relationship is essentially a legally binding contract where the employee gives his or her work to the employer in exchange for monetary and other compensation. It is at either party's discression to terminate this contract although the employee has far more leniency in the reasons that they may terminate it. The employer is bound by a set of rules (i.e. non-discrimination) but has a fair amount of freedom in the reasons for terminating employment.

 

Now if both parties agreed in writing that a condition of employment were that the person remained pot free 24-7 then yes, any failure of a drug test would still be grounds for dismissal, even if the incident occurred during that person's time and not on company grounds. For instance, I can definitely see that still being a condition of a security clearance for government work even if pot were legalized.

 

It would vary from state to state. Here in Texas I can fire someone for looking at my wife's ass and me not liking it. In other states you have to go through a whole bunch of crap. Having said that I can see testing being problematic if pot is legalized, and i would be willing to bet there would be more than one suit filed by stoners saying that mandatory testing of a legal substance is an infringement on their rights. If there was some way to guarantee that businesses could continue to test, then I would have no problem with legalization.

[Perchoutofwater]

My guess, like booze, is that it would as illegal for 13 year olds then as it is now. And why would the number triple? Don't you think you're arguments would have more impact if you weren't just pulling them out of your ass?

 

For me, the money issue is nice. Both in revenue as well as all the money saved from not having to fight it. However, it really comes down to not having guys like you tell me what is "good" and "bad".

 

When I was 13 I stole booze from my parents liquor cabinet. They didn't have a pot cabinet, so I had to go to the not so nice side of town to see Big Mike and the whole time I was there I would pray that the cops didn't pull up unless Big Mike decided to ass rape me.

[detlef]

When I was 13 I stole booze from my parents liquor cabinet. They didn't have a pot cabinet, so I had to go to the not so nice side of town to see Big Mike and the whole time I was there I would pray that the cops didn't pull up unless Big Mike decided to ass rape me.

Why don't you want to protect 13 year old kids from ass rapings?

[Azazello1313]

as far as levels of consumption, I have to agree with rajn that it seems pretty obvious that Josh Gordon consumption would go up if it were legalized, and that prohibition kept alcohol consumption lower. after some quick digging, I did find this:

 

One important way to evaluate the public health consequences of alcohol policies, then, is in terms of how they affect consumption. In 1932 Warburton pointed out that "except for the first three years, the per capita consumption of alcohol has been greater under prohibition than during the war period [1917-1919], with high taxation and restricted production and sale" (260). Both prohibition and post-prohibition alcohol regulation kept overall consumption down compared with the decades prior to prohibition Indeed, post-prohibition regulatory policies kept alcohol use sufficiently low that it was not until the end of the 1960s, 35 years after repeal, that per capita alcohol consumption rose to the levels of 1915 (Levine and Reinarman, 1993, 1998). Whatever public health benefits prohibition achieved in terms of reducing consumption, alcohol regulation in the 1930s and early 1940s accomplished them as well. Further, this occurred despite the fact that the post-prohibition regulatory system had little or no public health focus, and despite the fact that the liquor industry (like most other U.S. industries) gained increasing influence over the agencies that were supposed to regulate it. In short, alcohol control worked almost as well as prohibition in limiting alcohol consumption, and more effectively than pre-prohibition policies.

 

now, you can read that (and spin it) a few different ways. but what is clear is that you had high levels of consumption in 1915 -- then you had a period where the government got heavily involved, first with some very heavy regulation, then with outright prohibition, then after prohibition with more regulation -- then 35 years after prohibition, consumption was back up to the 1915 levels.

[Kid Cid]

It would vary from state to state. Here in Texas I can fire someone for looking at my wife's ass and me not liking it. In other states you have to go through a whole bunch of crap. Having said that I can see testing being problematic if pot is legalized, and i would be willing to bet there would be more than one suit filed by stoners saying that mandatory testing of a legal substance is an infringement on their rights. If there was some way to guarantee that businesses could continue to test, then I would have no problem with legalization.

 

Like I said before, if it is a known condition of employment I believe you still could test. But I also believe that it would not be imposed industry wide and that you would have to pay a premium to attract people willing to work under that requirement. That would mean you'd have to charge more to cover the expense but you'd hopefully make that up in people seeking you out to do business with given the no tolerance policy. The bottom line is that there is a way to do it if you want to do it. The questionis really, does it make good business sense to add that requirement to your employees. Or more importantly, how much of your current workforce are you willing to lose to impose these types of restrictions on your employees?

 

It's not like you'd be hiding anything from the employee and then suddenly one day announced, "OK, everybody against the wall! Piss test!" Then someone would have a legitimate beef.

[westvirginia]

When I was 13 I stole booze from my parents liquor cabinet. They didn't have a pot cabinet, so I had to go to the not so nice side of town to see Big Mike and the whole time I was there I would pray that the cops didn't pull up unless Big Mike decided to ass rape me.

 

So when Big Mike did ass rape you you prayed the cops would show up?

[detlef]

as far as levels of consumption, I have to agree with rajn that it seems pretty obvious that Josh Gordon consumption would go up if it were legalized, and that prohibition kept alcohol consumption lower. after some quick digging, I did find this:

 

 

 

now, you can read that (and spin it) a few different ways. but what is clear is that you had high levels of consumption in 1915 -- then you had a period where the government got heavily involved, first with some very heavy regulation, then with outright prohibition, then after prohibition with more regulation -- then 35 years after prohibition, consumption was back up to the 1915 levels.

I don't think anyone is arguing that use wouldn't go up at all. Just not as much as some are implying.

[Perchoutofwater]

Why don't you want to protect 13 year old kids from ass rapings?

 

I had to wait until I was 16 before I risked the ass raping, because you had to be able to drive to the seedy side of town. From 13 to 16 I was just stealing booze from mom and dad.

[Azazello1313]

I don't think anyone is arguing that use wouldn't go up at all. Just not as much as some are implying.

 

then we are probably on the same page. I don't think there is any doubt useage would go up, but if the government were smart about it, there is an outside chance they could actually decrease useage among kids. tax and regulate to keep the price high, restrict advertising, increase penalties for black-market selling.

[Missoula Griz]

Aren't there already enough annoying little 13 year old potheads? You guys really want that number to triple?

 

 

Whether or not the effects of pot are physically "dangerous" is irrelevant. They are not "good" for a society. Alcohol is legal, but doesn't make it "good". Guys, it is a drug. It has effects. Many of the effects are not conducive to a person contributing to our communities, but rather the opposite.

 

How can any possible good come from this, other than monetary value? Is that monetary value worth the risk of turning our youth into potheads, even more so than they already are?

 

Parents, chime in.

 

I dont smoke pot. I have in th past, but currently I just drink now and again. I have a 12 year old son. My wife and I talk with him about alcohol and pot. I am honest with him when he asks questions. Recently, he asked me what I thought was worse alcohol or pot. I told him alcohol, but both can be a problem depending on the individual. He asked why is one legal and not the other. My response was pot will be legal in your lifetime. I explained its benefits on cancer patients and other illnesses. In addition, our lawmakers are very biased because alcohol has always been accepted, yet pot is treated like it will lead the person into more heavier drugs once taken. I explained this is no different than alcohol.

 

I told him his uncle has a medical card for pot through the state of Oregon for back pain. He can have up to 3 OZ's at one time.

 

I realize he will make his own choices when he becomes an adult.

[rajncajn]

Just curious. Have you actually referenced anything credible or even drawn upon personal experience to back up any of your points or are you just tossing around opinions like their facts. I can possibly compare what happened with beer abv with what's going on because it makes sense. We were unable to get what we wanted, then we got it, then we celebrated what we were newly allowed to have, then we went back to being normal. It is my opinion that this is what would happen with pot. Like 10% ale, pot's just not for everyone.

 

You seem to think that the only thing that keeps people from becoming complete stoners is the fact that they're not allowed to have it. I'm saying that those predisposed to being total stoners don't give two poops whether it's illegal or not. That those, like swammi who stopped smoking because it was illegal were likely at a stage in their life where they pretty much couldn't get away with smoking all the time anyway so there's little reason to expect guys like him to hit it more than every once in a while anyway.

 

Are you honestly implying that there's a bunch of people who'd be getting stoned all the time if only it was legal? Why aren't these same people not already drunk all day? That's legal, right? And if they're already drunk all day, what difference does it make? They're already f'ing losers anyway.

I'm sorry det, but it seems like perfect common sense to me that legalizing Josh Gordon would greatly increase it's use in the US. Again I was busting your balls when I said I was basing my theory on history vs yours on stoners so no, I did not look it up & no I do not have links to back up my theory although if I had the time to do such research I am more than confident I can find the evidence to support my theory.

 

I'm not saying that everyone will suddenly become stoners, but I am saying the number of people who become stoners will greatly rise. In turn so will the problems that result from any drug use. To use an exaggerated example, if you made crystal meth legal, wouldn't it stand to reason that you would have a relatively large increase in usage, addiction & problems resulting from it?

 

And believe me, I have plenty of personal experience dealing with Josh Gordon and alcohol use, abuse & addiction.

 

My understanding is that alcohol use was UP under prohibition. I'd be happy to look at other evidence.

 

You should take a closer look at web sites you link for examples. Using that site as a source is like claiming Rush Limbaugh is 100% correct about the Democrats. I love the ad at the top of the page. "marijaunabusinessnews.com Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar Josh Gordon industry."

 

as far as levels of consumption, I have to agree with rajn that it seems pretty obvious that Josh Gordon consumption would go up if it were legalized, and that prohibition kept alcohol consumption lower. after some quick digging, I did find this:

 

 

 

now, you can read that (and spin it) a few different ways. but what is clear is that you had high levels of consumption in 1915 -- then you had a period where the government got heavily involved, first with some very heavy regulation, then with outright prohibition, then after prohibition with more regulation -- then 35 years after prohibition, consumption was back up to the 1915 levels.

Thank you Az.

[Capt. Waffle]

If we can by hard liquor, we should be able to buy Josh Gordon, that's of course vauge, but I have never fallen down, puked up my guts and laid in bed the entire next day from puffing alot of Josh Gordon the night before.....and I only go for the chronic....or better yet the Martian Chonicels. The non-legalization of pot is simply arcahic politics at thier best.

[Perchoutofwater]

If we can by hard liquor, we should be able to buy Josh Gordon, that's of course vauge, but I have never fallen down...t.

 

Then you haven't sprinkled the right chit on it.

[rajncajn]

 

then we are probably on the same page. I don't think there is any doubt useage would go up, but if the government were smart about it, there is an outside chance they could actually decrease useage among kids. tax and regulate to keep the price high, restrict advertising, increase penalties for black-market selling.

Balancing the right regulations could possibly work, but I wonder if even that would stop the people who are already selling it to kids.

[Capt. Waffle]

Then you haven't sprinkled the right chit on it.

 

Well, I was not going to go there, but one day, back in the day, before we were all married, we were shrimping in the Port Royal Sound offa Hilton Head Island. We were done for the day, anchored off and under generator power for the night and we had this deck hand that came every year to work the shrimp run in mid may to mid june from Arizona......needles to say, he had some powdered peyote we dusted it with.......that was a heck of an evening to say the least, but a hell'ova lot of fun as well

[Azazello1313]

Balancing the right regulations could possibly work, but I wonder if even that would stop the people who are already selling it to kids.

 

maybe, but think about the demand aspect for a sec. more adults are doing it, it's more expensive, it's regulated and approved by the government....suddenly it's just not very cool.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I am in favor of legalizing it, with the condition that strict punishments (think strong DUI laws) are levied against those that use and endanger the public.

[westvirginia]

You should take a closer look at web sites you link for examples. Using that site as a source is like claiming Rush Limbaugh is 100% correct about the Democrats. I love the ad at the top of the page. "marijaunabusinessnews.com Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar Josh Gordon industry."

 

Note that most of the statistics and research on that site was from fedgov endeavors, they just compiled it.

 

I understand though, you don't want to be bothered with facts. Your mind is already made up.

[Perchoutofwater]

I am in favor of legalizing it, with the condition that strict punishments (think strong DUI laws) are levied against those that use and endanger the public.

 

If you add protections to businesses who's employees use it and do something stupid, then I'd be for it.

[Azazello1313]

Note that most of the statistics and research on that site was from fedgov endeavors, they just compiled it.

 

I only looked at that site for about 20 seconds, but the first thing I noticed when they concluded that alcohol consumption went UP the first few years of prohibition is that the stat they were using as the basis for that claim was alcohol-related deaths. now, to me, it stands to reason that along with prohibition, alcohol-related deaths could easily go up while overall alcohol consumption went down. I mean, once the chit starts being produced in cooter's bathtub, I am sure you run a much greater risk of getting poisoned by it.

 

so, the problem isn't the stats they use, but the weak-ass correlations they draw from them.