If the polls are prophetic...

[Jimmy Neutron]

Pot will be legal in CA...

 

Maybe I should clear a spot in the garden... I bet I'd have a lot of friends come visit from out of state.

 

Oh yeah, and Jerry Brown will be governmor and Meg Whitman will be $170 million poorer without much to show for it. While I am not excited to see Brown win this race, it is somewhat comforting to see that you can't outright buy the CA govenorship.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Jimmy Neutron

[redrumjuice]

8% of the CA populace thinks the state is headed in the right direction, and you vote in another big spending union bound democrat.

 

You deserve what you are getting, mexico light, huge taxes and soon bankruptcy. I would rather give you to mexico than bail your sorry ass state out.

[evil_gop_liars]

8% of the CA populace thinks the state is headed in the right direction, and you vote in another big spending union bound democrat.

 

You deserve what you are getting, mexico light, huge taxes and soon bankruptcy. I would rather give you to mexico than bail your sorry ass state out.

 

Yes, lets remove our economic engine.

[moneymakers]

S and G into the Ocean.

[redrumjuice]

Yes, lets remove our economic engine.

 

 

Not once did I mention Texas.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Not once did I mention Texas.

that reminds me I should go early vote.

[Perchoutofwater]

Interestingly enough the Obama administration has said that they will enforce federal drug laws. I just wish they would enforce federal immigration laws as well. I hate the way our federal government picks and chooses which laws it deems worthy to enforce, and I'm not talking just about the current administration either. How can we have sanctuary cities?

[Jimmy Neutron]

Interestingly enough the Obama administration has said that they will enforce federal drug laws. I just wish they would enforce federal immigration laws as well. I hate the way our federal government picks and chooses which laws it deems worthy to enforce, and I'm not talking just about the current administration either. How can we have sanctuary cities?

 

I've thought about that. How aggressively would the Feds try to combat general legalization in any state - especially in a time of real fiscal problems? Are they really willing to beef up the DEA to patrol the state of CA to bust citizens with less than an ounce in their possession? What other cards might the Fed play to combat legalization? Fed dollars to law enforcement agencies withheld?

[Ursa Majoris]

I've thought about that. How aggressively would the Feds try to combat general legalization in any state - especially in a time of real fiscal problems? Are they really willing to beef up the DEA to patrol the state of CA to bust citizens with less than an ounce in their possession? What other cards might the Fed play to combat legalization? Fed dollars to law enforcement agencies withheld?

Legalize, regulate and control drugs and the criminal problem goes away, saving billions. Apply the same principle to prostitution too, a complete waste of time, money and energy if ever there was one.

[gbpfan1231]

Legalize, regulate and control drugs and the criminal problem goes away, saving billions. Apply the same principle to prostitution too, a complete waste of time, money and energy if ever there was one.

I heard that the cost of rehabbing would more than offset teh savings for what you mentioned - I think the number was $6-$1. I am not 100% of that number though????

[Ursa Majoris]

I heard that the cost of rehabbing would more than offset teh savings for what you mentioned - I think the number was $6-$1. I am not 100% of that number though????

If rehab is offered.

[Perchoutofwater]

Legalize, regulate and control drugs and the criminal problem goes away, saving billions. Apply the same principle to prostitution too, a complete waste of time, money and energy if ever there was one.

 

I agree with you regarding prostitution. I've stated my concerns regarding legalization of drugs before. It has more to do with the exposure I would have as an employer if one of my guys does something stupid than it does with anything else. If you can figure out a way to limit that exposure I'd be all for it. My concern is it's pretty easy to tell if a guy is drunk on a job site. You can smell the booze, their speech is slurred etc... It is much harder to tell if someone is high. Yes you can look for bloodshot eyes, but with so much dust on the typical construction site, almost everyone's eyes are irritated at times. It's not just making sure that they aren't operating heavy machinery either. Sure we can make sure to drug test those on a regular basis, but what about the paint contractors guy that smokes a joint during lunch and falls off a ladder and kills himself or drops a bucket of pain on someones head from three stories up? Am I going to get sued for that?

[Ursa Majoris]

I agree with you regarding prostitution. I've stated my concerns regarding legalization of drugs before. It has more to do with the exposure I would have as an employer if one of my guys does something stupid than it does with anything else. If you can figure out a way to limit that exposure I'd be all for it. My concern is it's pretty easy to tell if a guy is drunk on a job site. You can smell the booze, their speech is slurred etc... It is much harder to tell if someone is high. Yes you can look for bloodshot eyes, but with so much dust on the typical construction site, almost everyone's eyes are irritated at times. It's not just making sure that they aren't operating heavy machinery either. Sure we can make sure to drug test those on a regular basis, but what about the paint contractors guy that smokes a joint during lunch and falls off a ladder and kills himself or drops a bucket of pain on someones head from three stories up? Am I going to get sued for that?

Good points. How about adding a law (to include alcohol) that eliminates all your rights to sue anyone (who hasn't actively harmed you) if you're over some given measure? Kinda like you're automatically in the wrong if you're drunk driving.

[bpwallace49]

drops a bucket of pain on someones head from three stories up? Am I going to get sued for that?

 

I think ANYONE should get to sue a guy that drops a bucket of pain on their head . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

Good points. How about adding a law (to include alcohol) that eliminates all your rights to sue anyone (who hasn't actively harmed you) if you're over some given measure? Kinda like you're automatically in the wrong if you're drunk driving.

 

That would be great and I'd fully support it, though it still doesn't address the harm someone that is high does to someone else and my exposure caused by it.

[Ursa Majoris]

That would be great and I'd fully support it, though it still doesn't address the harm someone that is high does to someone else and my exposure caused by it.

Then simply apply the drunk driving provision - you're drunk, it's your fault and you can be sued.

[Perchoutofwater]

Then simply apply the drunk driving provision - you're drunk, it's your fault and you can be sued.

 

I guess I'm not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that if an employee is drunk or high that they should be sued, but not the people that employ them? Or are you saying that the people that employ them should be sued as well? I just fell legalizing drugs would increase the exposure of employers if one of their employees harms someone while on the job if high.

[Ursa Majoris]

I guess I'm not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that if an employee is drunk or high that they should be sued, but not the people that employ them? Or are you saying that the people that employ them should be sued as well? I just fell legalizing drugs would increase the exposure of employers if one of their employees harms someone while on the job if high.

I'm saying that if you're drunk or high, you can be sued for damages you may cause but you may not sue another e.g. an employer if you come to harm while high.

 

All this is just immediate thoughts and doubtless would require more refinement but in general, treating drugs the same as alcohol strikes me as the way forward. Prohibition never achieved much, IMO.

[Jimmy Neutron]

The way Prop 19 is written now, employers would have no recourse with employees under the influence until thay have an accident. This is what I gleaned from a pros/cons summary published by the state. One of the law enforcement concerns is that there is no Josh Gordon sobriety test equivilent to field sobriety tests for alcohol.

 

Not sure how this would work. Right now, if I suspect someone is drunk, I can legally take them down to the clinic and have them tested. Not sure if I lost the ability to do that under this law with pot or not. Upon first pass of the material I read today, I would lose that ability.

[Rovers]

People that would smoke Josh Gordon on the job would do that if it were legal or not. I don't see a correltaion of legalizing pot to increased usage for people on the job. People that get high will do so given the availabilty of Josh Gordon.

 

The tax money spent on drug enforcement could then be spent on the really bad stuff, coke, meth, heroin. Imagine the tax revenue legalized pot ewould bring in? Not to mention how much could be saved in the cost of incarceratiing of otherwise law abiding citizens. Half of the drug gangs would be rendered impotent.

 

I'd go so far as to say legalizing pot would eradicate the deficit in a decade all on it's own. More than half of the drug trade is in canabis. I think it's about 60% IIRC.

 

Let's see... no deficit, a near fatal shot to the drug smugglers and dealers, all that money now getting taxed, putting the DEA on the more deadly drugs and those dealers, I don't see a down side to legalization. Would it's use incrase? Sure... but the stuff is probably safer than aclchohol. It's been legal in Holland for decades, didn't seem to bring down civilization over there.

 

I don't smoke Josh Gordon, but I used to. I don't see it as a big deal. Legalizing it makes too much sense, so it won't happen.

[Big Country]

I'm saying that if you're drunk or high, you can be sued for damages you may cause but you may not sue another e.g. an employer if you come to harm while high.

 

All this is just immediate thoughts and doubtless would require more refinement but in general, treating drugs the same as alcohol strikes me as the way forward. Prohibition never achieved much, IMO.

 

 

I think what Perch is saying is what if one of his employees was high and caused harm to someone else. Will he as an employer be protected. My guess is no.

 

For example, say you get run down by a Coca-Cola delivery driver (and for simplicity sake, let's say the driver is employed by coke, not an independent trucker, etc.). That person had been drinking. As far as I know, you can go after Coca-Cola as well as the individual for damages as the person was on the job at the time, and thus Coca-Cola is responsible for their actions.

 

If this same person was driving their own car, off the clock, then Coca-Cola has no liability.

[detlef]

I heard that the cost of rehabbing would more than offset teh savings for what you mentioned - I think the number was $6-$1. I am not 100% of that number though????

What reason is there to expect that legalizing pot would lead to more people needing rehab? You either smoke pot or you don't and I can't imagine the illegality has saved anyone from themselves in this regard.

[Rovers]

From my experience, just personal experience mind you, I might have met ONE person in my lifetime that might have needed to get detoxed and rehabbed from pot usage. It's is psychologically addictive for some very few, but not physically addictive. The percentage of pot users who use on a daily basis is very small. This isn't nearly as addictive as nicotine, alchohol or any of the "hard drugs". There is no physical dependence.

 

Ever seen a pot smoker homeless on the street begging for money? To get a fix? Doesn't happen, but it does with virtually every other drug.

 

Holland has a drug problem, but it isn't the pot smokers, or even the hashish smokers, it's the hard drug users. No different from the US.

 

Most of the drug gang related problems are not in hard drugs... it's about pot, because the market is HUGH. The illegality of cannibus makes even less sense than prohihibition did. It promotes gang activity, violence and a slew of other problems that would just about go away if it were legalized. I think I heard on the "Border Wars" show that pot is a 600 BILLION dollar market in the USA. Geeze... we know we can't stop it already, why not just control it instead?

[Chargerz]

At least if pot gets legalized people can smoke their brains out and won't care that Jerry Brown is f*cking up the state.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

.......... It is much harder to tell if someone is high .....

 

 

You're right, and they already are.