- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yeah, I get that argument but I don't see the sense of funding a policy that has proven to be an expensive utter failure, in the middle of a budget crisis.
Heck possession is still a criminal misdemeanor here, they could cut court costs just be decriminalizing it.
I think the point is that it will bring more money into government coffers if it is legalized and taxed. What the money is actually used for - more government spending, deficit reduction, or tax cuts elsewhere - is a separate issue.
Why, do you have a problem with governmental :roll: spending as quickly as they can get it printed. :shock: I have no idea why that would be?hehehehe
My hard-on for pot goes away when we start talking about all the "responsible" things we could do with the money.
Legalize pot because we want to get high and god damn it we have the right to get high if we ****ing want to!!!
Even from the standpoint of alchoholics. It is good for an alchoholic to smoke weed. It tends to allow them to drink less thus possibly avoiding at least some of the destructive effects of constant alchohol consumption.
The debate on legalizing weed in the White House continues...but would this be a good idea?
Could it prompt further debate on the legalization of other class C drugs?
Why should weed be made acceptable and other class C drugs not?
No because some junky will claim its their right to get ****ed up and how dare an employer refuse to hire them.Would this be a good idea for a productive work force in the US?
Would this be a good idea for a productive work force in the US?
Share your opinions.
I do not think that it is the Government's duty to shape policy around controlling behavior that some may find it objectionable yet harms only the individual doing it .
There are many valid arguments why pot should be legalized, or at least decriminalized. I do not think that taxing the prospective "pot industry" as a new form of Government revenue is one of the better arguments for the ends of legalization; the same goes for a new "pot workforce".
As far as taxing pot goes, the Federal Government is an over-bloated monster that needs to go on a crash-diet, not something new to eat. If pot was legalized, there wouldn't be any new "pot industry" people would just grow their own.
There's a lot of hyperbole on both sides.
Its likely not going to greatly interefere with work.
I'm sure you're not going to have all work places saying "You can come and be high at work". You can't be drunk at work, why would they want you high?
So then for it to have an impact on your laziness at work you'd have to assume that somehow doing it outside of work would hurt.
My guess is, for most people, it would be a lot like alcohol. Yeah, they may smoke after work but they're not probably going to be stoned out of their mind up till 3:00 AM toking out just like they're probably not going to be up till 3:00 **** faced and beer bonging.
The ones that may have a problem are:
1. The ones that already have an addicitive problem to it, with the only difference being now it'll be legal
2. Those that have addictive problems to other things and only don't do pot due to accessability/price/legality/etc. So they're probably trading out one bad vice for another
There's really no reason someone shouldn't be able to have one joint after work to relax for the night and get up and do fine at work the next day any more than them coming home and having a strong Jack and Coke.
Why would such debates stop with the legalization of weed. I do not think crack heads,meth addicts and other junkies are thinking "man if only weed was legal then I wouldn't need to do other drugs'. Booze is legal but yet every pot head thinks weed should be legal.
jamesrage said:No because some junky will claim its their right to get ****ed up and how dare an employer refuse to hire them.
So a company would be wrong for firing a meth addict or crack head as long as that junkie showed up to work sober even though the company doesn't want junkies working for them?Just because substances are legal doesn't mean that employers still can't refuse to hire someone. For example, alcohol is legal...but if I show up to work drunk, I'll probably get fired.
Wrong, British politicians ignored their own scientific committee's recommendation NOT to upgrade it to class B. I am not even from the UK and I know that.Okay. Some British politicians would disagree. Research shows it can harm your memory capacity at a later date, which is why they up-classed it to a B drug.
So a company would be wrong for firing a meth addict or crack head as long as that junkie showed up to work sober even though the company doesn't want junkies working for them?
I support employer's rights, so they can fire any unproductive employees.
I support employer's rights, so they can fire any unproductive employees.
So a company would be wrong for firing a meth addict or crack head as long as that junkie showed up to work sober even though the company doesn't want junkies working for them?
So a company would be wrong for firing a meth addict or crack head as long as that junkie showed up to work sober even though the company doesn't want junkies working for them?
Why not?No.Kaya'08 said:The debate on legalizing weed in the White House continues...but would this be a good idea?
Because such debates should not stop with the legalization of weed. We should stop waging war on drug users, that only makes the problems worse. We should wage war on drugs by reducing demand through education, like we've done fairly successfully with tobacco.Why would such debates stop with the legalization of weed.
Good, because the same logic applies and the use of cocaine should not be illegal either.I disagree with you. I could use this logic for legalizing cocaine.I do not think that it is the Government's duty to shape policy around controlling behavior that some may find it objectionable yet harms only the individual doing it .
This claim about permanent memory loss is almost as old as the drug war itself, but has never been substantiated that I'm aware of. Can you please provide a link to this research?Okay. Some British politicians would disagree. Research shows it can harm your memory capacity at a later date, which is why they up-classed it to a B drug.There are many valid arguments why pot should be legalized, or at least decriminalized. I do not think that taxing the prospective "pot industry" as a new form of Government revenue is one of the better arguments for the ends of legalization; the same goes for a new "pot workforce".
Why not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?