The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: TAB on January 01, 2014, 02:47:06 PM
-
I am going to say about 3 weeks or until some jack ass makes a huge political statement. . all of the statistics for duis and work place accidents are pretty damn scary. Osha ( which is a 4 letter word in my book, but don't tend to pad numbers) just put out the accident records for 2011. 79% of those envoled in work place accidents that resulted in death or sevre bodly injury( unable to work for 6 or more months do to it) test + for pot. 23% of all reports the people tested +( i wonder how many were not even tested.) to me thats pretty damn scary. it also makes me glad i activly drug tested employees. Never had one come up dirty, but had tones not make the preemployment check.
-
Seeing as they had not raided them prior when they were just selling medical marijuana I have to say they won't as long as they are still getting their take.
Mike Mc
-
It's being taxed at 25% so the Feds will probably have to fight the CSP if they want to raid someplace. Estimates are $70-80 million per year for the state. I realize that is just one vacation for the PO(tu)S, but that is pretty meaningful at a state level.
I'm waiting to see how many of these morons lose their jobs because they don't realize that their employer still has rules against it even though it is legal in one state.
-
i know i would have a meeting the 1st day back, giving them a heads up. Then fallow it up 30 days later with a drug test, then 90. piss on the 1st and hair on the second. i would have been warning them last year as well. when i was younger i worked for a loss prevent consultant. Anyways there was a major chain( i won't mention names, but i would be shocked if any one here has not been in one) that had a few stores losing their ass, they could not figure it out. Several mangers, crazy turn over etc etc The 1st thing that we did was store wide drug tests, half the staff either refused or tested dirty. Long story short, the shrink in the store went from ~10% to less the 2 in 6 months and was profitable. Working for them was best hands on knowledge about how employees can make or break you and how to avoid the bad. Got to the point where i could guess correctly 9 out of 10 for people that would test dirty.
-
If TAB thinks Obama will rock the boat of such a loyal party hack in the sunset of his career he is dreaming.
Unless BO needs a distraction from some other fiasco.
Also, TABs OSHA numbers are meaningless since it does not compare how many of the perfectly safe workers would test positive.
the fact that 8 of 10 injured were high takes on a different significance if the uninjured were ALL high.
-
Here in the Peoples Republic, my company can't test anyone unless they work in an area of the plant that is considered "safety related"! It's state law...
That means they can't test me unless I'm injured while in the shop. Anyone on the shop floor, QC inspectors, etc is fair game but I work in engineering so I'm exempt from random drug testing...
There is a big difference between being "high" and having smoked some dope in the last twelve hours. If you've consumed large amounts of anything and go to work, you're not only putting yourself and others in danger, you're also an asshole...
I know plenty of people that still smoke pot and I'd take a bullet for a few and visa versa...
-
actually there have been studys that you can have mood changes and reaction diffrence a week later. I can't speak for drugs, but there was just a study that had drivers that were hung over and drove, they did not do that great. I can't speak for other industrys, but in construction, if there is a serious injury or death, the entire site is tested. It didn't matter what trade or shift. The fatality envoled a 6' ladder and a cualking gun. there is always a huge safety meeting and changes(most of the time just for show.) all but one of the injurys envoled stupidit and/or intoxication. the one that was not was a malfunction of a tool, a blade came apart and and sent fragents every where.
-
actually there have been studys that you can have mood changes and reaction diffrence a week later.
I call bullshit on that one.
Where is a link to said study?
-
it was in a story on yahoo about legalization, i will see if i can find it. ( i read a big chunk of it) I don't need studys to tell me that, a big part of the " what would you do thread" i started was do to how pot changes people and not for the better. don't get me wrong there was a bunch of other crap there too, but that was the reason i started it. i watched people i have known for years litterly change for weeks at a time. All becuase they were getting high for 3-5 days straight at events, they would come back diffrent. Moody, more aggressive, cold( lack of a better word) all around diffrent people. some of the pot now is so much stronger then it was a decade ago and what it was before that. it is addicting, it is a drug and its still illegal. legalizing it is not the answer, nor is the current system, some where inbetween is about right. legalizing it will have lots of "unintend consicincence"
-
I don't need studys to tell me that
Not when you already have drawn your own conclusions.
Hint: "Anecdote" does not equal "data".
i watched people i have known for years litterly change for weeks at a time. All becuase they were getting high for 3-5 days straight at events, they would come back diffrent.
So what? Unless it was your kid, wife or sibling it's really NONE OF YOUR FREAKING BUSINESS!
it is addicting
Again....bullshit.
legalizing it will have lots of "unintend consicincence"
I'm assuming you mean unintended consequences.
And keeping it illegal doesn't have "unintend consicincence"?
Hundreds of Billions have been spent on the "War on Drugs" with nothing to show for it except rights being trampled on, prison populations at levels communist dictators don't reach, drug use increasing and drug quality getting better and less expensive.
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. It has been an epic FAIL at every attempt throughout history.
What people do with their carcass is none of your business. Whether that is whacking off too much, (which means more than you), or getting high or wearing a leather executioner mask while spanking their wife covered in peanut butter.
If they are not harming anyone but themselves...It Is None Of Your Business!
-
This so called "Medical Marijuana" is legal here in Arizona. Where I work, if you have a on the job injury, you are automatically tested for drugs at the same clinic or hospital you go to, in order to receive treatment for the injury. If you test positive for Marijuana you will automatically be fired. Even if you have a "card". Same if you apply and test positive. Our insurance carrier demands it. The whole thing is a ruse.
Also, the ATF has already released a letter a year or so ago, that if you use "Medical Marijuana" it forbids you from purchasing a gun. Get caught with both a CCW, (weapon & card), and a "Medical Marijuana" card in your wallet at the same time, and you're asking for trouble....Federal trouble from the ATF. Especially if the date on the M.M. card is the older of the two. All that for a high? Good luck telling the ATF how they're "infringing" on your Second Amendment rights.
-
it has been proven that it is addictive.
-
This so called "Medical Marijuana" is legal here in Arizona. Where I work, if you have a on the job injury, you are automatically tested for drugs at the same clinic or hospital you go to, in order to receive treatment for the injury. If you test positive for Marijuana you will automatically be fired. Even if you have a "card". Same if you apply and test positive. Our insurance carrier demands it. The whole thing is a ruse.
Also, the ATF has already released a letter a year or so ago, that if you use "Medical Marijuana" it forbids you from purchasing a gun. Get caught with both a CCW, (weapon & card), and a "Medical Marijuana" card in your wallet at the same time, and you're asking for trouble....Federal trouble from the ATF. Especially if the date on the M.M. card is the older of the two. All that for a high? Good luck telling the ATF how they're "infringing" on your Second Amendment rights.
Ruse? Try telling that to the wife of my friend who died of brain cancer. Chemo was leaving him so nauseated that he was losing weight big time. Not good for a guy that started out as skinny kid to begin with. All the Zofran in the world wasn't making his nausea any better.
He didn't like to smoke so he got his card and got some cannibis edibles. He was able to finally EAT.
4473s have had the unlawful drug question for a long time. If you lie on a federal form you are asking for trouble. Al Capone found that out the hard way.
If someone wants to give up their 2A rights, just like if they want to waive their 5thA rights when questioned by police, that's their choice.
IMO, an employer has every right to test for drugs and fire those that use them - nobody sentenced them to work there. If someone wants to risk that for a high, that's their choice.
If the .gov removed the restrictions on EVERY drug known, (like the old days when the percentage of addicts was lower than it is now), an employer would still have the right to demand you be clean.
Works the same way with alcohol now.
-
Kmitch... He's not going to get it.... Personal freedom is lost on the boy!
-
strike one just happen. fox is reporting a 2 year old hospitalized for eating pot. reports say she found a cookie, not sure if thats true or not. It is pluasable, but so is it was in her home.
-
You can't legislate stupidity either, TAB!
-
no they can't, but does not stop them from trying.
-
no they can't, but does not stop them from trying.
At last we agree on something...
-
why are there laws against shooting a gun in the air? we all know its dangerous and unsafe, yet people don't care and do it anyways. With personal freedoms also comes responicablitys. a big one with owning a gun, is not using it in a unsafe manor. i think we all agree with thay.
-
<snip>
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. It has been an epic FAIL at every attempt throughout history. <snip>
Without jumping into the pot thing at all...other than whatever is truly medicine should be medicine... I'm disagreeing with "YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY."
Take a deep breath and let me explain in the illustration below.
That statement, "YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.", is used ad infinitum, ad nauseam by the left to justify their "beliefs" and it's caught on with the mainstream. It just isn't true. We legislate morality every day....often times we break our own beliefs and mores and sometimes it is our fellow citizen. What law do we have on the individual/interpersonal level (not regulations, like taxes, codes, etc..though some do count) that is not legislating morality?
For instance...stop signs. Let's take this a step..."everyone" agrees that we should have sensible stop signs and speed limits, right? Its to protect the population at large...makes sense, right? I can say that is your morality...why should I have to stop? What gives you the right to impede me? So what if grandma get's fileted wide open when I run over her....the dumb witch should have stopped for Mr. Me, so it's her fault. She was dead wrong to drive in front of Mr. Me....so what if she bought it? Mr. Me...hey, I don't care there is nothing wrong with wiping the old bat out from my morale standpoint. What is it that makes your belief morally superior to mine?
But, you say, "everyone" can agree that you are aberrant and should bow to the law of stop signs, speed limits, etc. That is your morality and the morality of those who agree with you....Mr. Me has a different morality. What gives you the right to tell me what is wrong or right? That is you legislating morality and what gives you the right to make Mr. Me accept your morale standard....I don't care grandma is gone, that's your morality not mine.
So...I don't buy that "you can't legislate morality." It is done every day in thousands and thousands of ways.
I'm just sayin'......
-
morality
n, pl -ties
1. the quality of being moral
2. conformity, or degree of conformity, to conventional standards of moral conduct
3. (Philosophy) a system of moral principles
4. (Education) an instruction or lesson in morals
Break it down to it's basics and morals differ for every human on the planet. Society determines what the morality is for a giveN society... I live to a standard of my own morals and common sense!
Therefor, I can't legislate morality, ergo..being as I am the government, neither can we/they/us.... ;)
-
Rastus, many laws fall into a couple of broad catagories.
Malum in se laws restrict things like murder, rape, robbery, even running over people in your car. Things that normal people know are wrong even if there wasn't a law against it.
If you harm someone there will be people that want you to pay for the harm you caused.
Other laws, malum prohibitum laws make something illegal only because a statute says so.
Illegal drug use, gun possession and prostitution (among many others) fall into this catagory.
Does making victimless crimes illegal, like two consenting adults having sex and one pays the other, make for a better society? A one night stand after 'last call' at the pub is the same thing without the cash. How about laws that say having a is gun illegal, even though it isn't even used and endangered no one? Throw a waitress in jail because she smoked pot on her couch before she went to bed?
Does that solve societies problems? No.
They don't because you Can't. Legislate. Morality.
You can't just pass a law and make people not want to have sex, get a buzz or carry weapons...even if you declare WAR! on the problem and waste hundreds of billions of dollars and trample on everyones rights in the process.
We can, should and will hold people responsible for their actions if they f#@kup and hurt someone else.
(unless they have $$$$ or are related to a politician)
-
Back in Prohibition booze was illegal and pot was not. People found a way to get booze then and people will find a way to get pot now. Decriminalize pot and it won't go away but jails will have more room for real criminals!!!!!
JMHO
Richard
-
Ruse? Try telling that to the wife of my friend who died of brain cancer. Chemo was leaving him so nauseated that he was losing weight big time. Not good for a guy that started out as skinny kid to begin with. All the Zofran in the world wasn't making his nausea any better.
He didn't like to smoke so he got his card and got some cannibis edibles. He was able to finally EAT.
4473s have had the unlawful drug question for a long time. If you lie on a federal form you are asking for trouble. Al Capone found that out the hard way.
If someone wants to give up their 2A rights, just like if they want to waive their 5thA rights when questioned by police, that's their choice.
IMO, an employer has every right to test for drugs and fire those that use them - nobody sentenced them to work there. If someone wants to risk that for a high, that's their choice.
If the .gov removed the restrictions on EVERY drug known, (like the old days when the percentage of addicts was lower than it is now), an employer would still have the right to demand you be clean.
Works the same way with alcohol now.
Look, I'm not going to argue if it should or shouldn't be legal. That hasn't changed one bit from a legal standpoint. I'm telling it like it is. "Medical Marijuana" is a LEGAL ruse, pure and simple. Federal law trumps state law. All the time, every time. The fact some states have made it legal, does not exempt legal repercussions from those who use it based on that states "legal" stand. The Feds could storm in and LEGALLY close down all of these shops, and the Supreme Court would back them. This is not a states rights issue, regardless of how much these liberals want to make it one. If you want to buy this crap LEGALLY, the only way it can happen is if the law is changed at the FEDERAL level. That's what happened with alcohol. It was the Feds who banned it LEGALLY with the passage of the Volstead Act, and it was the Feds who LEGALIZED IT with the repeal of the Volstead Act. No state action took place at either end at any time.
And spare me all the "personal freedom" crap. It's been proven it is a gateway drug. Most every hard core intravenous drug user started out on Marijuana. We have a nation full of idiots, and we don't need more of them. I've NEVER known one single pot head that ever was productive at anything. Most become a burden to others. Explain how, (minus the alcohol argument), getting high and acting stupid is a positive thing? And furthermore, when it comes time to clean up the mess these idiots make of their lives, and those around them, who is going to pay for that, you? As always it will be the taxpayer.
You already have a fortune spent at the local, state and Federal level dealing with these non productive ass holes who are hooked on alcohol, along with every drug, legal and illegal, known to man. Now you want more based on "personal freedom"? Spare me. This country is broke, and getting dumber by the minute. How is legalizing yet another intoxicant going to improve things? It isn't. It will only make things worse, period.
The very few legitimate uses for this stuff is far outweighed by the negatives. Always has been, and always will be. You want an example look at Washington state. DUI arrests are off the chart as a direct result of people driving stoned out of their minds since that state legalized Marijuana. It impairs judgment the same or worse than alcohol. Watch what happens to automobile insurance in Washington state as a result of all of this stupid crap. Once again the taxpayers will pay for the stupidity of others, because of the "legalization" of this stuff.
It has already been proven people buy this junk from these "Medical Marijuana" shops, then sell it on the streets to kids. In California adolescent Marijuana use in areas around these "dope shops" soared after they opened their doors. No legitimate doctor would write for this stuff, legal or otherwise. Every doctor I asked said the same thing. They don't want the malpractice risk associated with it. These guys spend a third of their lives getting educated and building up a viable medical practice. They're not stupid enough to risk it all on some convoluted concept of "personal freedom". They're smart. The end Marijuana users, are lazy and stupid. Which one do you think society will benefit, by having more of? This whole mess runs a hell of a lot deeper than "curing" a few cases of nausea. Or "personal freedom" at the expense of screwing your life up, then having someone else pay to clean up the mess left behind.
-
If you are looking at smoking pot for medical reasons the chemicals can be extracted and given in pill, liquid, or injection. If you are looking to create legal loopholes to get pot in the hands of those who want it then call it medicinal - That is what was done with alcohol during prohibition.
I do not believe that marijuana is addictive in the same way morphine, codine or many other narcotics are. However, it is habit forming, and like alcohol, tobacco, and food, the habit can become an issue in health and safety for the abuser and society.
Do we keep it illegal, or do we make it a free for all and punish abusers? It is a big issue, I don't have the answer, but I am sick and tired of knee jerk politics wasting time and energy on it. The fact that pot usage is proven to lead to other more harmful drugs and activities when abused leans me toward keeping it illegal, because then a cop who smells pot has reasonable cause to investigate.
If we legalize it I am 100% against making it a tax scheme as many say. This constant adding of taxes to individual items and services is nothing but a scheme by politicians to take more for their legalized bribery of voters.
-
If you are looking at smoking pot for medical reasons the chemicals can be extracted and given in pill, liquid, or injection.
Good point that isn't mentioned near enough in these "Medical Marijuana" arguments. This is all about smoking dope and getting high. Nothing more.
-
if we try to tax and regulate it, guess what the black market will still be alive and well. thats basic econ. If you can produce a product cheaper and sell it cheaper, people will buy it. if in doubt look at the knock off and unlicensed contractors( which i don't really have a prob for most things) markets, or the illegal lawn care. still in doubt, look at cigs, tons of black market for those to avoid the taxs. Legalizing it will only make a small % of the black market legal and the rest won't change at all.
-
<snip>
We can, should and will hold people responsible for their actions if they f#@kup and hurt someone else.
<snip>
Why? That is your morality. You can't legislate morality.
What do I care what you and other people think is morale? That's your hangup, not mine.
-
Today one of the most abused drugs out there is Oxycodone. Thousands die from abusing it every year. It is legal by prescription in all 50 states. Yet in spite of that it's use as a pure intoxicant is spiraling out of control. Now we want to legalize yet another product for people to get high with. The product, (Marijuana) can be argued to be "safe". That's not the problem. It's when the end user of this crap becomes UNSAFE because of it's use. That does nothing but generate expensive, uncontrolled problems which have to be fixed by others. Pot heads who are constantly using this crap are seldom, if ever wealthy and able to pay to clean up their own messes.
-
Why? That is your morality. You can't legislate morality.
No you can't. But you can lock people up for acting in an irresponsible manner, that causes harm and expense to others. It happens with drunk drivers every day. As it should.
-
what about lsd? its safe none habit forming should we legalize that too? There were tons of people that thought it was helpful and could expand the mind. Some of those people were dr/phds.
-
From what I've read over the last 40+ years, the legalization of various intoxicants always seems to be based on some abstract, off the wall association with "freedom". All it amounts to, when you strip away all the nonsense, is an excuse to get high more easily. Wanting to alter your state of mind to a lesser, non productive level, is of course your "right". But others should not have to accept the consequences, both social and financial, of the few who really want to use these products. That is the crux of the problem that exists.
I don't care what happens in Denmark or Holland either. It has no bearing here, anymore than England's gun control does. There are no black and Hispanic gangs and ghettos fueled by drug sales in Continental Europe.
-
pot is not legal in holland its just tolerated, which is wrong. The law should be applied qually. its like tickets for no front lic plate or too dark of tint. They can't pull you over for it, but if they pull you over for something else you are going to get a ticket.
-
Not when you already have drawn your own conclusions.
Hint: "Anecdote" does not equal "data".
So what? Unless it was your kid, wife or sibling it's really NONE OF YOUR FREAKING BUSINESS!
Again....bullshit.
I'm assuming you mean unintended consequences.
And keeping it illegal doesn't have "unintend consicincence"?
Hundreds of Billions have been spent on the "War on Drugs" with nothing to show for it except rights being trampled on, prison populations at levels communist dictators don't reach, drug use increasing and drug quality getting better and less expensive.
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. It has been an epic FAIL at every attempt throughout history.
What people do with their carcass is none of your business. Whether that is whacking off too much, (which means more than you), or getting high or wearing a leather executioner mask while spanking their wife covered in peanut butter.
If they are not harming anyone but themselves...It Is None Of Your Business!
If I had posted a follow up comment Those are the things I would have said.
I find it wildly ironic that people who bitch the loudest about govt over reach on gun laws are so ready to condone violations of everybody else s rights .
Guess it really does depend on who's ox is gored.
TAB needs to quit watching reefer madness and get some actual information.
Of course he's from California and no one ever is responsible for anything out there.
It's always the fault of some inanimate object , never the azzhole who acted stupid.
-
what about lsd? its safe none habit forming should we legalize that too? There were tons of people that thought it was helpful and could expand the mind. Some of those people were dr/phds.
What legitimate Constitutional grounds is that ban based on ?
The so called "war on drugs has never been anything but a racist jobs program for politically connected prohibition agents who were going to lose their jobs when booze became legal again (because prohibition worked so well )
-
so then meth should be legal too? Don't want to violate some ones rights after all. there is such thing as greater good. Keeping meth illegal does serve the great good.
-
It's been proven it is a gateway drug. Most every hard core intravenous drug user started out on Marijuana.
False.
Virtually every drug abuser started out using toxic, physically and psychologically addicting alcohol first.
so then meth should be legal too? Don't want to violate some ones rights after all. there is such thing as greater good. Keeping meth illegal does serve the great good.
Yes, it's much better to have violent gangs selling it rather than buying it at the local pharmacy.
Bought any sudafed lately? Sign the statement that you will be prosecuted for buying too much decongestant.
Not cooking meth with it, just for wanting to clear your sinuses more than some bureaucrat thinks you should.
The results of this great program? Meth is cheaper, more pure and more readily available now than before the program started.
Great concept. We should throw some more billions at it.
After all, these sudafed users are just hanging onto some abstract, off the wall association with "freedom".
-
Great concept. We should throw some more billions at it.
After all, these sudafed users are just hanging onto some abstract, off the wall association with "freedom".
People who legitimately use Sudafed, or any other over the counter drug, are NOT the problem. How much money do you think we'll be "throwing" at a nation of meth users, after their teeth start rotting out, and sores start developing all over their body from ingesting poison.....All in the name of "freedom"?
6 years ago the house down the street from me was raided because they were cooking Meth. They had a 6 year old boy living there through all of it. The dip $h!t father who was cooking it, washed all of his utensils in the family dishwasher. They caught him because the idiot bought $450.00 worth of Sudafed from a nearby CVS Pharmacy, and paid for it with a credit card. The Pharmacist promptly called the police and reported it. The cops had is address, and drove over. Moral of story, Pharmacists are smarter than meth heads. There is no upside to any of this crap.....Unless this is your idea of a real, "freedom loving" American.
(http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz50/billt460/Wendy_zpsdd922512.png) (http://s812.photobucket.com/user/billt460/media/Wendy_zpsdd922512.png.html)
-
i hate the fact that you have to show id , its behind the counter and there are limits to one box. i go thru it becuase nothing else works like it. meth is a evil like no other, it is going to get worse before it gets better. It should never be legal, the cost in $ and lives is just to great. i have a friend that works for the sherrifs department in nevada county ca in there meth task force. About 70% of the property crimes are traced back to meth. Thats not property crims they closed, thats out of all reported property crime. Think about that 70% of the cases were traced back to meth. those were cases that were closed, 70% of the total property crime cases. Just think of how high the number would be if every thing was reported and all the cases were closed. thats just one county in the foot hills. I know i replaced 100s of thousands worth in copper and alumiuim(hvac) as a gc not to mention all the damage done by the theft. between 100k-200k a year. Mostly do to meth.
-
ok so i was wondering, what was my best( or worst) for metal theft. it was 2006 ( had a big invoice so i knew the year) i had 31 invoices $293k and change. I had 608 billed hours at $75/hr.Thats $45600 in just oh shit get this water off and out, does not include patch work( bids, not t&m) or wire theft( i handed that off.) the lowest invoice was $1400 the highest was $117k if you remove those 2 that means the average was about a little more then $6k the big one had a settling issue do to the water, which cost $60k to fix, it was a 4 plex, they took all the hvac and all the exposed plumbing and wires. Didn't even turn the water off just cut and left. All this happen over a 18 hour period in may when everyone was away. 4 hvac, 4 water heaters, ~400' in pipe, $2k worth in electrial( only 2 units) and they were in a hotel room for 19 days until the house was repiped, wiring fixed and stablized. No one paid for rent, power or gas that month,and all got $1000 checks for the hassle. Total cost ~$140k
-
hmm, something funny, had more on that last post, but it got cut off. there was little question it was tweakers, their pipes were found in the basement, all the cuts on the pipe were made with a hack saw. Not a pipe cutter (faster) or a sawzall. we are unsure of the numbers, but it would have taken atleast 2 to get the units up the stairs( it took 3 to get them down for the install) and one extremely full truck most likly several truck loads or several trucks. Maybe a uhual, but it would have been very hard to get one to the back of the building. on second thought, lets legalize meth. I need a few more of those jobs :) the building department actually waved all fees( fines too for me pumping the water down the drain. Could not send it to the storm drain.) that would have added atleast 10k.
-
You bring up a very good point about drug related theft. It's rampant everywhere, and it's mostly middle income home owners that are effected by it. I've heard similar statistics to your 70%. How is constantly having to worry about some dead head, drug addict breaking into my home making me, "free"?
The metal theft is getting so bad around here, scrap yards want photo I.D.'s that give your address. Just in case your selling stolen material. Sure, you can get phonies, but it does tend to stop the druggies from grabbing a quick buck for their next fix. That's what most of these clowns are after. They're too stupid and nervous to plan any kind of big "heist".
Most of these vermin stick to breaking into homes, or else "Quick Mart" type robberies that net a few bucks. If you look where this type of crime is the highest, it's ALWAYS where drug use is rampant. Women can become hookers to support their habit. Men have to steal.
So you basically have idiots who are hooked on whatever type of chemical, and are too stupid and lazy to work, stealing whatever from whoever to be able to buy drugs. This can be looked at in many ways, however being "free" isn't one of them.
-
i know of one scrap yard that actually started mailing the checks. what happen? They went to the one down the road. It was clear who was stealing and who wasn't. There was basicly 4 kinds of people there: 1 the scrap guy, you know the people that go around and collect the junk. 2 the service professional. 3 tradesmen (machinest/ construction worker) 4 thiefs. I use to here them spin their lies. One was a guy selling about 300 lbs of 1" M type copper pipe in ~4' sections. Said they were left overs from a job. Um bull shit. it sells for about $30/ft, no contrator would throw that away. Its litterly throwing away cash, even to recycle it. Small cutt offs yes, but not a entire trash can of ~4' sections all nice bright and shiny. i am sure they were from a job site some where, but not left overs. Its not something one tends to buy more then they need. its not something that the average vendor even stocks in large quantiys. I know of citys that have their name print on wire. Its bad.
-
Be interesting to see if the drug related thefts go down along with the other drug crimes of possession and selling.
I imagine it will as the price should be well below the black-market price which is inflated by the high risk, lack of competition and the apparent demand due to government "stings".
-
Costs actually go up. In co, every thing has to be documented, like ffl documented. Just read the requirements needed to grow and sell in the state. also don't expect thefts to go down, it does not take long for crooks to figure out, hey we can break into a pot shop, steal every thing and make a killing. happens all the time on Ca. Out side of the packaging, its untracable and as good as cash on the street. Also the black market never goes away and the more its taxed the worse it gets. Its a no brainer if it costs are the same to produce( illegally is cheaper) both want to make the same ammount. Then the black market can sell it for less. even if every thing is equal. Its like ordering something online and not paying sales tax/ overhead of a store. Its generally cheaper and people generally choose that opition.( not always)
-
Do some of you need to be hit with a freaking brick ?
It doesn't matter if we're talking about booze, guns, or any other behavior, item or substance,
Prohibition does not, never has, and never will work.
The only meaningful approach to anything that is unpopular is through lowering demand.
Anything else is just BS to con the dumbass voters while usurping more power.
Any one who says otherwise is no better than Sarah Brady.
-
Costs actually go up.
Average Weed Prices
Quality Average ($/Oz.)* Sample Size
High Quality $236.45
Medium Quality $197.52
Low Quality $213.49
http://www.priceofweed.com/prices/United-States/Colorado.html
It's all total nonsense how legalization of pot, or any other drug, will lower cost by taking the criminal element out of the supply chain. What they fail to see is the drug cartels are being replaced by FEDERAL REGULATION. There is no easier or better way to raise prices of anything, than to get the Federal government involved. Just look at health care costs in the last 6 months.
-
TOm we all know where there is a will there is a way. Btw i just found out or you can't by sudafed with out a Rx that sucks, but i do understand the reasoning for it..
-
Here you can buy it, but 1 box at a time.
-
My last comment on this subject..
I smoked dope for nearly twenty years or more. I was a productive member of society then as I am now! I'm not a dependent addict waiting for a handout. I'll make 80K this year without working too hard for it and will for the foreseeable future now that I'm working again!
My contention in all of this hullabaloo is that people addicted to anything have addictive personalities and therefor will be addicted to anything they abuse. Doesn't matter what the substance is...
We have a country of stupid, dependent and addictive personalities. We've bred it into them...those who smoked dope in the sixties, dropped acid, took a bit of speed to stay awake or drank copious amounts of single malt are CORPORATE AMERICA TODAY, FOLKS!
The hippies from Woodstock became some of the most materialistic of the bunch over the last four or five decades so to suggest that everyone who's ever partaken in refer madness is a unproductive slug is just ludicrous and narrow minded ignorance...
Marijuana isn't nearly as harmful as alcohol. Should you try and drive, work, or otherwise perform complex tasks while under the influence?
Nope...that would be stupid! ;D
-
My last comment on this subject..
I smoked dope for nearly twenty years or more. I was a productive member of society then as I am now! I'm not a dependent addict waiting for a handout. I'll make 80K this year without working too hard for it and will for the foreseeable future now that I'm working again!
My contention in all of this hullabaloo is that people addicted to anything have addictive personalities and therefor will be addicted to anything they abuse. Doesn't matter what the substance is...
We have a country of stupid, dependent and addictive personalities. We've bred it into them...those who smoked dope in the sixties, dropped acid, took a bit of speed to stay awake or drank copious amounts of single malt are CORPORATE AMERICA TODAY, FOLKS!
The hippies from Woodstock became some of the most materialistic of the bunch over the last four or five decades so to suggest that everyone who's ever partaken in refer madness is a unproductive slug is just ludicrous and narrow minded ignorance...
Marijuana isn't nearly as harmful as alcohol. Should you try and drive, work, or otherwise perform complex tasks while under the influence?
Nope...that would be stupid!
While all of that may in fact be true as it pertains to you and a few others "back in the day", today's society in general reflects a different picture. Even with Marijuana going through this current, half assed, "pseudo legalization" process, a host of issues has surfaced the pro pot crowd screamed wouldn't.
1.) Crime rates are soaring around the areas of these dope shops.
2.) Cost, which was supposed to drop because of legalization, is as high or in many cases higher because it's production and sale is regulated to death as a direct result of government intervention.
3.) Children are easily getting it from people who buy it "legally" from these dope shops, then sell it to kids for profit.
4.) DUI arrests, along with traffic accidents are soaring from people driving under the influence of "legal" dope, in these states like Washington who have legalized it.
5.) Burglary and theft of pot from these dope shops is a regular occurrence. These dope shops have limited hours and security when compared to modern pharmacies.
And several other issues that are all negatives, adding to an already problem plagued society that can't compete any longer in the world market place. Another thing you forget when comparing todays problems to the 60's, is the dope being produced today is over 20 times stronger than the pot that was used in the 60's and before. This is all "hybrid dope" with a much higher intoxicating chemical yield, than could have been achieved back then.
Add all this up and it just creates more problems and expense that this country neither wants, needs, or can afford. And as far as the whole alcohol argument. Look at it. We spend a fortune on "alcohol recovery", which is legal. Pointing to one problem in order to justify yet another worse one, does not make for a very convincing argument.
-
While all of that may in fact be true as it pertains to you and a few others "back in the day", today's society in general reflects a different picture. Even with Marijuana going through this current, half assed, "pseudo legalization" process, a host of issues has surfaced the pro pot crowd screamed wouldn't.
1.) Crime rates are soaring around the areas of these dope shops.
2.) Cost, which was supposed to drop because of legalization, is as high or in many cases higher because it's production and sale is regulated to death as a direct result of government intervention.
3.) Children are easily getting it from people who buy it "legally" from these dope shops, then sell it to kids for profit.
4.) DUI arrests, along with traffic accidents are soaring from people driving under the influence of "legal" dope, in these states like Washington who have legalized it.
5.) Burglary and theft of pot from these dope shops is a regular occurrence. These dope shops have limited hours and security when compared to modern pharmacies.
And several other issues that are all negatives, adding to an already problem plagued society that can't compete any longer in the world market place. Another thing you forget when comparing todays problems to the 60's, is the dope being produced today is over 20 times stronger than the pot that was used in the 60's and before. This is all "hybrid dope" with a much higher intoxicating chemical yield, than could have been achieved back then.
Add all this up and it just creates more problems and expense that this country neither wants, needs, or can afford. And as far as the whole alcohol argument. Look at it. We spend a fortune on "alcohol recovery", which is legal. Pointing to one problem in order to justify yet another worse one, does not make for a very convincing argument.
Bill, could not all of these issues apply equally to the legalization of alcohol?
-
Bill, could not all of these issues apply equally to the legalization of alcohol?
They most certainly could. As I said pointing to bad behavior in order to justify more bad behavior doesn't make for a convincing argument. The fact is we've allowed booze to become big business in this country. I'm not saying we should go back to prohibition any more than I'm suggesting to legalize pot. Both are bad. We have examples of how "legalized" pot is causing problems that the pro pot people said would never materialize. That is reason enough for me to be against it's legalization. Intoxicants do nothing to benefit man. They decrease brain function, and destroy reaction time. Look at drivers who are under the influence of any or all of these. How is any of this a positive attribute to mankind?
-
They most certainly could. As I said pointing to bad behavior in order to justify more bad behavior doesn't make for a convincing argument. The fact is we've allowed booze to become big business in this country. I'm not saying we should go back to prohibition any more than I'm suggesting to legalize pot. Both are bad. We have examples of how "legalized" pot is causing problems that the pro pot people said would never materialize. That is reason enough for me to be against it's legalization. Intoxicants do nothing to benefit man. They decrease brain function, and destroy reaction time. Look at drivers who are under the influence of any or all of these. How is any of this a positive attribute to mankind?
Are you saying we should start making our laws based on what has a positive attribute to mankind?
-
Are you saying we should start making our laws based on what has a positive attribute to mankind?
We've been doing that since the dawn of time. I'm more concerned about getting rid of laws that do the same. Understand, I don't really care who destroys themselves with this crap. I just don't think others should have to pay to clean up their mess. We always do. As far as I'm concerned, they can be tossed down a hole and left to rot. I can't see always having to subsidize someone else's self destruction. And it's always the less affluent who manage to do this.
-
From Timothy.
"My contention in all of this hullabaloo is that people addicted to anything have addictive personalities and therefor will be addicted to anything they abuse. Doesn't matter what the substance is...
We have a country of stupid, dependent and addictive personalities. We've bred it into them...those who smoked dope in the sixties, dropped acid, took a bit of speed to stay awake or drank copious amounts of single malt are CORPORATE AMERICA TODAY, FOLKS!
The hippies from Woodstock became some of the most materialistic of the bunch over the last four or five decades so to suggest that everyone who's ever partaken in refer madness is a unproductive slug is just ludicrous and narrow minded ignorance..."
that's pretty much all there is to say on the subject.
-
What I find ironic is the war on smoking tobacco but some how weed is ok? I have no intention of smoking either one but this really struck me:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/08/high-class-dining-colorado-restaurant-introduces-weed-and-food-pairing-menu/ (http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/08/high-class-dining-colorado-restaurant-introduces-weed-and-food-pairing-menu/)
Good luck trying to finding a restaurant now days where you can smoke tobacco during your meal.
-
What I find ironic is the war on smoking tobacco but some how weed is ok? I have no intention of smoking either one but this really struck me:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/08/high-class-dining-colorado-restaurant-introduces-weed-and-food-pairing-menu/ (http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/08/high-class-dining-colorado-restaurant-introduces-weed-and-food-pairing-menu/)
Good luck trying to finding a restaurant now days where you can smoke tobacco during your meal.
Good point. And tobacco is not illegal. Light a joint and everyone cheers. Do the same with a cigarette and they're ready to kill you.
-
From Timothy.
"My contention in all of this hullabaloo is that people addicted to anything have addictive personalities and therefor will be addicted to anything they abuse. Doesn't matter what the substance is...
We have a country of stupid, dependent and addictive personalities. We've bred it into them...those who smoked dope in the sixties, dropped acid, took a bit of speed to stay awake or drank copious amounts of single malt are CORPORATE AMERICA TODAY, FOLKS!
The hippies from Woodstock became some of the most materialistic of the bunch over the last four or five decades so to suggest that everyone who's ever partaken in refer madness is a unproductive slug is just ludicrous and narrow minded ignorance..."
that's pretty much all there is to say on the subject.
And I used all them polysyllabic words from higher learning to make my point, too!
;)
Heh, heh...
-
From Timothy.
"My contention in all of this hullabaloo is that people addicted to anything have addictive personalities and therefor will be addicted to anything they abuse. Doesn't matter what the substance is...
We have a country of stupid, dependent and addictive personalities. We've bred it into them...those who smoked dope in the sixties, dropped acid, took a bit of speed to stay awake or drank copious amounts of single malt are CORPORATE AMERICA TODAY, FOLKS!
The hippies from Woodstock became some of the most materialistic of the bunch over the last four or five decades so to suggest that everyone who's ever partaken in refer madness is a unproductive slug is just ludicrous and narrow minded ignorance..."
that's pretty much all there is to say on the subject.
Indeed, Tim nailed it pretty well.
We've thrown Hundreds of Billions of tax dollars at the problem, (whle drug cartels take in hundreds of billions), militarized our police forces that have murdered innocent people, had our Constitution raped, imprison more people than any country on the planet and when that strategy is clearly not functional, trying to do something else is just too frightening or not cost effective.
Strange how those that say "Look at this! How much is this going to cost me?" and show an example of some drug addict that is destroying themselves, stealing, etc. as if these are examples of SUCCESS in the "War on Drugs"....or...something.
-
This whole argument on the "cost" of the "War On Drugs" is a moot point. The cost to society is far greater. Both from government payouts, as well as the private sector. Which spends far more on drug rehab, welfare payouts, and lost revenue from illicit drug use. Not to mention the amount of people it removes from the work force because of it's far reaching effects, ruined health, along with the lives and families it destroys.
Besides, most everyone fighting this "war" is on the government payroll anyway. From local cops, to Federal DEA agents, Coast Guard, and Border Patrol Officers, military, on up to all the administrative posts within the same organizations. If this "war" was stopped, there is no way the government is going to discharge, and or lay off these people. The whole concept of government workers is to grow the size of the group you work for. Look at the Dept. Of Homeland Security. It didn't even exist before 9/11. Call it simple job security. The "cost" would remain the same. The country wouldn't "save" a dime if it ended today.
And as far as all of this "freedom" nonsense attached to the legalization of this crap, it is just more silliness. This country is based on Judeo Christian values. Our rights, as drawn up by the founding fathers, are God given. Remember that phrase, "In God We Trust"? Illegal street drugs do not fit into living a good Christian life. You don't need to be religious to heed this, because our country, along with all of it's values, principals, and rights is based on it.
-
Gosh, so many things should be illegal...
Cigarettes, no doubt. Ice cream and candy...I see no benefit to mankind from them.
Gambling doesn't fit in a good Christian life either....good by bingo and horse racing and all the raffle tickets...
Some are border line too. Dancing has been frowned upon by Christians on occasion. And even Jesus, in blatant disregard for the ugly downside of alcohol, miraculously created an unending supply of wine. Good bye wine..and maybe the sacrament of Consecration for some religions will need to be outlawed...
And if we include the Judeo part, it's adios bacon too. Which is good, I guess....no benefit to mankind in that...and, for sure, some bad things.
We have a lot of new laws to start working on, I see.
-
Let's quit quibbling, and quit micromanaging. Eliminate these stupid restrictive laws that cherry pick one recreational choice after another. However, let's also quit supporting them: You do the crime you do the time; you choose to do drugs and get hooked you pay for the treatment; you do drugs and harm somebody, including your unborn child, you pay for that crime; etc. This goes for all drugs, including nicotine, alcohol, caffine, etc.
By the way, the above does not remove my wish for random drug and alcohol testing for food stamp , welfare, and unemployment recipients. You need the help, I demand you use my tax dollars wisely!
-
Let's quit quibbling, and quit micromanaging. Eliminate these stupid restrictive laws that cherry pick one recreational choice after another. However, let's also quit supporting them: You do the crime you do the time; you choose to do drugs and get hooked you pay for the treatment; you do drugs and harm somebody, including your unborn child, you pay for that crime; etc. This goes for all drugs, including nicotine, alcohol, caffine, etc.
By the way, the above does not remove my wish for random drug and alcohol testing for food stamp , welfare, and unemployment recipients. You need the help, I demand you use my tax dollars wisely!
That seems like a good workable solution.
But I don't agree with the testing for food stamps. There shouldn't be any. Do away with them and that concern goes away too. Same with welfare.
Unemployment is a bit different. Your employer pay for some or all of that and it is thus a benefit you have acquired in lieu of wages while working. So the testing would be usable there..
-
Gosh, so many things should be illegal...
Cigarettes, no doubt. Ice cream and candy...I see no benefit to mankind from them.
Gambling doesn't fit in a good Christian life either....good by bingo and horse racing and all the raffle tickets...
Some are border line too. Dancing has been frowned upon by Christians on occasion. And even Jesus, in blatant disregard for the ugly downside of alcohol, miraculously created an unending supply of wine. Good bye wine..and maybe the sacrament of Consecration for some religions will need to be outlawed...
And if we include the Judeo part, it's adios bacon too. Which is good, I guess....no benefit to mankind in that...and, for sure, some bad things.
We have a lot of new laws to start working on, I see.
If you can't distinguish the difference between ice cream and crystal meth, this discussion is over.
-
If you can't distinguish the difference between ice cream and crystal meth, this discussion is over.
I can Bill, it is you I question.
You listed two criteria for something not to be illegal.
1. it had to be of benefit to mankind
and
2. it had to be part of a Christian lifestyle.
I listed items that did you meet YOU'RE stated criteria.
Additionally, I question the the lawmakers who will assume the role of making those differentiations as they pass laws.
How many lawmakers would say that private ownership of firearms is not in the benefit of mankind?
How many lawmakers would say that owning firearms is not part of a Christian lifestyle?
-
Gosh, so many things should be illegal...
Cigarettes, no doubt. Ice cream and candy...I see no benefit to mankind from them.
Gambling doesn't fit in a good Christian life either....good by bingo and horse racing and all the raffle tickets...
Some are border line too. Dancing has been frowned upon by Christians on occasion. And even Jesus, in blatant disregard for the ugly downside of alcohol, miraculously created an unending supply of wine. Good bye wine..and maybe the sacrament of Consecration for some religions will need to be outlawed...
And if we include the Judeo part, it's adios bacon too. Which is good, I guess....no benefit to mankind in that...and, for sure, some bad things.
We have a lot of new laws to start working on, I see.
Come on. Bacon. No benefit to mankind? :o
-
This whole argument on the "cost" of the "War On Drugs" is a moot point. The cost to society is far greater. Both from government payouts, as well as the private sector. Which spends far more on drug rehab, welfare payouts, and lost revenue from illicit drug use. Not to mention the amount of people it removes from the work force because of it's far reaching effects, ruined health, along with the lives and families it destroys.
Besides, most everyone fighting this "war" is on the government payroll anyway. From local cops, to Federal DEA agents, Coast Guard, and Border Patrol Officers, military, on up to all the administrative posts within the same organizations. If this "war" was stopped, there is no way the government is going to discharge, and or lay off these people. The whole concept of government workers is to grow the size of the group you work for. Look at the Dept. Of Homeland Security. It didn't even exist before 9/11. Call it simple job security. The "cost" would remain the same. The country wouldn't "save" a dime if it ended today.
And as far as all of this "freedom" nonsense attached to the legalization of this crap, it is just more silliness. This country is based on Judeo Christian values. Our rights, as drawn up by the founding fathers, are God given. Remember that phrase, "In God We Trust"? Illegal street drugs do not fit into living a good Christian life. You don't need to be religious to heed this, because our country, along with all of it's values, principals, and rights is based on it.
That is an easily disproved load of crap.
If these drugs selectively targeted by the Gov caused all those problems then the problems would have been far worse before the 1930's when these laws went into effect.
But they weren't.
Face it.
Some of you just need to have the G looking out for you because you can't make a sensible decision for yourself .
If I'm wrong why do we need drunk driving laws, and laws saying you can't be reading text messages while driving ?
-
That is an easily disproved load of crap.
If these drugs selectively targeted by the Gov caused all those problems then the problems would have been far worse before the 1930's when these laws went into effect.
But they weren't.
Face it.
Some of you just need to have the G looking out for you because you can't make a sensible decision for yourself .
If I'm wrong why do we need drunk driving laws, and laws saying you can't be reading text messages while driving ?
Who was using crystal meth and Extacy in the 30's? Even Cocaine didn't come into vogue as enough of a drug problem until the 70's and 80's when it became the "IN" drug around the disco and night club scene. Drug use was no where near as prevalent back then as it is today. Sheer population numbers prove that. Technology, as well as modern chemistry has "invented" many new drug and social issues. We obviously didn't need drunk driving laws before the automobile was invented.
Look, I don't like legislation any more than anyone else. But you just said it yourself. Texting and cell phone use while driving is a perfect example. Both didn't exist 35 years ago. Today they do, and are a dangerous problem. I don't own a phone that can send a text message, because I think the whole idea is absurd. Call me crazy, but I use a phone to actually TALK to people. Many do text while driving, and they endanger others when they do. Same with booze and drugs.
The fact is many people are just too stupid to manage their lives in a respectable manner. They constantly endanger others with their compulsive, stupid actions. That is why we are a society of laws, like it or not.
-
Another thing to consider is the populations overall attitude about drug use. They've been talking about legalizing pot since the 30's. It really got a head of steam behind the movement in the 60's. But not that many people were in favor of it. Attempts to get it legalized failed left and right because it just never had the majority of public support.
Today it does because of the whole "hurray for me and anything goes" attitude of the country. Get abortions, marry your dog, smoke pot, ban Christmas because there is no God, anything and everything should be legalized. We already see where this attitude is taking us. Look at Colorado. It's your best and most recent example. Washington state is another. It's become a run away train. And sooner or later it's going to leave the tracks. Laws may or may not solve these problems. But letting idiots run wild with lawlessness is no solution.
Tom, you may be right. Some of these idiots require a government to keep them corralled. I sure as hell don't want them running into me.......And then having to foot the bill on top of it when they do.
-
Who was using crystal meth and Extacy in the 30's?
Anyone who wanted to buy it.
You could buy methamphetamine in a store, it had been around since 1919.
Extacy (MDMA) was patented in 1914. It only became a schedule 1 drug in 1985.
Pot is a schedule 1 drug - the same class as heroin.
Anyone who thinks that they are equal in dangerous effects is a farking dumbass. (Congress)
Even Cocaine didn't come into vogue as enough of a drug problem until the 70's and 80's when it became the "IN" drug around the disco and night club scene. Drug use was no where near as prevalent back then as it is today. Sheer population numbers prove that.
"Sheer population numbers"? There are more people now!
I think a more honest discussion would be "percentage" of population. Point in fact: there is a lower percentage of teens using weed "recently" (in the last month) now than in the late 70s/early 80s according to the National Institute of Health.
If you can't distinguish the difference between ice cream and crystal meth, this discussion is over.
It certainly is for me....this dead horse of a thread has Xs for eyes. Feel free to have the last word, I'm done.
I think our society would be better off letting people do what they want - whether that is getting a degree in neurosurgery or destroying yourself by ODing in a gutter.
I'll gladly step over the dead body and go about my business.
-
I think our society would be better off letting people do what they want - whether that is getting a degree in neurosurgery or destroying yourself by ODing in a gutter.
I'll gladly step over the dead body and go about my business.
How about you pay to clean up the mess they make as well? I agree with you. The problem is it's not that simple. If every drug user O.D.'d and killed themselves, that's fine. It's cheap to bury corpses. That is hardly ever the case. They ring up millions in cost and lost revenue before they reach that point, if they ever do. No one is benefitting from this, and we all have to pay for it, one way or another. The problem isn't drug use. The problem is the irresponsibility and expense associated with the "recreational" use of drugs.
-
How about you pay to clean up the mess they make as well? I agree with you. The problem is it's not that simple. If every drug user O.D.'d and killed themselves, that's fine. It's cheap to bury corpses. That is hardly ever the case. They ring up millions in cost and lost revenue before they reach that point, if they ever do. No one is benefitting from this, and we all have to pay for it, one way or another. The problem isn't drug use. The problem is the irresponsibility and expense associated with the "recreational" use of drugs.
Bill that is the same thing they said about smokers vs non-smokers a few years back...but it simply is not true...at least for the Smoking debate...and with out involved statistics, you cannot claim it is true about drug users either.
From the Smoking/Non-Smoking debate
In 1997, a group of scientists at Erasmus University in Holland famously showed that smokers have lower total life-time health-care expenditures than non-smokers. Smokers do cost a lot more per year of life, but because their lives are so much shorter on average, the non-smokers end up with higher costs in the long run.
http://healthland.time.com/2009/08/04/does-prevention-really-cut-health-care-costs/
Also, you need to put in the costs for the DEA and any other drug prohibition enforcement costs. Additionally, you need to add in the costs of incarceration for those convicted of drug related crimes of possession and sale. Plus the costs of the prosecution. I have read that 50% of the jail space is taken up by drug offenders...I don't have a breakdown of the crimes, but many must be possession or sale...any crimes committed to acquire drugs would not be counted as robbery and any attendant crimes would still be valid charges.
This is also similar to the argument the AMA often uses to push for bans of firearms....the health care costs of the victims of firearm injury.
-
Who was using crystal meth and Extacy in the 30's? Even Cocaine didn't come into vogue as enough of a drug problem until the 70's and 80's when it became the "IN" drug around the disco and night club scene. Drug use was no where near as prevalent back then as it is today. Sheer population numbers prove that. Technology, as well as modern chemistry has "invented" many new drug and social issues. We obviously didn't need drunk driving laws before the automobile was invented.
Look, I don't like legislation any more than anyone else. But you just said it yourself. Texting and cell phone use while driving is a perfect example. Both didn't exist 35 years ago. Today they do, and are a dangerous problem. I don't own a phone that can send a text message, because I think the whole idea is absurd. Call me crazy, but I use a phone to actually TALK to people. Many do text while driving, and they endanger others when they do. Same with booze and drugs.
The fact is many people are just too stupid to manage their lives in a respectable manner. They constantly endanger others with their compulsive, stupid actions. That is why we are a society of laws, like it or not.
This just proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
Cocaine has been used for recreation since the 1880's or before.
It was one of the original ingredients of Coca Cola.
It was quite popular with the upper classes gaining recommendations from the likes of Sigmund Freud, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who's famous literary character frequently used Cocaine, in a 7% solution .
-
BTW, Ice Cream was outlawed at one time. (don't know if it is an Urban Legend, but it is attributed to a published news paper)
They way I heard it was that the churches noted a drop in Sunday contributions in the collection basket and attributed it to the popularity of the newly introduced Ice Cream Soda which was billed as an after church treat... and the story picks up from there.
Evanston, Illinois in 1890
Ithaca Daily Journal, May 28, 1892
Evanston was one of the first locations to pass a blue law against selling ice cream sodas in 1890. "Some ingenious confectioners and drug store operators [in Evanston]... obeying the law, served ice cream with the syrup of your choice without the soda. Thereby complying with the law… This sodaless soda was the Sunday soda."[3] As sales of the dessert continued on Mondays, local leaders then objected to naming the dish after the Sabbath, so the spelling of the name was changed to sundae.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundae
-
it would be very intresting to see what the costs of lack of productivity actually are. most jobs the details are very, very important. While i can't speak for all industrys, in construction, a 10% loss in production is more then enough to cuase you to go under. Profit margins on track homes are not a lot. When i was paninting tracks, we had to get 6 done a day or we lost money and if you were spraying it on too thick, you could blow your profit on a house, not just for that house, but for the entire day. a back charge could kill your entire week. its like that for every trade in new home construction. Its not uncommon to have $250 in paint in a house and only be getting $325 total.
-
How about you pay to clean up the mess they make as well? I agree with you. The problem is it's not that simple. If every drug user O.D.'d and killed themselves, that's fine. It's cheap to bury corpses. That is hardly ever the case. They ring up millions in cost and lost revenue before they reach that point, if they ever do. No one is benefitting from this, and we all have to pay for it, one way or another. The problem isn't drug use. The problem is the irresponsibility and expense associated with the "recreational" use of drugs.
So I'm thinking if a drunk or a druggie kills someone in a car accident they should face the music and pay that same price.
That's fair.
-
This just proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
Cocaine has been used for recreation since the 1880's or before.
It was one of the original ingredients of Coca Cola.
It was quite popular with the upper classes gaining recommendations from the likes of Sigmund Freud, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who's famous literary character frequently used Cocaine, in a 7% solution .
Yes it existed. But it wasn't the problem that it is today. And from a cost standpoint, there were no federal programs for the small number of these people that existed at the time to suck off the government tit. You didn't have THOUSANDS of people a year dying from drugs like Oxycodone, which by the way requires a prescription to get. Do you think there would be fewer addicted to it if you could buy it over the counter for one third of what it costs now? It would be the exact same with all of these other illegal drugs.
Availability through legalization is only going to make the problem worse. This country has dumbed down considerably since those days. Adding more fuel to make them even dumber just makes an already bad situation even worse. You, or anyone else, will never make a convincing argument that giving dangerous intoxicants legal, widespread use, is ever going to benefit mankind. We've already seen first hand how bad this country has transgressed in the last 40 years because people are getting dumber. Now you want to add illegal drugs to the mix? Who will they elect President then, Dennis Rodman?
-
it would be very intresting to see what the costs of lack of productivity actually are. most jobs the details are very, very important. While i can't speak for all industrys, in construction, a 10% loss in production is more then enough to cuase you to go under. Profit margins on track homes are not a lot. When i was paninting tracks, we had to get 6 done a day or we lost money and if you were spraying it on too thick, you could blow your profit on a house, not just for that house, but for the entire day. a back charge could kill your entire week. its like that for every trade in new home construction. Its not uncommon to have $250 in paint in a house and only be getting $325 total.
Our place is one of the best places to work in our industry, Aerospace and Semiconductor machining, in and around Phoenix. It's unbelievable the amount of applicants that fail the drug test, and are refused employment as a direct result. Also good employees who are drug tested as the result of on the job injuries.....And fail. All are automatically terminated as a result. All of these people wind up getting lesser paying jobs, and most don't last at them. Word gets around. A really stupid way to deny yourself a good paying job, with good benefits. Just because you want to get high. This is going downhill further every day. Watch how drug related firings go up in states like Colorado. Employers won't allow for this, regardless of what some new law allows.
-
Our place is one of the best places to work in our industry, Aerospace and Semiconductor machining, in and around Phoenix. It's unbelievable the amount of applicants that fail the drug test, and are refused employment as a direct result. Also good employees who are drug tested as the result of on the job injuries.....And fail. All are automatically terminated as a result. All of these people wind up getting lesser paying jobs, and most don't last at them. Word gets around. A really stupid way to deny yourself a good paying job, with good benefits. Just because you want to get high. This is going downhill further every day. Watch how drug related firings go up in states like Colorado. Employers won't allow for this, regardless of what some new law allows.
yep, i read a report that already several surounding states have seen a huge increase with dui( pot). most jobs a dui = pink slip atleast in every job i have ever had. thats every thing from construction, retail, consulting, and structural engineering.