USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
- Thread starter ScottM
- Start date
- Status
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Wiki - alcohol related crime in the US...it didn't go away...sure, guys with Tommy guns were no longer riding the sideboards and gunning down people in the street...now it is just domestic abuse, assault etc...not to mention health care costs, public health costs etc. Look up the lost productivity, the cost of road blocks, the DUI deaths, insurance premium impacts...I'm not buying that we'd be better off if more people could freely acquire drugs.
So we'd see fewer drive-by's and more domestic crime, more destruction of property etc. Right now most of the drug trade crime is located in what % of the area of the US?...major cities and drug route small cities.
How would law enforcement costs go down if drug use increased across the country as access to drugs was increased? Would more people lose their job if they were addicted to drugs? I'd say yes. When they lost those jobs, would crime increase or decrease? Now, they wouldn't all turn to a life of crime, but crime wouldn't go down if we had more drug addicts roaming the country...we would have more homeless people though...that would cost something too.
Would children benefit if more of them grew up in a household where the head of household was addicted to drugs? Would they cost more to feed, educate and counsel?
We'd need more drug treatment centers, more neo-natal care centers for children born addicted to drugs, more long-term care for children born with defects due to drugs, more insurance premiums for all of that stuff.
But, we'd have a reduction in drug dealers shooting each other. I don't call that a fair trade-off.
Wiki - alcohol related crime in the US...it didn't go away...sure, guys with Tommy guns were no longer riding the sideboards and gunning down people in the street...now it is just domestic abuse, assault etc...not to mention health care costs, public health costs etc. Look up the lost productivity, the cost of road blocks, the DUI deaths, insurance premium impacts...I'm not buying that we'd be better off if more people could freely acquire drugs.
So we'd see fewer drive-by's and more domestic crime, more destruction of property etc. Right now most of the drug trade crime is located in what % of the area of the US?...major cities and drug route small cities.
How would law enforcement costs go down if drug use increased across the country as access to drugs was increased? Would more people lose their job if they were addicted to drugs? I'd say yes. When they lost those jobs, would crime increase or decrease? Now, they wouldn't all turn to a life of crime, but crime wouldn't go down if we had more drug addicts roaming the country...we would have more homeless people though...that would cost something too.
Would children benefit if more of them grew up in a household where the head of household was addicted to drugs? Would they cost more to feed, educate and counsel?
We'd need more drug treatment centers, more neo-natal care centers for children born addicted to drugs, more long-term care for children born with defects due to drugs, more insurance premiums for all of that stuff.
But, we'd have a reduction in drug dealers shooting each other. I don't call that a fair trade-off.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
In any event, I don't care if they legalize it or not - as long as I work, I won't be able to use it. I'm guessing a lot of people are in the same boat in that regard unless employers change their drug testing policies.
Actually, I think legalization would mimic alcohol - while you can brew your own beer, you can't sell it without a license. The same would almost certainly be true for weed. The state would have to regulate its production in order to guarantee the safety of the product being sold to the consumer.The price goes down, growing marajuana for personal use because legal, we could all grow our own pretty cheap. How do selleres getting propped up by legalizing something? Cartels would lose their leverage overnight because anyone could start growing it, selling it cheap or just keeping it for themselves. Maybe its better for those that use but I highly doubt my job would let me smoke even if it was legal, just like I can't drink and drive, etc. Legalizing drugs, benefits users and tax collectors
In any event, I don't care if they legalize it or not - as long as I work, I won't be able to use it. I'm guessing a lot of people are in the same boat in that regard unless employers change their drug testing policies.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
I guess it makes sense that you would feel that way, since you are obviously one of those Republicans who just wants law enforcement officers to go around killing people...
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
In Maine you can get a prescription for medical pot, how does that change employers drug policies?
In Maine you can get a prescription for medical pot, how does that change employers drug policies?
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
The difference is Dems come at you from the front.
The difference is Dems come at you from the front.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
That would be akin to alcohol policies, where employers will say they don't want you in the office if you have alcohol in your system. With pot, the THC can stay in your system for up to a month, depending on how much you've had, and they can set policies around that. Employment is a voluntary arrangement, so employers can make rules however they want, so long as they aren't discriminatory along race, creed, color or sex.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Doesn't look like it does.
To take Clown's point a step further - while you can be prescribed a number of things, it doesn't mean you can or should have them in your system while working. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to do my job under the influence of vicodin, nor would my employer have wanted me to attempt it. There's simply too much of a liability issue.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2008-01-24-medical-marijuana_N.htm
Doesn't look like it does.
To take Clown's point a step further - while you can be prescribed a number of things, it doesn't mean you can or should have them in your system while working. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to do my job under the influence of vicodin, nor would my employer have wanted me to attempt it. There's simply too much of a liability issue.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
That is the biggest problem I really see with legalizing marijuana (which I think we should probably do anyway). There is no good way to test if you are high right now. There isn't a breathalyzer or a blood test, all there are are tests that will test you positive for a month after you've smoked.
That is the biggest problem I really see with legalizing marijuana (which I think we should probably do anyway). There is no good way to test if you are high right now. There isn't a breathalyzer or a blood test, all there are are tests that will test you positive for a month after you've smoked.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Assuming most normal people think legalizing hard drugs is pure lunacy, lets stick with weed for right now. Would some people grow their own? Sure. Would that "solve" the drug problem? No. There's a lot of things people could do for themselves but don't out of convenience. This most likely would be one of them, particularly for stoner kids still living with their parents througout their 20's for example which apparently is half of that generation.
So, you'd still need dealers, distribution networks, etc. Say a Mexican cartel currently runs the streets. Weed is now legal, and Jeff Spicoli (sp?) is out selling the stuff to Mr. Hand and everybody else at Ridgemont High and the surrounding neighborhood. Do you really think the friendly neighborhood cartel is going to suddenly become good citizens and take their complaint about turf to the Better Business Bureau? You have to be kidding yourself if you believe that.
So, essentually what you'd be doing is legalizing a portion of these cartel's business, who would now say all their money comes from this enterprise thus making them harder to prosecute. Otherwise, nothing would change. Furthermore, the concerns on driving are 100% correct. Cop pulls you over for being all over the road and smells pot and you get a free trip down to the station. Once its legal and untestable on the spot, what happens? Clearly the drug affects your mind, but if its legal and untestable every aging hippie and dumb high school kid who can't drive anyway will be an even bigger problem. No thanks.
The missing key to winning the war on drugs is treatment. Force busted low level users into it and that'll diminish the demand. However, throwing in the towel isn't the answer. 50 years ago the Mafia seemed insurmountable. What would the country look like if the feds abandonded that effort?
Assuming most normal people think legalizing hard drugs is pure lunacy, lets stick with weed for right now. Would some people grow their own? Sure. Would that "solve" the drug problem? No. There's a lot of things people could do for themselves but don't out of convenience. This most likely would be one of them, particularly for stoner kids still living with their parents througout their 20's for example which apparently is half of that generation.
So, you'd still need dealers, distribution networks, etc. Say a Mexican cartel currently runs the streets. Weed is now legal, and Jeff Spicoli (sp?) is out selling the stuff to Mr. Hand and everybody else at Ridgemont High and the surrounding neighborhood. Do you really think the friendly neighborhood cartel is going to suddenly become good citizens and take their complaint about turf to the Better Business Bureau? You have to be kidding yourself if you believe that.
So, essentually what you'd be doing is legalizing a portion of these cartel's business, who would now say all their money comes from this enterprise thus making them harder to prosecute. Otherwise, nothing would change. Furthermore, the concerns on driving are 100% correct. Cop pulls you over for being all over the road and smells pot and you get a free trip down to the station. Once its legal and untestable on the spot, what happens? Clearly the drug affects your mind, but if its legal and untestable every aging hippie and dumb high school kid who can't drive anyway will be an even bigger problem. No thanks.
The missing key to winning the war on drugs is treatment. Force busted low level users into it and that'll diminish the demand. However, throwing in the towel isn't the answer. 50 years ago the Mafia seemed insurmountable. What would the country look like if the feds abandonded that effort?
aparch
Well-known member
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Not sure just where to put it, but a Rupert Murdoch company is producing Flash web games using North Korean programmers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ars-with-video-games-made-in-north-korea.html
That's right, Fox News is in bed with Kim Jong Il.
Not sure just where to put it, but a Rupert Murdoch company is producing Flash web games using North Korean programmers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ars-with-video-games-made-in-north-korea.html
That's right, Fox News is in bed with Kim Jong Il.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Not a big shocker. Fox has never been motivated by a conservative platform for itself...but rather the fact that its identified an addictive need in the marketplace and its supplying the the drug. Evidence...that it still covers sleeze (poptarts or whatever they call it).
Not a big shocker. Fox has never been motivated by a conservative platform for itself...but rather the fact that its identified an addictive need in the marketplace and its supplying the the drug. Evidence...that it still covers sleeze (poptarts or whatever they call it).
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
I was not distinguishing between weed and other drugs because folks were talking about a big reduction in crime and government expense fighting the drug war.
I may be wrong but I don't think there are 4 agents standing next to each other: 1 weed, 1 cocaine, 1 heroin and 1 for everything else; so when we legalize pot the cost of the drug war goes down by 25%. If we only legalize pot how much do we really save in the war on drugs if we are still fighting the war?
Also, I don't think the average drug gang has brand managers that only deal in the import and sale of one product. For those that only sell pot, I suspect they aren't going to go get a job at Best Buy if pot becomes legal. Maybe they will use their experience and distribution channels to sell other drugs (just a guess). So, legalizing pot will likely not reduce the number of illegal drug dealers by much. Therefore, it stands to reason, that drug gang crime will also not be significantly reduced.
But, we'll have more stoned people. (and all of the positives that come from that)
I was not distinguishing between weed and other drugs because folks were talking about a big reduction in crime and government expense fighting the drug war.
I may be wrong but I don't think there are 4 agents standing next to each other: 1 weed, 1 cocaine, 1 heroin and 1 for everything else; so when we legalize pot the cost of the drug war goes down by 25%. If we only legalize pot how much do we really save in the war on drugs if we are still fighting the war?
Also, I don't think the average drug gang has brand managers that only deal in the import and sale of one product. For those that only sell pot, I suspect they aren't going to go get a job at Best Buy if pot becomes legal. Maybe they will use their experience and distribution channels to sell other drugs (just a guess). So, legalizing pot will likely not reduce the number of illegal drug dealers by much. Therefore, it stands to reason, that drug gang crime will also not be significantly reduced.
But, we'll have more stoned people. (and all of the positives that come from that)
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Or you know, they could use their expertise in growing and distribution of pot to grow and distribute pot legally.
The thing that aggravates me the most is that marijuana is no worse for you than alcohol or tobacco (in fact its better than tobacco b/c it isn't physically addictive) but our government decided to draw some arbitrary line at some point and now just has to keep holding it up.
Or you know, they could use their expertise in growing and distribution of pot to grow and distribute pot legally.
The thing that aggravates me the most is that marijuana is no worse for you than alcohol or tobacco (in fact its better than tobacco b/c it isn't physically addictive) but our government decided to draw some arbitrary line at some point and now just has to keep holding it up.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Again about how the friendly neighborhood drug cartel is not going to suddenly turn into choir boys if pot is legal. Start cutting into their profits in a big way and see what happens to you. This nirvana state we're all supposed to live in post-legalization sounds terrific, but call me skeptical. We'll still be funding the same murderous and criminal gangs, but now without one legal means of going after them.
Again about how the friendly neighborhood drug cartel is not going to suddenly turn into choir boys if pot is legal. Start cutting into their profits in a big way and see what happens to you. This nirvana state we're all supposed to live in post-legalization sounds terrific, but call me skeptical. We'll still be funding the same murderous and criminal gangs, but now without one legal means of going after them.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
I don't disagree with your latter point...smoking (based on some wiki research) represents a far greater risk to the country when lost productivity and health care costs are included. It also would free up $100b for consumers who currently buy smokes.
When you consider the relationship of smoking to income, income to net taxes and government subsidies to income...are we paying a significant percentage of people to smoke? ...And then claiming the $4/pack in taxes as revenue? ...that we turn around and give back out after paying gov't overhead? With the knock on effect of lung cancer and health care premium increases? Only the gov't could come up with that model.
On your first point, if you are serious that people who currently run cash based, no tax, pot smuggling operations will go legit and start opening farms, buying trucks etc. I'd say I'm skeptical at best.
I don't disagree with your latter point...smoking (based on some wiki research) represents a far greater risk to the country when lost productivity and health care costs are included. It also would free up $100b for consumers who currently buy smokes.
When you consider the relationship of smoking to income, income to net taxes and government subsidies to income...are we paying a significant percentage of people to smoke? ...And then claiming the $4/pack in taxes as revenue? ...that we turn around and give back out after paying gov't overhead? With the knock on effect of lung cancer and health care premium increases? Only the gov't could come up with that model.
On your first point, if you are serious that people who currently run cash based, no tax, pot smuggling operations will go legit and start opening farms, buying trucks etc. I'd say I'm skeptical at best.
- Status