Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Everything Else' started by KINGSMAN129, Jan 18, 2014.
A cool three mil in January alone......
And that doesn't include the money they saved by not spending law enforcement resources on busting, trying or jailing anybody new for MJ offenses. Who knows what that adds up to.
First day of legality here in the wonderful state of Washington! Dude, what were we talking about again.....
Pizza. And nachos. And chocolate.
To be fair, when considering the soft costs of marijuana legalization, there would be a certain societal cost for the greatly increased use of an intoxicant. Alcohol sales generate a lot of taxes, and alcohol being legal means that people won't be prosecuted for selling and buying it. But there is still a cost to alcohol use, and it would be an interesting debate to try to analyze if the cost is exceeded by the benefit.
Back to marijuana soft costs. Then you'd also have to factor in the benefits if it does have therapeutic value, once that value started to be realized.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad this overdue experiment is going on, and it seems to be working. Time will tell.
I agree that legalization may draw some to smoke that wouldn't before, but I don't think it's quite a large amount. In other words, people have already been using and interweaving with society for awhile. The only difference is now they won't have to live in fear of going to jail for a harmless pleasure that also has health benefits. Also, Frito Lay stock prices will go up...
You are in Soros's company? As far as I know he is a votary of such legalization.
You could be right, hoss. However, I'm imagining a similar argument at the end of Prohibition. "Legalization may draw some to drink who wouldn't before, but I don't think it's quite a large amount..." I do realize that the alcohol culture and the smoking culture have marked differences. I just don't think it's quite predictable how broad the increased level of intoxication will spread or what its ultimate effect will be.
However, in the final analysis, I still believe it's not nearly enough damage to justify stocking the prisons with those who indulge recreationally, nor do I believe that valid biomedical research and results, nor the value of hemp as an agricultural product, should be squelched because we're accustomed to it being illegal.
I'd say that what we saw with prohibition is basically the same amount of people who wanted to and did drink on Dec 31st, 1919, still did so the next day and until repeal. All prohibition really did was create a black market for something and the subsequent crime that comes along with it. There are way more users of marijuana out there than people realize I think. keep in mind that pretty much everyone here doesn't have a memory of a time when marijuana wasn't illegal, demonized with misinformation and marginalized. Alcohol was illegal for such a shorter period of time that the overlap of those defying the law and keeping the idea of altering consciousness via potent potable didn't allow for a generation of people to grow up thinking alcohol was evil. If you look at places like Nepal, Tibet, etc., that have been harvesting marijuana for thousands of years, communal hooka smoking of hash is just a common social event and seen as harmless.
With so much real science behind what it really is and does and the ease of availability of it, the current generations do not see pot as evil anymore and hence, all of these legalization actions are happening. In 20 years, it'll be weird and silly that it ever was illegal in the first place and chalked up to another sad chapter in American political history where propaganda based on flat out lies ruled the public domain for far too long.
And with human trials to test the effect of cannabis oil on brain cancer, and ever-mounting evidence (both anecdotal and scientific) emerging all the time, I think more and more people are realizing that there are far more medical reasons for legalization than there are recreational ones. Either way, it's just a matter of time.
I agree, but taking the medical slant is just opening a muddled debate. Full legalization as a matter of freedom is a much easier debate. Like any subject where science is involved, it becomes about people who have no scientific training or background deciding the validity of the science based upon their opinion. Climate change is a good example of this. If it was fully legal it addresses both the oppressive and medical aspects of this.
Agreed. I'm just glad people will be legally allowed to explore the medical benefits as well.
I agree. Like by the late 1970s, it was awful that legalized segregation ever existed. Like I think it'll be weird and silly in 20 years that gay marriage was controversial. In The Dead Zone, after a coma of five years, the protagonist woke up to a doctor whose haircut would've gotten him beat up in bars just five years before. Things change.
After passing committee, there is a hard push to advance medical marijuana legislation to a vote before the session soon lets out. There is some contention amongst the republicans because our governor (R) supports a narrower legalization of only marijuana oil extract for medical purposes, and the leaders of the House Republican majority says they’re opposed to the narrower legislation favored by the governor because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved it. Democrats just want to “party on dude.”
I’m curious about something since it will come up here if the law passes. Has anyone had experience in that if an employer has drug testing as a condition of employment and considers marijuana to be a drug voiding employment, can they still do so if the medical marijuana legislation is passed? Or will they be forced change policies, or make exceptions if there is a doctor’s note?
In Colorado, a court has ruled that an employer can fire or not hire because of marijuana showing up in drug testing, regardless of it being legal recreationally by state law, regardless of it being for medical purposes, because marijuana use is still illegal by federal law.
Very simple answer. You can test for alcohol use. If that is a condition for employment, then so be it on other drugs. Otherwise, it's hypocritical. It'd fall under the same reason people aren't tested for alcohol use: it's legal and an employer can't judge people who are acting legally. Now if you wreck a company car, etc., and test positive, different story.
Cigarettes are also a good example here. Smoking is legal, but we all know it's really bad for you. So should employers be able to tell you not to smoke tobacco? It costs them money. Smokers inevitably take more and longer breaks during work hours, they cost more in health insurance and are way more likely to get sick and miss work. So let me tell you a real life story about this with me. I worked for Koch, Inc. for a while when I was 18 (yes THE evil Koch brothers). They decided no smoking on their workplace grounds anywhere. Why? To save on insurance. Period. The entire staff was up in arms because 90% of them (me included at the time) smoked. You had to rush to your car and drive just outside the fence to grab a smoke on your break. So while they prohibited smoking at the workplace, they did not make non smoker a condition of employment.
Oh, and for the record. That was an awful company to work for. The care very little about their employees and they pay terribly. I doubt it's changed in the years since.
If all goes as it should and mj is legalized the board, including federally, it's possible that employment standards have to change. Weed won't be illegal, so if that comes up on a urine test, you can't get fired for it unless it impairs your work. Same as booze.
For the record, this area (drugs) is one area that I have a hard time getting behind federal regulation about. But i also hate the fact that I can drive a short distance and be in another state and not have the same legal rights.
Yeah, it's really for political philosophy, but the evolution of the country has not gone in the model that was encapsulated in the whole "states rights" environment. If I were king, I'd change it. But people keep not putting me in charge.