Author Topic: Pot Vending Machines (Read 785 times)

eagl · « **Reply #15 on:** February 03, 2008, 01:57:10 PM »

My Dad was a career CHP officer, and he had some amazing stories about stopping people who you'd never guess were druggies or alcoholics, but who got nailed during a routine traffic stop. There are an awful lot of functional addicts of all kinds, and it's really unpredictable when or how their behavior will betray their addiction. Hell, a doctor living right up the street from me recently OD'd in his office and died... Not many people saw that coming with this guy but he was the second or third similar case in this town in just the last few years.

Charon · « **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:00:11 PM »

A lot of the pot smokers I knew in HS/College/Post College are Doctors (3); Lawyers (2);corporate officers (1); top alpha sales men (at least 5); code heads (4); nurses (2) ... numerous other professions. Most have professional degrees. Most still smoke here and there to this day

There were certainly losers who smoked pot, but they were not on the winner track to begin with and they also drank. In fact, I must say I've met more dangerous losers with a bottle in their hands than a joint.

Charon

eagl · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:01:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by trax1
Actually thats not 100% true, the employee has to be drug free and in treatment, the law is your employer can only not fire you on the basis of prior drug use, so as long as your getting treatment for you addiction and not currently using you can't be fired for it.

Not entirely true either. I can lose my job for drug use even if I go clean and enroll in a treatment problem, because the prior use would disqualify me for certain jobs that are the basis for my continued employment. Basically they'd have to find me some other job not requiring flying or a security clearance, and there aren't any of those, so I'd probably get laid off rather legitimately.

Personally, I don't want to work with drug users because I have found them to be universally unreliable, while creating more work and a negative work environment for me. This includes nicotine addicts since they take more breaks and come back from those breaks reeking of smoke. But smoking is a cultural issue and I'm told to just deal with it, so I do. Thankfully I don't have to work with stoners or users of other harder drugs though.

Chairboy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:02:48 PM »

How about folks who drink, including socially?

eagl · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:11:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
How about folks who drink, including socially?

Current laws deal with that pretty well, except for taxpayer support and even that is most likely entirely compensated for by federal taxes on alcohol. Alcohol use is legal, there are generally consequences for abuse although I feel some are not strong enough, and there are protections for minors that in my opinion are adequate considering the health characteristics of alcohol.

So I have no problem with legalization of alcohol. The problem I have with this is only in how the govt deals with consequences for the actions of people who drink alcohol and then commit crimes while intoxicated, and for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to support alcoholics and thereby enabling them to continue their behavior. I'm in favor of govt funded rehab centers, but on a one-time basis. An addict gets one free, govt funded trip to rehab. If they relapse, too bad, darwin wins. Existing taxes on alcohol ought to pretty much cover the cost of this. Booze is pretty darn cheap so I wouldn't even have a problem adding on another cent or so per fluid ounce of booze to fund reimbursement for that first trip to rehab. Money well spent IMHO, to get someone who made a mistake back into mainstream society. Relapse however, and my sympathy (ie. my tax money) goes to someone else.

IMHO. Make me president and I'll give it a shot

Sixpence · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:16:44 PM »

You know, i've thought long and hard about this, and, well.....uh....that is.....umm, what was this thread about again?

eagl · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:19:37 PM »

Pass the pipe dude... Where's the snacks bro? BRB headin to 7-11 for some chips and to find that guy wearin the purple hoodie *wink wink*

Chairboy · « **Reply #22 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:25:11 PM »

See? Eagl's 'hip'. He's 'with it'. Oh, is that the Macarena he's doing?

BluKitty · « **Reply #23 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:32:56 PM »

I know more successful users of marijuana than 'stoner losers'. It's a cliche, due the drugs chemical similarity to brain chemicals that help you forget painful/stressful situations.

So yes you do get some people abusing it to this end... and some that just want to be stoned all the time. That however is like comparing an alcoholic with a casual drinker-Or someone who pop's an oxcontin for pain when they need it .... and Rush Limbaugh.

Illegal marijuana is such a joke and a waste of resources. Do you think it's worth worrying about a few worthless stoner's that might have easier access to their stuff and be even more worthless and leaching? Do you really think the risk, waste of resources, and invasion of privacy is worth it?

I sure don't. Illegal marijuana is just a stupid waste. Move on, get over it, without Hurst, you wouldn't even care. Don't we have better things to worry about?

Yeager · « **Reply #24 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:39:50 PM »

I smoked a lot of pot when I was younger and I believe beyond a doubt that I have suffered from the after effects later in life as a result. Pot is not healthy in any sense of the word and should not be promoted in any way.

john9001 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:40:18 PM »

legal or not you will always have alcohol and marijuana. (and cocaine and prostitution and smuggling) Making something illegal just provides a business opportunity.

For those that missed history class, remember Prohibition? The great social experiment that was going to save America.

trax1 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 03, 2008, 03:43:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BluKitty
Illegal marijuana is just a stupid waste. Move on, get over it, without Hurst, you wouldn't even care. Don't we have better things to worry about?

I use to smoke pot when I was younger(not anymore though), and here in Chicago they don't even care about weed, they even let you keep it, because like one cop told me "They'd rather spend there time looking for more serious crimes then spending time off the streets writing up paperwork on a pot arrest." Personally I feel the same way, I'd much rather see cops and tax money going after drugs that are much more destructive like meth, coke, heroin, ect.

SOB · « **Reply #27 on:** February 03, 2008, 03:47:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
Current laws deal with that pretty well, except for taxpayer support and even that is most likely entirely compensated for by federal taxes on alcohol. Alcohol use is legal, there are generally consequences for abuse although I feel some are not strong enough, and there are protections for minors that in my opinion are adequate considering the health characteristics of alcohol.

So I have no problem with legalization of alcohol. The problem I have with this is only in how the govt deals with consequences for the actions of people who drink alcohol and then commit crimes while intoxicated, and for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to support alcoholics and thereby enabling them to continue their behavior. I'm in favor of govt funded rehab centers, but on a one-time basis. An addict gets one free, govt funded trip to rehab. If they relapse, too bad, darwin wins. Existing taxes on alcohol ought to pretty much cover the cost of this. Booze is pretty darn cheap so I wouldn't even have a problem adding on another cent or so per fluid ounce of booze to fund reimbursement for that first trip to rehab. Money well spent IMHO, to get someone who made a mistake back into mainstream society. Relapse however, and my sympathy (ie. my tax money) goes to someone else.

IMHO. Make me president and I'll give it a shot

And you don't think the same model could be applied to Marijuana? I do. I've known users of both drugs and with both have seen hopeless cases and folks who just use casually without negative affect to their lives (not taking into account any health risk associated with casual use) or the lives of those around them.

eagl · « **Reply #28 on:** February 03, 2008, 06:43:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
And you don't think the same model could be applied to Marijuana? I do. I've known users of both drugs and with both have seen hopeless cases and folks who just use casually without negative affect to their lives (not taking into account any health risk associated with casual use) or the lives of those around them.

Read my posts. I DO think that the same model COULD be applied to pot.

The problem is that it won't. Plus the bleeding hearts will ensure that taxpayers end up paying out to enable abuse.

SOB · « **Reply #29 on:** February 03, 2008, 09:32:26 PM »

I did read your posts. It looks to me like you're setting up a double standard. Alcohol is OK, even though DUI alcohol offenders aren't punished strongly enough. Marijuana is not OK, because DUI marijuana offenders won't be punished strongly enough.

Or if I just missed it; what is it that you think would make the enforcement of legalized marijuana less stringent than alcohol?