Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: trax1 on February 03, 2008, 12:26:38 PM
-
California now has pot vending machines, I think thats going a little to far.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=75372&videoChannel=4
-
It's not the average vending machine. I don't see the big deal.
-
I don't know, I mean I have no problem with medical marijuana, but I think putting it in a vending machine isn't the best idea, you just know someone is gonna find a way to either break into it, or a way to get it to dispense pot without a script.
-
THANK GOD!
Now make every other drug that has KILLED PEOPLE, and make those illegal.
I wanna see the socker mom get jail time for her little yellow pills.
I wanna see all these medical* companys get sued and goto jail for pushing death.
I wanna see all these 7/11's shut down that push smokes alcahol and junk food.I wanna see tobbaco companys linched from light post's like every mass murder should be.
On and on and on, simply put...screw the classes who dub stoner's worthless, yet in the same breath pop 2 valumes, light a smoke a crack a beer all while honking theyre horn at the guy ion front goin' to slow.
And i want 15%-25% of those pot tax's to go to the edumacation system so kids can spell better than I can in our future. (Thats right, california edumecated right here, can you tell?)
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Now make every other drug that has KILLED PEOPLE, and make those illegal.
Actually pot has never killed anyone, it's one drug that is impossible to over dose on.
-
I guess some folks here took 'Reefer Madness' to heart.
-
I dub stoners worthless, and I don't do any of those other things.
:huh
That said, I'd be perfectly happy to legalize a lot of drugs if the govt would release me from the tax-based liability I have for the actions of drug users and to hold drug users fully accountable for criminal actions taken while under the influence. As it is now, a druggie that ends up in jail, in the hospital, on welfare, or having drug addicted children ends up receiving an awful lot of taxpayer dollars to support their worthless lives. And people caught (for example) driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol are not immediatly banned from driving... Why are they still allowed to drive? Remove the taxpayer support of drug users and hold drug users fully accountable for their actions, and I'd happily support legalizing drugs.
-
Originally posted by trax1
Actually pot has never killed anyone, it's one drug that is impossible to over dose on.
Pot smoking is linked to causing cancer and higher death of brain cells than even alcohol. Pot smoking has caused deaths in accidents just like alcohol has.
Believing that smoking pot is not going to hurt your body and possibly cause death is just plain silly.
-
Originally posted by trax1
Actually pot has never killed anyone, it's one drug that is impossible to over dose on.
Stoned drivers are about as dangerous as drunk drivers. Don't kid yourself. Every stoner I knew in highschool went from being a bright friendly kid to being people who were terribly uninteresting, couldn't speak without slurring their words, and who were virtually unemployable outside sales or unskilled labor jobs. Their lives were not endangered by their use of pot, however it made them stupid and whenever they drove while stoned, they endangered the lives of everyone around them.
If driving stoned resulted in immediate revocation of all motor vehicle privledges and it was govt policy to deny taxpayer support to drug users, I'd be 100% in favor of legalizing almost all drugs. But that's not the case, and the more druggies we have in the country, the more they'll vote for politicians that rely on their votes and therefore continue to shape public law to enable their behavior through taxpayer funded support programs and failing to hold them accountable for their actions.
-
DUI covers drivers impaired by marijuana already, Eagl. Does that mean you'll support de-criminzalization? Or was that just more talk?
-
I was talking about overdosing not cancer or driving, I think it's obvious that driving impaired is dangerous, and putting any kind of smoke in your body isn't healthy.
-
Originally posted by eagl
But that's not the case, and the more druggies we have in the country, the more they'll vote for politicians that rely on their votes and therefore continue to shape public law to enable their behavior through taxpayer funded support programs and failing to hold them accountable for their actions.
\
Ahh, I'm not sure about you but every drug user I've known never voted, and I've known alot being a recovering addict myself.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
DUI covers drivers impaired by marijuana already, Eagl. Does that mean you'll support de-criminzalization? Or was that just more talk?
I only support de-criminalization if and only if other laws compensate for this. My comments re: tax benefits for drug users for example, plus other laws that would be necessary such as permitting business owners to discriminate against employees solely on the basis of drug use. Currently drug use is an allowable discriminatory basis, however if drug use is de-criminalized, this would be immediately challenged so further legislation would be required to cement the ability of businesses to manage their workforces and not be forced to hire people who use drugs.
As for DUI already covering drug impaired drivers, note that most states do not automatically yank motor vehicle privledges for DUI for more than what I consider a token timeperiod, resulting in what I consider an unacceptable repeat-offender rate. If you drive impaired, you should lose your right to operate any motor vehicle for at least a year. If you are a repeat DUI offender, I think there should be a permanent lifetime ban of motor vehicle privledges including off-road vehicles and boats.
If the govt would spend a little effort protecting ME from drug users instead of the current system which attempts to simply punish users, then I'd be fully in favor of de-criminalizing almost all drug use. Yea we'd need to toss in some protections such as adding harsh penalties to those who provide drugs to minors who don't have the maturity to understand the consequences of drug use, but even that is a gray area in my opinion. I don't terribly mind if someone destroys their own life, but I take it very seriously when someone messes with MY life.
-
Originally posted by trax1
\
Ahh, I'm not sure about you but every drug user I've known never voted, and I've known alot being a recovering addict myself.
That's odd, considering some studies estimate that 50% or more of the US population has at least tried drugs at some point in their lives. There are a lot of functional and hidden drug users who regularly vote, just as there are plenty of closet alcoholics who don't get caught until they kill someone while driving drunk.
Those people tend to vote for candidates with very liberal policies that enable drug use... You haven't by chance been to northern Calif lately, where there is a growing activist pothead political movement? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by eagl
plus other laws that would be necessary such as permitting business owners to discriminate against employees solely on the basis of drug use. Currently drug use is an allowable discriminatory basis,.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
How about folks who drink, including socially?
-
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 :aok
-
You know, i've thought long and hard about this, and, well.....uh....that is.....umm, what was this thread about again?
-
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*
-
See? Eagl's 'hip'. He's 'with it'. Oh, is that the Macarena he's doing?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :aok
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
SOB, how would you punish a sober driver that kills someone? Would you say "gee, too bad, it was just a accident".
-
Originally posted by trax1
I don't know, I mean I have no problem with medical marijuana, but I think putting it in a vending machine isn't the best idea, you just know someone is gonna find a way to either break into it, or a way to get it to dispense pot without a script.
Watch the vid again, the vending machines have 24 hour security. Looked like the machines might be using fingerprints as a way to ID folks, if so, thats going to be pretty hard to get around.
-
Originally posted by john9001
SOB, how would you punish a sober driver that kills someone? Would you say "gee, too bad, it was just a accident".
Where did that question come from? Are you not a fan of DUI enforcement?
Anyhow, there's a lot left out of that question, so I'll keep it general too. I do believe there are situations where a sober driver wouldn't be punished for killing someone. I could also see a situation where a driver under the influence of something wouldn't be punished beyond a DUI.
-
Well the DUI point is kinda moot, you can get charged with DUI now for marijuana, I should know it happen to me when I was 19.