Drug Legalization; your view?

[skullman80]

btw, CVS announced they are stopping sale of all cigarettes in their stores. They estimate a loss of $2 billion dollars annually, but want to be taken more seriously as a health store/clinic.

They will still sell junk food and such, so its not like they are getting rid of all the crap they sale. Just seems like some stupid idea some corporate suit had.

[pensfan1989]

Generally speaking, I draw the line at stuff that occurs naturally. Pot occurs naturally in nature, which is about the only drug that can be used without some sort of refinement (I don't know a lot about this stuff cause I don't do any of it so I could be wrong).

I really don't see the difference between pot and alcohol. Pot use was pretty prevalent at Pitt where I was there, even though it's illegal. I don't think legalizing it would really increase the amount of people who use it, because a lot of people do already. This is especially true of people who are drug tested regularly as a condition of employment.

Really though, you can get addicted on almost anything. People get addicted to fast food, sex, soda, alcohol, etc. And DUI laws would still apply to a person driving high or driving drunk, so the risk exposed to the general public is probably minimal.

[Eismann]

Legalize them, but obviously make the harder stuff hard to get.

Huh? Why? What's the point of limiting anything?

Knuckle down, babies.

[Willie Kool]

Legalize everything. Prohibition has never and will never work. People will always find a way to do what they want to do.

I would add that I have no issue with health/life insurance and businesses taking a zero-tolerance stance. Legalize it all, but don't enable use. Make it an actual choice with consequences.

Using corporate coercion to enforce social policy is not a stance I can support.

If the hard and soft drug markets were separated (like beer and liquor) and if kids could learn the truth about what different drugs really do to you, it would be a lot more of an actual choice than it is now.

[tjand72]

Legalize everything. Prohibition has never and will never work. People will always find a way to do what they want to do.

I would add that I have no issue with health/life insurance and businesses taking a zero-tolerance stance. Legalize it all, but don't enable use. Make it an actual choice with consequences.

Using corporate coercion to enforce social policy is not a stance I can support.

If the hard and soft drug markets were separated (like beer and liquor) and if kids could learn the truth about what different drugs really do to you, it would be a lot more of an actual choice than it is now.

Thay wouldn't be enforcing anything but their own prerogative. They would just be choosing to hire/fire those that they deem to be a risk to their business model. There's no social policy involved.

[viva la ben]

Legalize marijuana, and you also legalize the growing of hemp for manufacturing and industry.

[Factorial]

Legalize them, but obviously make the harder stuff hard to get.

Huh? Why? What's the point of limiting anything?

Knuckle down, babies.

Your sarcasm is a buzz kill man.

[PensFanInDC]

No

[Willie Kool]

Legalize everything. Prohibition has never and will never work. People will always find a way to do what they want to do.

I would add that I have no issue with health/life insurance and businesses taking a zero-tolerance stance. Legalize it all, but don't enable use. Make it an actual choice with consequences.

Using corporate coercion to enforce social policy is not a stance I can support.

If the hard and soft drug markets were separated (like beer and liquor) and if kids could learn the truth about what different drugs really do to you, it would be a lot more of an actual choice than it is now.

Thay wouldn't be enforcing anything but their own prerogative. They would just be choosing to hire/fire those that they deem to be a risk to their business model. There's no social policy involved.

It seems it's the same as saying it's OK to not hire / insure or to fire someone who takes antidepressants or who drinks away from work in the evening or weekend. If it doesn't affect job performance I'd think ability, experience and results are far more important than what drug someone prefers. I do support the idea of a test in cases of workplace accidents to protect the company from workers comp claims, etc. as long as that test can prove actual impairment and not just prior usage.

[Eismann]

Legalize them, but obviously make the harder stuff hard to get.

Huh? Why? What's the point of limiting anything?

Knuckle down, babies.

Your sarcasm is a buzz kill man.

No sarcasm. Free the people; drug use is fine. I know loads of people who snort coke and highball and have great jobs. And none of them get into any trouble. Matter of fact, society is better off with more drug use. Fact.

[shafnutz05]

America's economy runs on cocaine. Where do you think we get our energy, drive, innovation, and ambition?

[Willie Kool]

America's economy runs on cocaine. Where do you think we get our energy, drive, innovation, and ambition?

Not to mention the 'off the books' money for covert ops.

[PensFanInDC]

Drivin' that train...

[Willie Kool]

Matter of fact, society is better off with more drug use. Fact.

[Factorial]

America's economy runs on cocaine. Where do you think we get our energy, drive, innovation, and ambition?

America's economy runs on caffeine.

I'm not for legalizing cocaine, heroin, crystal meth as they are all highly addictive and destructive. The same can't be said of pot outside of a similar amount that do it with alcohol. And if you have more than one drink a night, you have a drinking problem.

[Factorial]

Matter of fact, society is better off with more drug use. Fact.

This has probably already been discussed but if there is such a thing as a "gateway drug" it's alcohol.

[Willie Kool]

Any 'gateway effect' for cannabis is due to the fact that people can't just go buy it. They have to deal with someone that may use and push other drugs.

[PensFanInDC]

[Eismann]

Matter of fact, society is better off with more drug use. Fact.

Damn right. No other factors involved, like schooling or ambition or parenting or hard work. Drugs, baby. Straight-ballin' reality-altering love. Woooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And everyone knows there are ZERO problems with drugs. No violence, no crime, no probs. It's like that for EVERYONE who does any drugs. Yessahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MOre drugs = more success. Pot for breffast, horse for lunch, yayo for dinner, paycheck fo' dessert. Count it.

[tjand72]

Legalize everything. Prohibition has never and will never work. People will always find a way to do what they want to do.

I would add that I have no issue with health/life insurance and businesses taking a zero-tolerance stance. Legalize it all, but don't enable use. Make it an actual choice with consequences.

Using corporate coercion to enforce social policy is not a stance I can support.

If the hard and soft drug markets were separated (like beer and liquor) and if kids could learn the truth about what different drugs really do to you, it would be a lot more of an actual choice than it is now.

Thay wouldn't be enforcing anything but their own prerogative. They would just be choosing to hire/fire those that they deem to be a risk to their business model. There's no social policy involved.

It seems it's the same as saying it's OK to not hire / insure or to fire someone who takes antidepressants or who drinks away from work in the evening or weekend. If it doesn't affect job performance I'd think ability, experience and results are far more important than what drug someone prefers. I do support the idea of a test in cases of workplace accidents to protect the company from workers comp claims, etc. as long as that test can prove actual impairment and not just prior usage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not a"right" to have alcohol or tobacco in your system when you're doing a job. If my employer required zero traces of alcohol in my system, I might be out of work. They have a reasonable reason for not requiring that at the moment, but there's no reason why they can't require abstinence. I would just have to hope that I could get a job elsewhere if I wanted to maintain my lifestyle.

At the moment, being depressed and/or a drinker is not a protected class. If I want to employ someone, their possible dependence on antidepressants or other drugs would (and should) weigh heavily upon my decision to hire/retain that person. This coming from a person who has been intimately involved in depression and its treatment.

[tjand72]

Legalize everything. Prohibition has never and will never work. People will always find a way to do what they want to do.

I would add that I have no issue with health/life insurance and businesses taking a zero-tolerance stance. Legalize it all, but don't enable use. Make it an actual choice with consequences.

Using corporate coercion to enforce social policy is not a stance I can support.

If the hard and soft drug markets were separated (like beer and liquor) and if kids could learn the truth about what different drugs really do to you, it would be a lot more of an actual choice than it is now.

Thay wouldn't be enforcing anything but their own prerogative. They would just be choosing to hire/fire those that they deem to be a risk to their business model. There's no social policy involved.

It seems it's the same as saying it's OK to not hire / insure or to fire someone who takes antidepressants or who drinks away from work in the evening or weekend. If it doesn't affect job performance I'd think ability, experience and results are far more important than what drug someone prefers. I do support the idea of a test in cases of workplace accidents to protect the company from workers comp claims, etc. as long as that test can prove actual impairment and not just prior usage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not a"right" to have alcohol or tobacco in your system when you're doing a job. If my employer required zero traces of alcohol in my system, I might be out of work. They have a reasonable reason for not requiring that at the moment, but there's no reason why they can't require abstinence. I would just have to hope that I could get a job elsewhere if I wanted to maintain my lifestyle.

At the moment, being depressed and/or a drinker is not a protected class. If I want to employ someone, their possible dependence on antidepressants or other drugs would (and should) weigh heavily upon my decision to hire/retain that person. This coming from a person who has been intimately involved in depression and its treatment.

[Willie Kool]

Matter of fact, society is better off with more drug use. Fact.

Spoiler:

Damn right. No other factors involved, like schooling or ambition or parenting or hard work. Drugs, baby. Straight-ballin' reality-altering love. Woooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said nor implied that. The vast majority of people that have smoked pot have had no problems with it. Maybe the problems you are concerned about are actually caused by a lack of the things you listed and not by cannabis.

And everyone knows there are ZERO problems with drugs. No violence, no crime, no probs. It's like that for EVERYONE who does any drugs. Yessahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all of the crime and violence surrounding drugs is directly attributable to their illegality.

More drugs = more success.

No, but you can't honestly argue that using drugs inherently impedes success.

[Eismann]

Matter of fact, society is better off with more drug use. Fact.

Spoiler:

Damn right. No other factors involved, like schooling or ambition or parenting or hard work. Drugs, baby. Straight-ballin' reality-altering love. Woooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said nor implied that. The vast majority of people that have smoked pot have had no problems with it. Maybe the problems you are concerned about are actually caused by a lack of the things you listed and not by cannabis.

And everyone knows there are ZERO problems with drugs. No violence, no crime, no probs. It's like that for EVERYONE who does any drugs. Yessahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all of the crime and violence surrounding drugs is directly attributable to their illegality.

More drugs = more success.

No, but you can't honestly argue that using drugs inherently impedes success.

Right. That's why I'm saying more drugs = good. I'm done trying to defend sensibility and old skool blechy stupidity. THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL WRONG WITH DRUGS OF ANY KIND OR ANYONE DOING THEM. DO MORE DRUGS..IT'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOD FOR YOU AND 'MERICA. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

[PensFanInDC]

Eismann, I totally respect your view and I even agree with most of it but what's with the incoherent rambling? Its not getting a point across.

[Eismann]

Eismann, I totally respect your view and I even agree with most of it but what's with the incoherent rambling? Its not getting a point across.

tHEREIN lIES Yer aNSWER.