Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's a thought. Let us asume for the momenbt that drugs are legal. Who gets to sell them? Who gets to make the most money off suffering adicts?

Kilkrazy wrote:
If you set the tax rate so high as to create a clear incentive to make an illegal, untaxed market, then you blow all these objectives.

I agree, but in the creation of black market we won't have a price margin akin to the $10/$10.20 example. The volume required to make the 2% difference profitable doesn't tend to function in a black market format - at least here in the states.

I'm convinced that an ongoing vice that can't be removed through prohibition needs to be legalized to contribute to society. 'Victimless' crimes need to be taxed and regulated rather than left an enforcement issue. Taxation helps remove the allure of the forbidden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alexwars1 wrote:Here's a thought. Let us asume for the momenbt that drugs are legal. Who gets to sell them? Who gets to make the most money off suffering adicts?

Sales should be relegated to licensed and regulated retailers. Comparable to a liquor license with its own regulation.
The same people profit from suffering addicts with legalized drugs as currently illegal ones - rehabilitation centers.

No, they shouldn't.

Kilkrazy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Tax avoidance is a crime so people have to take that into account not simply the price factor.

What exactly are you arguing here? I agree that overtaxation to the point of creating black markets is bad. But so is building a ladder to the sun and trying to climb to venus. We know. It's obvious. These are very clear and obvious points.

Since you agree with me there is no argument.

Very well then.

I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't consider carl sagan stupid

[link]http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm[link]


pot doesn't make you stupid

alexwars1 wrote:Here's a thought. Let us asume for the momenbt that drugs are legal. Who gets to sell them? Who gets to make the most money off suffering adicts?

Companies registered in production and retail would produce and sell them, same as for all other legal vices.

The profit from their sale would go to those companies, and to government.

Thinking about dope in terms of suffering addicts is basically a nonsense.

sebster wrote:
Companies registered in production and retail would produce and sell them, same as for all other legal vices.

In some parts of the world there are state monopolies on the sale of liquor.

dogma wrote:In some parts of the world there are state monopolies on the sale of liquor.

Huh, that makes sense but it never occurred to me that places would set up like that.

pot doesn't make people stupid, just stupid-ER

sebster wrote:
Huh, that makes sense but it never occurred to me that places would set up like that.

Yeah, its an awesome source of revenue. Surprisingly, there are even a few US states that operate this way, so do all the Scandinavian countries, though obviously the systems are a bit different. The biggest variable being whether or not the government operates retail establishments, or only holds a wholesale monopoly.

I say pot should be legal i mean is it that much worse than smoking??? or drinking?????

As a Libertarian this idea does make sense, but, I can hear it now. Some of these same people who wanted it will then complain because they weren't prevented from losing their job, getting injured because of the effects of the drugs or getting addicted. If you want them legal, deal with the repercussions too. Can't have it be a perfectly secure world, more freedom equals more chaos in people's everyday life.

I did hear about this being attempted in Switzerland with Heroin, the Swiss people voted to have it's leagaliztion repealled because junkies would shoot up in public parks in front of kids and leave their syringes everywhere. If the Swiss are anything, they are pround of having a clean country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also legalizing Pot would immediately create a slippery slope of other drugs and activities getting legalized. Where does it stop?

Yeah. That's what ticks me off about smokers. Cigs are legal and so most, not all, of them think they should get more work breaks, be allowed to smoke wherever and then bitch when non-smokers tell them their habit is unhealthy for all of those around them.

You want to smoke at work you A) take it outside, B) not demand more breaks than others (not my fault your nicotine habit is that bad) and C) don't blow the gak into my face even if I am standing 5 feet from you and we are outside. D) Don't throw the damned butts onto the ground. They are more unsightly than McD's or BK wrappers.

Stormrider wrote:
Also legalizing Pot would immediately create a slippery slope of other drugs and activities getting legalized. Where does it stop?

Uh, what? Alcohol is legal, does that mean the slippery slope exists? No, it doesn't. Stop spouting nonsense.

That's what'll happen with drugs and jobs.

Mary Jane could be legalized but employers will still make it a firing offense and a refusal to hire offense. So now pot will be legal but you'll have MORE employers losing help as more will be failing the random drug tests. More will fail the initial pre-screen so it'll be harder to find help who aren't stoners and stoned before coming to work. Then you'll have those people expecting to be able to light up at work on "smoke break". If they don't get their way then the employers will feel pressured to let employees get stoned during break creating more hazardous conditions.

Fateweaver wrote:
More will fail the initial pre-screen so it'll be harder to find help who aren't stoners and stoned before coming to work.

Failing a drug test does not indicate that a user will be unable to report to work sober.

Fateweaver wrote:
Then you'll have those people expecting to be able to light up at work on "smoke break". If they don't get their way then the employers will feel pressured to let employees get stoned during break creating more hazardous conditions.

Why? No employee that I know of is allowed to drink at work, why would they be allowed to smoke pot?

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
Also legalizing Pot would immediately create a slippery slope of other drugs and activities getting legalized. Where does it stop?

Uh, what? Alcohol is legal, does that mean the slippery slope exists? No, it doesn't. Stop spouting nonsense.

Ok 1. How long has alcohol been legal to buy, sell, trade, tax and consume? I'll answer that, since man figured out how to brew alcohol. Yes, cannibus has been smoked a long time too, but it was (right or wrong) made illegal in the 1930's by Roosevelt. 2. The slope does exist since this thread does exist, doesn't it? Makes you think, doesn't it? 3. What I mean is that where does it stop? Cocaine? Heroin? LSD? GHB? Ecstacy? All of which are far worse than Cannibus, but all have their advocates.


Personally, this idea should be implemented on a state by state basis, not a national decree.

dogma wrote:

Why? No employee that I know of is allowed to drink at work, why would they be allowed to smoke pot?

Because to many people, the fine line between cigarettes and pot does not exist. ANd hopefully they wouldn't be allwoed to smoke pot, but they might expect to.

The pre-screen IS designed to make sure people aren't going to have drugs in their system when showing up to work. It is not a preventative measure nor a "pick on stoners" policy. It's a "you can't pass the drug test so we don't trust you to be sober when coming to work" test.

It's assumed if you fail the pre-screen that you'll end up, at some point and time, showing up to work stoned and if that happens the employer is fethed if that person should get hurt as the employers insurance won't cover medical costs leaving the employer to pay out of pocket expenses. One of the jobs I worked at didn't do prescreens or randoms and working 3rd shift the lead for that crew would get stoned during breaks along with a few others. There was nobody that was going to say anything and with no worry of randoms they could get away with it. So IME those that fail the drug test would show up to work stoned on a weekly, if not daily, basis thereby proving that failing the prescreen means always coming to work high.

It might not seem fair to some but I think more employers should do the pre-screen, even McD's and Taco Bell.

If stoners are being so pushy about legalizing what makes people think they won't push to make it legal to toke up at work?

Stormrider wrote:
Ok 1. How long has alcohol been legal to buy, sell, trade, tax and consume? I'll answer that, since man figured out how to brew alcohol.

Nope, wrong. Prohibition son.

Stormrider wrote:
Yes, cannibus has been smoked a long time too, but it was (right or wrong) made illegal in the 1930's by Roosevelt.

So it was legal to smoke pot before the 30's, I fail to see how that fact supports your position.

Stormrider wrote:
2. The slope does exist since this thread does exist, doesn't it? Makes you think, doesn't it?

It makes me think about how poor the reasoning skills of the average person are.

This thread is a discussion about the legalization of drugs, slippery slope arguments are based on the inevitability of one thing in the aftermath of another thing. If something is being discussed it is not inevitable.

Slippery slopes do not exist, and the people that are taken in by the argument are fools.

Stormrider wrote:
3. What I mean is that where does it stop? Cocaine? Heroin? LSD? GHB? Ecstacy? All of which are far worse than Cannibus, but all have their advocates.

Wherever the populace wants it to stop. You can stop asking rhetorical questions now. Its a terrible, terrible habit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nightwatch wrote:
Because to many people, the fine line between cigarettes and pot does not exist. ANd hopefully they wouldn't be allwoed to smoke pot, but they might expect to.

So what? Fire them if they show up high, or get high at work. Easy solution.

Fateweaver wrote:

It might not seem fair to some but I think more employers should do the pre-screen, even McD's and Taco Bell.

Especially Taco Bell.

Fateweaver wrote:The pre-screen IS designed to make sure people aren't going to have drugs in their system when showing up to work. It is not a preventative measure nor a "pick on stoners" policy. It's a "you can't pass the drug test so we don't trust you to be sober when coming to work" test.

If you smoke weed within a month of a drug test, you have a significant chance of failing said test.

Fateweaver wrote:
It's assumed if you fail the pre-screen that you'll end up, at some point and time, showing up to work stoned and if that happens the employer is fethed if that person should get hurt as the employers insurance won't cover medical costs leaving the employer to pay out of pocket expenses.

I can get blind drunk the day before my interview, and perform with exemplary skill.

Fateweaver wrote:
If stoners are being so pushy about legalizing what makes people think they won't push to make it legal to toke up at work?

I don't smoke pot. I still think it should be legal.

dogma wrote:

So what? Fire them if they show up high, or get high at work. Easy solution.

That's what happens already. However, most people prefer to only go through the hiring process once whenever you need an employee, rather than several times.

I sincerely doubt that the legalization of pot would significantly increase the incidence of workers coming in stoned.

But you can't prove it wouldn't increase the incidence.

It's all purely speculation but I see more employer/employee problems post legalization than I see currently.

I might be wrong but I might also be right. I know a LOT of stoners who don't even think weed should be considered a drug, that it's no more harmful than normal cigarettes (subjective as mary jane does slow your reflexes more than Camels and as much as alcohol) and so there are going to be a large number of them who will say, upon legalization, that they should be allowed to smoke at work.

Again, nobody can prove the above scenario will exist but nobody can disprove it either.

Fateweaver wrote:But you can't prove it wouldn't increase the incidence.

It's all purely speculation but I see more employer/employee problems post legalization than I see currently.

Yes, that is a risk, but a minor one at best. Especially when considered in the light of revenue that could be derived from pot.

Fateweaver wrote:
...and so there are going to be a large number of them who will say, upon legalization, that they should be allowed to smoke at work.

So what? Why does what people might say have any bearing on policy?

dogma wrote:

So what? Why does what people might say have any bearing on policy?

People are saying that we should legalize pot.

This thread got very silly all of a sudden.

Right now alcohol is illegal, but being drunk at work is an offence that can get you fired. Arguing that somehow if marijuana was made legal the same situation couldn’t apply is ridiculous.

Second up, right now we have some drugs that are legal and some drugs that are illegal. Given the almost entirely harmless nature of some drugs, such as caffeine, and the extremely harmful nature of other drugs such as heroin, and the wide range of drugs in between, society will always have to make a judgement on what harmful drugs should be allowed for the sake of personal choice, and what drugs must be banned. The only sensible approach to that question is to consider each drug in and of itself, arguing a certain drug must be illegal or else future generations might legalise something else is simply nonsense.

I can't say for sure. I'm not exactly keen on drug use but it certainly seems like the laws against them are far more trouble than they're worth. I don't consider myself well educated enough to take a hard stance on it but from where I stand now I'm willing to give a "Probably".

You know what? Legalize them all, I changed my mind. Let everyone decide for themselves, but there better be no bitching for the consequences.