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.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091019/D9BE5D2G0.html

i'm ok with this on the 10th amendment alone.

I have always felt that our medical MJ usage laws where draconian.

GG

Good, it's the one thing they've done lately that's not a complete screw-up.

Just as long as it isn't available in public stores.

Smoke weed everyday!

Cheese Elemental wrote:Just as long as it is available in public stores.

Fixed.

It's about time this policy was made.

It doesn't go far enough, in my opinion, but it's a step in the right direction.

Khornholio wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Just as long as it is available in public stores.

Fixed.

Then enjoy your drop in employment rate and rise in poverty. If you were the CEO of a company, would you want your workers being lazy and dull, not working hard enough? Do you realise that if kids can acquire it even easier than they do now, the school system will just turn to gak? There are far too many kids at my school who do weed and are the worst performers in class and have poor attendance rates.

Weed certainly has medicinal uses, but legalising it for the public is foolish.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Khornholio wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Just as long as it is available in public stores.

Fixed.

Then enjoy your drop in employment rate and rise in poverty. If you were the CEO of a company, would you want your workers being lazy and dull, not working hard enough? Do you realise that if kids can acquire it even easier than they do now, the school system will just turn to gak? There are far too many kids at my school who do weed and are the worst performers in class and have poor attendance rates.

Weed certainly has medicinal uses, but legalising it for the public is foolish.

Thats not fair to the kids who smoke like chimneys at Auschwitz and make straight A's and go to High Level Technical Universities where they make more good grades and invent stuff.

Then enjoy your drop in employment rate and rise in poverty. If you were the CEO of a company, would you want your workers being lazy and dull, not working hard enough? Do you realise that if kids can acquire it even easier than they do now, the school system will just turn to gak? There are far too many kids at my school who drink alcohol and are the worst performers in class and have poor attendance rates.

Alcohol certainly has medicinal uses, but legalizing it for the public is foolish.

Ahtman, the difference is that alchohol has been used for thousands of years and people know the serious side effects because they sure as hell make them obvious (hangovers?).

Marijuana, on the other hand, just makes you feel good without giving immediately obvious signs of the negative effects it's having on you. It ruins lives, and yes, so does alchohol, but you can know when to stop chugging beer.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Ahtman, the difference is that alchohol has been used for thousands of years and people know the serious side effects because they sure as hell make them obvious (hangovers?).

Marijuana, on the other hand, just makes you feel good without giving immediately obvious signs of the negative effects it's having on you. It ruins lives, and yes, so does alchohol, but you can know when to stop chugging beer.

And after your high goes away and you wake up on the couch covered in cheetos and wearing your pants backwards, you can understand its time to cut back on your intake.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Ahtman, the difference is that alchohol has been used for thousands of years and people know the serious side effects because they sure as hell make them obvious (hangovers?).

Marijuana, on the other hand, just makes you feel good without giving immediately obvious signs of the negative effects it's having on you. It ruins lives, and yes, so does alchohol, but you can know when to stop chugging beer.

And after your high goes away and you wake up on the couch covered in cheetos and wearing your pants backwards, you can understand its time to cut back on your intake.

The thing is, alchohol leaves you with a horrible sensation when you're being careless with it. Weed just makes you feel good.

Why does the CEO of a company get to dictate what the rest of the country does? I mean, you can fire someone if they come to work high, just like you can fire them if they come to work drunk, or come to work too tired to do anything, or come to work wearing a fursuit (and subsequently trying to yiff the big client), etc.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why does the CEO of a company get to dictate what the rest of the country does? I mean, you can fire someone if they come to work high, just like you can fire them if they come to work drunk, or come to work too tired to do anything, or come to work wearing a fursuit (and subsequently trying to yiff the big client), etc.

It was just a term I was throwing out there. Could have said boss, or manager, or gay purple man, or whatever. They're similar enough.

Yep, you fire someone for coming to work high or in shambles, and they'll be unemployed. That means less money is being spent, and the economy would suffer even more than it is now.

Well, you can't force people to trade with you. I mean, if someone isn't materialistic, they may not be producing much either. That doesn't mean it's, say, a monk's responsibility to start buying and selling, if they don't want to.

I could see it being a problem if the stoners started to take their money from other people though.

(Also, if unemployment is as high as it is now, you can probably find a replacement for the stoner anyways.)

They stole our idea!

*drops blunt and runs for the escape pod*

Call me crazy, but someone who comes to work high doesn't seem like the prototypical model employee; making massive contributions to the economy.

Also, if you really think that pot has no immediate, unpleasant side affects, then you haven't done a whole lot of smoking.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Ahtman, the difference is that alchohol has been used for thousands of years and people know the serious side effects because they sure as hell make them obvious (hangovers?).

People have smoked all sorts of things for thousands of years as well. It isn't as if cannabis was discovered a couple years ago.

well lets think like this. if we legalize it then companies might have let people smoke during break. there are some jobs that i dont want people doing high. like crane operating or taxi driver.But i have seen what weed has done to people. my friend is under house arrest for smoking to much.

If we legalize it companies will not fire people for smoking fat joints on break? Garret... really though...

I am happy about this change, as it will be providing a safe alternative, without all of the massive red tape that comes along when a cancer patient gets busted for buying a dime sack at the state legal pot club. After that, the pot club goes down, and the business goes right back to all of those devious gangs that are the ones (in unison with the governments messy drug war) perpetuating the crime, and unemployment that most are referring to as a reason to keep all substances illegal.

So far, all I have heard against this change, and taking it even further as to really take a huge chunk out of the actual problems that certain substances can bring into communities; is, prohibition, and by that, I do mean banning alcohol again. You are not talking about marijuana, you are talking about reefer madness. If you act like any person in Reefer madness when you get stoned... buddy pal, you got much bigger problems than that joint in your hand.

Ahtman wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Ahtman, the difference is that alchohol has been used for thousands of years and people know the serious side effects because they sure as hell make them obvious (hangovers?).

People have smoked all sorts of things for thousands of years as well. It isn't as if cannabis was discovered a couple years ago.

Marijuana has been around far longer than alcohol has, and their is technically receptors in your brain that do nothing but interact with THC. Alcohol, does not have anything besides our beer guts to back it up. Alcohol was also much less popular for a large period of human history, and in many ways it maintained an aristocratic stature for much longer periods of time, at least when compared to your some random weed. Alcohol is also different from marijuana in many way, namely the fact that it is highly processed, and in so being, it maintains a much higher production cost. Who had the beer in ancient times? The kings had the beer, and you better damn well respect them if you want your damn beer. Pot on the other hand, has simply never had the same amount of control involved (for fairly obvious reasons), and because of this, it has become the poster-child for "gateway (you were crazy as snap to begin with) drugs", and the culture involved in painting with such large brushes. You see a very well thought out argument, I see a rather poorly constructed myth, based on the hierarchical structure involved in maintaining an "un-self reliant" economy.

Want a burrito? We got that wrapped up and at your beck and call this very second! Want that back pain to go away? We got that in pill form now!

Want to fly across the whole planet? We got airplanes, and they have profuse amount of alcohol on them so you can pass out the whole trip. Want to be independent? Sure, why not, here is a timeshare that will cause you so much grief, you wished you never signed up for that "free" vacation.

Hemp is the real issue, but this is not something that matters all that much, because both sides have no clue how to effectively brand an idea.

Anti-hemp= It is pot, and you will get stoned by just walking past it.
Pro-hemp= It is not pot, but I have no clue why everyone thinks it is.

If you spend one hour doing balanced research, you will find hypocrisy and outright lying on both sides of this argument; BUT! There are places in the world where steps have been taken to address the real issue, without getting ridiculously hyperbolic about it. France, uses hemp for something like 2/3 of all cigarette papers, and that is specially designed hemp that simply will not get you high. Canada has taken some steps to further their perspective on the plant, and how it can effectively be used, and in turn respected in terms of the economy at large.

garret wrote:well lets think like this. if we legalize it then companies might have let people smoke during break. there are some jobs that i dont want people doing high. like crane operating or taxi driver.But i have seen what weed has done to people. my friend is under house arrest for smoking to much.

Alcohol is legal right now, but you can be fired for turning up to work drunk.

Hmm true but i still stand on the policy that marijuana shouldnt be legalize. It itself is not dangerous but what it lead to is. like heroin or crack or having sex with fat chicks.

What the hell are you talking about Garret?

Marijuana is only considered a "gateway drug" right now because, quite frankly, the people you have to buy it from will do anything to get you hooked on the next step up.

The next step up to what?

Are you talking about that shady guy, who sells crack, but you get pot from him... and then realize he sells crack?

In other words, when the feck did Radioshack become K-mart? I must be missing a step here, because that situation seems mighty fishy to begin with.

Hmm you win this argument i have no rebuttle.
You win this one but you will not change my position.

Wrexasaur wrote:The next step up to what?

Are you talking about that shady guy, who sells crack, but you get pot from him... and then realize he sells crack?

In other words, when the feck did Radioshack become K-mart? I must be missing a step here, because that situation seems mighty fishy to begin with.

Pretty much yeah Wrex. Not much experience in y'know...buying drugs on my part.

However, the few people I've associated with that were into pot and...heavier things always ended up just getting hooked from their pot dealers.

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty much yeah Wrex. Not much experience in y'know...buying drugs on my part.

However, the few people I've associated with that were into pot and...heavier things always ended up just getting hooked from their pot dealers.

You don't need to have experience purchasing drugs to understand how illogical a summary like that really is.

SO... you have anecdotal evidence, that quite frankly, speaks about little more than the interconnection you can find in nearly any business. Dude sells lemonade, but he can get you lemons, that kind of thing. At what point does the lemonade dealer tell you to feck off with the asking of the lemons? They would be in the business of selling lemonade, which includes sugar, but has no reflection on your direct access to anything your little heart desires.

When you start to ask for stuff yourself, well pal, you are surely taking the responsibility with that decision. If you hang out with people who like to eat lemons all the time, and "all you really wanted" was some lemonade, you made the mistake, you freaking deal with it.

...
Your connection just made me REALLY want lemonade. But yeah. I didn't say that I know every little bit about it.

However, I still don't see a connection between pot and heroin, etc that makes it a guarantee that pot will lead to bigger things.

You don't see that many medical marijuana patients turning to heroin/cocaine do you?

I think you two are pretty much agreeing.