Two House bills would end federal prohibition of marijuana

[musiclady]

There is a huge problem which is NOT discussed. It is prescription pain medicine addiction, by seniors. Narcotics. Opioids. Heroin in tablet form, so you don't think of yourself as a "junkie."

Many seniors are strung out on manmade heroin, which is what pain meds are. They are terribly addicting, physically and mentally. You be the person who tells a white haired senior they can't have their Vicodine, Darvon, etc.

They will tell you in no uncertain terms, that they NEED them. Sure, because they are ADDICTED to them. It is dangerous to drive while on them, but when anybody when is under the influence, they don't reason well.

And many doctors don't want the hassle or responsibility of getting their patients off the drugs; ones they no longer need, ones that are harmful, etc. Just let them continue using the drugs, until they die. (Although their quality of life is immensely worse when strung out on drugs)

But if you truly want a government big and costly enough to police the illegal use of marijuana, be sure to push for equally strong enforcement of prescription, big pharma, manmade heroin use by seniors.

The TRUTH is the control freak pseudoconservatives, think in cultural terms. They are cool with granny driving loaded on her pain meds, but they hate a long haired 20 something, sitting on a park bench meditating on the state of the universe, while high on God's weed.

I don't often ask this, but what, in heaven's name has made you so bitter and untruthful about social conservatives?

This quote makes me wonder what planet you live on......

[Luis Gonzalez]

There are many dangerous occupations that require absolute concentration.  You can smell alcohol but you cannot tell if someone has been smoking pot.
The cost to an employer having to test weekly or even daily is prohibitive.
There is more to the conversation than just ME.... 
Weren't you one of those yelling at us about vaccines?
You need to have a consistent position.

No one can "yell" over the Internet, and I am completely consistent on my positions.

Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin.

You vaccinate your kids because you have the responsibility to care for them as well as a responsibility to society to help keep the diseases vaccines protect us from in containment. We need to exhibit that level of personal responsibility so that the government doesn't see fit to force us to do it.

The same with marijuana.

Just like with alcohol we should be free to consume the substance and stand liable for the consequence of abusing it can have on others. Unlike with vaccines, the government is taking from is the ability to act in a responsible manner when consuming marijuana.

[truth_seeker]

Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion, as is any conclusion you draw from my calling out your diversionary tactic.

It is NOT irrelevant. It is entirely relevant to ask a person about their life experiences, particularly when they would impose legal restrictions upon the freedoms of others.

You are setting yourself up as qualified to discern that the benefits of alcohol justify legal use, even though the costs are immense. You cite a "glass of wine" with dinner, or a "beer while watching sports," etc.

Well plenty of pot users would cite a joint, while listening to music in their own homes.

But the reality is thousands of people drink themselves to death every year, and along the way kill others.

By comparison, marijuana is much less dangerous for the user, and the society at large. But the cultural baloney has abounded ever since the ridiculous film "Reefer Madness."

So either admit it is something you have personal knowledge of by usage, or professional experience, or admit it is a cultural thing. Alcohol users are okay, but pot users are not okay. And you want a government to enforce that schism.

[alicewonders]

My thoughts on being unable to detect marijuana use in sensitive job positions.  When someone is hired for one of these jobs, you make it clear what can and cannot be done in regards to alcohol or drugs.  When an incident occurs - THEN you test to see if an employee has drugs or alcohol in their system.  Then you deal with that employee.  Our society is so full of punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

[EdinVA]

No one can "yell" over the Internet, and I am completely consistent on my positions.

AM I YELLING NOW?  (just kidding)

[musiclady]

It is NOT irrelevant. It is entirely relevant to ask a person about their life experiences, particularly when they would impose legal restrictions upon the freedoms of others.

You are setting yourself up as qualified to discern that the benefits of alcohol justify legal use, even though the costs are immense. You cite a "glass of wine" with dinner, or a "beer while watching sports," etc.

Well plenty of pot users would cite a joint, while listening to music in their own homes.

But the reality is thousands of people drink themselves to death every year, and along the way kill others.

By comparison, marijuana is much less dangerous for the user, and the society at large. But the cultural baloney has abounded ever since the ridiculous film "Reefer Madness."

So either admit it is something you have personal knowledge of by usage, or professional experience, or admit it is a cultural thing. Alcohol users are okay, but pot users are not okay. And you want a government to enforce that schism.

I'm not 'setting myself up' as being qualified for anything except a discussion where we each give our opinions.

I have done so.  You have done so.

I don't have to "admit" anything to you.  You have already made it clear that you despise my opinion......... and people like me who share it.

I find that sad.

[EdinVA]

My thoughts on being unable to detect marijuana use in sensitive job positions.  When someone is hired for one of these jobs, you make it clear what can and cannot be done in regards to alcohol or drugs.  When an incident occurs - THEN you test to see if an employee has drugs or alcohol in their system.  Then you deal with that employee.  Our society is so full of punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

In white-collar positions you have the luxury of time but, for example, an electrician or explosives, crane operator you do not have time.  A mistake costs lives and unfortunately it will not be the pot smoker that gets it.

[musiclady]

My thoughts on being unable to detect marijuana use in sensitive job positions.  When someone is hired for one of these jobs, you make it clear what can and cannot be done in regards to alcohol or drugs.  When an incident occurs - THEN you test to see if an employee has drugs or alcohol in their system.  Then you deal with that employee.  Our society is so full of punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

I think the issue has to be dealt with in a broader fashion in situations such as health care.  One can't wait until a patient has been harmed to deal with the issue.  Tests have to be done on a regular basis for the safety of all.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In white-collar positions you have the luxury of time but, for example, an electrician or explosives, crane operator you do not have time.  A mistake costs lives and unfortunately it will not be the pot smoker that gets it.

Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 51 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $59 billion.

So, why aren't we proponing making alcohol illegal for the same reasons you list?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think the issue has to be dealt with in a broader fashion in situations such as health care.  One can't wait until a patient has been harmed to deal with the issue.  Tests have to be done on a regular basis for the safety of all.

Drug abuse among doctors and nurses (prescription drugs) is common now.

Why approach marijuana differently?

[EdinVA]

Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 51 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $59 billion.

So, why aren't we proponing making alcohol illegal for the same reasons you list?

Ref: Post 46 on this thread...

[EdinVA]

Drug abuse among doctors and nurses (prescription drugs) is common now.

Why approach marijuana differently?

exactly.  It is Illegal to abuse prescription drugs and if discovered, you go to jail.

You lost me on that one Louis... :)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion, as is any conclusion you draw from my calling out your diversionary tactic.

The answer is actually evident from your post.

Pot usage to you is something straight out of "Reefer Madness", while alcohol usage has the quality of a Downton Abbey soirée.

Both are equally destructive as is anything that is used in excess destructive.

[truth_seeker]

I don't often ask this, but what, in heaven's name has made you so bitter and untruthful about social conservatives?

This quote makes me wonder what planet you live on......

So you must personalize it, because you can't or won't discuss the substance of it? Isn't it cultural?

[musiclady]

The answer is actually evident from your post.

Pot usage to you is something straight out of "Reefer Madness", while alcoho usage has the quality of Downton Abbey soirée.

Both are equally destructive as is anything that is used in excess destructive.

But marijuana is immediately mind altering and slows reflexes, as for most, that is its purpose.

Just put on some Mantovani, Luis.  :dx1:

[musiclady]

So you must personalize it, because you can't or won't discuss the substance of it? Isn't it cultural?

Ummmmm............... YOU personalized it, my friend.  You ALWAYS personalize the things you hate. (i.e. social conservatives).

Another day, perhaps, we can discuss something without your tirades against an entire group of diverse people.

[Dexter]

But marijuana is immediately mind altering and slows reflexes, as for most, that is its purpose.

Just put on some Mantovani, Luis.  :dx1:

Marijuana also doesn't hinder you for nearly as long as alcohol does.

[Luis Gonzalez]

exactly.  It is Illegal to abuse prescription drugs and if discovered, you go to jail.

You lost me on that one Louis... :)

But prescription drugs are not illegal based on the possibility of abuse, which is the basis of the pro-marijuana prohibition argument.

[EdinVA]

But prescription drugs are not illegal based on the possibility of abuse, which is the basis of the pro-marijuana prohibition argument.

Yes they are.  Hence the requirement for a prescription.

[truth_seeker]

Ummmmm............... YOU personalized it, my friend.  You ALWAYS personalize the things you hate. (i.e. social conservatives).

Another day, perhaps, we can discuss something without your tirades against an entire group of diverse people.

I "hate" social conservatives now? No, actually I disagree with them on some things.

I told you weeks ago I don't "hate" but apparently you cannot remember that.

Claiming your debate opponent "hates" you, in order to avoid dealing with substance? It is a tactic, but not an impressive tactic.

I repeat, it I mainly cultural. Beer guzzling, game watching, wife beating guy okay, granny flying high on drugs, okay. They may be "sinners" but they are our inners.

But woe to anybody who thinks some damn long hair can just come into our town, play his guitar and smoke Satan's weed. No way. We going to beat his ass, lock him up, then run him out of town.

There is "us" and there is "them." I don't hate. I may mock, however.

[alicewonders]

It is an employer's option to test job sensitive applicants regularly or randomly - at their expense.  If this is protocol and is explained prior to hiring - that is fine.  The employee agrees to the rules.  As others have said - that is not exactly feasible for most businesses.  Even where it is the case that this is the policy - you will still find employees that disregard that and do something that puts others in danger.  You hear about it all the time, whether it is due to alcohol, prescription drugs or illegal drugs.

In other words, there are always going to be people that break the law and don't follow the rules.  Always.  I don't care how many laws you write.  You cannot avoid that fact.  All you can do is hire the best people you can and trust them to do their jobs responsibly.  Even if you test often - there are still going to be people that will screw up. 

 

[EdinVA]

It is an employer's option to test job sensitive applicants regularly or randomly - at their expense.  If this is protocol and is explained prior to hiring - that is fine.  The employee agrees to the rules.  As others have said - that is not exactly feasible for most businesses.  Even where it is the case that this is the policy - you will still find employees that disregard that and do something that puts others in danger.  You hear about it all the time, whether it is due to alcohol, prescription drugs or illegal drugs.

In other words, there are always going to be people that break the law and don't follow the rules.  Always.  I don't care how many laws you write.  You cannot avoid that fact.  All you can do is hire the best people you can and trust them to do their jobs responsibly.  Even if you test often - there are still going to be people that will screw up. 

 

Agree Alice... the illegal status of pot keeps honest people honest but does nothing to deter the "dishonest".  Like I have posted earlier, if you are 21, then I really don't care who (or what) you marry, put in your veins or inhale but we need to be careful that "tolerance" does not lead to acceptance.  It cannot be ok to come to work stoned and that is the next step.  This is primarily a liberal mission and they will twist the courts all around the axle with their psychobabble and varying definitions of "is" anytime a "minority" (whatever that means these days) gets fired for being stoned... Without the law, businesses and governments have no way to enforce responsible use of pot unless we make a whole host of laws defining what "stoned" is.

[musiclady]

I "hate" social conservatives now? No, actually I disagree with them on some things.

I told you weeks ago I don't "hate" but apparently you cannot remember that.

Claiming your debate opponent "hates" you, in order to avoid dealing with substance? It is a tactic, but not an impressive tactic.

I repeat, it I mainly cultural. Beer guzzling, game watching, wife beating guy okay, granny flying high on drugs, okay. They may be "sinners" but they are our inners.

But woe to anybody who thinks some damn long hair can just come into our town, play his guitar and smoke Satan's weed. No way. We going to beat his ass, lock him up, then run him out of town.

There is "us" and there is "them." I don't hate. I may mock, however.

THIS......

The TRUTH is the control freak pseudoconservatives, think in cultural terms. They are cool with granny driving loaded on her pain meds, but they hate a long haired 20 something, sitting on a park bench meditating on the state of the universe, while high on God's weed.

......... is utter disdain.

You can say what you want about not "hating" large groups of people, but your words belie your emotions.

You can shove the blame on me all you want, but until you stop saying completely irrational things about social conservatives and making things up out of whole cloth, I'm not going to let them ALL slide.

(PS.  I let MOST of them slide because you're so unhinged about us, but once in a while, it's good to point out that you're completely irrational and say things that are not even close to being debate points).

[truth_seeker]

(PS.  I let MOST of them slide because you're so unhinged about us, but once in a while, it's good to point out that you're completely irrational and say things that are not even close to being debate points).

I'm unhinged and irrational? No, you use that claim to avoid the discussing the substance; eg.

It is cultural. Strangely so. It was "social conservatives" that foisted Prohibition on the land.

It is really the same thing, with a few changes. Having lost on alcohol, and unwilling to vilify grandma on narcotics, they take up their crusade against the guitar playing long haired young rebels, who they have wanted to get, ever since they arrived on the scene.

Little difference, really. Social conservatives ALWAYS know what is best for everybody else.

It is cultural.

[EdinVA]

I'm unhinged and irrational? No, you use that claim to avoid the discussing the substance; eg.

It is cultural. Strangely so. It was "social conservatives" that foisted Prohibition on the land.

It is really the same thing, with a few changes. Having lost on alcohol, and unwilling to vilify grandma on narcotics, they take up their crusade against the guitar playing long haired young rebels, who they have wanted to get, ever since they arrived on the scene.

Little difference, really. Social conservatives ALWAYS know what is best for everybody else.

It is cultural.

Are you related to Dex by the way?

Truth, you really need to get out more and stop reading comic books.

I had a two year gig in Albany NY and one of the permanent staff told me he was thinking about moving down south but was concerned about how we treated women.

I don't know where your hyper-fixation with alcohol, grandma and drugs comes from, but it appears to me that you may in fact be one of them thar guitar playing hippies we southerners hear tell about.....

It is behavior not culture. 
You walk up to me with your pants down around your knees or ghetto speak your not getting any support from me.