You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2nd term for Obama - Marijuanna
- Thread starter SNBthetrue
- Start date
Quote from 377OHMS:
I have a sincere question. If marijuana is legalized and taxed what will happen to the cartels in Mexico?
Will they just peacefully disband or switch over to importing cocaine and heroin?
Exactly. The cartels aren't interested in making sure everyone can smoke weed. They are interested in making massive profits. If marijuana is legalized the ability to hold a monopoly through violence and profit off that drug will decrease and they will switch to whatever is profitable.
Quote from 377OHMS:
I have a sincere question. If marijuana is legalized and taxed what will happen to the cartels in Mexico?
Will they just peacefully disband or switch over to importing cocaine and heroin?
If you are implying that everyone will start using cocaine and heroin instead, just because marijuana is legalized, you are dreaming.... marijuana is socially acceptable which is why we are talking about this right now. As for cocaine and heroin.... the money spent on the drug war would focus on drugs like that, making it harder for them to get into the country and become more expensive.
Quote from NeoRio1:
If addictive drugs become legally regulated then they would become more accessible. Would 25% of the country be obese if the only way they could get fattening food was through drug dealers? I doubt it.
Now compare the psychological and physical addiction power between food and hard drugs. You have to be insane if you think food is more addicting than heroin. Now imagine what our already pitiful society would turn into if all drugs were legal. If 25% of the country is dumb enough to get addicted to food then just imagine.
If society had a low overall addiction rate to food, tobacco and alcohol than I would definitely agree with the legalization of drugs. However this country is already addicted up to their eye balls so advocating additional legalization is just completely reckless.
"Results of the drug policy
Cannabis use among adults in Europe
In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15â24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%),[20] but higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece.[21] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.3%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[21]
The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is lower than the EU average.[22] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.[23]
Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.[23]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
Quote from NeoRio1:
If addictive drugs become legally regulated then they would become more accessible. Would 25% of the country be obese if the only way they could get fattening food was through drug dealers? I doubt it.
Now compare the psychological and physical addiction power between food and hard drugs. You have to be insane if you think food is more addicting than heroin. Now imagine what our already pitiful society would turn into if all drugs were legal. If 25% of the country is dumb enough to get addicted to food then just imagine.
If society had a low overall addiction rate to food, tobacco and alcohol than I would definitely agree with the legalization of drugs. However this country is already addicted up to their eye balls so advocating additional legalization is just completely reckless.
No, this is just wrong.
Tobacco addiction has declined dramatically over the years, coincident with a prohibition against TV ads. While the tobacco companies have tried all kinds of other ways of getting at people, those ways have obviously not been as effective as good old TV.
Fast foods, OTOH, are very heavily advertised. Between McDonald's, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Popeye's, Wendy's, Coke, Pepsi, ads for sugary and salty snacks of every imaginable type, and even convenience foods that people eat because they don't have time to cook a full dinner (macaroni & cheese, frozen TV dinners, etc.) or diving into the nearest diner for anything from a cheeseburger and fries to shrimp scampi, well, it's a wonder we all don't drop dead at 35 from massive heart attacks.
Also, it's expensive to eat well compared to junk food and high fat stuff in general. Fruits and vegetables and fruit juices are a lot more expensive to buy than soda, potato chips, pork and beans, sausage, and ground beef.
So, you're attempting to extrapolate from our experience with something that's very heavily advertised and cheap and is, after all, necessary to survive - people gotta eat - to something that's optional, wouldn't be advertised you can be sure, and may or may not be expensive, depending on what happens after drug prohibition would be lifted.
Not a remotely valid comparison. Comparison with tobacco after TV ads were prohibited suggests a far less alarming picture. Remember as well that unlike tobacco, this would start with an already heavy stigma attached to it. Tobacco had no such stigma attached for a long time.
Quote from shortie:
"Results of the drug policy
Cannabis use among adults in Europe
In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15â24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%),[20] but higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece.[21] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.3%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[21]
The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is lower than the EU average.[22] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.[23]
Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.[23]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
Do you think there would be similar rates of drug use when other more addictive/hard drugs come into play?
By the way, I don't have a problem with the legalization of cannabis, only drugs that have historically shown to destroy entire countries.
Quote from trefoil:
No, this is just wrong.
Tobacco addiction has declined dramatically over the years, coincident with a prohibition against TV ads. While the tobacco companies have tried all kinds of other ways of getting at people, those ways have obviously not been as effective as good old TV.
Fast foods, OTOH, are very heavily advertised. Between McDonald's, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Popeye's, Wendy's, Coke, Pepsi, ads for sugary and salty snacks of every imaginable type, and even convenience foods that people eat because they don't have time to cook a full dinner (macaroni & cheese, frozen TV dinners, etc.) or diving into the nearest diner for anything from a cheeseburger and fries to shrimp scampi, well, it's a wonder we all don't drop dead at 35 from massive heart attacks.
Also, it's expensive to eat well compared to junk food and high fat stuff in general. Fruits and vegetables and fruit juices are a lot more expensive to buy than soda, potato chips, pork and beans, sausage, and ground beef.
So, you're attempting to extrapolate from our experience with something that's very heavily advertised and cheap and is, after all, necessary to survive - people gotta eat - to something that's optional, wouldn't be advertised you can be sure, and may or may not be expensive, depending on what happens after drug prohibition would be lifted.
Not a remotely valid comparison. Comparison with tobacco after TV ads were prohibited suggests a far less alarming picture. Remember as well that unlike tobacco, this would start with an already heavy stigma attached to it. Tobacco had no such stigma attached for a long time.
You need to look at the real world. After the US drove the taliban out of office in Afghanistan there was no longer any enforcement of the ban on poppy cultivation nor on opium use (Surprisingly the Taliban made it illegal to cultivate poppy and use it). You said you thought all drugs should be legal, right? Once it became possible to once again cultivate poppy and use it addiction rates soared. Now over 2 million people are drug addicts. That is over 7% of the country.
Last time I checked there wasn't much of an advertising industry in Afghanistan.
Oh and your idea of a negative stigma. You would think after the Afghanistan people saw thousands of homeless addicts dying in the streets addiction rates would lower, right? Looks like you don't give enough credit to the power of some of these drugs.
http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/heroin-addiction-is-a-serious-problem-in-afghanistan-a253647
From your own cite:
More Afghans fled the Soviets than are heroin addicts. Five times as many, actually.
The country was destroyed well before opium use became a problem again. You're trying to compare one of the poorest countries on the planet, a country that hasn't known a year of peace in decades, to a country that hasn't had a war fought on its own soil since 1865, and that happens to be the richest country on the planet.
Afghanistan is a supply region. A supply region is a place that has one or a very few exports, and those exports are commodities that the world wants very much. For Saudi Arabia it's oil; for Argentina, it's beef; for Afghanistan, it's opium.
Supply regions are known to be screwed-up places because you're either on the inside making or distributing the export commodity in question, or on the outside, and if the commodity doesn't bring in enough to pay off the populace, that means you're poor. Iraq and Iran are oil supply regions where the oil doesn't bring in enough to pay off the populace, and are therefore far more comparable to Afghanistan; not surprisingly, both are subject to bouts of internal civil strife, as you know.
The U.S. isn't remotely comparable. If we'd just gone through thirty years of civil war and invasion, and had tens of millions of war refugees, and had warlords dividing up the country, then maybe you might have a case.
If heroin were made legal tomorrow, employers would still be able to fire you for being addicted to it. Remember, even with marijuana, a user is taking the gamble that he won't be fired from his place of work for using it. That would be a pretty strong disincentive to a sudden spike in use. That disincentive doesn't exist in Afghanistan.
Below is the legal framework for employers dealing with alcohol addiction. Employed people aren't going to subject themselves to an addictive drug in Afghan-like numbers, not when they can be subject to termination of employment.
Alarmism of this sort is what keeps the drug war going. I shouldn't have to waste my time arguing the US isn't Afghanistan; that should be obvious.
The Afghan people have experienced hardships for decades. Numerous government upheavals: the 1979 Soviet invasion resulted in over 600,000 Afghan civilian deaths, 5 million fled to neighboring countries; Taliban rule restricted freedom and violated human rights; women were banned from working and girls were banned from attending schools; the 2001 American invasion overthrowing the Taliban; staggering homeless and unemployment statistics; and now a national tragedy, millions of lives destroyed due to heroin addiction with virtually no facilities to help them.
More Afghans fled the Soviets than are heroin addicts. Five times as many, actually.
The country was destroyed well before opium use became a problem again. You're trying to compare one of the poorest countries on the planet, a country that hasn't known a year of peace in decades, to a country that hasn't had a war fought on its own soil since 1865, and that happens to be the richest country on the planet.
Afghanistan is a supply region. A supply region is a place that has one or a very few exports, and those exports are commodities that the world wants very much. For Saudi Arabia it's oil; for Argentina, it's beef; for Afghanistan, it's opium.
Supply regions are known to be screwed-up places because you're either on the inside making or distributing the export commodity in question, or on the outside, and if the commodity doesn't bring in enough to pay off the populace, that means you're poor. Iraq and Iran are oil supply regions where the oil doesn't bring in enough to pay off the populace, and are therefore far more comparable to Afghanistan; not surprisingly, both are subject to bouts of internal civil strife, as you know.
The U.S. isn't remotely comparable. If we'd just gone through thirty years of civil war and invasion, and had tens of millions of war refugees, and had warlords dividing up the country, then maybe you might have a case.
If heroin were made legal tomorrow, employers would still be able to fire you for being addicted to it. Remember, even with marijuana, a user is taking the gamble that he won't be fired from his place of work for using it. That would be a pretty strong disincentive to a sudden spike in use. That disincentive doesn't exist in Afghanistan.
Below is the legal framework for employers dealing with alcohol addiction. Employed people aren't going to subject themselves to an addictive drug in Afghan-like numbers, not when they can be subject to termination of employment.
Alarmism of this sort is what keeps the drug war going. I shouldn't have to waste my time arguing the US isn't Afghanistan; that should be obvious.
http://askjan.org/media/alcohol.html
Alcoholism and the Americans with Disabilities Act
Is alcoholism a disability under the ADA?
The ADA does not contain a list of medical conditions that constitute disabilities. Instead, the ADA has a general definition of disability that each person must meet. A person has a disability if he/she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alcoholism is an impairment. Therefore, people with alcoholism who are substantially limited in a major life activity will have a disability under the ADA. However, even if a person with alcoholism meets the definition of disability, an employer may discipline, discharge, or deny employment to an alcoholic whose current use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct to the extent that s/he is not "qualified" (EEOC, 1992).
Does an employer have to allow use of alcohol at work as an accommodation?
No. The ADA specifically provides that an employer may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol. The Act permits employers to ensure that the workplace is free from the use of alcohol and does not interfere with employers' programs to combat the use of alcohol (EEOC, 1992).
Are tests for alcohol use considered medical tests under ADA?
Yes. Blood, urine, and breath analyses to check for alcohol use are considered medical exams, and therefore are subject to ADA limitations. According to EEOC, an employer's ability to make disability-related inquiries or require medical examinations is analyzed in three stages: pre-offer, post-offer, and employment. At the first stage (prior to an offer of employment), the ADA prohibits all disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, even if they are related to the job. At the second stage (after an applicant is given a conditional job offer, but before s/he starts work), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and conduct medical examinations, regardless of whether they are related to the job, as long as it does so for all entering employees in the same job category. At the third stage (after employment begins), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and require medical examinations only if they are job-related and consistent with business necessity (EEOC, 2000).
May an employer subject an employee, who has been off from work in an alcohol rehabilitation program, to periodic alcohol testing when s/he returns to work?
Yes. Blood, urine, and breath analyses to check for alcohol use are considered medical exams, and therefore are subject to ADA limitations. According to EEOC, an employer's ability to make disability-related inquiries or require medical examinations is analyzed in three stages: pre-offer, post-offer, and employment. At the first stage (prior to an offer of employment), the ADA prohibits all disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, even if they are related to the job. At the second stage (after an applicant is given a conditional job offer, but before s/he starts work), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and conduct medical examinations, regardless of whether they are related to the job, as long as it does so for all entering employees in the same job category. At the third stage (after employment begins), an employer may make disability-related inquiries and require medical examinations only if they are job-related and consistent with business necessity (EEOC, 2000).
Yes, according to the EEOC, âbut only if the employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that the employee will pose a direct threat in the absence of periodic testing. Such a reasonable belief requires an individualized assessment of the employee and his/her position and cannot be based on general assumptions. Employers also may conduct periodic alcohol testing pursuant to "last chance" agreements (EEOC, 1992).
In determining whether to subject an employee to periodic alcohol testing (in the absence of a "last chance" agreement), the employer should consider the safety risks associated with the position the employee holds, the consequences of the employee's inability or impaired ability to perform his/her job functions, and how recently the event(s) occurred that cause the employer to believe that the employee will pose a direct threat (e.g., how long the individual has been an employee, when s/he completed rehabilitation, whether s/he previously has relapsed). Further, the duration and frequency of the testing must be designed to address particular safety concerns and should not be used to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against the employee because of his/her disability. Where the employee repeatedly has tested negative for alcohol, continued testing may not be job-related and consistent with business necessity because the employer no longer may have a reasonable belief that the employee will pose a direct threat (EEOC, 1992).
uhhhhh.... nope