If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economist)   Legalizing marijuana in the US could, in short, deal a blow to Mexico's traffickers of a magnitude that no current policy has got close to achieving   (economist.com) divider line 67
    More: Obvious, United States, American Election, fixed costs, social costs, drug traffickers, Sinaloa, economic cost, wholesale prices  
•       •       •

2847 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2012 at 12:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-04 08:15:51 AM
12 votes:
Duh.
2012-11-04 10:52:08 AM
4 votes:
Destroying cartels is the absolute LAST thing the DEA wants.
2012-11-04 10:03:56 AM
3 votes:

NewportBarGuy: hillbillypharmacist: Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.

I am disheartened by how uninvolved pharmacy professionals are in the decisions made by doctors, FDA, and DEA. I've taken your advice to heart. I don't really expect much and just wait for time to resolve most things.


Well, as long as privatized prisons are profitable - and those elected are being purchased by that industry - I doubt that we'll see any change.
2012-11-04 08:59:50 AM
3 votes:

Endive Wombat: I do wonder what the final push will be to finally get marijuana legalized.


DEA reclassifying it as a Schedule II drug. That's it, pretty much.

It should be classified the same as nicotine and alcohol, but that won't happen in my lifetime.
2012-11-04 12:53:41 PM
2 votes:
"legalize it all, every drug. Gov sells the drugs you get better quality, cheaper. Tax it, with the tax $ build & open facilities for those wanting help... this would take the street profit out of it and reduce the largest cause of violent crime, drugs"

- a cop friend I know said this...
2012-11-04 12:51:17 PM
2 votes:

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?


Anyone with access to water and sunlight?
2012-11-04 12:50:55 PM
2 votes:
MORE HEAD SHOPS = LESS HEADS CHOPPED!
2012-11-04 11:52:39 AM
2 votes:
Ugh, who smokes Mexican pot?
2012-11-04 10:45:26 AM
2 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.


I would argue that the employers liability insurance companies are to blame.
2012-11-04 10:42:06 AM
2 votes:

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses


If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.
2012-11-04 09:42:05 AM
2 votes:

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.
2012-11-04 08:58:36 AM
2 votes:

Endive Wombat: Bontesla: Bontesla: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?

I would assume that the net job loss would be very little given that there are more people convicted on drug-related charges than there are operating the criminal justice side.

I would also assume that it's remains true after taking into consideration that not all arrested/convicted have jobs. If they held for jobless rates using demographic and geographic data - it would probably be a simple model to account for.

However, the study should identify the scope anyway.

Now, imagine that I typed this without any errors. Thanks.

/I should stop Farking as I try to wake up in the mornings.

There would be an immediate rise in people using though, and that has been demonstrated in various European countries over the years.

I do wonder what the final push will be to finally get marijuana legalized. I suspect that on a national level, gay marriage equality will be passed first. We're getting there...


I'm okay with an increase in usage. In fact - we shouldn't be jailing people for offenses related to drug addiction and drug use. I'm actually in favor of legalizing all drug use and turning the saved money into free and accessible rehab centers for dependent people.

/that's just assuming you're correct in claiming prohibition is an effective deterrant
//which there are many studies that say prohibition contributes to usage and not deters from usage
2012-11-04 07:59:55 PM
1 votes:

StrangeQ: slayer199: I think there are a couple things that need to be established. First, when it comes to marijuana is what are the levels of intoxication. Pot stays in your system for quite a long time even after the high wears off. Second, how can you test quickly and unobtrusively (i.e. not blood or hair samples) for actually being high and not having residual THC in your system.

How about by using a coordination and responsiveness test that doesn't rely on an arbitrary number that has different meaning for different people? If a person can pass a test showing satisfactory reflexes and responses to questions then they are not high.


California law enforcement and courts use the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), which evaluate of the subject's appearance and condition, ability to follow instructions, as well as balance and coordination. AFAIK there is no "residual THC" test or anything like that used here.
2012-11-04 07:22:51 PM
1 votes:

slayer199: I think there are a couple things that need to be established. First, when it comes to marijuana is what are the levels of intoxication. Pot stays in your system for quite a long time even after the high wears off. Second, how can you test quickly and unobtrusively (i.e. not blood or hair samples) for actually being high and not having residual THC in your system.


How about by using a coordination and responsiveness test that doesn't rely on an arbitrary number that has different meaning for different people? If a person can pass a test showing satisfactory reflexes and responses to questions then they are not high.
2012-11-04 06:57:52 PM
1 votes:

TheBigJerk: Hoban Washburne: Vodka Zombie: Destroying cartels is the absolute LAST thing the DEA wants.

Here's your answer, folks. Move along.

Hm, there is a question.

I cannot get into the headspace of believing that ANYONE greedy/corrupt enough to WANT to keep the cartels and the drug war going would be willing to stick around long enough to climb the ranks of the DEA. I instead believe anyone involved is either a True Believer in authoritarian methods and outlawing marijuana "Because it's bad," or dumb enough to be manipulated by the lobbyists of the private prison industry.

Essentially I believe the DEA is stupid instead of evil. So the question that raises is: that better or worse?


I'll go with stupid, too. With a heaping helping of bureaucratic inertia to help things along.
2012-11-04 06:23:29 PM
1 votes:

Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


My husband was once told he should drink a beer a day to control a benign essential tremor. Seems to work. Lactating women also still get told to drink a Guinness.
2012-11-04 06:20:13 PM
1 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Lionel Mandrake: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

It was actually quite common at one time. During prohibition.


Just a historical tidbit, from when Churchill was being treated after an auto accident in NYC.


8 ounces of hard liquor? Nice minimum.
2012-11-04 06:15:59 PM
1 votes:

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: As much as I agree with the merits of marijuana legalization...



If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?


I don't know, all those nurseries outside Boulder that mysteriously took down their signs and put up security lights after medical marijuana was passed could help. Not to mention all the individuals buying from the dozens of growing supply stores in the county.

\Unlike what I've heard about CA, when we did medical marijuana, we provided for growing, too. All the commercial growers have to get local permits, but obviously that hasn't been a problem everywhere.
2012-11-04 04:44:50 PM
1 votes:

dirtyeffinhippie: Not sure if anyone has posted links or not (I'm too high and lazy to read all the posts), but the ASA is having its day in court. Arguments for rescheduling pot are being heard as we speak, for the first time in decades:

Link



Finally, a plaintiff with standing (veteran on MM denied access to VA services specifically due to MM's Schedule I status). Sorry, DEA; it's in the judiciary's hands now.

/not sorry at all
2012-11-04 03:12:47 PM
1 votes:

pmdgrwr: I also think it is funny the reasoning some use for pot prohibition is that pot makes you lazy


I've been smoking weed, almost every day, for 33 years and coincidentally I've been working for 33 years.

I used to unload ship containers by hand. Each container had 1,100 cases and the cases were 40 pounds each which equals 44,000 pounds per container. It used to take me 2 hours to finish.

I lol every time I hear that pot smokers are lazy too.
2012-11-04 02:03:18 PM
1 votes:
Not sure if anyone has posted links or not (I'm too high and lazy to read all the posts), but the ASA is having its day in court. Arguments for rescheduling pot are being heard as we speak, for the first time in decades:

Link

I am a medical marijuana patient in California (I have Ulcerative Colitis, which is like Crohn's Disease), and have seen lots of legitimate dispensaries get raided by the DEA. The worst part is the dispensary owners and sometimes the patients who were onsite at the time of the raid got thrown in jail. They were unable to use state law as a defense in court, which I thought was pretty shiatty. Fortunately, this recent ruling may change that:

Link
2012-11-04 02:02:13 PM
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2012-11-04 01:52:33 PM
1 votes:

PJMurphy: Anyone happen to notice in TFA where they claimed it cost almost 900 bucks to grow a kilo? I think that math might be a TEENSY bit off.

As far as jobs are concerned, you bet your ass if they legalized across the board there would be a massive spike in unemployment. For starters, all those folks stepping off the streets for a Graybar Vacation are "unemployed". They just aren't counted as such. So where, exactly, are the jobs for a couple of million people that are now in jail?

And if you aren't jailing them, I guess you can partially dismantle the prison system, and it's ancillary support industries. Ditto with the Legal system. There's a bunch of jobs down the tubes.

So add the disappearing jobs, to the influx of what would be a significant proportion of citizens that would otherwise be incarcerated, and yeah, you get a jump in the unemployment rate.


Freeing the slaves also created a huge spike in unemployed persons, and banning their trade put said traders out of work. That didn't obviate the moral aspect.
2012-11-04 01:50:43 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, there were a total of 1.5 million drug arrests made nationwide in 2011, and out of those arrests, about 750,000 were for marijuana (just under half, 49.5 percent) -- that's one marijuana arrest every 42 seconds and one drug arrest every 21 seconds in the U.S.

Link

Link


and this has totally destroyed the drug trade right? prices have gone through the ROOF, people everywhere have stopped using or selling drugs.

no wait, nothing has happened except that we are punishing people for a committing a consensual crime. No one was hurt. Except the innocent citizen having fun.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo fun is EVIL!!!!
2012-11-04 01:37:47 PM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Karne: smitty04: KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?

The same cities that want to make tobacco completely illegal also want to make marijuana completely legal.

The only real connection between the two is that there is smoke involved. Cigarettes are just a disease that you create for yourself that you have to constantly cure. Weed gets you ripped as cheese! No connection.

Um... given that carbon particulates are bad for you and smoke can travel and be inhaled by people that want no part in it, that's... pretty much the most relevant connection from a public welfare perspective, man.

Conclusion: grab a steamer, use it for your tobacco, too, and the rest of us are fine with whatever you wanna do.

//I actually don't care either way, but I can acknowledge that the logic of comparing the two is sound.


Nobody is saying weed should be able to be publicly smoked, where it will go into baby and grandmas mouths. Amsterdam does fine with letting you smoke in designated areas.
Really doesn't matter to me much, I smoke as much as I want already (and I'm not a dick about where I do it).
2012-11-04 01:33:33 PM
1 votes:

smitty04: Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways

From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.


But they would only have traveled about three feet into the intersection...

The only slower drivers than potheads are old Asian women.

/legalize it
2012-11-04 01:28:18 PM
1 votes:

Toots de la Footsjelly: I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


Before he died in the late-90s, we put my grandfather in a home, and his doctor wrote him a prescription for a pint of vodka a week. It was kind of fun when I would go and pick up his prescriptions for him from the local Walgreens and see a little bottle of Smirnoff with the dosage label on it.
2012-11-04 01:25:58 PM
1 votes:

Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways


The fact that you're a shut-in that never interacts with other people while stoned doesn't mean it never happens. I've been in as many fights after a bowl or two as I've been in after a six-pack or two, i.e. several, none of them intending genuine harm.

Drugs don't make you do anything you wouldn't normally do ever, they just remove some of your awareness of the social priorities that keep you from doing certain things sober, and make you do what you'd normally do but less competently.

OK, maybe 'shrooms make you do things you wouldn't normally. But not your basic intoxicants. Intoxicants just make you scrap harder when you're out looking for a scrap, and chill harder when you're hanging out with friends playing a video game or watching football. Which is, y'know, why people take them. If alcohol turned you in to a damned werewolf when you intended to just hang out and chat with your friends, no one would drink it, and if marijuana randomly caused you to stop liking exercise when your favorite hobby is running marathons, then no one would smoke it.

//People that refuse to accept that they're ultimately responsible for their own actions annoy me. There are people that legitimately don't control themselves. We lock them in padded rooms, usually in straightjackets. Everyone else doesn't get the "it wasn't me, baby, it was the beer" excuse, that shiat is weaksauce.
2012-11-04 01:20:36 PM
1 votes:

wildcardjack: Pot has a low value density compared to cocaine and meth.


Pot butter goes for a K an ounce. Smoked through an e-cigarette it has more cachet than either coke or meth right now.

Or so I heard.

*blink*
2012-11-04 01:20:08 PM
1 votes:

HeartBurnKid: KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?

I think any pothead would kill for marijuana to have the same restrictions as cigarettes.

/I can't smoke in the office and choke my coworkers with the noxious fumes! Truly, this is the worst government oppression anybody has ever had to face!


This...as a pothead I'd gladly have to hide out behind the bar with a small gathering of friends while we pass around a small....waitaminute.

/Don't bogart.
2012-11-04 01:16:05 PM
1 votes:
Pot has a low value density compared to cocaine and meth. Legalizing pot would just make more room in the smuggling trucks for the cocaine and meth. So the solution is to legalize everything.

I think it was a Freakonmics podcast that covered the rationale behind free heroin for addicts. The problem is that dealers give out samples to get people addicted, then charge them through the nose for a dose. If the addict can go for a free dose of the real stuff it would ruin the business model and dealers would go away and the number of addicts would dwindle.
2012-11-04 01:14:49 PM
1 votes:

Chameleon: globalwarmingpraiser: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

Grain Alcohol is used to counteract antifreeze. Also people who have issues with blood clots are often told to drink a lot. I once had to transport a patient that had a script for one beer a day. Medicaid paid for it.

Ethanol is also a counteractant (not sure if that's a real word) for methanol poisoning. If I remember correctly, you need to drink about four times as much alcohol as you did methanol to competitively inhibit the methanol. So if you ever catch your teenager chugging the rubbing alcohol, hand 'em a fifth of Jack and get them to the ER.


It also used to be used to stop premature labor, before more effective drugs were introduced.
2012-11-04 01:14:37 PM
1 votes:

smitty04: KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?

The same cities that want to make tobacco completely illegal also want to make marijuana completely legal.


The only real connection between the two is that there is smoke involved. Cigarettes are just a disease that you create for yourself that you have to constantly cure. Weed gets you ripped as cheese! No connection.
2012-11-04 01:06:55 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: NewportBarGuy: hillbillypharmacist: Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.

I am disheartened by how uninvolved pharmacy professionals are in the decisions made by doctors, FDA, and DEA. I've taken your advice to heart. I don't really expect much and just wait for time to resolve most things.

Well, as long as privatized prisons are profitable - and those elected are being purchased by that industry - I doubt that we'll see any change.


Not just the prison industry, but paper, oil, and a lot of pharma companies oppose the measure, as well as those who profit from seizure sales.

It is the non drug related uses that interest me far more. I don't smoke the stuff, have no interest in ingesting it really in any intoxicant form, but the industrial uses far outweigh the drug related uses in my book. Not just for silly hemp based curios, but cloth, rope--which the Navy still maintains use of, and has its needs catered to--and a whole slew of products which will mean increased industry, lowering of costs in the long run through competitive practice which is REAL basis for the prohibition, and not the drug use.

Cotton and timber industries helped create this prohibition when industrial technologies would have allowed hemp to compete seriously. We still have it today, not because of fears of its use by the populace, but by industries that would see real competition in their markets. The excuses have ranged from making folks all kill crazy to too pacific to fight our wars. We have seen industries rise to meet the demand of incarcerating folks, and a culture of corruption to reap from seized properties, and the savings to states would far outweigh the costs. And allow our police to pursue real criminals, and even lighten the loads on our courts. That is the fear though: that legalization will see loss of controlling revenue for Senators and Reps, and steering dollars and opportunities to make cash for supporters will dry up. Those are the very real issues when we talk about legalization: generations of folks who have encouraged lack of competition and entrenched corruption, and those folks don't like the well going dry....

Never mind the savings to cities, counties, and states, or the nation in general, or the potential for increased revenue with new entrepreneurs and industries here. Never mind the jobs created. Never mind easing the workload on our police and courts. Never mind easing away from systemic corruption. Nope, it's just those damned hippies and peaceniks who want to see this end. The financial reasons are easier to NOT talk about when you cast it as an issue about smoking the stuff, as opposed to the very real industrial applications that would upset a lot of folks who have had generations to NOT have significant competition in the markets.
2012-11-04 01:06:27 PM
1 votes:

smitty04: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 159x200]
Do many of you remember the free cigarette sample packs the tobacco companies use to give away? Tobacco reps (usually great looking woman) would be at festivals and events passing out those small sample packs of cigarettes. I think they contained four cigarettes but I may be mistaken on that number.

The machine that packed those were really designed to pack marijuana cigarettes.


They used to come out here at bars and hand out 3 full packs. Being a poor college student at the time I LOVED seeing those girls.
2012-11-04 01:05:17 PM
1 votes:
Another factor in the argument that having weed legal will make people want to start smoking:

The fine now in California is $99 for under an ounce. I just got a speeding ticket for $300. That means weed is 1/3 less of a criminal act than going too fast in a car. Decriminalized, and still the world has not ended...uh oh.
2012-11-04 01:05:04 PM
1 votes:
It would do better if it were legalized only in non-smoking forms. Edibles and some sort of safe aerosolized inhalable would be much better than having another tobacco situation. Sure you could vape instead of burn, but joe dime bag isn't gonna lay out that much for a vaporizer when a pipe or joint are much cheaper.
2012-11-04 01:03:21 PM
1 votes:

Chameleon: globalwarmingpraiser: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

Grain Alcohol is used to counteract antifreeze. Also people who have issues with blood clots are often told to drink a lot. I once had to transport a patient that had a script for one beer a day. Medicaid paid for it.

Ethanol is also a counteractant (not sure if that's a real word) for methanol poisoning. If I remember correctly, you need to drink about four times as much alcohol as you did methanol to competitively inhibit the methanol. So if you ever catch your teenager chugging the rubbing alcohol, hand 'em a fifth of Jack and get them to the ER.

Woohoo medicinal booze for all. Fark is happy. Cue the we drink medicinal beer tag.
2012-11-04 01:02:13 PM
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
Do many of you remember the free cigarette sample packs the tobacco companies use to give away? Tobacco reps (usually great looking woman) would be at festivals and events passing out those small sample packs of cigarettes. I think they contained four cigarettes but I may be mistaken on that number.

The machine that packed those were really designed to pack marijuana cigarettes.
2012-11-04 01:00:07 PM
1 votes:
Christians should be in support of this. After all, isn't this how they got their prophets talking to "God"?
2012-11-04 12:57:41 PM
1 votes:

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: As much as I agree with the merits of marijuana legalization...



If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?


In areas that legalized medical marijuana the hydroponics industry made out like gangbusters and you didn't have any shortages.
2012-11-04 12:57:28 PM
1 votes:

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?



I have no data to back up my claims, but my logic for each point would be thus:

1) lost jobs and unemployment: Probably negligible. Pot is easily available today, so that if someone wants to smoke it, they can. Most people who do not smoke it, it can reasonably be assumed then, are either not doing it because they A) don't like it, or B) are avoiding it because it is against the law. The A group by definition will not suddenly take up smoking pot due to its legality, so the B group is the only one worth considering. Taking into account that they are not doing it because it's illegal, it stands to reason that they will probably continue to not smoke it if their company policy prohibits smoking pot. IE "If a person does not smoke because they are averse to the risk to themselves via the law, they will probably not smoke because they are similarly averse to the risk to themselves via company policy".
2) By the time pot is legalized, self-driving cars will either be ubiquitous or well on their way to being so, thus eliminating the danger of DUI's and DWI's.

So, I'm guessing it's negligible in either case.
2012-11-04 12:56:07 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

It was actually quite common at one time. During prohibition.


graphics8.nytimes.com
Just a historical tidbit, from when Churchill was being treated after an auto accident in NYC.
2012-11-04 12:55:23 PM
1 votes:

hillbillypharmacist: NewportBarGuy: hillbillypharmacist: Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.

I am disheartened by how uninvolved pharmacy professionals are in the decisions made by doctors, FDA, and DEA. I've taken your advice to heart. I don't really expect much and just wait for time to resolve most things.

Yeah. We unfortunately have less power than I think we should. Some of it is how the profession prefers it sometimes. It's sad I think, we could be a lot better, as a profession, especially when it comes to national policy.


Unfortunately, some of it is. We had marijuana decriminalization on the ballot in Cali in 2010, and most of the opposition to it came out of Humboldt County (for those that don't know Cali, that's where a lot of the medical growers are).
2012-11-04 12:53:46 PM
1 votes:
Fairly reliable polls are suggesting that Initiative 502 may actually pass here in Washington State. It's supported by two former US Attorneys, the guy who used to run the local FBI station, and more than a few judges. If it passes, it will beiinteresting to see how the feds respond.
2012-11-04 12:52:03 PM
1 votes:

Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


Grain Alcohol is used to counteract antifreeze. Also people who have issues with blood clots are often told to drink a lot. I once had to transport a patient that had a script for one beer a day. Medicaid paid for it.
2012-11-04 12:51:53 PM
1 votes:

Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


It was actually quite common at one time. During prohibition.
2012-11-04 12:46:07 PM
1 votes:
Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.
2012-11-04 12:43:06 PM
1 votes:
I wish we'd legalize it just so I'd no longer have to hear people biatch about it needing to be legalized.

/also because I wouldn't mind getting high on rare occasions without having to worry about losing my job and ending up in the clink.
2012-11-04 12:42:26 PM
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?

You know what would be easier to measure? How many people would smoke if it were made legal.


You can very easily get a prescription right now to legally buy, grow and smoke weed here in California. I've yet to meet anyone that signed up just because they could. People that already smoke weed signed up - not so they could smoke (they already were) but so they don't get in trouble.
/Was even super easy to get growing up in Salt Lake City *UTAH*.
2012-11-04 12:41:38 PM
1 votes:
I dream of the day when I can legally smoke pot while taking my married lesbian sister (who earns the same as her male coworkers) in a high speed train to get a safe on-demand abortion. We'll celebrate with a hearty breakfast of stem cell omelettes.
2012-11-04 12:38:03 PM
1 votes:

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


The job losses would be offset by the people able to be hired who would have failed the drug test.

/granted, there should be some jobs where drug tests are necessary
//mostly in fields where the operation of heavy machinery is required
2012-11-04 12:36:20 PM
1 votes:
Legalizing marijuana in the US could, in short, deal a blow to Mexico's traffickers of a magnitude that no current policy has got close to achieving

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Someone puff puff pass over this way.
2012-11-04 12:32:42 PM
1 votes:
I've always wondered how much money drug cartels donate to the campaigns of "tough-on-crime" politicians. Laundered through legitimate fronts, obviously, but I strongly suspect that they're financially invested in keeping the political climate where it is.
2012-11-04 12:30:27 PM
1 votes:
Prohibition didn't work in the '20s either
2012-11-04 12:23:37 PM
1 votes:
Legalizing marijuana would deal a blow to both drug traffickers and the private prison industry.

It's win/win.

But that noted, much like in the case of marriage rights for gays politicians will never push for it until it enters the realms of the politically feasible. That is to say polling nationally at higher that 51%. That kind of consensus building requires organization and sustained effort. NORML and other groups have been around for years and they've certainly helped changed some attitudes but perhaps not quite enough just yet. When the sea change will occur to make legal recreational marijuana politically feasible is anyone's guess at this point. It will take a bunch of state's initiatives like we're seeing in WA to make that change I reckon.
2012-11-04 12:13:21 PM
1 votes:
Legalizing marijuana in the US could, in short, deal a blow to Mexico's traffickers the Department of Justice and the private prison industry of a magnitude that no current policy has got close to achieving

FTFY

Also.. Hello Bontesla.. how YOU doin? ;)
2012-11-04 12:11:22 PM
1 votes:

flucto: Duh.


Done in one.
2012-11-04 11:51:44 AM
1 votes:
And we wouldn't want that.

Bye-bye DEA agents' jobs!
Bye-bye prison jobs!
Bye-bye lawyers and DA's and so on.

Who gives a fark if America as a whole is better off? JOBS!!!!1!

/also, there goes our source of cheap American labor in the form of prisoners
2012-11-04 11:22:36 AM
1 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: dr_blasto: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.

Medical marijuana still gets people fired for popping on a test; it would be nice if it were rescheduled and covered under ADA. Until there's a need to determine actual MJ intoxication, simply establishing that a user smoked recently wrecks most of these legalization routes as employers and the government are content with the current testing schemes.

In CO, their "regulate marijuana like alcohol" amendment has problems with OUI limits, primarily if (pretending the amendment passed) one legally got high on a Saturday night, then was pulled over on the way to work Monday morning they could be busted for OUI as their THC metabolite level could be high enough to exceed the limit even though they are no longer under the effects of the drug.

IANAL, but I do believe people can get DUIs ofrom being intoxicated via legally prescribed pharmaceuticals. There is no instant or blood-level test for that like there is for alcohol either. Really, it's not a good reason for continued prohibition.


You can be intoxicated from Xanax and get OUI; I think that in most cases you'd have to be pulled over for driving recklessly or get in an accident and have evidence of pills lying around. For pot, the tests you would take like a UA (today) only test for metabolites--meaning you can be legally under the influence, but not actually under the influence. Those metabolites don't have an intoxicating effect and they can linger for days and weeks.
2012-11-04 11:05:10 AM
1 votes:

dr_blasto: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.

Medical marijuana still gets people fired for popping on a test; it would be nice if it were rescheduled and covered under ADA. Until there's a need to determine actual MJ intoxication, simply establishing that a user smoked recently wrecks most of these legalization routes as employers and the government are content with the current testing schemes.

In CO, their "regulate marijuana like alcohol" amendment has problems with OUI limits, primarily if (pretending the amendment passed) one legally got high on a Saturday night, then was pulled over on the way to work Monday morning they could be busted for OUI as their THC metabolite level could be high enough to exceed the limit even though they are no longer under the effects of the drug.


IANAL, but I do believe people can get DUIs ofrom being intoxicated via legally prescribed pharmaceuticals. There is no instant or blood-level test for that like there is for alcohol either. Really, it's not a good reason for continued prohibition.
2012-11-04 10:53:02 AM
1 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.


Medical marijuana still gets people fired for popping on a test; it would be nice if it were rescheduled and covered under ADA. Until there's a need to determine actual MJ intoxication, simply establishing that a user smoked recently wrecks most of these legalization routes as employers and the government are content with the current testing schemes.

In CO, their "regulate marijuana like alcohol" amendment has problems with OUI limits, primarily if (pretending the amendment passed) one legally got high on a Saturday night, then was pulled over on the way to work Monday morning they could be busted for OUI as their THC metabolite level could be high enough to exceed the limit even though they are no longer under the effects of the drug.
2012-11-04 09:40:37 AM
1 votes:

Elandriel: I wonder if it's more people using, or more people that were already using now saying so because there are no legal repercussions? That would be a tough study,


I would venture that 99% of the increased numbers could be attributed to those using previously in fear.
2012-11-04 09:33:57 AM
1 votes:

Elandriel: Endive Wombat: There would be an immediate rise in people using though, and that has been demonstrated in various European countries over the years.

I wonder if it's more people using, or more people that were already using now saying so because there are no legal repercussions? That would be a tough study,


Well, that's one of the things that some studies discovered: how you collect data determines the degree of accuracy of the results.

Another thing that can alter the accuracy is the stigmatized nature of the topic. Respondents were less likely to provide an accurate response when that answer made them feel bad
2012-11-04 09:30:23 AM
1 votes:

Endive Wombat: There would be an immediate rise in people using though, and that has been demonstrated in various European countries over the years.


I wonder if it's more people using, or more people that were already using now saying so because there are no legal repercussions? That would be a tough study,
2012-11-04 08:38:51 AM
1 votes:

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


I would assume that the net job loss would be very little given that there are more people convicted on drug-related charges than there are operating the criminal justice side.

I would also assume that it's remains true after taking into consideration that not all arrested/convicted have jobs. If they held for jobless rates using demographic and geographic data - it would probably be a simple model to account for.

However, the study should identify the scope anyway.
2012-11-04 08:22:48 AM
1 votes:
I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report