Trump signals support for legislation lifting federal ban on marijuana

[MiddleGround]

Tax the phuck out of it.

EVERYONE says this but... what will it do?

Let's review shall we?

Alcohol is Taxed: Where is that money?
Ciggarettes are taxed: Where is that money?
Gasoline is taxed: Where is that money?
Gambling is taxed: Where is that money?

Weed being taxed....

Don't fall into the same old trap that legalizing pot and taxing it will be some kind of miracle financial windfall. My guess, based on history, is that it would be swallowed up by the machine just like any other bright idea that government was able to tax.

 

[black dog]

No one is proposing otherwise.

Should a employer have knowledge or be able to get knowledge that an employee is high on prescription drugs or stoned?

Actually it can be a problem, If done as medical weed it will be just like other subscribed drugs. All an employee has to do while taking a drug test is show a prescription and it will not show a positive on the drug test when taken. So in essence a few of your service technicians can be stopping in each morning at the methadone clinic, and the employer would never know through drug testing.
No different with medical weed.

But I do believe that there should be zero regulation on any drugs or alcohol.

 

[vraiblonde]

EVERYONE says this but... what will it do?

Let's review shall we?

Alcohol is Taxed: Where is that money?
Ciggarettes are taxed: Where is that money?
Gasoline is taxed: Where is that money?
Gambling is taxed: Where is that money?

Weed being taxed....

Don't fall into the same old trap that legalizing pot and taxing it will be some kind of miracle financial windfall. My guess, based on history, is that it would be swallowed up by the machine just like any other bright idea that government was able to tax.

This ^^^^

Not only that, but addicts aren't known for their fiscal responsibility and stellar work history. So where are they going to get the money to buy their fix?

That's right, they're going to steal it.

So let's don't pretend that legalizing drugs will suddenly make crime go away.

 

[black dog]

This ^^^^

Not only that, but addicts aren't known for their fiscal responsibility and stellar work history. So where are they going to get the money to buy their fix?

That's right, they're going to steal it.

So let's don't pretend that legalizing drugs will suddenly make crime go away.

I would bet there are more addicts that are on State run insurance programs that the taxpayer pays the premiums than are thief's.
Lots of " pain management clinics, methadone clinics, and so on... " in this country.

 

[GURPS]

So let's don't pretend that legalizing drugs will suddenly make crime go away.

nobody said it would .... lock up the criminals for Stealing NOT just for possessing a 1/4 O

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

This ^^^^
Not only that, but addicts aren't known for their fiscal responsibility and stellar work history. So where are they going to get the money to buy their fix?
That's right, they're going to steal it.
So let's don't pretend that legalizing drugs will suddenly make crime go away.

Well, Ive never heard of an alcoholic beating up or killing someone for money to get a drink. They just ask politely as can be. Nor does a person that smokes weed. It the hard drug user, heroin, crack, etc that will kill you for your money to get their fix.

 

[Midnightrider]

This ^^^^

Not only that, but addicts aren't known for their fiscal responsibility and stellar work history. So where are they going to get the money to buy their fix?

That's right, they're going to steal it.

So let's don't pretend that legalizing drugs will suddenly make crime go away.

Except that weed isn’t one of ‘those’ drugs. The addictive qualities are debatable at best, and there aren’t many weed smokers who need a weed ‘fix’ so bad they will be stealing for it.

As for the tax angle, it’s a consumption tax, the states are capturing funds that revenue that used to go to organized crime. From that angle it is a win-win.

 

[vraiblonde]

I just find it interesting that we have such a terrible drug problem in this country, and you all's solution is....to legalize it.

Pardon me if I find that crazy.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Except that weed isn’t one of ‘those’ drugs. The addictive qualities are debatable at best, and there aren’t many weed smokers who need a weed ‘fix’ so bad they will be stealing for it.

As a person that has used it, for me, after the effects, the high, has worn off, I have never had a feeling, desire, a needing or wanting to get another fix or high, ie no craving to smoke some more. It's either I want to or don't. If I see someone smoking it, I don't have a craving to ask for some, or to run home an light up a bowl. Weed does not have that effect and does not do that. Can people get hooked on it similar to cigarettes? Sure. But there is no physical addiction to it, nor does it cause a physical addiction. Unlike heroin, where it has been said that even after one, the first time using it, a person has an immediate craving for another use after the high is over. Hooked from the first use.

 

[Hijinx]

That is the farthest thing from my mind. Of course the tax will be swallowed up like all the rest of the taxes.
Just one more drop in a big bucket.

Like an other sin tax we may as well get something out of it/.

According to the national institute of drug abuse, marijuana smoke contains 50-70% more carcinogens than tobacco smoke.
Help yourself folks-----------enjoy.

 

[MiddleGround]

Except that weed isn’t one of ‘those’ drugs. The addictive qualities are debatable at best, and there aren’t many weed smokers who need a weed ‘fix’ so bad they will be stealing for it.

My problem isn't with the rampant drug crime after weed is legalized. I do however, agree that employment will become a problem. How many employers will be OK with their employees being high? Like it or not, weed effects the brain and cognative thinking. It's the reason why the Federal government does not allow it in work spaces even in states where it is legalized. No one will want a doper (or even a casual user) being comprimised on their dime and time. I know I wouldn't. How do you get around the business owners/employers who say "Don't be high on my time?"

There are quite a few self proclaimed successful business owners on here. What do they say? Are they Ok with a doper being on the payroll and doing work fo rthem?

As for the tax angle, it’s a consumption tax, the states are capturing funds that revenue that used to go to organized crime. From that angle it is a win-win.

Not exactly. As I stated above, history has shown us that the new "win-win" ideas with taxation has proven time after time to evaporate into the general slush fund in some way or another.

 

[Hijinx]

My problem isn't with the rampant drug crime after weed is legalized. I do however, agree that employment will become a problem. How many employers will be OK with their employees being high? Like it or not, weed effects the brain and cognative thinking. It's the reason why the Federal government does not allow it in work spaces even in states where it is legalized. No one will want a doper (or even a casual user) being comprimised on their dime and time. I know I wouldn't. How do you get around the business owners/employers who say "Don't be high on my time?"

There are quite a few self proclaimed successful business owners on here. What do they say? Are they Ok with a doper being on the payroll and doing work fo rthem?



Not exactly. As I stated above, history has shown us that the new "win-win" ideas with taxation has proven time after time to evaporate into the general slush fund in some way or another.

We all know Government is an animal that cannot be fed enough.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

According to the national institute of drug abuse, marijuana smoke contains 50-70% more carcinogens than tobacco smoke. Help yourself folks-----------enjoy.

Weed is not smoked in the quantity that tobacco is smoked in. All it takes is 2 or 3 uses for a user to get a high. Many people only smoke it once a day, or a couple times a week or less.

 

[awpitt]

I wouldn't worry about stoned drivers nearly as much as I worry about texting drivers. Legalize it, tax it.

Yep.... Texting has become very dangerous. I can't count the times that I sat behind someone at a light and when it turns green, nothing happens. I end up hitting the horn and watch the person's head pop up. Very obvious that they were buried in their phone.

 

[black dog]

My problem isn't with the rampant drug crime after weed is legalized. I do however, agree that employment will become a problem. How many employers will be OK with their employees being high? Like it or not, weed effects the brain and cognative thinking. It's the reason why the Federal government does not allow it in work spaces even in states where it is legalized. No one will want a doper (or even a casual user) being comprimised on their dime and time. I know I wouldn't. How do you get around the business owners/employers who say "Don't be high on my time?"

There are quite a few self proclaimed successful business owners on here. What do they say? Are they Ok with a doper being on the payroll and doing work fo rthem?



Not exactly. As I stated above, history has shown us that the new "win-win" ideas with taxation has proven time after time to evaporate into the general slush fund in some way or another.

I drug test before an employee ever starts working for me. Out here I would bet that 60 to 75% of possible employees never show up to be tested after applying and gone through an verbal interview.
I test for drugs before they take a welding test, I call where they have supposedly have worked before, I ask around town about them. Indiana is an " At Will " State, If I have any inklings they are down the road.
I have zero tolerance for drunks and drug addicts, even functioning ones.
Do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, just dont encroach on others when you are under the influence.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I just find it interesting that we have such a terrible drug problem in this country, and you all's solution is....to legalize it.

Pardon me if I find that crazy.

It's only crazy because you think the only way to combat that supposed problem is to continue doing the same old thing. It hasn't worked, so why on earth would it work now?

The government will either take your money to blow kids up in their crib with a flashbang while looking for an adult who sold another consenting adult a substance the govt. deemed illegal, or they will tax it and use that money for treatment hopefully making people more contributors to society. At least arguably more than locking them up and paying for them anyway.

My problem isn't with the rampant drug crime after weed is legalized. I do however, agree that employment will become a problem. How many employers will be OK with their employees being high? Like it or not, weed effects the brain and cognative thinking. It's the reason why the Federal government does not allow it in work spaces even in states where it is legalized. No one will want a doper (or even a casual user) being comprimised on their dime and time. I know I wouldn't. How do you get around the business owners/employers who say "Don't be high on my time?"

There are quite a few self proclaimed successful business owners on here. What do they say? Are they Ok with a doper being on the payroll and doing work fo rthem?

Not exactly. As I stated above, history has shown us that the new "win-win" ideas with taxation has proven time after time to evaporate into the general slush fund in some way or another.

Is employment a problem in the states that have legalized it recreationaly or medically?

I don't think employers want people to be high on the job, just as they don't want anyone drunk or high on prescription meds. I also think employers should have the right to drug test if they see fit. Unfortunately, that drug test doesn't differenciate between an employee that smoked at a concert in their free time over the weekend and one that smoked before coming to work.

My wife owns a business and could give two ####s what people do in their free time as long as you don't come to work ####ed up.

As I stated before on the tax angle, the govt. uses the drug war as justification to spend your tax money needlessly on a program that shows no signs of success. I have no problem with reasonable taxation (like Canada, but not like some states in the USA) because that not only adds tax revenue (Colorado residents actually got a check because the state made too much money) but frees money already being spent for programs that would actually help people.

 

[Midnightrider]

My problem isn't with the rampant drug crime after weed is legalized. I do however, agree that employment will become a problem. How many employers will be OK with their employees being high? Like it or not, weed effects the brain and cognative thinking. It's the reason why the Federal government does not allow it in work spaces even in states where it is legalized. No one will want a doper (or even a casual user) being comprimised on their dime and time. I know I wouldn't. How do you get around the business owners/employers who say "Don't be high on my time?"

There are quite a few self proclaimed successful business owners on here. What do they say? Are they Ok with a doper being on the payroll and doing work fo rthem?



Not exactly. As I stated above, history has shown us that the new "win-win" ideas with taxation has proven time after time to evaporate into the general slush fund in some way or another.

Easy. Performance based evals. If the person is doing a good job you don’t need to worry about them. If they act drunk or high at work you fire them. Same goes if they have an attendance issue.

BTW, there is a similar solution for driving while high. Since we don’t have a reliable instant test to determine highness, we should do an across the board field sobriety test. If you can’t oass it you can’t drive, period. It doesn’t matter if you are stoned, drunk, tired, old..... If you fail the ‘minimal driving capabilities test’ you lose.

 

[Hijinx]

Easy. Performance based evals. If the person is doing a good job you don’t need to worry about them. If they act drunk or high at work you fire them. Same goes if they have an attendance issue.

BTW, there is a similar solution for driving while high. Since we don’t have a reliable instant test to determine highness, we should do an across the board field sobriety test. If you can’t oass it you can’t drive, period. It doesn’t matter if you are stoned, drunk, tired, old..... If you fail the ‘minimal driving capabilities test’ you lose.

Not such a bad idea.

 

[Gilligan]

There are quite a few self proclaimed successful business owners on here. What do they say? Are they Ok with a doper being on the payroll and doing work fo rthem?
.

As long as this is not happening in the reception area...

 

[GURPS]

No one will want a doper (or even a casual user) being compromised on their dime and time. I know I wouldn't. How do you get around the business owners/employers who say "Don't be high on my time?"

There are quite a few self proclaimed successful business owners on here. What do they say? Are they Ok with a doper being on the payroll and doing work fo rthem?

how many business execs had 3 martini lunches .... and back to the office