- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does anyone else think the whole weed debate is stupid
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:19 pm to mindbreaker
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:19 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
Companies can't fire you for opiate painkillers if they are prescribed.
If that drug is in your system while you're on their clock, sure they can. The company I use to work for had a zero tolerance policy. The drugs were spelled out in a memo and when tested if any of those drugs showed up, you went home. I don't want anyone who just popped a lude driving my plane, bus, train or car.
1
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:26 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
I don't want anyone who just popped a lude driving my plane, bus, train or car.
completely agree. This is my only problem with full marijuana legalization. There is still not a legitimate way to test to see how impared a person is on it.
quote:
If that drug is in your system while you're on their clock, sure they can.
Only if they person didn't follow protocol. If you go to you company tell them you were prescribed it first and they agree to let you use it then they can't. If they say no you can't they need to have a reason why. Your example for operating heavy machinery is a good reason why. But if they work a job behind a desk and tell them no tolerance they might have a legal battle if the employee wanted to pursue it.
My point being most companies follow the report to medical first model and let you take your script. Whereas with medical marijuana most companies don't do that because they don't have to with the federal ban.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:29 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:sure, so the federal ban should be lifted. right?
and this should be left up to local government.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:31 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
Your example for operating heavy machinery is a good reason why. But if they work a job behind a desk and tell them no tolerance they might have a legal battle if the employee wanted to pursue it.
Then you have preferential treatment between different crafts of the same company. Talking about lawsuits. I know of no company that tells one employee "its's okay" but tells the next employee "no it's not".
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:31 pm to HempHead
quote:
I'm with you on everything but this. People do not serve hard time for neglible amounts of pot, or even for trafficking. Those that do appear to do so usually plead in lieu of another felony
Some states have become more lenient admittedly. It's the 3 strikes and habitual offender laws that still cause a problem. Also there are people still serving hard time from archaic weed laws of the past.
Honestly I don't want to pay for them to sit in prison for one. Secondly I'm not worried about a pothead causing major crimes. Only thing we are accomplishing is making them a worse criminal by housing them with the true detriment to society types.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:33 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:i do
I know of no company that tells one employee "its's okay" but tells the next employee "no it's not".
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:35 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Then you have preferential treatment between different crafts of the same company. Talking about lawsuits. I know of no company that tells one employee "its's okay" but tells the next employee "no it's not".
I do I work in the construction industry. It has nothing to do with preferential treatment. It even says on the bottle do not operate heavy machinery. A crane operator can't, but a timekeeper sure. It happens all the time. It's as simple as getting a doctor to write a note saying it's okay to take this and do their job. Now a shady doctor might say it's okay to take that script and operate a bus but if it wrecks and kills people he's all of the sudden liable for letting it happen.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:36 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
Well, the government spends a whole lot of time policing marijuana. For a fiscal conservative this should be an enticing reason to change the status quo.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:44 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
Does anyone else think the whole weed debate is stupid
Not really.
It's directly tied into border security and the immigration crisis and one of the top five national security issues of our time.
Weed has also been used to expand the size and scope of the enforcement arm of the state and rollbacks on that need to happen.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 12:51 pm to Sentrius
Colorado just topped $1 billion in marijuana sales. That's good for $100 million in revenue. You can run an entire university on that budget.
But yeah, weed laws are no big deal.....
But yeah, weed laws are no big deal.....
Posted on 2/20/17 at 1:48 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
Do you think the govt operated on Honest ground when campaigning for its illegality? Should Nixon have been honest when starting the war on drugs and just admitted he wanted to go after hippies and blacks?
Of course not. What was the name of that absurd movie that was used to gin of fear of weed? My point is just what I stated, just be honest about why you want it legalized. Is it really so bad to argue that you want it legalized because you want to legally get high? I don't have an issue with that argument anymore than I would have a problem with someone saying they wanted alcohol legalized because they wanted to get buzzed. Too many weed advocates oversell the whole legalization argument. You don't have to turn weed into this almost myth like miracle drug that is going to save humanity and cure cancer and most known diseases to have people like me support its legalization. I'm perfectly ok with it being legalized and regulated. At that point it's just a personal choice of whether or not to partake in the use of it, and the rest of us won't have to hear these constant sales pitches for legalization.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 2:10 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
No matter what side of this you sre on I think most sane people can agree that there are much bigger issues the POTUS should be worrying about and this should be left up to local government
See there's the problem. The debate isn't being driven by crime, or lack thereof. It's being driven by money. Money that funds police depts, courtrooms, prisons, attorneys, consultants, etc.
The moment it's legalized they all lose out.
Also there's another element to this- control. It's used as probable cause to search anyones vehicle under the believable/unbelievable pretense that "there was an odor of weed in the vehicle". A lot of stops will become unconstitutional very quickly.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 2:13 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Also there's another element to this- control. It's used as probable cause to search anyones vehicle under the believable/unbelievable pretense that "there was an odor of weed in the vehicle". A lot of stops will become unconstitutional very quickly.
It still wouldn't be legal to smoke and drive, I wouldn't see them losing the ability to search your car if they smelled weed
Posted on 2/20/17 at 3:13 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:imo yes.. I've smoked weed plenty of times. But never once did I worry about getting caught or care that it was illegal. I've voted Republican I'm every election I could even though I know some republicans are against legalizing marijuana. Because there are much bigger issues in my mind that a president should worry about. If you put the legalization of marijuana above foreign and economic policy, regardless of what side of the isle your on, you are too stupid to vote and should stay at the house next election
sure, so the federal ban should be lifted. right
Posted on 2/20/17 at 3:18 pm to Ingloriousbastard
quote:where In the fricking op did I say I liked the current weed laws? Hell I like pot. I think smoking weed is a lot better than a drunk but the bottom line is there are much bigger issues. Yes, in the perfect world where 2 candidates both align with me on every policy I seem more important than the legalization of weed than yes I would vote for the person wanting to legalize it but that's not the world we live in. I swear it's no use posting more than a sentence on this board because that's as far down as anyone is going to read
Well, the government spends a whole lot of time policing marijuana. For a fiscal conservative this should be an enticing reason to change the status quo.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 4:43 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
Aww. Calm down snowflake. The current laws are pretty dumb as is and need to be changed. At the minimum, the federal government should punt the issue off to the states, which they clearly do not do with current drug schedules. More states would likely go along if it wasn't federally illegal.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 5:20 pm to Ingloriousbastard
You're right they should be changed. But it shouldn't be I'm the top of the agenda
Posted on 2/20/17 at 5:26 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
ecstacy is taboo.
besides, the good stuff is little taking the pill in the Matrix movie.
besides, the good stuff is little taking the pill in the Matrix movie.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 5:29 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
Downvoted.
If we can have gay marriage then we can damn well have weed legalization.
If we can have gay marriage then we can damn well have weed legalization.
Posted on 2/20/17 at 5:33 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
So your saying regardless of any other policy you would vote for a candidate just because of his weed stance? Because that's what I said. Don't turn what I said into a straw man frickface
Wow, you used a strawman and denounced strawman arguments in three sentences. Impressive.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News