free the people free the herb

[Big Fitz]

I've never understood the drive to hold drug users to higher level of accoutability over alcohol.

So we should stop drug and alcohol testing professional drivers? They're being held to a higher standard and cannot be employed if they abuse either or use them on the job.

nah, just that if drug tests are going to be administered to welfare recipients than so should alcohol tests.

Alcohol is only detectable while in system. Drugs are detectable long term. So that means you can only get your check sober. You can block alcohol from EBT and WIC cards but all they do is pay cash for the booze and cigarettes while using the EBT for everything else. So it does nothing really.

If you tested for drugs, and then barred access if they are detected in your system, you've got a chance to stop the problem. WIC/EBT is an enabling system for many druggies. I see it every first and 14th of month down at the transit station when they go shopping. All their cash was used on stuff they aren't supposed to have, while their stamps are used for what they can. Assuming scrupulous stores.

 

[Big Fitz]

Interteresting the only thing the Dems want less regulation on is Pot. They want to control everything else.

"If we can Keep the lazy bastards doped up and on Welfare they will do what we say." Joe Democrat

You do make a valid point. Socialists/Progressives do push for Government dominance & control all the time. But when it comes to doing Drugs & killing babies,they do seem to change their tone quite a bit. In my opinion you don't get to have it both ways. Either you support aggressive Government intervention in Citzens' lives,or you don't. Socialists/Progressives want the Government controlling all aspects of Citizens' lives,so their stand on issues like this comes off as being pretty disingenuous & hypocritical. They're certainly not consistent.

Regardless, any 'war on drugs' is a state issue, not federal.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Works for me. End welfare for anyone who tests positive, no assistance at all, whatsoever.

DP for crimes? A tad harsh. I'd say 25 years no parole.

Drug testing for welfare should absolutely be a requirement. I have to be drug tested for my job, my paycheck.

I've never understood the drive to hold drug users to higher level of accoutability over alcohol.

It's very hard to test for alcohol unless the person is currently intoxicated.

 

[Big Fitz]

Huh... Lu Lu declared victory and buggered off I see.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Interteresting the only thing the Dems want less regulation on is Pot. They want to control everything else.

"If we can Keep the lazy bastards doped up and on Welfare they will do what we say." Joe Democrat

You do make a valid point. Socialists/Progressives do push for Government dominance & control all the time. But when it comes to doing Drugs & killing babies,they do seem to change their tone quite a bit. In my opinion you don't get to have it both ways. Either you support aggressive Government intervention in Citzens' lives,or you don't. Socialists/Progressives want the Government controlling all aspects of Citizens' lives,so their stand on issues like this comes off as being pretty disingenuous & hypocritical. They're certainly not consistent.

Neither side is, republicans want gov't out of their gun racks but they want the plants people grow in their yard regulated.

Libo you and I both know getting consistent principles out of either mainstream party is essentially impossible.

Yea you're right i guess. I just get a tad bit angry when i see Socialists/Progressives preaching on issues like this. They are fighting on a daily basis for total Government control of Citizens' lives and are the biggest threat to our Freedom & Liberty. It's not enough to only come out against Government oppression when it comes to doing Drugs and killing Babies. That just seems far too convenient and very hypocritical. You don't get to have it both ways. But hey,that's just how i feel. I get what you're saying though.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Drug testing for welfare should absolutely be a requirement. I have to be drug tested for my job, my paycheck.

I've never understood the drive to hold drug users to higher level of accoutability over alcohol.

It's very hard to test for alcohol unless the person is currently intoxicated.

I've always thought polygraph tests are under-used, is the time they're wrong higher than I think?

 

[Dr.Drock]

You do make a valid point. Socialists/Progressives do push for Government dominance & control all the time. But when it comes to doing Drugs & killing babies,they do seem to change their tone quite a bit. In my opinion you don't get to have it both ways. Either you support aggressive Government intervention in Citzens' lives,or you don't. Socialists/Progressives want the Government controlling all aspects of Citizens' lives,so their stand on issues like this comes off as being pretty disingenuous & hypocritical. They're certainly not consistent.

Neither side is, republicans want gov't out of their gun racks but they want the plants people grow in their yard regulated.

Libo you and I both know getting consistent principles out of either mainstream party is essentially impossible.

Yea you're right i guess. I just get a tad bit angry when i see Socialists/Progressives preaching on issues like this. They are fighting on a daily basis for total Government control of Citizens' lives and are the biggest threat to our Freedom & Liberty. It's not enough to only come out against Government oppression when it comes to doing Drugs and killing Babies. That just seems far too convenient and very hypocritical. You don't get to have it both ways. But hey,that's just how i feel. I get what you're saying though.

Yeah the smoking thing is always weird to me. The same people are the ones pushing government to regulate the smoke in private restaurants, but not in private homes.

I don't like smokey areas either, so if a restaurant is too smokey I'll give my business to the one across the street, I don't need government involved.

 

[Big Fitz]

I've never understood the drive to hold drug users to higher level of accoutability over alcohol.

It's very hard to test for alcohol unless the person is currently intoxicated.

I've always thought polygraph tests are under-used, is the time they're wrong higher than I think?

they're wrong enough to be inadmissible in court, but awesome for gameshows and daytime TV Train Wrecks.

"I'm sorry Bill, that is a lie, you did cheat on your wife and sleep with the boy's La Crosse team even though you were 500 miles away. The lie detector never lies."

DNA testing is the most insane.

"Darnell, You ARE NOT the father of little Stevia Mazda Teflon Jalapeno Jones! Well, Tiffany, would you care to try bachelors 15-20 you think might be the father?"

 

[Big Fitz]

Neither side is, republicans want gov't out of their gun racks but they want the plants people grow in their yard regulated.

Libo you and I both know getting consistent principles out of either mainstream party is essentially impossible.

Yea you're right i guess. I just get a tad bit angry when i see Socialists/Progressives preaching on issues like this. They are fighting on a daily basis for total Government control of Citizens' lives and are the biggest threat to our Freedom & Liberty. It's not enough to only come out against Government oppression when it comes to doing Drugs and killing Babies. That just seems far too convenient and very hypocritical. You don't get to have it both ways. But hey,that's just how i feel. I get what you're saying though.

Yeah the smoking thing is always weird to me. The same people are the ones pushing government to regulate the smoke in private restaurants, but not in private homes.

I don't like smokey areas either, so if a restaurant is too smokey I'll give my business to the one across the street, I don't need government involved.

I agree, That's because it's private property. They have the right to allow smoking there and shouldn't be prosecuted by some non-smoking zealot going all Carrie Nation on them.

On the other hand, if they want to ban alcohol, cigarettes and the like, they shouldn't be able to be sued, even though they are a business, for making that decision as well.

And yes, this is consistent with my viewpoint, believe it or not.

The danger we have is that if we DO legalize drugs even with restrictions like that on alcohol is we will have people suing for discrimination against their 'right to be stoned' and lose their shirts to these nihilistic retards who we should not have to tolerate as individuals if we don't want to.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It's very hard to test for alcohol unless the person is currently intoxicated.

I've always thought polygraph tests are under-used, is the time they're wrong higher than I think?

they're wrong enough to be inadmissible in court, but awesome for gameshows and daytime TV Train Wrecks.

"I'm sorry Bill, that is a lie, you did cheat on your wife and sleep with the boy's La Crosse team even though you were 500 miles away. The lie detector never lies."

DNA testing is the most insane.

"Darnell, You ARE NOT the father of little Stevia Mazda Teflon Jalapeno Jones! Well, Tiffany, would you care to try bachelors 15-20 you think might be the father?"

Good post, I just did some quick reading, seems like it's better than nothing but FAR from concrete. I think it'd be good to use one as a gathering of evidence tool to stack on an already high pile, but nothing more.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Neither side is, republicans want gov't out of their gun racks but they want the plants people grow in their yard regulated.

Libo you and I both know getting consistent principles out of either mainstream party is essentially impossible.

Yea you're right i guess. I just get a tad bit angry when i see Socialists/Progressives preaching on issues like this. They are fighting on a daily basis for total Government control of Citizens' lives and are the biggest threat to our Freedom & Liberty. It's not enough to only come out against Government oppression when it comes to doing Drugs and killing Babies. That just seems far too convenient and very hypocritical. You don't get to have it both ways. But hey,that's just how i feel. I get what you're saying though.

Yeah the smoking thing is always weird to me. The same people are the ones pushing government to regulate the smoke in private restaurants, but not in private homes.

I don't like smokey areas either, so if a restaurant is too smokey I'll give my business to the one across the street, I don't need government involved.

Good point. I never understood how Government was allowed to ban smoking in privately-owned Businesses. If a Restaurant or Bar wants to allow Smoking,than so be it. That should be their call. They run a private business and pay their Taxes. The Government has no right telling them whether or not they can allow smoking. All Socialists/Progressives i run into,fully support such Laws. In fact it was they who created these Laws.

The Socialists are in a Banning-Frenzy at this point. Who knows what they'll want to ban next? So i just can't give them much credibility on issues like this. I say the same thing about their Abortion stance. Why would a Socialist/Progressive have a problem with a State deciding to regulate the killing of Babies? I would think a Socialist/Progressive would be all for that. Too much dishonesty & hypocrisy with the Socialists. I just can't trust them.

 

[Big Fitz]

I've always thought polygraph tests are under-used, is the time they're wrong higher than I think?

they're wrong enough to be inadmissible in court, but awesome for gameshows and daytime TV Train Wrecks.

"I'm sorry Bill, that is a lie, you did cheat on your wife and sleep with the boy's La Crosse team even though you were 500 miles away. The lie detector never lies."

DNA testing is the most insane.

"Darnell, You ARE NOT the father of little Stevia Mazda Teflon Jalapeno Jones! Well, Tiffany, would you care to try bachelors 15-20 you think might be the father?"

Good post, I just did some quick reading, seems like it's better than nothing but FAR from concrete. I think it'd be good to use one as a gathering of evidence tool to stack on an already high pile, but nothing more.

Right. I find it funny it was invented by the creator of Wonder Woman. Golden Lariat anyone?

And with the current stringent standards for testing with certain careers (like I have) I would have no problems with much broader drug testing because so many people, if legalized, would be reporting to work under the influence. It's the same rational why you have 'no cell phones' when you are driving for professionals as well as not being able to come to work under the influence. You cause so many problems.

But I've also seen people fight dismissal and 'discrimination' for these types of behaviors that endanger the lives of others, employers lose and then get blamed for the problems that follow when they wanted to get rid of a trouble employee long ago.

Our society has no intestinal fortitude to do the right thing anymore... or the reprobates seem to have more.

 

[BlindBoo]

So we should stop drug and alcohol testing professional drivers? They're being held to a higher standard and cannot be employed if they abuse either or use them on the job.

nah, just that if drug tests are going to be administered to welfare recipients than so should alcohol tests.

Alcohol is only detectable while in system. Drugs are detectable long term. So that means you can only get your check sober. You can block alcohol from EBT and WIC cards but all they do is pay cash for the booze and cigarettes while using the EBT for everything else. So it does nothing really.

If you tested for drugs, and then barred access if they are detected in your system, you've got a chance to stop the problem. WIC/EBT is an enabling system for many druggies. I see it every first and 14th of month down at the transit station when they go shopping. All their cash was used on stuff they aren't supposed to have, while their stamps are used for what they can. Assuming scrupulous stores.

They can now test your hair for alcohol too. It's expensive and it's relatively new and it can go back months or years.

 

[Big Fitz]

nah, just that if drug tests are going to be administered to welfare recipients than so should alcohol tests.

Alcohol is only detectable while in system. Drugs are detectable long term. So that means you can only get your check sober. You can block alcohol from EBT and WIC cards but all they do is pay cash for the booze and cigarettes while using the EBT for everything else. So it does nothing really.

If you tested for drugs, and then barred access if they are detected in your system, you've got a chance to stop the problem. WIC/EBT is an enabling system for many druggies. I see it every first and 14th of month down at the transit station when they go shopping. All their cash was used on stuff they aren't supposed to have, while their stamps are used for what they can. Assuming scrupulous stores.

They can now test your hair for alcohol too. It's expensive and it's relatively new and it can go back months or years.

News to me.

 

[BlindBoo]

Alcohol is only detectable while in system. Drugs are detectable long term. So that means you can only get your check sober. You can block alcohol from EBT and WIC cards but all they do is pay cash for the booze and cigarettes while using the EBT for everything else. So it does nothing really.

If you tested for drugs, and then barred access if they are detected in your system, you've got a chance to stop the problem. WIC/EBT is an enabling system for many druggies. I see it every first and 14th of month down at the transit station when they go shopping. All their cash was used on stuff they aren't supposed to have, while their stamps are used for what they can. Assuming scrupulous stores.

They can now test your hair for alcohol too. It's expensive and it's relatively new and it can go back months or years.

News to me.

Alcohol Testing | Alcohol Tests | Testing for Alcohol | Alcohol Test

 

[ABikerSailor]

I read that story earlier.

I was going to post it except they like to blame America for the rest of the world not making it legal in thier countries.

Aside from thier whine fest.

It's long over due to end all prohabition.

The money we would save, let alone collect, would solve many issues we face today.

Actually, America DID make it illegal for all the other countries. How? Simple, when Anslinger the FBI man made it illegal (because he was targeting the black and brown people who were the primary consumers), he then went to Hollywood and had them make that propaganda piece of shit movie called Reefer Madness.

He then took all that to the UN, and urged all other countries to make it illegal.

However.............during my 20 years in the US Navy, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA), which meant that I had to know the signs, as well as the effects, of various substances.

Guess what? NOWHERE does it show that cannabis is bad for you. And that comes from places like Harvard Medical and the Royal British Medical Society.

By the way......the incidence of lung cancer in people who smoke? 21 times more likely to get lung cancer than someone who doesn't smoke at all.

Know what the incidence of lung cancer is in people who smoke only cannabis? 0.93 to 0.75 percent as likely to get lung cancer than people who don't smoke at all.

Besides, it's medicinal, it helps with chemo, Alzheimer's, as well as other things. Interestingly enough, when you have pure THC, you end up with really bad paranoia. If you only smoke a plant? You don't get that. Why? Simple......the chlorophyll and other plant substances are still in it.

If they'd legalize it, there would be a HUGE income stream for the government. Last year, California's pot growers and sellers paid a billion dollars in taxes to the state.

Not only that, but if it were legal, people would be LESS LIKELY to use illegal drugs.

And no........cannabis isn't a gateway drug. If you wanna know the real one? Try alcohol (which is legal).

 

[Dr.Drock]

I read that story earlier.

I was going to post it except they like to blame America for the rest of the world not making it legal in thier countries.

Aside from thier whine fest.

It's long over due to end all prohabition.

The money we would save, let alone collect, would solve many issues we face today.

Actually, America DID make it illegal for all the other countries. How? Simple, when Anslinger the FBI man made it illegal (because he was targeting the black and brown people who were the primary consumers), he then went to Hollywood and had them make that propaganda piece of shit movie called Reefer Madness.

He then took all that to the UN, and urged all other countries to make it illegal.

However.............during my 20 years in the US Navy, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA), which meant that I had to know the signs, as well as the effects, of various substances.

Guess what? NOWHERE does it show that cannabis is bad for you. And that comes from places like Harvard Medical and the Royal British Medical Society.

By the way......the incidence of lung cancer in people who smoke? 21 times more likely to get lung cancer than someone who doesn't smoke at all.

Know what the incidence of lung cancer is in people who smoke only cannabis? 0.93 to 0.75 percent as likely to get lung cancer than people who don't smoke at all.

Besides, it's medicinal, it helps with chemo, Alzheimer's, as well as other things. Interestingly enough, when you have pure THC, you end up with really bad paranoia. If you only smoke a plant? You don't get that. Why? Simple......the chlorophyll and other plant substances are still in it.

If they'd legalize it, there would be a HUGE income stream for the government. Last year, California's pot growers and sellers paid a billion dollars in taxes to the state.

Not only that, but if it were legal, people would be LESS LIKELY to use illegal drugs.

And no........cannabis isn't a gateway drug. If you wanna know the real one? Try alcohol (which is legal).

Great post AB, thanks for your insight.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That's another question, would those who agree with me that marijuana should be legal be ok with marijuana smoke in private restaurants/cafes?

 

[ABikerSailor]

That's another question, would those who agree with me that marijuana should be legal be ok with marijuana smoke in private restaurants/cafes?

No, actually. The smoke from a joint tends to get really thick, so if it's made legal, then places like that should have an outdoor area for the smokers.

Matter of fact, here in Amarillo, there was a biker bar called Boondocks, and we had a little place out back to smoke that was in the back (out of sight of the street). Not only that, but the owner was pretty good friends with a lot of the police, so they rarely patrolled the parking lot out back, and would generally warn us (by beeping) before they came around the corner.

I know, I was the bartender there.

However.........if people wanted to smoke indoors, I've got a really nice hooka, where the only smoke that hits the air is what comes out of your lungs. Good design (I invented it), and not only that, 2 can smoke on it at the same time, and guess what? You can clean it in 5 minutes with just soap and water (10 if you do the hoses).

When it becomes legal, I'm gonna start marketing it. But, it also works great for shisha and other tobacco products.

And the kicker? You can flavor the smoke with whatever flavor you want.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That's another question, would those who agree with me that marijuana should be legal be ok with marijuana smoke in private restaurants/cafes?

No, actually. The smoke from a joint tends to get really thick, so if it's made legal, then places like that should have an outdoor area for the smokers.

Matter of fact, here in Amarillo, there was a biker bar called Boondocks, and we had a little place out back to smoke that was in the back (out of sight of the street). Not only that, but the owner was pretty good friends with a lot of the police, so they rarely patrolled the parking lot out back, and would generally warn us (by beeping) before they came around the corner.

I know, I was the bartender there.

However.........if people wanted to smoke indoors, I've got a really nice hooka, where the only smoke that hits the air is what comes out of your lungs. Good design (I invented it), and not only that, 2 can smoke on it at the same time, and guess what? You can clean it in 5 minutes with just soap and water (10 if you do the hoses).

When it becomes legal, I'm gonna start marketing it. But, it also works great for shisha and other tobacco products.

And the kicker? You can flavor the smoke with whatever flavor you want.

See that's what I don't get, banning MJ in a private home is awful, but banning MJ in a private restaurant is encouraged.

The free market would show that there's going to be consumers (like me) who wouldn't want to go in a smokey area, it would also show there's going to be consumers who want to be able to smoke cigs or MJ and they should have the choice in where to go. I don't like government regulating choices in this area, if you don't like smoke go to a restaurant that doesn't allow or has designated areas, if you do go somewhere that does.

I don't think we need government complicating freedoms.