Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Ray From Cleveland]

People are driving around stoned? Perhaps we need to remove cars. Or at the very least, remove the fast ones. After all, if somebody is stoned or drunk and gets into an accident, a slower car will take less lives. Right????

What we've done is made it illegal to drive around stoned or drunk for that matter. We don't wait until AFTER the traffic fatalities. Another thing that's been done is making the vehicle much, much safer. Do we remove all Vehicle and Traffic Safety and go back to the millions of deaths that we were headed for without the safety regulations? We have way too many nutcases driving around these days to even contemplate that. That's a really bad choice to for you to use as an example.

Firearms Regulations are the same thing. We won't ever remove the firearms. But, like in the cars, we can put in place safety regulations. I need a special license to drive an 80,000 lb vehicle down the road. I also need a special license to own a certain type of firearms. That same 80,000 lb vehicle is banned from many urban areas. Just like certain Firearms are banned from certain Urban areas for exactly the same reasons.

The idjit that ran over those Motorcyclists with the truck had a legal CDL for the state he was in. But when they looked, he had numerous infractions under another license in another state that should have precluded him from receiving the CDL in the home state. In fact, he should have been taking the public transportation not driving it. The State dropped the ball. Universal Background Checks where Red Flags can go up will also do the same thing for Firearms for exactly the same reasons.

No, we are restricted from side streets, streets with low bridges, and areas where negotiating a turn is nearly impossible, but no town or city restricts 80,000 lbs GVW because no goods would ever get to the stores. All tractor-trailers have a 80,000 lbs GVW.

Furthermore CDL's are federal, not state. The state only issues the license, but the license is federal where all regulations and driver monitoring is done by the feds. If this guy had two licenses, he did so illegally by using a different name perhaps. No insurance company would have insured this guy if his records were legit. In fact many companies won't hire you with 4 points or more because of insurance costs when you apply for a job.

The States issue the CDLs. I used to have one myself. Surprise, you ain't the only one. I drove Cattle Trucks in the late 60s until I got a decent Tech Job for Holley Sugar until I got a draft notice (joined the AF fast). I spent time driving School Buses, Water Trucks, etc. in the double OOs. Until one day, I just didn't bother taking the Hazardous Cargo test and just settle for a class C.

And there are routes in the cities that won't allow anything past a certain weight and length. Try going downtown with a 70 foot 85,000 lbs rig down mainstreet. Two things. You won't have insurance after that and chances are, for the next year, you will have a suspended Class A license.

Cars, Trucks, Planes and Trains have regulations of operation. Firearms also have regulations of operations. You want all regulations removed? Remind me to move to a mountain top and have everything delivered to my location IF the deliveries can get through.

I already stated that yes, there are streets where trucks cannot go, but not an entire city or town.

The reason they came out with CDL's is because drivers were getting licenses in every state they drove, and were driving like maniacs. When they started to rack up too many points in one state, they detoured around it until the points were removed.

CDLs consolidated all that so you could no longer obtain a chauffeurs license in each state. If you have a CDL in my state of Ohio, and it's suspended because of points, you can't get another one in Michigan because a CDL is a federal license. Those points count in any state you drive in. But people can't go to Washington to take a driving test or have to apply for a license, so you can get the licenses in your state, but it's still a federal license.

And yet it was done at least once. Never is a very narrow word.

I never studied or followed the immediate story, so I dug up an article to find out what happened with his license.

Turns out it was the company at fault. They were renown for hiring bad drivers or drivers with suspended licenses, and they never returned calls from reporters to discuss the accident.

Records from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration indicate that the company Zhukovskyy was driving for, Westfield Transport, has been cited for various violations in the last two years, MassLive.com reported.

There were two instances where drivers were in possession of narcotic drugs. Other violations including a driver without a commercial driver’s license, one for speeding and another for defective brakes.

The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Trucker charged with 7 counts of negligent homicide in crash that killed motorcyclists

 

[Blues Man]

You really can't get addicted to pot.

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Initially, drug use is a choice, but if you think it is a matter of will power for those with an addiction, you seriously misunderstand the topic.

.

It takes commitment to become addicted so yes addiction is a choice

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

You really can't get addicted to pot.

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice

And if he really wanted to quit he could have





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Who doesn't want to keep their job and record clean? I would think anybody if they could. Hell, you can't even collect unemployment if you lose your job over dope.

Of course nobody will admit they are addicted to pot. Trust me, I smoked pot and so did most of my friends growing up and into early adulthood.

I remember many years ago there was a huge pot bust somewhere, and that left a lot of places dry. That one friend of mine I mentioned was going nuts. He was calling kids from school he hadn't talked to in 15 years. He was getting phone numbers of strangers he never met just to see if anybody had a joint or two for sale. He was shaking like a guy that went cold turkey on heroin.

Opioid products stay in your system for months unlike opioid drugs. When we get into income discussions, I bring up the fact that most anybody can get a better job than minimum wage, but they can't pass the drug test that better jobs require, so they opt to live paycheck to paycheck making crap money doing crap work.

I had a couple I was renting an apartment to a few years back. She and her boyfriend lived here for seven years. Both worked fast food places because they wouldn't or couldn't give up the pot. Yes, they made rent albeit late most times, but they always paid. They had one car between them, and the thing was fifteen years old and beat to all hell. They had to buy used tires every two weeks just to keep it on the road.

Yes they opt to

In other words they choose to



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Initially, drug use is a choice, but if you think it is a matter of will power for those with an addiction, you seriously misunderstand the topic.

.

It takes commitment to become addicted so yes addiction is a choice

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You are misinformed. Look at what the experts say about it. Go see what Bush said about addiction. He is a recovering alcoholic. You are acting like addicts have a choice, once the addiction is formed. You are acting like resistance to that addiction is solely a matter of will power. That is FALSE.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice

And if he really wanted to quit he could have





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Who doesn't want to keep their job and record clean? I would think anybody if they could. Hell, you can't even collect unemployment if you lose your job over dope.

Of course nobody will admit they are addicted to pot. Trust me, I smoked pot and so did most of my friends growing up and into early adulthood.

I remember many years ago there was a huge pot bust somewhere, and that left a lot of places dry. That one friend of mine I mentioned was going nuts. He was calling kids from school he hadn't talked to in 15 years. He was getting phone numbers of strangers he never met just to see if anybody had a joint or two for sale. He was shaking like a guy that went cold turkey on heroin.

Opioid products stay in your system for months unlike opioid drugs. When we get into income discussions, I bring up the fact that most anybody can get a better job than minimum wage, but they can't pass the drug test that better jobs require, so they opt to live paycheck to paycheck making crap money doing crap work.

I had a couple I was renting an apartment to a few years back. She and her boyfriend lived here for seven years. Both worked fast food places because they wouldn't or couldn't give up the pot. Yes, they made rent albeit late most times, but they always paid. They had one car between them, and the thing was fifteen years old and beat to all hell. They had to buy used tires every two weeks just to keep it on the road.

Yes they opt to

In other words they choose to



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Nobody chooses dope over a job and career unless they can't stop using the stuff. That is unless you want to say they chose dope because they couldn't quit.

 

[Blues Man]

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Initially, drug use is a choice, but if you think it is a matter of will power for those with an addiction, you seriously misunderstand the topic.

.

It takes commitment to become addicted so yes addiction is a choice

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You are misinformed. Look at what the experts say about it. Go see what Bush said about addiction. He is a recovering alcoholic. You are acting like addicts have a choice, once the addiction is formed. You are acting like resistance to that addiction is solely a matter of will power. That is FALSE.

.

They have the choice to get addicted or not

Addiction takes repeated use over a long period of time

Do you have any idea how much you have to drink over the course of a year or longer to become addicted to alcohol?

It takes commitment

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice

And if he really wanted to quit he could have





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Who doesn't want to keep their job and record clean? I would think anybody if they could. Hell, you can't even collect unemployment if you lose your job over dope.

Of course nobody will admit they are addicted to pot. Trust me, I smoked pot and so did most of my friends growing up and into early adulthood.

I remember many years ago there was a huge pot bust somewhere, and that left a lot of places dry. That one friend of mine I mentioned was going nuts. He was calling kids from school he hadn't talked to in 15 years. He was getting phone numbers of strangers he never met just to see if anybody had a joint or two for sale. He was shaking like a guy that went cold turkey on heroin.

Opioid products stay in your system for months unlike opioid drugs. When we get into income discussions, I bring up the fact that most anybody can get a better job than minimum wage, but they can't pass the drug test that better jobs require, so they opt to live paycheck to paycheck making crap money doing crap work.

I had a couple I was renting an apartment to a few years back. She and her boyfriend lived here for seven years. Both worked fast food places because they wouldn't or couldn't give up the pot. Yes, they made rent albeit late most times, but they always paid. They had one car between them, and the thing was fifteen years old and beat to all hell. They had to buy used tires every two weeks just to keep it on the road.

Yes they opt to

In other words they choose to



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Nobody chooses dope over a job and career unless they can't stop using the stuff. That is unless you want to say they chose dope because they couldn't quit.

People choose drugs over other things all the time

This friend of yours did he have to pass a drug test to get his job?

He knew that he would lose his job if he had a positive test and did he even try to quit or get help or did he just tell you he couldn't stop?



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Initially, drug use is a choice, but if you think it is a matter of will power for those with an addiction, you seriously misunderstand the topic.

.

It takes commitment to become addicted so yes addiction is a choice

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You are misinformed. Look at what the experts say about it. Go see what Bush said about addiction. He is a recovering alcoholic. You are acting like addicts have a choice, once the addiction is formed. You are acting like resistance to that addiction is solely a matter of will power. That is FALSE.

.

They have the choice to get addicted or not

Addiction takes repeated use over a long period of time

Do you have any idea how much you have to drink over the course of a year or longer to become addicted to alcohol?

It takes commitment

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

That is irrelevant and not true.

Either way, once addicted, it is NOT a choice.

Cut the bullshit.

How Long Does It Take for an Addiction to Develop?.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice

And if he really wanted to quit he could have





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Who doesn't want to keep their job and record clean? I would think anybody if they could. Hell, you can't even collect unemployment if you lose your job over dope.

Of course nobody will admit they are addicted to pot. Trust me, I smoked pot and so did most of my friends growing up and into early adulthood.

I remember many years ago there was a huge pot bust somewhere, and that left a lot of places dry. That one friend of mine I mentioned was going nuts. He was calling kids from school he hadn't talked to in 15 years. He was getting phone numbers of strangers he never met just to see if anybody had a joint or two for sale. He was shaking like a guy that went cold turkey on heroin.

Opioid products stay in your system for months unlike opioid drugs. When we get into income discussions, I bring up the fact that most anybody can get a better job than minimum wage, but they can't pass the drug test that better jobs require, so they opt to live paycheck to paycheck making crap money doing crap work.

I had a couple I was renting an apartment to a few years back. She and her boyfriend lived here for seven years. Both worked fast food places because they wouldn't or couldn't give up the pot. Yes, they made rent albeit late most times, but they always paid. They had one car between them, and the thing was fifteen years old and beat to all hell. They had to buy used tires every two weeks just to keep it on the road.

Yes they opt to

In other words they choose to



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Nobody chooses dope over a job and career unless they can't stop using the stuff. That is unless you want to say they chose dope because they couldn't quit.

And that is the way it should be. The last thing I want to see is a druggie wheeling around in an 80,000 lb 70 foot death machine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice

And if he really wanted to quit he could have





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Who doesn't want to keep their job and record clean? I would think anybody if they could. Hell, you can't even collect unemployment if you lose your job over dope.

Of course nobody will admit they are addicted to pot. Trust me, I smoked pot and so did most of my friends growing up and into early adulthood.

I remember many years ago there was a huge pot bust somewhere, and that left a lot of places dry. That one friend of mine I mentioned was going nuts. He was calling kids from school he hadn't talked to in 15 years. He was getting phone numbers of strangers he never met just to see if anybody had a joint or two for sale. He was shaking like a guy that went cold turkey on heroin.

Opioid products stay in your system for months unlike opioid drugs. When we get into income discussions, I bring up the fact that most anybody can get a better job than minimum wage, but they can't pass the drug test that better jobs require, so they opt to live paycheck to paycheck making crap money doing crap work.

I had a couple I was renting an apartment to a few years back. She and her boyfriend lived here for seven years. Both worked fast food places because they wouldn't or couldn't give up the pot. Yes, they made rent albeit late most times, but they always paid. They had one car between them, and the thing was fifteen years old and beat to all hell. They had to buy used tires every two weeks just to keep it on the road.

Yes they opt to

In other words they choose to



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Nobody chooses dope over a job and career unless they can't stop using the stuff. That is unless you want to say they chose dope because they couldn't quit.

People choose drugs over other things all the time

This friend of yours did he have to pass a drug test to get his job?

He knew that he would lose his job if he had a positive test and did he even try to quit or get help or did he just tell you he couldn't stop?



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

No, my employer did not have mandatory drug testing before hire. In fact it's not his call, it's a government regulation to have employees drug tested. Now he does do it to spare us problems down the road when the clinic pulls a name because of government regulations.

After the first time of failing a drug test, your medical card gets suspended by the feds. You cannot operate a CDL vehicle without a current and valid medical card. You have to take addiction classes for a period of time before you can get your medical card back which is what he did. So he did get help whether he wanted it or not. But as I've stated repeatedly, rehab seldom works for true addicts.

Two of our other employees that were with the company a long time also got nailed, but they easily gave it up and chose to keep their jobs. They passed every drug test ever since.

What I'm saying is that it's clear that pot can be addictive, but not for everybody.

A few months ago I did a delivery to a company that deals with our customer. It's a steel place. I asked the shipper how the company was doing, and he responded not that well. They couldn't find enough workers. The job sounded like it didn't pay too badly for non-skilled labor. $15.50 an hour to start, but you can quickly move up to $18.00 or so in a short period of time if you're a good worker.

He told me they have seminars for new applicants; usually about 20 people show up. The HR person presents the functions and business of the company. He also tells applicants right up front, if they are chosen for the job, a drug test is mandatory. He said that usually about 3/4 of the group gets up and leaves the room.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice

And if he really wanted to quit he could have





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Who doesn't want to keep their job and record clean? I would think anybody if they could. Hell, you can't even collect unemployment if you lose your job over dope.

Of course nobody will admit they are addicted to pot. Trust me, I smoked pot and so did most of my friends growing up and into early adulthood.

I remember many years ago there was a huge pot bust somewhere, and that left a lot of places dry. That one friend of mine I mentioned was going nuts. He was calling kids from school he hadn't talked to in 15 years. He was getting phone numbers of strangers he never met just to see if anybody had a joint or two for sale. He was shaking like a guy that went cold turkey on heroin.

Opioid products stay in your system for months unlike opioid drugs. When we get into income discussions, I bring up the fact that most anybody can get a better job than minimum wage, but they can't pass the drug test that better jobs require, so they opt to live paycheck to paycheck making crap money doing crap work.

I had a couple I was renting an apartment to a few years back. She and her boyfriend lived here for seven years. Both worked fast food places because they wouldn't or couldn't give up the pot. Yes, they made rent albeit late most times, but they always paid. They had one car between them, and the thing was fifteen years old and beat to all hell. They had to buy used tires every two weeks just to keep it on the road.

Yes they opt to

In other words they choose to



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Nobody chooses dope over a job and career unless they can't stop using the stuff. That is unless you want to say they chose dope because they couldn't quit.

And that is the way it should be. The last thing I want to see is a druggie wheeling around in an 80,000 lb 70 foot death machine.

Yes and no. I mean........I certainly don't want to drive around anybody who is intoxicated, especially in an 18 wheeler. However there is a distinct difference between being intoxicated and having residual drugs or alcohol in your system from what you were doing in your off duty hours.

A friend of mine works for ConWay express which was recently sold to another company. He told me that every driver gets pulled for a drug test after vacation. Why? Because vacation is when people let loose a bit, and residual THC can stay in your system from three to four weeks.

So they were not testing to see if you came back loaded, they tested to see what you did while on vacation, and to me, that's an invasion of privacy.

 

[Rigby5]

Death Race was a movie about needless deaths and violence.
Firearms are used 99% of the time for defense.
Otherwise police would not be armed.
And I trust average people WAY more than I trust police, and in fact, there are few police I trust at all.
The democratic republic is also worth some risk.
We do not want to trade some imagined safety for freedom.
Freedom always comes with some risks and it is a very worth while trade off I think.
Gun control accomplishes nothing except make honest people helpless in the face of crime or government corruption.
That essentially is both foolish and treason, at the same time.

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.
Someone with a pump shotgun can much more easily and quickly kill far more people than with a semi AR.
As far as magazine size goes, they are just sheet metal that any one can easily and quickly modify.
I probably still would not even mind a magazine size limit except that I already bought a couple of large ones, and do NOT intend to ever give them up.

You also are totally wrong about more guns being the answer.
The ONLY time you ever have a lot of collateral damage from people firing irresponsibly in a crowd is by the police.
Average citizens are extremely hesitant to fire at all, and have NEVER caused collateral damage that I know of.
But police to it constantly, like the time they shot Amadou Diallo 42 times, and he had committed no crime and had no weapon. Clearly the most important thing we MUST do is get armed police OFF the streets.

Clearly mass shootings are a suicide declaration, that can easily be stopped by the proper mental health access. Guns have nothing at all to do with the cause or the cure.

And anyone can build a Nuclear Device in the Basement, right? Your logic fails in relife.

What you are claiming makes no sense at all.
It is easy to make a gun in your basement..
Why are you bringing up nuclear devices?
Are you claiming you need something difficult in order to make a machine gun, like you do for fissile material?
It is easy to make a machine gun starting from scratch or some other firearm.
Have you ever looked at a Sten gun?
It just has no bolt locking lugs, and instead a big weight and a strong spring.
The AR actually happens to be one of the harder ones to make full auto.
With most other rifles or pistols, it is trivial.
What fails logic is the fact that you do not realize that about 30% of the firearms used in crime are home made.

 

[Rigby5]

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

See, the tough part of your argument is you rightfully admit that background checks are useful but then oppose measures that would make them better and more effective because you are worried about giving an inch for the slippery slope. I understand your fears and mistrust in government. It that also shouldn’t completely close you off to doing things that you know will help.

No, background checks can not possibly ever be at all useful.
You can never tell if a person is about to become dangerous.
And those who already have a records are not going to be inconvenienced in the least by any puny background check law they are going to evade by paying a bit more, by going illegal.

If they can never be useful then you support getting rid of them all together? Just allow anybody to walk into a store and buy any gun no questions asked? I’m guessing you don’t support banning guns either right? So throw some UZIs into the local 7-11 and let whomever buy whatever? Is that what you’re giving the green light to sir?

When someone is under age, you don't have to do a background check to see that the age on their ID is too young.
If you wanted to add a color or code to the ID to indicate they could not legally buy a firearm, I would not mind that either.
But there really is no need then for a background check. One should be pre-qualified, and not have to tell the BATF every time you are considering a gun purchase. The feds have no right to know what you are buying.
As far as Uzis, I could care less. Anyone can easily make almost any firearm full auto. There was a kit to make a bolt action rifle into a full auto machine gun back in WWI. Called the Pederson device. So it is an illusion to think everyone does not already have access to full auto.

Under the Red Flag Laws, you can be temporarily entered into a no buy list. But that only works if the community is using a Universal Background method. To give you an idea, in 2016, there were 27 Convicted Felons sent back to prison for trying to purchase firearms in Colorado. These were violent ex cons. Law Abiding Citizens with Guns DO NOT sell outside the law. So, if you do, then you are a criminal yourself and should be treated as such. When a violent convicted Convict applies for a background check, he's already flagged. And he's going back to prison. Out of over 600,000 background checks less than 130 were denied and 27 were convicted violent criminals. So don't tell me that they don't work. They do.

Red Flag laws are inherently illegal and make absolutely no sense at all.
If a person is dangerous, you take them into custody or supervise them.
There is no legal alternative to that.
Trying to instead take weapons, makes absolutely no sense, because trying to confiscate weapons is bound to incite a deadly confrontation, and even if successful, is not at all likely to find ALL of the person's weapons.

And you clearly do not have your facts right, nor are you at all interpreting them right.
First of all, if 130 checks were denied, then there should be 130 convictions for attempted illegal purchases.
But actually there are over 112,000 denials, and only 12 convictions.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
So clearly they do NOT at all work, and never have.
And yet NICS has failed with me several times, and I had to file lengthy appeals to finally get the firearm I wanted to purchase.

 

[Rigby5]

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

But driving high IS a problem. Ask any Cop on the Street. Of course if you ask the druggies, it's not a problem, now is it. Druggies NEVER drive high, right? That's right up there with Drunks never drive drunk, just ask them.

First of all, don't ask a cop anything, because they don't really know much, and will likely lie anyway.
Second is that pot is not at all like alcohol, speed, downers, etc.
Pot makes people introspective, so the last thing they want to do is be a complex and difficult situation like driving.
No one would want to drive on pot.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Different drugs are very different in their effects, reasons for use, etc.

 

[Flopper]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.

First, what purpose do you believe will be served by making it more difficult for criminals and crazies to buy guns? Do you really think being unable to buy a gun for a reasonable price at a legal gun store will stop someone, anyone, who wants a gun from getting one?

Have you ever heard of Prohibition? How about the current War On Drugs? This has been going on at near police-state intensity for more than three decades and the result has been drugs are more available today than they were when this counterproductive folly was started -- and they cost less.

We who oppose any further nibbling away at the Second Amendment are well aware that guns cannot be controlled anymore than drugs can. We know that nothing can come of this endless attempt to disarm us other than further inconvenience to legitimate gun owners. Because if the background check idea is enacted it's not going to end there. Little by little these anti-gun opportunists, most of whom know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, and are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, won't stop until your Second Amendment rights are limited to keeping a single-shot .22 rifle chambered for short, and bearing it to a federally supervised range.

Guns are in this Nation's DNA. Nothing short of totalitarian, door-busting, full-bore police-state methods will put an end to the occasional shooting, mass-shooting, and armed stand-off. So let's put an end to this creeping prohibition before it reaches that level.

The only gun law I approve of is a comprehensive training requirement and competence test for anyone who wishes to own a gun or guns -- and intensified training for anyone who wishes to carry -- open or concealed.

(Pardon the excessive boldface. It is the result of a quirk I can't control.)

The gun culture in the US did not happen overnight. It took over two hundred years to develop to the point it is today. It can't be wipe out by just passing a law. Over time, say a century or so, gun ownership will be controlled to a point where guns can be kept out of the hands of criminals. I suspect technology will play a large part.

 

[Rigby5]

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.

NO! Absolutely and completely wrong.
In a close range setting like that, a pair of pistols or a shotgun can easily kill 10 times the number of people you can kill with an AR. An AR has way too much recoil and prevent rapid target acquisition. With 2 pistols, you can begin targeting one while the other is firing. With a shot gun, you would not even have to aim at close range. And both of those are MUCH easier to reload than the bulky and heavy large AR magazine. An AR is the dumbest possible choice of weapon, and by far the least lethal. Its purpose it a mid range, jungle, firefight, and is awful for close urban situations.
As far back as WWII, it was clear what was best for urban combat, and it uses a pistol bullet,

This is the Soviet PPSH, but every country made and makes something similar. In fact, most pistols can easily be modified to be very similar. An AR is nearly impossible to modify at all, and is extremely difficult to make full auto.
David Koresh was making ARs full auto in Waco, but it took a precision machine shop. Most pistols are trivial to make full auto.

The AR has a recoil problem? You just ended any chance of any of the rest of us listening to anything you have to say. Time to thin the gene pool. Have a nice day.

Of course the AR has a recoil that is about twice that of a pistol bullet. It has a much larger cartridge, and much more propellant. It would not be so bad if the gun were heavier, but it is way too light. Anyone who claims you can keep an AR on target without having to reacquire after each shot, is just lying. But that is easy to do with a pistol bullet when you have a long stock and handgrips.

 

[Rigby5]

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

If you want to diminish drug use, you have to reduce the profits so there are fewer people selling it. And that means legalization, so you can under cut the black market prices.

That would never happen because no state will go that route unless they get a huge cut like in pot states. You are not going to diminish drug usage by making it legal. You will only increase the usage.

States that legalize, like CO, get huge profits from sales tax.
You are going to decrease usage when you make it legal, because then there no longer will be any anger or rebellion motivation. Government will gain back some credibility. People extremely resent drug prohibitions.

 

[Rigby5]

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

Pot has different effects on different people. When I smoked pot, all I wanted to do was put on some headphones and listen to music. Others got high and were running all over the place throwing a football around.

My late neighbor was like that. She was stickler about her yard. On the weekends during the summer, she would wake up at 5:30 am and work on that yard until sundown. She was an avid pot smoker; from morning until night. She died of lung cancer, but until she got sick, she had ten times more energy than I ever did.

Pot interferes with the connections in the synapses, si pretty much can not make you more active. It is best described as a temporary amnesia drug. If your neighbor was acting speedy, she likely was doing speed, and just said pot because it sounded less overt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

If you want to diminish drug use, you have to reduce the profits so there are fewer people selling it. And that means legalization, so you can under cut the black market prices.

That would never happen because no state will go that route unless they get a huge cut like in pot states. You are not going to diminish drug usage by making it legal. You will only increase the usage.

States that legalize, like CO, get huge profits from sales tax.
You are going to decrease usage when you make it legal, because then there no longer will be any anger or rebellion motivation. Government will gain back some credibility. People extremely resent drug prohibitions.

People don't use drugs out of anger or rebellion. They use drugs because they got hooked after taking prescription drugs, peer pressure where they didn't think much of it at the time, or recreational use to feel good, but not anger or rebellion.

Drugs have been around my entire life, and in fact, they considered my generation as the drug generation. Yet in spite of the laws that are no different today than back then, we have a huge problem with OD deaths and addiction. It's the ready availableness of the drugs that is the problem. You can't get hooked on something you have no access to.

 

[dblack]

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

If you want to diminish drug use, you have to reduce the profits so there are fewer people selling it. And that means legalization, so you can under cut the black market prices.

That would never happen because no state will go that route unless they get a huge cut like in pot states. You are not going to diminish drug usage by making it legal. You will only increase the usage.

States that legalize, like CO, get huge profits from sales tax.
You are going to decrease usage when you make it legal, because then there no longer will be any anger or rebellion motivation. Government will gain back some credibility. People extremely resent drug prohibitions.

People don't use drugs out of anger or rebellion. They use drugs because they got hooked after taking prescription drugs, peer pressure where they didn't think much of it at the time, or recreational use to feel good, but not anger or rebellion.

Drugs have been around my entire life, and in fact, they considered my generation as the drug generation. Yet in spite of the laws that are no different today than back then, we have a huge problem with OD deaths and addiction. It's the ready availableness of the drugs that is the problem. You can't get hooked on something you have no access to.

Do you realize you're making the standard gun control argument here?