Quoting:
Legalize it.

Tax it like liquor.
Sell it like liquor.
Apply current liquor laws. (DUIs, Public intox, etc.)
End Quote

I agree.

Quoting:
Legalize it.

Tax it like liquor.
Sell it like liquor.
Apply current liquor laws. (DUIs, Public intox, etc.)
Regulate by the BATF(&M).

End Quote

Couldn't have said it better as for what should be decided.
However, even legal the old adage still rings true, only Dopes smoke dope.  You want to remove all ambition from anyone?  Get them stoned.  You want to take a lively crowed and bring the party down?  Get them stoned.  You want to sabatage someone with any ambitions career path?  Get them stoned.  It may be safer than a lot other things, but that doesn't make it good.

Quoting:

Couldn't have said it better as for what should be decided.
However, even legal the old adage still rings true, only Dopes smoke dope.  You want to remove all ambition from anyone?  Get them stoned.  You want to take a lively crowed and bring the party down?  Get them stoned.  You want to sabatage someone with any ambitions career path?  Get them stoned.  It may be safer than a lot other things, but that doesn't make it good.
End Quote

All true. I agree 100%. Still, if I'm good little, (otherwise) non law breaking, tax paying, adult member of society, and I'm sitting at home by myself or with a couple of friends, not contemplating carreer advancement, and want to spark one up, I shouldn't have to worry about "Big Brother" saying that it's illeagle because "I SAY SO", and not have to worry about being put away with a bunch of murderers and rapists for 20 years. That's my bi-annual political "statement".

Edited to add:I need to say I haven't smoked pot for at least 6 years, for what that's worth.

Quoting:
I say legalize it.  End Quote

Tobacco companies will never, ever allow pot to be legalised.

Quoting:
Tobacco companies will never, ever allow pot to be legalised.
End Quote

The drugs cartels wouldn't like it much, either... though I'd reckon that the tobacco companies would probably be in there first with the product... just think of the brand names waiting to be used:
Silk half-cut
Marlboro Heavies
;-)

Phil

Quoting:Legalize it.

Tax it like liquor.
Sell it like liquor.
Apply current liquor laws. (DUIs, Public intox, etc.)
Regulate by the BATF(&M).
End Quote

Then Race Bannon said:

Quoting:Couldn't have said it better as for what should be decided.
However, even legal the old adage still rings true, only Dopes smoke dope.  You want to remove all ambition from anyone?  Get them stoned.  You want to take a lively crowed and bring the party down?  Get them stoned.  You want to sabatage someone with any ambitions career path?  Get them stoned.  It may be safer than a lot other things, but that doesn't make it good.End Quote

I seem to agree with the majority here...Legalize it, regulate it, tax it.  Treat it the same as alcohol and tobacco...no one under 18 (or 21) may buy or use it.

As for what Race Bannon says...I think the lack of ambition and productivity holds true for anyone with an addictive personality.  How ambitious is an alcoholic?  How productive is a chain-smoker in an no-smoking-inside-the-building workplace?

If legalized the tobacco companies could very easily save their hides by becoming the first to produce the newly-legal marijuana products. The extra tax revenue could indeed help out the government(s).

Philbo:  There are a large number of people of all ages here in the States who do support legalization.  Unfortunately, many of us do not bother to vote or become politically involved in any way, shape or form.  Therefore, many lawmakers believe we are just a "fringe group".  Couple that with those who lobby against legalization for whatever reason, and you have the current situation (as I see it.  It may be different in other parts of the country).

Quoting:
Unfortunately, many of us do not bother to vote or become politically involved in any way, shape or form.
End Quote

Hm... must be the effect of the dope, methinks ;-)

But I reckon you're right, and think it's probably much the same this side of the Atlantic.  Though as my previous post pointed out, the "rational" rather than the emotional argument is starting to gain momentum, and gain support from quite a few different angles.

Phil

Quoting:


If legalized the tobacco companies could very easily save their hides by becoming the first to produce the newly-legal marijuana products.
End Quote

Would they be saving their hides, though?  I have to wonder how long it would be after the first legal MJ cigarettes were sold that someone was filing suit against "big tobacco" the way the cigarette smokers did a few years ago.  ::)

Quoting:
Would they be saving their hides, though?  I have to wonder how long it would be after the first legal MJ cigarettes were sold that someone was filing suit against "big tobacco" the way the cigarette smokers did a few years ago.  ::)
End Quote

Main reason for all the suits against the tobacco companies is that said companies knew that smoking was harmful for years but suppressed the research.  If they started selling joints while telling people they were harmful, there'd be no legal comeback.  Having said that, you could guarantee someone would try...

...in the same vein, when's the class action against the Columbian drug barons starting, then?

Phil

Quoting:
Gonna have to go with legalising it!  The way I see it, you wouldn't really be corrupting anyone any further, pot's so easy to obtain, but you take away the "rebel" factor, you know, "ooh, it's not allowed, let's do it!"   And in reference to what XenaKat (I think) said about legalising it for over 18's (or 21's) I think that would work just as much as the regulations on alcohol and cigarettes do, increasing the "rebel" factor......just a theory  ;D
End Quote

I agree.  I think part of the appeal is that it is illegal, but easier to obtain than cigarettes or alcohol (for underage smokers/drinkers).  Once you make it legal, as Spike said, the "rebel" factor decreases dramatically.  If you keep telling a kid not to touch something, the minute your back is turned, what is the first thing they do?  They touch it.

And, for those who might say that "marijuana leads to harder drugs", I say "Baloney" (you're welcome HS ;))!  I know people who have smoked pot for years (decades in some cases) yet have never tried anything else like coke, etc.  I also know some who will smoke, but won't touch alcohol.

Quoting:


Another reason to love the Irish ;D
End Quote

Heh, I wouldn't mind seeing Lucky stoned.

Quoting:
I confess, I have been known to fire up a little if I have a REALLY bad headache or during a certain time of the month.
End Quote

Although I do not smoke anymore - I will say that weed is the BEST cure for those "Monthly" aches and pains we women have to endure.  ;)

Quoting:


And, for those who might say that "marijuana leads to harder drugs", I say "Baloney" (you're welcome HS ;))!  I know people who have smoked pot for years (decades in some cases) yet have never tried anything else like coke, etc.  I also know some who will smoke, but won't touch alcohol.
End Quote

I think that argument was given up on long ago, you might have a few old geezers coughing that "danger" up, it's a good one for stoners to giggle at. ;)
And everyone I know who smokes on a regular basis rarely drinks.

Quoting:
I'm cool with that. If it were taxed, Bush might be able to pay for all the stuff he's paying for. If we had the money for it, I would have no problem with a tax cut.

Anyone want to get some "munchies" with me once it's legalized?
End Quote

:o :oWell,the Everly brothers sure got the "munchies'when they used it!!!tee hee.Don wrote a song called "Mary jane"--and it wasn't about Spider-Man's girlfriend!!!Seriously,though,I think it should be OK for medical purposed,like glaiucoma.I think doctors who've researched it should know enough to know what it's good for.Cheers!

Quoting:

:o :oWell,the Everly brothers sure got the "munchies'when they used it!!!tee hee.Don wrote a song called "Mary jane"--and it wasn't about Spider-Man's girlfriend!!!Seriously,though,I think it should be OK for medical purposed,like glaiucoma.I think doctors who've researched it should know enough to know what it's good for.Cheers!
End Quote

OK, I have come to the conclusion that everything & everybody in this World are somehow connected to the Everly Brothers.  You know, like "six degrees of seperation" or "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"?  ::)

*note to self:  admitting I have fewer brain cells from attending too many Grateful Dead shows is the first step to recovery

Quoting:
I still don't clearly understand why marijuana is illegal to begin with. I hear it's all politics. A stoner once told me it had something to to with something that happened in the 17th century and that's why it's illegal (or something like that).

Anyone know the real reason it's illegal?
End Quote

Believe it or not, it was started because of racial reasons-like many of the drug laws were.

http://www.marijuana.bdtzone.com/marijuana_drug_war.asp



Cat

Quoting:
Yeah, leagalize the weed, my stash is almost gone  ;)....  End Quote

I KNEW it!

The only time I have ever thought of Socialism as good was when I was pipe dreamin' 8)

Quoting:
Say...

A politician who runs for President of the U.S. who has the guts to actually say he will do whatever is necessary to legalize marijuana and actually mean it, would win the election by a landslide because all, every single person of voting age, including all the usual non-voting youths will run to the polls like hungry lions to a zebra. If only.....  ::)   ;D
End Quote

I dunno, Hair... wasn't that part of Jerry Brown's schtick?  :P

Quoting:

I dunno, Hair... wasn't that part of Jerry Brown's schtick?  :P
End Quote

I don't know about all that, sorry to say, but i think it has to be someone who really means it and can sell himself well with some of the reasons posted here!  :D

Of course, he should probably have other issues addressed as well and be a good guy.  :-/  Ok. We'll probably never have a president that good.

Quoting:
Say...

A politician who runs for President of the U.S. who has the guts to actually say he will do whatever is necessary to legalize marijuana and actually mean it, would win the election by a landslide because all, every single person of voting age, including all the usual non-voting youths will run to the polls like hungry lions to a zebra. If only.....  ::)   ;D
End Quote

Jimmy Carter wanted to decriminalize it but I can't remember what changed his mind.

My state has a "grassroot party." A couple years ago, there was a political debate on PBS with ALL canidates. The one running for Congress was stoned off his... Personally I thought it was funny but it really didn't do much for the party but made the guy look like an idiot. The guy running for Lt. Governer did so much better. He was right on with his arguements.


Cat

Quoting:


I KNEW it!

The only time I have ever thought of Socialism as good was when I was pipe dreamin' 8)


End Quote

I never touched the stuff. Go Socialism! (though if it were legal, I might.)

Quoting:

:o :oWell,the Everly brothers sure got the "munchies'when they used it!!!tee hee.Don wrote a song called "Mary jane"--and it wasn't about Spider-Man's girlfriend!!!Seriously,though,I think it should be OK for medical purposed,like glaiucoma.I think doctors who've researched it should know enough to know what it's good for.Cheers!
End Quote

:) ;)I agree. Thatt stuff makes the everly brotehrs even better:D I can place myself at the time and place when they were coming up with those tunes and toking up8) :D :P

Quoting:


I KNEW it!

The only time I have ever thought of Socialism as good was when I was pipe dreamin' 8)




End Quote

ROTFLMAO  ;D  ;D
And my stash IS getting low  ;)

Quoting:
I have seen people smoke pot out in the open, on the street, at events -openly as if it wasn't illegal.I hate drugs but would like to see pot legalized and regulated. I hate pot, but I do realize that it is an integral drug for pain management for Cancer and AIDS patients and I think that they ought to be able to have it prescribed for their pain.

Not a popular view, but I think that people who smoke pot for mood altering reasons have issues they are trying to escape and not effectively deal with, just like alcohol. I believe that we need to get through this life without as much drugs as possible. I heard that one average joint has the tar of four tobacco cigarettes. It doesn't bother me that it would be legalized, I'm never around anyone who smokes it anyway.

Only thing is - if it was legalized, I wonder how many people would be getting high on their lunch breaks, working stoned-I guess people do that anyway now.


End Quote

I don't know anyone who smokes pot to escape. They do it because they like it. Very few people do it to rebel. Very few people do it to escape. They just like feeling high.

Quoting:
Very few people do it to escape. They just like feeling high.
End Quote

Bah!  Yeah right!  Are you high or something?  ALOT if not MOST people smoke dope to "escape".  Whoever "told" you that is full of crapola! And I am assuming someone told you, because if you have ever smoked it I don't think you would be spewing such nonsense. ;)

Quoting:

I don't know anyone who smokes pot to escape. They do it because they like it. Very few people do it to rebel. Very few people do it to escape. They just like feeling high.
End Quote

But but getting high IS a form of escape, is it not?

And that's all I have to say about that...as Mr. Gump would say!  :P

Quoting:


But but getting high IS a form of escape, is it not?

And that's all I have to say about that...as Mr. Gump would say!  :P
End Quote

I have never smoked a doobie in my life. I have talked to people who have smoked. They say it's laughable that you need to give pot a purpose beyond feeling good. If feeling good is an escape, then I guess sex is an escape too. You don't need to escape anything to want to feel good. I take the escapist argument as a sign of cluelessness.

Quoting:
They say it's laughable that you need to give pot a purpose beyond feeling good. If feeling good is an escape, then I guess sex is an escape too. You don't need to escape anything to want to feel good.
End Quote

At this juncture, I'd like if I may to cross-post a Bill Hicks quote:
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie. When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well, you just realise, it's not worth the ******* effort. There is a difference.

Most pot-smokers I know (and I'd include myself in this group, even though my intake is on the once-or-twice-a-year sort of level) don't smoke as any form of escapism: pot isn't usually that strong.  However, I do know people who do smoke excessively, rather like ones who drink to excess, to numb the brain so they don't have to think.  Again, similar to alcohol, these people are talked about by other tokers as though they have a problem.  There's nothing inherently worse about marijuana than alcohol, which is one reason that the current law is so absurd.

Phil

Quoting:
I am of the opinion is that marijuana is one of the finest, most plentiful, most consistent sources of humor on this planet, and its legalization can do nothing but help the already booming comedy industry.
End Quote

Oh man ;D

Just a couple weeks ago, after the white trash party, my friend and I got home drunk off our keisters and lit some up.  I don't think a mention of "Lactaid" (milk for lactose intolerant people) has ever been so funny.  Laughed so hard I thought I was going to have a hernia ;D

It'd be good to legalize it though.  I did hear a theory that it's not legal because of economic reasons, because the government cannot tax pot since it can be grown...or something like that :P

Quoting:
It'd be good to legalize it though.  I did hear a theory that it's not legal because of economic reasons, because the government cannot tax pot since it can be grown...or something like that :P
End Quote

You can brew your own beer (or wine), and that can't be taxed... same thing can apply to pot as to cigarettes or alcohol: where you're buying a packaged product, it can be licensed and taxed.  Not to mention quality control...

This thread has inspired me to a parody... "
;Mary Jane (Rollin' another reefer)" to the tune of "Proud Mary (Rollin' on down the river)". Enjoy ;-)

Phil

Quoting:
You know what irks me?  It seems now-a-days that you can pretty much guarantee if you want a job, you have to take a pee test.  Which is fine, cause there are PLENTY of things on the market (Sure Jell anyone? ;)) that will make you test clean.  But it's all these companies that are starting to randomly test employees which means you have no time to detox!  I can understand if you are operating heavy machinery or if there is an accident on the jobsite to test, but what on Earth is the point of randomly testing office employees?  Unless you are coming to work visibly hammered, then I don't see a reason for it.
End Quote

The place I used to work tested everyone on hiring.  After that it was only the truck drivers and mechanics who were subject to random testing.  

Office employees were never subjected to another test again, unless, as you said...they showed up visibly intoxicated on something-or-other.

I think a lot of it depends on the actual company and if they trust their employees or not...most, I have found, do not.

Quoting:
If you show up for work drunk or stoned, that is one thing but I really don't want my employer to tell me what I can and can't do on my own time. If I want to have a drink or two after I get home, that is my business. If I want to fire up a little after work, that is my business, too. I don't think that an employer has the right to dicate what someone does on their off time.



Cat
End Quote

My thoughts exactly!  As long as what you do on your own time is not affecting your job, then it's none of their business!  When I filled out my government job application, it asked if I have ever done drugs. wtf? They tested me anyway, what's the point of telling them that I have?

Quoting:
If I want to have a drink or two after I get home, that is my business. If I want to fire up a little after work, that is my business, too.

Cat
End Quote

The difference, of course, being that having a drink is legal, whereas sparking up a joint is not.  IMO, an employer is within his/her rights to expect a workforce which isn't doing something illegal.

Quoting:


The difference, of course, being that having a drink is legal, whereas sparking up a joint is not.  IMO, an employer is within his/her rights to expect a workforce which isn't doing something illegal.
End Quote

Along this line of thinking, then (to play devil's advocate) the employer should also fire someone under age 18 who is caught smoking on company property or drinking.  Or, even speeding to work, as they are also illegal.

Quoting:


Along this line of thinking, then (to play devil's advocate) the employer should also fire someone under age 18 who is caught smoking on company property or drinking.  Or, even speeding to work, as they are also illegal.
End Quote

Actually, I'm not sure that it's illegal for someone under 18 to smoke... they can't buy cigarettes legally, but I don't think they are prohibited from smoking. I could be wrong about that though.

As for speeding, hey, everyone does it, right?  :P

Seriously though, where is the line drawn? From the employer's viewpoint, pot is just as illegal as cocaine. I think we all agree that coke is a far worse drug, but employers can't pick and choose which illegal drugs it's okay for their employees to use.

Quoting:
IMO, an employer is within his/her rights to expect a workforce which isn't doing something illegal.
End Quote

If it's not be done at work or with company assets, it's none of the company's business. Sure, if a guy's using his firm's computers for insider trading or storing drugs at the warehouse there's cause for concern from the boss, but I'd make a case for wrongful dismissal if I was fired because I was street racing for cash on weekends using my own car on public roads (not that I'd do that).

Quoting:


If it's not be done at work or with company assets, it's none of the company's business. Sure, if a guy's using his firm's computers for insider trading or storing drugs at the warehouse there's cause for concern from the boss, but I'd make a case for wrongful dismissal if I was fired because I was street racing for cash on weekends using my own car on public roads (not that I'd do that).
End Quote

Perhaps I should have phrased that differently... I think an employer has a right to expect a workforce which isn't doing something illegal which could have a direct affect on job performance. Now then, I'm not saying that smoking a dime bag after work is going to cause you to staple someone's fingers to their desk at work the next day, but the boss just might think that... and so is within his/her rights to expect "clean" personnel. IMO.

Quoting:



Perhaps I should have phrased that differently... I think an employer has a right to expect a workforce which isn't doing something illegal which could have a direct affect on job performance.
End Quote

That was basically my former employer's philosophy..."as long as it doesn't have a direct effect on work performance".

Each mechanic had to spend one week every six months "on call" for emergency repairs.  For that week, and that week only, they were expected not to indulge in alcohol or anything else "intoxicating".

The so-called "random" tests weren't that random either...they gave six guys a head's up a week before...that names would be pulled out of a hat for the random test.  And the boss made sure to only pick two of the six fellas warned for the test.  This gave them time to "detox", so to speak.

I would have to say that this company was one of the best around to work for...they treated their people like inelligent adults. (BTW...they are very small...40 people if you count the dog as "security officer".)

Quoting:
I think an employer has a right to expect a workforce which isn't doing something illegal which could have a direct affect on job performance.
End Quote

Agreed 100%  - if you're half cut at work, be it alcohol, pot or whatever, an employer has the right to act

Quoting:
Now then, I'm not saying that smoking a dime bag after work is going to cause you to staple someone's fingers to their desk at work the next day, but the boss just might think that... and so is within his/her rights to expect "clean" personnel. IMO.
End Quote

You think a boss would be within their rights to fire someone based on their own innaccurate prejudices?  Unless, of course, it's explicitly written into their contract.

The main problem with testing for pot is that, unlike alcohol, it's a long term thing: you can show up positive weeks after taking the stuff (if it's a hair test, it depends how long your hair is - I'd probably test positive for pot smoked nearly a year ago) - there's no proof that someone was under the influence at work, or even proof of anything illegal: who's to say the stuff hadn't been smoked during the friend's stag do in Amsterdam/Tijuana?

Phil

Quoting:

You think a boss would be within their rights to fire someone based on their own innaccurate prejudices?  Unless, of course, it's explicitly written into their contract.

End Quote

I do think a boss would be within rights to fire a person for using pot, yes. A positive drug test taken before employment is enough to keep a person from being hired in the first place, right?  Then why should it come as a shock that a positive test given during employment could result in termination?  Personally, Phil, you can hook yourself up to a hooka pipe as big as your house and I don't care... but if I'm paying your salary then I do expect you to abide by my policies.

Quoting:
but if I'm paying your salary then I do expect you to abide by my policies.
End Quote

Now I don't know how the law works in the US,  but in the UK we have legislation to prevent discrimination based on the prejudices of ones employers!
When I'm at work, I expect to be paid for the service I provide, not because I conform to my boss's idea of an ideal human being.
What if your boss was a fundamental muslim, would you expect all employees to abide by his policies?

Quoting:

You think a boss would be within their rights to fire someone based on their own innaccurate prejudices?  Unless, of course, it's explicitly written into their contract.


Phil
End Quote

Except for the fact that pot is illegal.  If it were alcohol, I would say no...but when the substance is illegal the boss does have the right.  I am going to have to agree with Lester on this one.  You can refuse to hire for a failed drug test so you should be able to fire for a failed drug test.

Quoting:

Now I don't know how the law works in the US,  but in the UK we have legislation to prevent discrimination based on the prejudices of ones employers!
When I'm at work, I expect to be paid for the service I provide, not because I conform to my boss's idea of an ideal human being.
What if your boss was a fundamental muslim, would you expect all employees to abide by his policies?
End Quote

Taoist, the policies I'm making reference to are those put forth as company policy.  However, one would assume that if a boss had a personal dislike for pot smoking, then that would be covered in the manual.

Regardless of whether my boss was a fundamentalist muslim or an athiest, I would be given a copy of a manual outlining expected behavior.  If "illegal drug use will not be tolerated" is stated as policy, then what defense does someone have when fired for doing exactly that?

And for clarity, let me just say that anyone with half a brain won't try to prohibit employees from taking part in legal activities.

Quoting:
Please read the second bit of that post: a test for pot shows that you've used some over the past weeks - if, for example, you'd been on a day trip to Amsterdam, then you could quite legally have smoked some.  There would be no evidence that you'd broken any law, no evidence that you'd been working under the influence.  On its own, a positive test for marijuana means absolutely nothing - unless you have a prejudiced boss ;-)

Phil
End Quote

From the UK you might take a day trip to Amsterdam... but I don't think that's very likely if you're in the US.  ;)  

Quoting:
From the UK you might take a day trip to Amsterdam... but I don't think that's very likely if you're in the US.  ;)  
End Quote

That's why I included Tijuana on the previous post... or even a trip up to Canada, as they're lightening up on personal use - what I mean is that a positive test for marijuana doesn't necessarily mean there's any evidence of illegality.

Phil

Quoting:
Taoist, the policies I'm making reference to are those put forth as company policy.  However, one would assume that if a boss had a personal dislike for pot smoking, then that would be covered in the manual.
End Quote

Right!
This may be acceptable in the US, but in the UK the company cannot make arbitrary policies.  Employees are protected (to an extent) by law.  This doesn't stop companies trying it on, my boss thinks he can make the company policy on smoking (he chain smokes) but this is, in fact, not legal!

When it comes to illegal activities I find it a little amusing that companies feel the need to specify that they will not tolerated but in the UK, this only applies whilst at work or representing your company.
Legal precedents have already been set that you cannot be sacked from your job because you broke the law outside work unless it can be shown this will directly affect your work.  A relevent example is a school teacher who was sacked after being convicted of cultivating cannabis.  A tribunal found that this sacking was unfair.