|
Post by cardfan on Dec 4, 2018 9:15:27 GMT -6
Sorry, Broad brush painting going on here. My kids live in Colorado now when they aren’t in school at bsu. (One has gotten a job back in colo). They know many folks who smoke, some daily. They have zero issues. None. You wouldn’t even know they smoke if they didn’t tell you. Somehow plenty of people manage to be honors students and productive employees despite being “pot heads”. I was in Colorado for a week visiting a couple weeks ago. I only encountered normal every day people going about their business no matter where I was. Didn’t see a single pot head just sitting around doing nothing and just trying to escape.
I’ve been against it my whole life and I’m still not advocating for it. But what I am saying is I’ve realized the demonization of it is ridiculous. Tyler was stupid because he knew the rules and kept it up anyway. His choice. He seems to maybe have a problem. That’s different.
A lot of people who use it are escaping something—- pain! But I guess opioids are better for that since they’re legal everywhere....
Alcohol creates far greater issues than pot.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Dec 4, 2018 9:31:23 GMT -6
The thing is if you get caught and charged with possession you have completely shut doors to almost any well paying professional job. I have seen people really screw-up their lives, and I don't think 18-25 year olds understand the true ramifications.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Dec 4, 2018 9:35:36 GMT -6
Goofy leftthink: Tobacco = BAD, pot = GOOD. Just be consistent, wouldja? And to be clear, I don't think people should be jailed for smoking pot unless it endangers another person. Something equal to a traffic ticket would be ok with me.
Inconsistency is one of the things I hate most about politics. So let me ask you this. Where can you possibly draw a non-arbitrary line between the government violating self-ownership rights by prohibiting the ingestion of "bad" things? I oppose the criminalization of pot not because I think pot is good, but because I think in a free society people have the right to self-ownership and can decide for themselves what to ingest.
If you wanted government to punish those who ingest marijuana and I wanted government to punish those who ingest meat, we'd be working off the same concept that the government has the right to punish those who ingest disfavored things.
So are you consistent? Do you think the government can outlaw the consumption of meat? (to be clear, I'm not asking if it should/would outlaw meat or if you'd favor it, I'm asking if it did outlaw meat would you be just fine with that?)
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Dec 4, 2018 9:40:46 GMT -6
The thing is if you get caught and charged with possession you have completely shut doors to almost any well paying professional opportunity. I have seen people really screw-up their lives. Right? Is that what we should be doing to those folks? Seems it’s time to examine the penalties maybe? Put some scale to it.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 4, 2018 9:42:36 GMT -6
I'm sure it's different for everyone.
My brother is one of those that likes his weed (also lives in CO), then can't understand why he "just can't catch a break." Mediocre job, house, etc. He's been that way his entire life, and he's close to 60.
Several years ago I made the mistake of saying, "Well, maybe if you laid off the chronic, you'd have more time to do something productive."
That didn't go over well.
Maybe your kids' friends have "zero issues", or maybe they're just really good at hiding them. I've seen people lose their jobs over it. Not even get considered for jobs because they can't pass a simple piss test.
I believe wholeheartedly that pot users are less productive than non-users. Change my mind.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Dec 4, 2018 9:45:02 GMT -6
The thing is if you get caught and charged with possession you have completely shut doors to almost any well paying professional opportunity. I have seen people really screw-up their lives. Right? Is that what we should be doing to those folks? Seems it’s time to examine the penalties maybe? Put some scale to it. Yeah, but even if it's just a small fine and a ticket, it's going to be a huge problem for most employers. I would never hire anyone with a possession charge, regardless of how small it was.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 4, 2018 9:49:35 GMT -6
Goofy leftthink: Tobacco = BAD, pot = GOOD. Just be consistent, wouldja? And to be clear, I don't think people should be jailed for smoking pot unless it endangers another person. Something equal to a traffic ticket would be ok with me.
Inconsistency is one of the things I hate most about politics. So let me ask you this. Where can you possibly draw a non-arbitrary line between the government violating self-ownership rights by prohibiting the ingestion of "bad" things? I oppose the criminalization of pot not because I think pot is good, but because I think in a free society people have the right to self-ownership and can decide for themselves what to ingest.
If you wanted government to punish those who ingest marijuana and I wanted government to punish those who ingest meat, we'd be working off the same concept that the government has the right to punish those who ingest disfavored things.
So are you consistent? Do you think the government can outlaw the consumption of meat? (to be clear, I'm not asking if it should/would outlaw meat or if you'd favor it, I'm asking if it did outlaw meat would you be just fine with that?)
Food ≠ recreational drugs. If you want to get high in your own home, as long as you're not a parent with kids in the house, and you don't put anyone else in danger, you go right ahead. But the second you walk out your door high, you put yourself and others at risk.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Dec 4, 2018 9:51:44 GMT -6
Right? Is that what we should be doing to those folks? Seems it’s time to examine the penalties maybe? Put some scale to it. Yeah, but even if it's just a small fine and a ticket, it's going to be a huge problem for most employers. I would never hire anyone with a possession charge, regardless of how small it was. Then you’d be not hiring a lot of very qualified people. I think that’s the point now. Factories are having that problem. Would you also not hire someone with a DUI? Possession of a small amount of pot should not destroy careers. Yet someone who abuses legal opioids and is a danger and probably a poor performer, much more so than a pot smoker, can be can hired cuz, legal if they have a prescription.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Dec 4, 2018 9:55:26 GMT -6
Inconsistency is one of the things I hate most about politics. So let me ask you this. Where can you possibly draw a non-arbitrary line between the government violating self-ownership rights by prohibiting the ingestion of "bad" things? I oppose the criminalization of pot not because I think pot is good, but because I think in a free society people have the right to self-ownership and can decide for themselves what to ingest.
If you wanted government to punish those who ingest marijuana and I wanted government to punish those who ingest meat, we'd be working off the same concept that the government has the right to punish those who ingest disfavored things.
So are you consistent? Do you think the government can outlaw the consumption of meat? (to be clear, I'm not asking if it should/would outlaw meat or if you'd favor it, I'm asking if it did outlaw meat would you be just fine with that?)
Food ≠ recreational drugs. If you want to get high in your own home, as long as you're not a parent with kids in the house, and you don't put anyone else in danger, you go right ahead. But the second you walk out your door high, you put yourself and others at risk. That's just it though, it's not a distinction between food and drugs. It's a question of who gets to decide what you put in your body. When the government says you can't smoke pot it's saying that it has an ownership right in your body and can decide what goes in. If you think it has that right then you'd be inconsistent to say the government can't tell you what you can't eat.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Dec 4, 2018 9:56:21 GMT -6
Yeah, but even if it's just a small fine and a ticket, it's going to be a huge problem for most employers. I would never hire anyone with a possession charge, regardless of how small it was. Then you’d be not hiring a lot of very qualified people. Not really hard in my former industry to find qualified people without a drug charge. But, yeah I know warehouses and stuff like that can have a hard time finding employees.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Dec 4, 2018 10:12:37 GMT -6
Then you’d be not hiring a lot of very qualified people. Not really hard in my former industry to find qualified people without a drug charge. But, yeah I know warehouses and stuff like that can have a hard time finding employees. And for the record, I’m just debating, not trying to change minds. I honestly in the past would not hired anyone with a possession charge. But now I’m sorta tempering that but would certainly want to know more about the person and the situation if he/she were otherwise the best qualified
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 4, 2018 10:21:01 GMT -6
Food ≠ recreational drugs. If you want to get high in your own home, as long as you're not a parent with kids in the house, and you don't put anyone else in danger, you go right ahead. But the second you walk out your door high, you put yourself and others at risk. That's just it though, it's not a distinction between food and drugs. It's a question of who gets to decide what you put in your body. When the government says you can't smoke pot it's saying that it has an ownership right in your body and can decide what goes in. If you think it has that right then you'd be inconsistent to say the government can't tell you what you can't eat. That's a terribly framed argument. You're reaching to make a connection between two disparate things.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 4, 2018 10:22:43 GMT -6
Not really hard in my former industry to find qualified people without a drug charge. But, yeah I know warehouses and stuff like that can have a hard time finding employees. And for the record, I’m just debating, not trying to change minds. I honestly in the past would not hired anyone with a possession charge. But now I’m sorta tempering that but would certainly want to know more about the person and the situation if he/she were otherwise the best qualified Luckily, HR is the one who does the background check for me, and it comes back either pass or fail. If up to me, I would definitely avoid hiring someone with a drug charge. It shows poor decision-making.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Dec 4, 2018 10:29:17 GMT -6
And for the record, I’m just debating, not trying to change minds. I honestly in the past would not hired anyone with a possession charge. But now I’m sorta tempering that but would certainly want to know more about the person and the situation if he/she were otherwise the best qualified It shows poor decision-making. It also means you have an employee associating with people you don't an employee associating with.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Dec 4, 2018 10:34:23 GMT -6
That's just it though, it's not a distinction between food and drugs. It's a question of who gets to decide what you put in your body. When the government says you can't smoke pot it's saying that it has an ownership right in your body and can decide what goes in. If you think it has that right then you'd be inconsistent to say the government can't tell you what you can't eat. That's a terribly framed argument. You're reaching to make a connection between two disparate things.
How are they disparate?
|
|