|
Full Battle Rattle posted:In the army an NCO actually watches you urinate. Which is just one reason out of many that the army is a pretty lovely job. But it's totally not the norm, I don't even know how they would be allowed to watch your dick when you're pissing for a normal pre-employment test. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
It's one thing to say that you should disobey unjust laws, but in practice there are a lot of reasons why you wouldn't want to. Again, for hundreds of thousands of people in America any kind of drug conviction is basically "game over" on a normal life. Once you're in the for-profit prison system and have a drug charge on your record you are basically hosed. Of course the laws are unjust, but when you know that you're one traffic stop from being food for the machine it's going to make you think a bit harder about protesting these laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
My personal take on it is that rather than drug laws being unjust and thus allowing protest of the laws by breaking them, drug laws are unjust and thus impossible to be effectively enforced, because this is the nature of unjust laws. You catch token examples every once and a while and it looks like an impressive number when you show the national scale of convictions, but its all based on the bad luck of a traffic stop for the most part. And when you smoke in your house or property, no chance of that bad luck. Now, is there a chance of someone getting pulled over after having just purchased marijuana or whatever? Yeah. There's a chance I'll get rear ended too, or robbed, or any number of unlikely events when compared with what has happened every time (a safe trip home). The point is that you can break an unjust law. They aren't opening up an intense investigation into every black market transaction and wouldn't be able to, and so almost all transactions go through without a hitch. It has less to do with normatives and more to do with the tangible physical difficulty of enforcing what mostly amounts to a thought-crime, with a plant component.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:It's one thing to say that you should disobey unjust laws, but in practice there are a lot of reasons why you wouldn't want to. Again, for hundreds of thousands of people in America any kind of drug conviction is basically "game over" on a normal life. Once you're in the for-profit prison system and have a drug charge on your record you are basically hosed. Of course the laws are unjust, but when you know that you're one traffic stop from being food for the machine it's going to make you think a bit harder about protesting these laws. And legalization in a state that isn't yours will help how? If there is one common thread about The System of this nation it's that whether you were actually breaking the law or not is the least important part of the process. Once you are a target, facts no longer matter. If your employer wants to fire you and they use smoking weed as their reason, they don't give a poo poo that you were in Colorado, or Amsterdam when you smoked it. Since most people are using employment as an excuse not to smoke, the legal status of weed isn't really an important detail. Thus like I've said before, if you are afraid for your job and that is why you don't smoke, then legalization doesn't matter. If you don't smoke because you are afraid the bogeyman is going to come get you, again, legalization doesn't matter. If you want to smoke, do it, if you don't, then don't do it. But don't try to hide behind the law, and don't assume that just because you are a coward there are many like you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Describing the prison-industrial complex and the way that normal possession arrests feed into that complex as a "bogeyman" is completely disingenuous. More people are arrested for drugs than anything else. Choosing not to smoke/use drugs because you don't want to be sucked into that system is a completely legitimate and in no way cowardly feeling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:And legalization in a state that isn't yours will help how? I really don't understand how "I've never had a super strong desire to use drugs and I especially don't want to deal with the hassle of obtaining drugs which are illegal in my state, but might consider picking up a brownie or something next time I'm vacationing in Colorado just for the experience" is a cowardly viewpoint. For some that may be a factor in deciding which state they'll take their next ski trip in, others may not care enough to bother. I'll potentially be in the first camp once things get rolling and we have a clearer picture of how the DEA is treating the end-customer in states where recreational use is legal. That people may travel to the state for similar reasons is an idea so controversial it merits five pages of arguments in this thread boggles my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Tourist dollars and tex revenues are nails in the coffin of nationwide regulation. The more there are, the better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:Kind of, sometimes they are in the bathroom but standing behind you. Its extremely rare for a preemployment test to be monitored. Its a bit more common for randoms, and nearly guaranteed for military or parole/probation cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Ahahahahaha. They've found a way to stymie legal weed in Washington. If we don't get a budget passed within the week, the State Liquor Control Board will go into complete shutdown (as will a bunch of other poo poo that will literally result in people dying no joke). No LCB means no furtherdrafts of rules, and depending on delay, no ability to issue licenses within the window. The immense irony of it is if they'd get this poo poo finished, it would genuinely unfuck the most hosed part of the state budget right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Ahahahahaha. Your Government at Work!TM
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
quote:WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives on Thursday overcame last-minute lobbying from the Drug Enforcement Administration to pass a farm bill amendment that would legalize the growing of hemp for research purposes. The 225-200 vote came after a flurry of opposition from the DEA, which argued that it would be too difficult for the agency to differentiate legal hemp from illegal marijuana, both varieties of the cannabis plant. DEA basically arguing that they are incompetent. Like arguing that it is too difficult to differentiate normal mushrooms from illegal ones so growing mushrooms should be prohibited.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Our job is hard, so gently caress your civil rights. How about it just all be legal and there wouldn't be a problem at all? Did nobody bring that up as a possibility? Christ what a stupid argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 11:45
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Ahahahahaha. Would that mean Alcohol Prohibition is back on in Washington?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
KingEup posted:DEA basically arguing that they are incompetent. Like arguing that it is too difficult to differentiate normal mushrooms from illegal ones so growing mushrooms should be prohibited. What is the bill number on this so I can look up the vote? Hemp results in really strange alliances. Curious to see if my house rep voted for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
King Eup posted:DEA basically arguing that they are incompetent. Like arguing that it is too difficult to differentiate normal mushrooms from illegal ones so growing mushrooms should be prohibited.   How will we ever be able to tell which one is which!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Hick law enforcement forces (and probably the DEA, too) love eradicating ditchweed and claiming that they "eliminated a field of marijuana" so that's what they're really protesting. If hemp is legal to grow, there goes a bunch of their "busts."
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Wow this is huge news! I expect industrial hemp will bring in way more tax money than dank buds in Colorado. With Federal permission instead of a grey market there will be big money investing in hemp. Imagine E85 and biodiesel that required half as much water, took less time to grow, and produced more fuel than the corn version. That's just for starters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Wow this is huge news! I expect industrial hemp will bring in way more tax money than dank buds in Colorado. With Federal permission instead of a grey market there will be big money investing in hemp. Imagine E85 and biodiesel that required half as much water, took less time to grow, and produced more fuel than the corn version. That's just for starters. You think the corn lobby is going to let up on their sweet subsidies without a fight? How precious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:Would that mean Alcohol Prohibition is back on in Washington? This time last year (or year before last, IDR) it sort of would've. Our liquor stores were State run, though you could always buy beer or wine anywhere. But we just switched to a system more like the rest of the country, so most places of reasonable size, or that register specifically as liquor stores, now sell liquor. Honestly I kind of wish that it would've instituted a sort of prohibition, because the stubborn jackasses in our senate can ignore a couple thousand layoffs, all the state parks being closed, and CHIP being gutted, but they couldn't loving ignore the inability to purchase the hard alcohol they need to ignore the other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You think the corn lobby is going to let up on their sweet subsidies without a fight? How precious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:We'll see. Rand Paul is rallying for hemp and is using nationalist nostalgia to make his point. There's been a big increase in awareness of corporate influence in government in the past few years and there is a big Tea Party push to cut government spending. If there is any time to change the status quo, it's now. This bill just opens it up for research anyway so obviously we won't see hemp fuel next year, but American industrial hemp let alone recreational marijuana was a complete joke 5 years ago. All the agriculture states happen to be red-states. The senators all bought and paid for by the corn lobby. Hemp isn't going to be a thing unless the various mega-agribusinesses say it is. Historically "cutting government spending" means, services they don't like, not agricultural subsidies and military spending.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Why wouldn't they want to get into hemp themselves? It grows in more places, uses less resources, and doesn't need as much labor. More profits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Why wouldn't they want to get into hemp themselves? It grows in more places, uses less resources, and doesn't need as much labor. More profits. Investing in a new crop would mean purchasing more capital (machines to harvest it, seeds, etc) and labor (scientists to develop patentable GMO hemp seeds) which would reduce quarterly profit. You discover a way to get today's executives to put long term profit ahead of the next quarter's balance sheet and you can solve a hell of a lot more problems than the legalization of hemp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
When you become big enough to have duopoly and can effectively dictate policy in the richest nation on the planet, your aren't too receptive of anything that threatens the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
We'll see. I bet you $100 Monsanto already has their Roundup Ready high-yield hemp seeds ready to go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You think the corn lobby is going to let up on their sweet subsidies without a fight? How precious. The senate minority leader is from a corn free state that would gain a ton of commerce from legal hemp, so it actually has a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
KingEup posted:DEA basically arguing that they are incompetent. Like arguing that it is too difficult to differentiate normal mushrooms from illegal ones so growing mushrooms should be prohibited. Not to play devil's advocate, but illegal mushrooms are a different species entirely. Industrial hemp does contain THC. The concentration is 1-2 orders of magnitude below dope that anyone would smoke, but there's no reason you couldn't purify oil from it using existing, simple off-the-shelf hash making techniques.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
spengler posted:Not to play devil's advocate, but illegal mushrooms are a different species entirely. Industrial hemp does contain THC. The concentration is 1-2 orders of magnitude below dope that anyone would smoke, but there's no reason you couldn't purify oil from it using existing, simple off-the-shelf hash making techniques. Except for the fact that you would need a giant amount of resources and time for such a tiny return it's not even worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
spengler posted:Not to play devil's advocate, but illegal mushrooms are a different species entirely. Industrial hemp does contain THC. The concentration is 1-2 orders of magnitude below dope that anyone would smoke, but there's no reason you couldn't purify oil from it using existing, simple off-the-shelf hash making techniques. I suppose you could, if you had access to and felt like processing several dozen pounds of industrial hemp to get a fraction of a gram of hash oil. It would also mostly be CBD, not THC, so even if you put in the hours of labor it would take to make a single dab you'd likely just get a mild headache and then fall asleep, without ever feeling a nice THC buzz.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
spengler posted:Not to play devil's advocate, but illegal mushrooms are a different species entirely. Industrial hemp does contain THC. The concentration is 1-2 orders of magnitude below dope that anyone would smoke, but there's no reason you couldn't purify oil from it using existing, simple off-the-shelf hash making techniques. Near-beer can be distilled into liquor with existing, simple off-the-shelf techniques, sounds like a good reason to ban barley grown for animal feed to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Near-beer can be distilled into liquor with existing, simple off-the-shelf techniques, sounds like a good reason to ban barley grown for animal feed to me. And you can get morphine from poppy seeds!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
spengler posted:Not to play devil's advocate, but illegal mushrooms are a different species entirely. Industrial hemp does contain THC. The concentration is 1-2 orders of magnitude below dope that anyone would smoke, but there's no reason you couldn't purify oil from it using existing, simple off-the-shelf hash making techniques. You're gonna need a really big shelf for the countless pounds of hemp that this 'simple' technique would require.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
spengler posted:Not to play devil's advocate, but illegal mushrooms are a different species entirely. Industrial hemp does contain THC. The concentration is 1-2 orders of magnitude below dope that anyone would smoke, but there's no reason you couldn't purify oil from it using existing, simple off-the-shelf hash making techniques. As everyone else has posted, the amount of THC produced in hemp is ridiculously low. Hemp strains have been genetically chosen for decades based on low-flowering abilities. See, when hemp is used as an industrial material, the fibers of the plant are what's predominantly used. During the flowering cycle (which is when marijuana begins to grow the 'buds' people smoke) the fibers start to weaken, so it's actually best to harvest hemp before flowering occurs. This is why farmers can grow multiple crops per season, as the usual vegetative growth of hemp (and cannabis in general) is around 4-6 weeks long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And you can get morphine from poppy seeds! And thanks to the international war on drugs literally tens of millions suffer in agony daily!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
Check out this amazing piece of poo poo that has shown up in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/opinion/marijuana-and-minorities.html?_r=1"e:By focusing on the racial disparity of marijuana arrests, and then citing growing public support for full legalization of the drug, your editorial was shortsighted. Apparently the black man should be thankful for cannabis prohibition. KingEup fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jun 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
On the other hand, "We need to send people to treatment, not prison" isn't that bad of a (what I got out of it anyway) viewpoint (certainly there are worse).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Treatment for what, though? Who decides that someone needs treatment or is broken because they smoke marijuana, and what factors is it based upon? I believe this is the kind of issue where there is a clear objective reality, which is muddled by a false dichotomy, which creates an equally fictitious grey-area where these types of view-points emerge from. People on the far-left and far-right both agree on it, so the only thing that drives it then is Stateism versus Libertarianism in the political square, and the desire for people to control the actions of one-another as a means of safety and protection for themselves. Where is the threat? It is entirely imaginary. It does provide an awfully big blanket for law enforcement to be suspect of citizens, though, and force correctional treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
BeardFacer posted:Treatment for what, though? Who decides that someone needs treatment or is broken because they smoke marijuana, and what factors is it based upon? I believe this is the kind of issue where there is a clear objective reality, which is muddled by a false dichotomy, which creates an equally fictitious grey-area where these types of view-points emerge from. People on the far-left and far-right both agree on it, so the only thing that drives it then is Stateism versus Libertarianism in the political square, and the desire for people to control the actions of one-another as a means of safety and protection for themselves. Where is the threat? It is entirely imaginary. It does provide an awfully big blanket for law enforcement to be suspect of citizens, though, and force correctional treatment. We ask people to get treatment for all sorts of substances (Alcohol, Tobacco) and other vices (gambling) all the time. Even though I think marijuana should be legalized I don't think it should be promoted, or at least I don't see why it should be promoted. In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to have an ideology of "legal, but discouraged" like a million other things we have now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
Yes, but "treatment" is not analogous with "policing and treatment." Allowing people to seek treatment is excellent, but creating or perpetuating an environment where it is legislated and force is used to push people through a system is ineffective and a violation of free-will. It should be a matter of social and cultural awareness that we be honest with each other when abuse of anything becomes a problem. The use of the word "policing" is fine in that respect, but this is an article supplied by members of the legislation so I have to assume that they are talking about law enforcement. If it is non-violent, it does not need to be run through the state to have punishment applied. I absolutely agree that the money spent on treatment centers and awareness for substance abuse is an excellent idea, but not creating a stigma and promoting forceful violent punishments as-in the current climate. There should also be more discretion used by the courts in determining the reason for a person's behavior, and not just a habit like marijuana smoking used as an easy scape-goat, which then forces the person through a correctional process that is probably whiffing entirely when it takes a swing at the problem that created the situation that a person is in court for - assuming that it is something other than just getting caught being high or purchasing cannabis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
spengler posted:Not to play devil's advocate, but illegal mushrooms are a different species entirely. Industrial hemp does contain THC. The concentration is 1-2 orders of magnitude below dope that anyone would smoke, but there's no reason you couldn't purify oil from it using existing, simple off-the-shelf hash making techniques. Not '1-2' orders of magnitude. To get even a little buzz, you'd have to ingest about 9 entire fields of hemp within half an hour. It's a nonsensical argument by assholes who only want to cause more suffering to make more money. KingEup posted:Check out this amazing piece of poo poo that has shown up in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/opinion/marijuana-and-minorities.html?_r=1& Yeah I'm sure they much prefer being put in jail for their whole lives over having a couple joints, that's a much less discriminatory system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:15
|
|