|
LP97S posted:The other thing, unless you're missing work from hang overs or coming to work drunk, is that no employer cares about alcohol while they test for marijuana and will either not hire you or fire you on the spot, even in states with legal marijuana. Businesses in some states can do this with cigarettes. There are literally companies who will not hire smokers. It saves them money on health insurance and promotes healthy living you see! 
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:A "handful" of North American countries? So... Mexico, Canada, and not the US? And the US? There aren't exactly a lot to choose from. I think you should probably look at a map or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That would be Central America.  As you can see, there are 6 continents on the official map. Antarctica isn't listed because no one lives there. You can plainly see that the region you refer to is yellow, and thus in North America.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Yeah your own links only really debunk it if you are only smoking once or twice a month to a week. Not that I think marijuana users are going to be moving to a 9 joint a day regime now that its legal obviously, but smoking anything in the amounts that cigarettes are smoked is going to cause damage, so they aren't really lying. I smoke Camel Highs myself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Nobody smokes a pack (20 for cigs in the US) of joints a day or if they do, they are an extreme outlier. For the record, I think a pack of cigarettes is about 0.7 grams/cigarette * 20 cigarettes, or 14 grams of tobacco. This is a half ounce. There are certainly people who smoke two packs a day, I find it hard to believe that anyone smokes an ounce of weed a day. (That's a challenge goons get on it.) I don't know how much a heavy user would smoke a day but I imagine the highest(snicker) would would be ~1/4 oz a day, and that's still insane.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:If you really wanted to estimate how much a heavy smoker could realistically go through a day at most I would say probably an 8th, but even then the amount of people who would do that consistently over a month or longer is probably very small. I think on average your probable "heavy/regular" user would go through an ounce a month. I have a friend who would definitely smoke more than that if he could afford it. I'm pretty sure he would do like 3oz/month, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You know, actually making a thing. Instead of buying it. Using this logic no one has ever made weed, they just bought/found seeds and planted them. No one is synthesizing cannabis dna from scratch. You are "just buying" the homebrew alcohol too because you bought the yeast and sugar. This argument makes no sense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:I understand that a lot of sober people can't say the alphabet backwards, and some people drive fine with 5ng in their blood. But that means the only way to convict is to get people stoned and put them on a closed course? I basically feel like there needs to be a line, and if you can drive over that safely, ok, just don't get pulled over or you'll face the same time as a drunk driver, maybe with provisions that enable a driver to prove they can drive stoned. If you don't want to get a DUI, pick one of don't smoke weed, don't drive, don't be black. Works for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:Is there any significant difference between taxes that are calculated and included in the price tag of an item on a shelf and taxes that are calculated at the point of sale? Personally I think all retail outfits should have to advertise post-tax prices for all things, I don't think you should ever pay more than the sticker says.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Supreme court of California recently ruled (basically) that cities can dictate their own rules regarding storefront medical marijuana dispensaries. It's been a very sad week for many users as we've seen dozens of storefronts lay off staff and close down.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Nice paraphrasing rear end in a top hat. Lol if you think taxes are punishment Well then, slap a don't use more than once a week label on weed; bam, no tax needed! People seriously harm themselves with acetaminophen all the time, that doesn't happen with weed. You don't get to dismiss the fatal overdoses of one drug while sensationalising the nearly immeasurable harms of another.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Play posted:Why is it that whenever I see you posting in a thread, no matter what the topic, you are being a little poo poo about everything and I can pretty much guarantee that I'll be opposed to whatever crappy distraction argument you are cooking up? I rarely even notice people's usernames at all, but if anyone has a problem of not being particularly liked I would say its probably you, not a harmless dude who maybe likes pot a little more than he should. You post like a condescending contrarian teenager who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this, happens in every thread I see that avatar in. Someone must have funrolled his loops the wrong way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:An excellent point! And, we notice that texting while you're not driving remains completely legal in spite of the risk that someone could get into a textual conversation and continue it while in their car. We also don't tax text messages to pay jaws of life operators! (I would choose this over excess weed taxation)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:They have plenty of willingness to fight drugs right now. You don't need to get anywhere close to current US spending to still be executing the drug war and causing most of the problems of said war in the outside countries. I don't think you can extrapolate from a world where every major power has made drugs illegal to one where all but one have. A South American country legalizing drugs with the US as precedent doesn't necessarily have to kowtow to China or Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Ah, now I realize why I found your posts in this thread so irritating. You're speaking in an obnoxiously confident tone about a very speculative topic with little evidence of your claims. Though I guess the whole topic is fanciful anyway and your make-believe is about as plausible as those dreaming of black tar herion over the counter at their local cvs. Cheers No one is gonna buy tar when you can get powder. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
I would presume the juiciest pardons come at the end of a president's term after elections have already happened. I'm not holding my breath but I could see him waiting until then.
Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
gvibes posted:1) I don't think that would be legal They already have a complete start-to-finish infrastructure for growing and selling one of those two plants. It's pretty different. The cartel isn't going to pack its bags and go home because weed is legal. They will certainly try to continue importing, legal or not. Hopefully it would be illegal so Phillip Morris et al can't just straight buy from them, but I kind of doubt the legislature would have those sort of conversations before whatever momentum starts the conversation finishes it. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Even if marijuana were 50-state and federally legal, as long as Mexico continues to outlaw trafficking, importation of Mexican weed would violate the Lacey act. I think Mexico would legalize it within weeks of the US doing it, assuming they don't do it before. The cartel would continue importing either way, but yeah, big US players couldn't import from there unless that happened. EDIT: I certainly don't think it's a win for the cartel, I just don't think it will shutter their business. I foresee a good bit of cartel-driven tax evasion. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Asking if Phillip Morris would buy their weed from the Zetas after legalization is like asking if Anheuser Busch would buy their beer from Al Capone. The answer is "of course not". Al Capone was in prison when prohibition ended. I'm sure there were bootleggers who turned into legit distributors after prohibition ended, though I have no citation. Your analogy also ignores the international aspect as well. If Mexico legalizes it, the Zetas may well form "legitimate" business partnerships which are legal under Mexican law, and continue to use violence/slavery under the covers. If they can provide the veneer of a legitimate business who insulates their customers from their internal affairs, I think there is a legit chance that they will partner with Philip Morris. I certainly don't think Philip Morris would give up additional income at the expense of human life. (See also: their continued existence) It'd be one thing if the economics wouldn't work, but presuming they can get cheaper weed from Mexican cartels in a manner that is legal under US law, I think they would. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Right, but any legalization would probably have import/export regulation which would stop any dealing with the cartels immediately. Why do you just handwave having import/export regulation as if it is the default? You don't think that there's any chance a legislature could rush through a bill and not bother thinking that part through? There are plenty of relatively unregulated things(like diamonds) which are produced in a not-so-ethical manner. Monsanto/Philip Morris/etc WILL partner with the cartels if it is legal and cheaper for them to do so, that I can promise. The point of having the discussion is to talk about what sort of import/export regulations could be made that would tide this. This doesn't have to be an echo-chamber here, we are allowed to shoot down potential(advertised?) upsides (like "cartels will lose 50% of their income overnight!") while still being pro-legalization. I don't think many of us are anti-legalization and still posting in this topic. ^^^ To the above, I'm purely talking about if it makes sense financially. They would in fact do it with corn as well if it were profitable. However, many american-grown crops have protectionist tariffs in place that make it much less profitable to grow them anywhere else. Clearly Dole was willing to do it with bananas, and Nestle with cocoa. Do you seriously think there aren't any us crops grown in other countries? The cartels aren't currently producing bananas with a legitimate front-business, but I'm sure Dole would price them out if they did. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
How are u posted:So what's your point? That we should reconsider ending prohibition because you feel, against all reason, that ~evil Monsanto~ and the ~evil Cartels~ will team up and do evil things together? Come the gently caress on. This is such a dumb strawman stop it. The point is to honestly consider the consequences even of actions we support. The best argument given here is that marijuana is a tenacious plant that will grow anywhere, and there is no need to grow it anywhere but close to where it is consumed. This is possible but I'm not ready to take it on faith, given the extensive infrastructure(which will only be improved with Mexico legalizing it, which I claim will happen shortly after US legalization, if not before.) Seems prudent to address imports/exports in any initial legislation. I'd be willing to back my prediction with bet on cartel marketshare n years after legalization if such a thing were possible to measure, but I don't really think it is. I really don't see them dropping marijuana exports, even if it's only for tax evasion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
What about the supply side of the coin? Lets say lots of countries have legalized weed, but some haven't. Monsanto could export cheaply produced American weed to a contractor in a country where it is legal, and then that contractor smuggles it illegally for the cartels into (China, etc). This supports those same power structures, only now it is border jumpers and distributors being exploited instead of farm workers. How is this handled currently? Is it illegal under US law for a US corporation to knowingly facilitate their product being illegally imported into another country? Is this something we should even try to regulate? I think this is a steelman of the previous concern, since this one exists as long as there exists a single place where marijuana is illegal. I don't know if facilitating arbitrary foreign import laws should be in the purview of our government at all, but it would nice to have a system where US corporations couldn't profit from gang violence. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Aug 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I don't think the 3rd party country it's being smuggled out of would be okay with that. They certainly wouldn't, but the "level-of-enforcement arbitrage" still exists in the same sense. How much effort is Vietnam going to put in to enforce stuff illegally leaving their country? How many guns are illegally exported from the US to Mexico each year? I don't know any enforcement details here, but it is clear that it happens. I'd guess we spend a lot more on trying to catch drug smugglers coming in than gun smugglers going out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Plausible deniability for corporations and governments is basically what keeps organized crime afloat. Yeah they are just innocently selling it to their customer in country B, as far as they know they are rebranding and selling it locally. It is kind of funny because it is actually a worse consequence than Monsanto illegally importing it to country C directly, presuming they don't use violence themselves. Of course, country C has an easy out by legalizing it. I now understand why the US has pushed its drug agenda so hard overseas, it is infinitely harder to enforce a ban if you are in the minority on the world stage. At some point I question the point of the US requiring our companies to respect other countries' import laws in the general case. Obviously not doing so hurts our relationship with those countries, but to what degree should a country get popular sovereignty over what products can be consumed there? I certainly would support illegally importing condoms into a country where they were illegal, and I would be very against illegally importing guns in the same situation. I just don't know how to draw the line between them. I don't think a blanket ban on exporting marijuana is the answer either, there's no reason not to allow trade with countries where it is legal and I think that would be cutting off the nose to spite the face. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I have long suspected that republicans are going loop right back around to the left of Obama on accident. Marijuana has nothing to do with the left. Which party is more friendly is a matter of history, not ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:No republican in congress is gonna do poo poo for weed because they'd find themselves without campaign funds for the next election, meanwhile their anti pot adversary that didnt exist prior to their comments would mysteriously enjoy unprecedented funding. There is simply way too much money in it for republicans to go contrarian on weed. They'd sooner advocate higher taxes. I think it is unlikely but not impossible. I don't think predicting what the republican party will do for 2016/2020/etc is very tenable at this point, a lot can happen in that time. I don't think it is the likely outcome but if you gave me like 2.5:1 odds I'd bet :tenbux: that the future federal weed legalization bill has at least as many republicans as democrats voting yes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Basically the only determining factor for 2016 is going to be the results of the 2014 election, and there will be only two possible decisions based on that election, and I can basically guarantee that "legalizing marijuana" will not be part of the national platform. Yeah I'm not saying it will happen anytime soon. Really it would be a gentleman's bet since I don't expect such a bill to exist for a long time, if ever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Do what's right instead of what gets his approval rating up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Pardon nonviolent offenders with huge prison sentences which Obama himself has said were unfair and discriminatory?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:How many of those are actually in federal prison? Federal prison has a much higher ratio of nonviolent:violent than state prison does, at least according to "drugwarfacts.org". Their number is ~1/3. No idea how reliable they are, and obviously this is raw drug offenses, not just ones that are "disproportionate"(I think they all are). quote:(Drug Offenders in US Prisons 2011)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:I've always wondered (and I apologize if it was answered in an earlier page of the thread): Why aren't cigarette companies hurling money hand over fist to get marijuana legalized? It's not like Phillip Morris has a sterling reputation to look out for either. Also those trademark rumors are probably not true but "Camel Highs" and "Marlboro Greens" practically write themselves. Computer parts, I'm purposely not limiting my claim to "possession of marijuana" convictions. Obama himself has pointed out the discriminatory nature of cocaine vs crack sentencing, but hasn't done anything for those already convicted for it. I stop at "drug offenses" because that is sufficient for it to be an unethical conviction to me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Y'all got your one-two punches ready itching to knock over those strawmen. Internet weed advocates(I guess I am one of these?) sure are defensive. A random person I don't know can go hog wild playing video games for 15 hours a day, great for them. If it were my friend, I would probably talk to them about it because they probably could be even happier if they didn't. It isn't really that complicated and "WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT CARE" isn't a response to that. It doesn't take a prohibition advocate to see that a person who sits at home smoking weed all day is stuck in a local maximum and would be happier in the long term if they found other, more actualizing fulfillment. Is this the part where I tell the internet how much weed I smoke to validate my opinion? Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:I think the Internet Weed Advocates are talking about smoking pot and for some reason you guys are talking about people being antisocial? I agree that people who sit at home all day would likely be happier if they get out more. Somehow I figured that playing video games for 15 hours a day, or smoking weed 15 times a day is pretty antisocial. Certainly one can smoke up or play video games in a social environment, but I imagine few people have a large circle of friends or coworkers who they can hang out with and do either of those things for that much time each day. I imagine that the majority of those 15 smoking sessions are at home, and genuinely have opportunity cost greater than the pleasure derived from them. People don't tend to take beer breaks at work and one joint is a lot more intoxicating than one beer, I can't even imagine the logistics of such a lifestyle. If you are idle rich and just hang out with your idle rich friends all day and smoke weed, I can empathize and see the appeal somewhat. I can't imagine how one could do it without being antisocial in a regular adult life in the US. Warchicken, this is kind of an obnoxious request but I'd love to see a weekday schedule that includes social activity, work, and 15 smoking sessions per day in it because I don't really believe you would smoke as much as you claim. This is advice I would give a friend, I don't know what "moralizing is", I don't think the universe will or the government should punish you for spending all your time smoking weed. I'm simply saying I would discourage a friend from such a lifestyle because I think they would be better doing other things with their time. This is in fact pretty off topic at this point. I know I myself have gotten annoyed at these derails when I haven't been a part of them. I will bow out here if the thread so desires. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
First of all, from "I want to smoke a joint" to "joint finished" is more like 20-30 minutes for me, but it'd be lower if I bought pre-rolled camel highs, okay not that important. I don't think an hour of video games is "far more detrimental" to one's health than one joint. That seems like it has come full circle to ludicrous in the other direction. I'm equating an hour spent smoking weed at home alone to an hour spent playing video games at home alone. I have no problem with that, but if I my friend was doing either those for 15 hours per day, I would be concerned and encourage them to do other things. I am further hypothesizing that, among those who smoke 15 times per day, most of those times are, in fact, at home alone. vvvvv Can we stop using the word "wrong", as if I I'm implying there is something "wrong" or "bad" about it, and instead use something like "suboptimal"? A response with specific examples of things you've done isn't sufficient here. Listening to 9 hours of symphony? Sounds great. Do it again the next day, and the next day, and the next day, ad nauseum? To the point of eschewing other social interaction in favor of it? I start to suspect you might be depressed and wonder why you are content with such a lifestyle, so I would talk to you(my friend) about it. I find out it is because you are doing intense research for your thesis and you want to stay focused? Great. This paragraph doesn't mention weed for good reason, it's completely independent of what particular singularly focused activity which dominates one's time. I realize this is now pretty irrelevant and I would really like to drop this, so my one final summary line on the matter: If a friend exhibits a behavior change in which they withdraw socially in favor of staying at home alone doing any single thing, I would be concerned and want to talk to them about it. Weed is one such thing. We only get so many free hours on this planet and I don't think spending a quarter of them each day on a single solitary activity is a worthwhile way to spend them. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Is it more clear to you guys if we say "playing world of warcraft all day" instead of "smoke weed all day"? Like it isn't "wrong" but it's strange and seems symptomatic of something else? That one would be concerned for a friend who assumed that lifestyle? Smoking 15 times per day entails a good fraction of your time wrapped up in doing so, it isn't like you blink three times and then you are high. "Addiction" as a scare word doesn't work either, it's more than that. Dependence antidepressents isn't a bad thing. I'm not concerned about the act itself, I'd be concerned about the opportunity cost of not doing other things instead. I actually think that most people who do nothing but smoke weed all day every day probably actually do have some form of "serious depression". Also for what its worth my tolerance is such that one cigarette probably has a greater magnitude of psychooactivity than half a joint joint, though clearly for a much shorter time. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:The last 3 pages are a microcosm of the entire problem in this country. Who are you to tell anyone else how they need to live their life? Some people smoke and are perfectly capable of day to day tasks. Other people don't smoke and are incapable of day to day tasks. But, it is none of anyone else's business how someone lives their life. To sit there and tell someone that it is wrong to smoke, play games, be antisocial, be super social, who gives a gently caress, is not your decision to make, and this is why our country is so hosed up. If everyone just minded their own god damned business and left each other to their own devices unless said person is affecting them personally, the world would be a much better place. Hmm but it'd be an even better world if I helped friends who were depressed and using weed to cope get out of their depression. a lovely poster posted:No, it doesn't. You're just wrong. You can smoke 15 times a day EASILY in under an hour and a half.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Do you understand that there are people who smoke pot while doing other things? Many of which are social or productive? I see what you're saying with the WoW comparison, I just don't think it's a good analogy. They spend some time dedicated to just the smoking part though. Like I said, one joint usually ends up being 20 minutes for me, maybe half that is the actual smoking part. Not to mention you have to stop what you are doing in order do the preparation, which certainly will hurt productivity if that's what you're measuring. I'm not saying it is perfectly correlated 1 joint = 1 hour of wow, but 1 joint certainly = some unit of time's worth of wow, and some level of it should trigger concern.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Hmm but there's been no more news and everyone here already thinks it should be legalized so there's not really anything to discuss there. Should we just close the thread until a news story comes out? I'm fine with not having this conversation but I've continued participating because others are.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Why do you want to equate taking in a substance with sitting stationary and playing a video game. There is no analogue, stop reaching. a lovely poster posted:The claim was if he could buy a box of prepackaged joints. And I'm not saying you sit down and smoke 15 at once. I'm saying that an hour and a half of smoking time spread throughout a sixteen hour day is not some kind of crazy amount. Even three hours really isn't that bad as far as time to spend during a day on a single activity (this assumes that you aren't doing other poo poo while smoking, which is more common than not) I cannot believe how difficult it is for you and others to grasp this. a lovely poster posted:
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 22:31
|
|
nobody cares if you think there's nothing to discuss. Yours and others stereotypes surrounding people who choose to use THC on a daily basis most certainly IS something worth discussing to many of us
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
The resort probably won't kick people they catch out, but they probably will kick anyone the forest rangers kick out. I can't imagine a resort telling someone they have to go home and stop spending money because they catch them with weed. Do you get kicked out with no warnings for other rule violations? I understand they can't condone weed on the premises, but there's a big range of actions they could take between "ignoring it" and "kicking you out first offense". I would think the latter would get them a lot of chargebacks with little gain.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 21:15
|
|