Marijuana: 0

[Whacker]

So my take is thus:

Yeah, I smoked a bunch when I was younger. Yes, it does slow you down mentally. Yes, it can cause memory loss. Is it any more dangerous than cigarettes? My reading has led me to believe no, in terms of the various substances ingested from it, and being a carcinogen.

As an individual, I really could care less if people want to do it on their own personal time. I don't view it as any worse that alcohol or cigarettes in terms of real and potential damage one can do to oneself and to others directly and indirectly. It's just something I enjoyed doing because of the feeling it gave me, quit absolute cold turkey after a 10 second decision, and never had any regrets or problems doing so (ie. I was not remotely addicted). In short, I just grew out of it.

This next bit is a kinda tricky, and I'm still not sure I have a good solution or final opinion yet, but...

As a businessman and employer, I can't help but want the ability to discriminate based on drug usage. The simple reason is because it does affect performance. Sorry, but one is not going to be able to go out and smoke a bowl on break, then come back in and be as productive as they once were. Weed makes you tired, mellow, gives you the munchies, etc. Other drugs have other effects but it all boils down to being able to concentrate and get the job at hand done. Of course this isn't a 100% airtight argument, some things affect people differently, but I firmly believe that at it's core my argument is solid, re: productivity. Now this does conflict somewhat with my "I don't care if you do it in the privacy of your own home", and this is where I haven't been able to entirely resolve those two. Most businesses have policies against drug usage; come in to work drunk or hopped up on something, and you'll get escorted out the door, and I'm fine with this. So it would seem that the break-even point here is that what you do on your own time at home is off limits to an employer, but if you come into work under the influence of something, then all bets are off and you're risking your job in doing so. /shrug

[LittleGrizzly]

I would agree with that, drug prohibition just creates a favourable situation for the gangsters, crack and heroin are where most of the money and crime is generated from whereas weed is probably a minor issue compared..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I would agree with that, drug prohibition just creates a favourable situation for the gangsters, crack and heroin are where most of the money and crime is generated from whereas weed is probably a minor issue compared..

So are you saying we should legalize cocaine and heroin?

[Kralizec]

So are you saying we should legalize cocaine and heroin?

To be honest, I'm not sure if those two should be kept illegal either

[LittleGrizzly]

So are you saying we should legalize cocaine and heroin?

Yes because of the huge number of advantadges.

Dealers will be no more, less likely to be offered or pressured into the first try, obviously can still happen but there won't be a finiancial incentive to get people hooked on drugs.

Lower prices, this will mean that addicts don't have to commit as much crime to support thier habit.

the fact that the drugs they take will be legal and alot cheaper will mean a huge decrease in prison numbers, they could be useful / partially useful members of society still but even if they are unable to get a job they will be a much smaller drain on resources as a waster rather than a criminal

More police time to be spent on important matters or less police needed as there would be a big reduction in drug crime (with it being legal) and a big reduction in all crime to support thier habits

If it isn't illegal it will seem less tempting to some....not much of a difference ill admit but it can make a difference for some people

Tax revenue from selling there drugs on, you could put a decent amount of tax on it and still make it alot cheaper, the majority of the costs with drugs is because of the risk as its illegal, so each step of the chain adds thier own big mark up. I figured out if you buy cannabis in bulk around my area you can get up to half price on what you would for buying small amounts, if it can be so cheap coming through a few people imagine if only the goverment and the local pharmacy were the only links in the chain, even with a high % tax you'd still have it alot cheaper..

[Fragony]

The fact that cannabis isn't particularly dangerous means that it isn't important to legalise it.

Fresh and not fruity at all, never thought of it like that.

[Ice]

As a businessman and employer, I can't help but want the ability to discriminate based on drug usage. The simple reason is because it does affect performance. Sorry, but one is not going to be able to go out and smoke a bowl on break, then come back in and be as productive as they once were. Weed makes you tired, mellow, gives you the munchies, etc. Other drugs have other effects but it all boils down to being able to concentrate and get the job at hand done. Of course this isn't a 100% airtight argument, some things affect people differently, but I firmly believe that at it's core my argument is solid, re: productivity. Now this does conflict somewhat with my "I don't care if you do it in the privacy of your own home", and this is where I haven't been able to entirely resolve those two. Most businesses have policies against drug usage; come in to work drunk or hopped up on something, and you'll get escorted out the door, and I'm fine with this. So it would seem that the break-even point here is that what you do on your own time at home is off limits to an employer, but if you come into work under the influence of something, then all bets are off and you're risking your job in doing so. /shrug

Problem with this, Whacker, is that drug tests can often pick up weed residue in your saliva or urine when are you aren't even high. If you smoke a bowl before you go to sleep, and come in to work to get drug tested, even orally, you are most likely going to fail. IMHO, a new test is needed to protect people's privacy and give a more accurate read out.

[Whacker]

Problem with this, Whacker, is that drug tests can often pick up weed residue in your saliva or urine when are you aren't even high. If you smoke a bowl before you go to sleep, and come in to work to get drug tested, even orally, you are most likely going to fail. IMHO, a new test is needed to protect people's privacy and give a more accurate read out.

This is true, and I agree a balance needs to be struck. I'd like to perhaps separate this into two issues, first is dealing with drug use outside of work, and two is dealing with drug use while at work.

For the first, again my thoughts are what someone wants to do at home is their own business. This means no surprise drug tests outside of work, though perhaps some exceptions can be made for lines of industry that require high security, like energy suppliers, airline pilots, etc... /shrug. If someone is doing enough outside of work that it's starting to affect their on-the-job performance but they are NOT using or under the influence while at work, then in my view that should be handled like any other performance-based issue; track their performance, document the deficiencies, give them the chance to resolve, and if it's not acceptable terminate employment. Just like any other performance problem.

The second issue would be drug use AT work, on-site (note: this gets gray when talking about work-from-home employees, like myself , for now we'll just assume on-site employees). If you walk into work smelling like an Amsterdam coffee shop, or exhibiting characteristics of being "under the influence" of some substance, ie: stoned out of your mind or drunk off your ass, then I think the employer has the right to document the situation, escort the employee out of the office, esp. if they present a danger to themselves or others, and require an immediate drug test (within a certain timeframe) as a condition of employment. If it comes back positive, then one's employment would be terminated. If not, then the employer needs to start being more careful, perhaps the individual was just ill, who knows? Obviously there's some issues with this process that'd have to be resolved, and some privacy rights to be considered, but all in all I don't think that's too bad of a solution.

Your thoughts?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm sorry, but cocaine and heroin are, in my opinion, a little over the line. Marijuana legalized? Maybe. Heroin and cocaine? No.

[Lemur]

If you walk into work [...] exhibiting characteristics of being "under the influence" of some substance [...]

This brings an old memory to the surface. One of my earliest high school summer jobs was working as a secretary for a dentist. You know, typing, filing, boring work. Anyway, I've always been a bit of an enthusiastic fella, and it turns out at the end of the summer that the dentist is convinced that I'm on cocaine. Why does she believe this? "Because nobody has that much energy," according to her.

I guess older female dentists are unfamiliar with the energy quotient of high school boys.

Anyway, carry on ...

[Ice]

This is true, and I agree a balance needs to be struck. I'd like to perhaps separate this into two issues, first is dealing with drug use outside of work, and two is dealing with drug use while at work.

For the first, again my thoughts are what someone wants to do at home is their own business. This means no surprise drug tests outside of work, though perhaps some exceptions can be made for lines of industry that require high security, like energy suppliers, airline pilots, etc... /shrug. If someone is doing enough outside of work that it's starting to affect their on-the-job performance but they are NOT using or under the influence while at work, then in my view that should be handled like any other performance-based issue; track their performance, document the deficiencies, give them the chance to resolve, and if it's not acceptable terminate employment. Just like any other performance problem.

The second issue would be drug use AT work, on-site (note: this gets gray when talking about work-from-home employees, like myself , for now we'll just assume on-site employees). If you walk into work smelling like an Amsterdam coffee shop, or exhibiting characteristics of being "under the influence" of some substance, ie: stoned out of your mind or drunk off your ass, then I think the employer has the right to document the situation, escort the employee out of the office, esp. if they present a danger to themselves or others, and require an immediate drug test (within a certain timeframe) as a condition of employment. If it comes back positive, then one's employment would be terminated. If not, then the employer needs to start being more careful, perhaps the individual was just ill, who knows? Obviously there's some issues with this process that'd have to be resolved, and some privacy rights to be considered, but all in all I don't think that's too bad of a solution.

Your thoughts?

I'm inclined to agree on the following condition: If your boss believes that you are showing signs of drug use at work, they better be damn sure and have appropriate documentation before they decide to drug test you.

[rotorgun]

I come from the era of the rampant drug culture of the late 1960's-late 1970's. The big argument then about Mary Jane was that the using of it usually lead to experimentation and use of more serious drugs such as LSD and Heroine. Having participated in such societal acts of passage myself in the past, I would tend to say that it was true for me and many others. We did have a tendency to want to get a "better buzz on" and so sought out dealers in those other drugs. Needless to say, my parents were right (shocking!) and I found out the hard way on some bad experiences with the "harder stuff. Thank goodness I came to my senses and sort of just outgrew my interest in drugs.

Despite this, I am in favor of legalization of marajauna on several grounds.

1) It should be regulated and taxed like tobacco and alcohol is

2) There should be very stiff enforcement of illegal dealing and growing of it outside of regulatory requirements.

3) Selling of it to minors should carry stiff punishments, much as for selling alcohol to kids is handled today.

4) Its price should be regulated, so that the temptation to make a fortune off it illegally (the forbidden fruit effect) will be mitigated.

5) Warnings from the Surgeon General should be printed on the packaging to warn people of any medical dangers associated with its use.

Imagine the IRS getting after a grower who tries to do this under the table, or someone suing a manufacturer of marajauna cigarettes for someone getting cancer from their products and you can imagine its popularity as an illicit drug decreasing dramatically.

Let the lawsuits begin!

[Idaho]

With weed they should just make it illegal to buy and sell, take in public and give to minors.

Other than that - just grow a few plants in your back garden and be left alone if that's your thing.

Drug policy should be driven by economics and public health. At the moment it is driven by ignorance and moralising.

[Spartan198]

Look, if you're gonna argue that it should be illegal because it's a vice, then just make liquor and tobacco illegal as well.

Fantastic idea.

[CountArach]

Fantastic idea.

Yes, because its never failed miserably in the past...