It's easy to talk about being progressive and free, but I think you have a severely twisted point of view. The general point of criminalizing these drugs is that in doing so, the government is protecting it's society. I can't say for sure what would happen if many of the schedule two drugs were legalized, but I think that the overall outcome would be extremely negative. The reason the use of these drugs is regulated is because their very nature makes it difficult or even impossible for people to self-regulate usage. If you want a society of perpetually psychotropically influenced individuals, then sure legalize drugs. Fight the "Man". Raise that fist in defiance. If you want to come back down to reality, recognize the potential harm in unregulated narcotic usage. P.S. - Are you a father?
think about it all these things like the nasal stuff for your nose except fill with CoCaine Rocket River
hhhmmm Will the legalized immagrants here be able to own land???? If so . . I think we should stage a protest in Mexico Rocket River
Pot - No physical addiction, slight psychological dependance. Opium - Slight physical addiction and psychological dependance. Cocaine (snorted) - Moderate physical addiction and psychological dependance. Cocaine (smoked) - Substantial physical addiction and psychological dependance.
Not if you look at statistics. In Holland, they saw no increase in accidents caused by drugs when they began "tolerating" mar1juana. In Switzerland, the people in their prescription heroin program have shown lower levels of criminality than when heroin was illegal. Your "common sense" is myths that have been repeated by the propagandists so much that everyone thinks that they are "common sense."
Not "self appointed," but I do consider myself somewhat of an "expert" on the subject. From 1987 to 1993, I worked in the field of addiction and recovery as a psychiatric technician on adolescent and adult chemical dependancy units, as a counselor's aide, and as a leader in two different 12 step recovery programs. Since then, I have dedicated a significant amount of energy studying the subject of drug use and abuse, have read up on virtually every study done since the late 1800s on the subject, and have written extensively on the subject. There aren't many areas in which I consider myself an "expert," but this is one of them. That is one of the strong arguments. Prohibition has not only "not worked," but has been extremely counterproductive in that drugs have gotten cheaper and purer over the past thirty years and availability to our young people has also increased over that time. The other argument that is just as strong is that in areas where they have implemented harm reduction techniques, they are seeing improvements. In Holland, adult usage of mar1juana is statistically the same as adult usage in San Francisco, but Holland's teen rate of use is Half that of America's. People in the Swiss prescription heroin program have experienced lowered criminality, increased recovery rates, and are responsible taxpayers even thought they use heroin on a daily basis. No, let's do some real education on the subject so that less people feel it necessary to use hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. Let's implement harm reduction techniques to reduce the negative impact that drugs have on our society. Let's treat the issue of drug use and abuse as a healthcare and education issue rather than one whose only solution is the criminal justice system. I know you are too young to remember it, but there was a time when everything was absolutely legal and yet somehow, there were virtually zero deaths due to overdose, no crime related to drugs, and the only people who were impacted by drug use were the users themselves. There was a time when you could buy any amount of cocaine you wanted. Heck, you could send your kid to the store to pick it up for you. Yet somehow, there were no crimes related to it and nobody overdosed because of it.
I will answer for myself. When I did smoke pot, my employer did not drug test and I preferred mar1juana to alcohol.
Based on inferences, my assumption is you last smoked pot over a decade ago. Random drug testing in the workplace has become more common since then. As I mentioned earlier, my son has had to take drug tests for every job he has been accepted for in the past few years. This was not the norm in the early 90s. Having mar1juana in one's system is a career limiting move. Even if one's company doesn't drug test, it may prohibit one from moving to a different/better company that does. I was recently drug tested just to apply for a life insurance policy.
No, by criminalizing these substances, the government is ceding control of some of the most dangerous chemicals in existance to criminals and thugs. In the process, the government is giving these criminals $60 billion per year in the US alone ($400 billion worldwide) in drug profits, ensuring that those organizations will continue to traffic in drugs. In addition, these criminals have no reason to refrain from selling to kids, to sell an unadulterated product, or to refrain from violence as a part of their trade. You are wrong. The VAST majority of drug users are able to use drugs responsibly without negative consequences. The estimates are that around 3.7 million people used cocaine at least once in the last year (SAMSHA). If every one of these people were "addicted," they would be causing a much bigger problem than we now face. In addition, if you look at the prescription heroin program that Switzerland has been running for over a decade, they have shown that heroin users experience reduced criminality, increased recovery rates, and become productive, taxpaying members of society. They are able to lead normal lives, hold down jobs, and generally be responsible people even though they use heroin on a daily basis. And these are the two MOST addictive substances there are. Dude, I AM "the Man." I am 35, married, own a house, have had the same job for five years, supervise employees, and all the other things that go along with being part of the machine. I have just studied this issue extensively and know for a fact that another strategy will better reduce the societal problems caused by drug use and abuse. "Unregulated narcotic usage" is what we have now. Drugs are distributed by criminal enterprises that have no problem with selling to kids, selling adulterated products, and using violence as a standard part of their trade. I want hardcore regulation of this industry so that we can (most importantly) reduce the access that our young people have to drugs and (secondarily) reduce the negative impact that drug use and abuse has on our society. Here is my plan: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63243 Yes, of two.
not for me. ive had mar1juana in my system for about 15 years and my career is just fine - skyrocketing, in fact! i graduated high school, graduated college with 2 degrees while working 30 hours a week the whole time and have my own buisness - and ive been smoking pot the whole time - BWAH HA HA!
Isn't that due to the War on Drugs itslef, and isnt it becasue the drug testing is subsidized by the government? I don't think many of these companies would be doing it at all if they really had to pay for it. We have become sheep.
Actually, drug testing, both pre-employment and random, peaked in the early '90s ('93 or '94) and has been declining slightly since then. In '91, over half of employers had a drug testing policy in place, in 2000, it was around a third.
That's interesting. I thought it has actually grown in the workplace but come to think of it, out of all the jobs I have had only one required pre-screening for drugs.
That was interesting that it was higher in the early 90s than today. I did find an article from 2005 indicating that roughly 50% now do random drug testing.
That's good for you. My point is that if one finds it necessary to move on in their job (e.g. layoffs), that their career choices become limited if they have to be drug tested in order to gain employment. There are also circumstances, such as getting a life insurance policy, in which a positive drug test may negatively impact the desired outcome. There are also times (for example, applying for a security clearance) where you have to sign a sworn affidavit describing your illegal substance abuse over the past X years. You also may be drug tested for that as well.
While drug testing in the workplace increased dramatically in the 1980s, in 1992 it leveled off. Much drug testing in American industry is due to government mandates requiring testing, not due to the business judgment of employers. Source: American Management Association, American Management Association Survey on Workplace Drug Testing and Drug Abuse Policies (New York, NY: American Management Association, 1996). The American Management Association in its annual survey of companies on workplace surveillance and medical testing reports the following percentages of companies who conduct drug tests: Companies Which Drug Test Employees Business Category Testing of New Hires Testing of All Employees Financial Services 35.8% 18.8% Business & Professional Services 36.0% 18.4% Other Services 60.3% 34.7% Wholesale & Retail 63.0% 36.8% Manufacturing 78.5% 42.2% Source: American Management Association, A 2000 AMA Survey: Workplace Testing: Medical Testing: Summary of Key Findings (New York, NY: American Management Association, 2000), p. 1. So, testing of "new hires" looks like it might be close to half, but testing of all employees is closer to 30%.
