QUESTION: If weed becomes legal . . . . 1. Will companies still be allowed to test for it? 2. Can they fire you for its user? or does all that go away over night as well? Rocket River
Companies can test for alcohol or its metabolites now, but they generally don't. Companies are pretty much allowed to do whatever they want regarding hiring and firing, so long as they don't discriminate against a protected class, and I would never seek to make drug users a protected class. I suspect that if it were legal, most companies would choose not to fire employees who test positive for it, but that would ultimately be up to the business.
As it will be. Once mar1juana is legal, there will be hundreds of studies about pretty much every aspect you can think of. The thing is, you cannot have an accurate study right now because so many people will lie as a result of the legal status of the drug. Once we have regulated the market, the data we get will be a LOT more reliable. The most interesting statistics to me would not have to do with the price, the market will pretty much set the price as it does in most other areas in our economy. I would be more interested in things having to do with problem usage (DUI, etc.), addiction, and teen usage. Another thing to study, but if Michael Phelps can smoke pot and still win eight gold medals in swimming, I would suggest that the amotivational "syndrome" that some attribute to pot is nothing more than a smoke screen (pun intended). I have known dozens of people, business owners, lawyers, doctors, judges, police officers, teachers, and other people from many walks of life who are able to enjoy mar1juana responsibly without it affecting their lives in a negative way. There are certainly the stereotypical stoners who do nothing but smoke and play video games, but these people are by far the minority when it comes to mar1juana consumers. The only thing that can kill the black market is a regulated market. Just like with alcohol prohibition (not a guesstimate, a historical parallel), people would rather buy a clearly labeled, regulated product for which they know exactly what product they are buying. There will be people who grow their own, but I suspect the black market will be limited to supplying minors, and I would skew the risk/reward ratio dramatically by going after those people with fervor. It costs $30,000 or more to incarcerate a person for a year. It costs even more to get the arrest and prosecute the person, plus the billions that we send overseas to help other countries fight their drug wars. There is no way that a regulated market will cost even 10% of the tens of billions we spend every year right now. Then, add in the tax revenues and we could see a turnaround in revenues of nearly $100 billion per year by regulating the market. There are labels on the pot sold in medical mar1juana dispensaries in California. I would require labels on pot, just as there are for alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco is a plant and there are still required labels, it wouldn't be much different for pot. There have been numerous studies done that concluded that mar1juana should be legal. The most recent, The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, conducted in 1972, concluded that decriminalization of personal use should occur and small time dealing should not be a crime. http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncrec1_12.htm This report was concluded just before Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs," so let's just say that politicians do not follow the recommendations of experts when it comes to drugs. They listen to hysteria and hype, but typically not to scientists. I am assuming you are talking about Holland here since you reference the coffee shops. They are doing some things in Holland to reduce "drug tourism," like making the coffee shops members only clubs and reducing the amount you can buy at a time. Everyone wants a delivery guy because it is illegal and nobody wants to be caught driving with it. In a regulated market, consumers will behave like consumers and will buy it from the store.
It would be good to legalize it because: -there would be less drug dealers that slang weed -it would help economy apart from that it's a piece of crap that is supposed to be good
mar1juana potency surpasses 10 percent, U.S. says OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- The average potency of mar1juana, which has risen steadily for three decades, has exceeded 10 percent for the first time, the U.S. government will report on Thursday. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/HEALTH/05/14/mar1juana.potency/art.marijuanaelsohly.cnn.jpg Dr. ElSohly shows off his tastey Hybrid Hydro, Jack Harre' Mahmoud ElSohly says mar1juana's potency will continue to rise before tailing off in the next five years, if he has anything to do with it. Scientists working for the government predict that with extensive government research, funded by the Obama administration's stimulus spending, potency, as measured by the drug's concentration of the psychoactive ingredient THC, will continue to rise. At the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project, where thousands of samples of seized mar1juana are tested every year, project director Mahmoud ElSohly said some samples have THC levels exceeding 30 percent. That's the really good ***** but even the schwag is getting better. Average THC concentrations will continue to climb before leveling off at 15 percent or 16 percent in five to 10 years, ElSohly predicted. The stronger mar1juana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations, officials say. It doesn't get you high, it gets you low and much more intellegent. In addition, while experienced mar1juana users may limit their intake of potent mar1juana, young and inexperienced users may not moderate their intake and possibly suffer from dysphoria, paranoia, irritability and other negative effects at least until they run out of cash. Then they usually resort to answering the amateur's wanted ads on Craig's List, Erotic Services. Potent mar1juana also poses significant risk to the developing adolescent brain, said Edward Jurith, acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Young abuser's run the risk of never developing the 'I give a ****' portion of their cerebral cortex. Increasing potency is leading to higher admissions to emergency rooms and drug treatment programs, officials say. Doctors report seeing a massive increase in people who have had collisions with their own garages. The average THC for tested mar1juana during 2008 was 10.1 percent, according to the government, compared to 1983 when it was reportedly under 4 percent. Even drugs seized at the United States' southwest border are showing increasing potency, the Office of National Drug Control Policy says. The median potency increased from 4.8 percent in 2003 to 7.3 percent in 2007. mar1juana from Mexico and other southern sources traditionally had lower THC content then other sources'."The children I'm most worried about are children who are heavy users ... people who use it on a daily basis," said Dr. Lawrence Brain, a child psychiatrist in Maryland. Lloyd D. Johnston, a University of Michigan professor who has spent 35 years studying youth drug use, said youth mar1juana use has fluctuated dramatically over that period. Now that today's youth have absolutely no hope of ever digging out of the economic hole we've dug for them, there is no reason for them to not to just give up and go all stoner. "One of the driving forces of that ... is the degree to which young people think that mar1juana is dangerous," he said. "Perceived risk has usually been a leading indicator of changes. At the times when it appears to be 'most dangerous' the kids seem to flock to the stuff." News about potency is not likely to change adolescents' behavior, Brain said, "in fact, they will be digging on it". "I'm not advocating the use of mar1juana at all," he said. "But in some ways, it is out there. ... Telling them it's 10 percent -- three times more potent than what their parents smoked -- is not an argument they are likely to buy into or to even utilize in any constructive sort of way. "I think they do what they do today. I don't think they consider or reflect on what it might have been like 30 years ago; just like every other generation since time began" http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/mar1juana.potency/index.html?eref=rss_topstories * Uh, I may have punched that up a little.
Actually this is something I had not given much thought Once Legalized and gone corporate Will the drug companies/former tobacco companies [and yes . .everyone growing tobacco will probably drop it like its hot] start making a more addictive/powerful strain of the product It would just be 'good business' Would that be allowed? Should it? Then again . . .how long before someone class action suite against the weed industry. . . . Rocket River
I don't find pot physically addictive anyway. It just makes leisure time more interesting and entertaining (silly). But in theory you could develop a 100% pure THC extract, one drop under the tongue and you are stoned immaculate. But I don't see Everclear as the best selling hard liquor. I think the ritual of it is an important part, so producers would probably tout their flavor, aroma and smoking pleasure. If commercial were too strong I think producers would be taking themselves out of repeating sales. Like Hydo today, it's expensive but one you have a little bit of it it lasts a long time. With one-hitters you aren't wasting any 'up in smoke'.
Yep. You would see something along the lines of...Marlboro Blunts....designed to give you a THC high and a nicotine addiction. The greedy seed whores of Monsanto would try to grab a piece of the backend pie as well.
I get your point. Why was Tobacco special? I think If legalized we will get more info on WEEDS' effects long term and steady use Rocket River
GREAT!!! More data will only be a good thing and, if the market is regulated, the data will actually be reliable.
Thanks for this. I'd say I'm almost convinced but still have some reservations.. 1) Revenues shouldn't factor into this at all. I think a reduction in cost and increase in safety without a change in usage is an ideal goal. Once this becomes profit-driven, I would become totally against it as the suppliers would almost certainly behave just like the tobacco and alcohol suppliers. 2) You can label a bag, but you can't label a plant. I can put anything in a bag which says "Legal mar1juana". Illegal mar1juana would never die out IMO as long as it can deliver the same quality and quantity. 3) The drug "war" can't stop. Any relaxing on that front (sending money to other countries, securing borders, etc) will ultimately allow the black market to thrive more. I agree though that the cost of incarcerating people will help a lot. I would legalize it. Set the legal age to 21. Tax the hell out of it. Quadruple the punishment for importing or underrage using. Ensure that a mar1juana abuser loses healthcare benefits. Make sure that all money made goes towards educating people on the serious mental health issues which come directly from mariuana abuse. Also, not allow sellers to advertise at all. Allow employers to fire people for it. Sounds good.
Please define mar1juana abuser, and why they should lose healthcare benefits when cigarette smokers do not. Also, even if it happens, it is extremely rare for any mental defects to arise from smoking mar1juana, why waste 100% of the tax revenue on education for that when there are more important things to use it on? As for the advertising, are you against beer commercials too?
Not necessarily. Companies might still be able to choose if they want their employees doing such things, but then you get into if it was for medical use blah blah blah. If it was legalized i doubt they would test for it though. Its not like they wouldnt for harder drugs.
This is a matter of contract law between the insurer and insured. Making somebody uninsurable by statute is stupid, and unconstitutional. Allow employers to fire somebody for doing something that is legal? Really stupid. If they are working while high, then sure. If mar1juana is legalized, allowing people to fire you for doing something that is legal during off hours is insane. Are you at least going to be consistent and state that your boss should be able to fire you for having a few beers during the Rockets game?
Defining an abuser is not my job. But personally, I would define it as someone who smokes (rather than use a vaporizer) every single day at least 3 times. Something to that effect. I think the same should apply to tobacco abusers and alcohol abusers and obese people for whom it is determined that the obesity is self-inflicted rather than genetic or uncontrollable somehow. It is not extremely rare. For abusers, its extremely common for people to develop or worsen mental ilnesses. Here's a snippet from wiki which I admittedly don't have time to read through properly: I do not believe that we should ignore the potential issues just because we only have an indication and don't have definite proof. Mental health is not something humans should take a risk with. In this case, the phrase "better safe than sorry" is unbelievably fitting and true.
1) I'm not as knowledgeable on the healthcare system. Point being, if I don't smoke mar1juana and you abuse it, then I don't want you abusing the healthcare system. If it lies with the insurer then that's fine because I'm quite sure they would take something like this into consideration. 2) Agreed. I should have said if the person is high at work. However, in the even that it cannot be proven whether someone is currently high or not, then I think there is no option but a piss test or a DNA sample. Right? The general idea is to close out any loopholes that mar1juana abusers would look for to justify their actions. Just like driving or drinking, it should be done responsibly and appropriately. Getting blazed as hell knowing that no one can prove if you're currently high and it is ok to test positive in a piss test- that's a problem which needs to be addressed. This would be a new thing which requires new solutions, new idea. I don't think this should be taken lightly. There needs to be more modern things in place than "jail him, ban him, just let her do what she wants, etc etc". The right systems and controls need to be in place to avoid the same disasters faced during the prohibition, during the current state of the drug war, even during the financial crisis. You need systems and controls with potentially harmful things in order to isolate the "systemic risk" of it - as in, if you want to abuse it, make sure the harmfulness is completely isolated to the individual and not to society as a whole.
