Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2010, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Dallas
4 posts, read 8,067 times
Reputation: 19

Advertisements

Cannabis is medicine pure and simple, I have used the medicinal strength herbs and it has put my Hep.C into remission ya'll, I am for it and always will be!, safer than alchohol and any other drug, so yes, legalize it ,Lonestar
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Suffolk County, NY
874 posts, read 2,865,397 times
Reputation: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinefarm View Post
I think it should be fazed out that you can reproduce.Myself and the other freedom riders brigade(grey beard division)will come and tattoo your forehead with a numbered tattoo.I hope you don't find this offensive.Then you and whoever wants to go with you gets a free transport to the communist country of your choosing.We will even give you your own reality show and fit you for a helmet cam.I would name the show,....maybe Dancing with the Commies.Since this is still almost a democratic nation,you can name your own show.First season in North Korea.You will be giving yourself an opportunity to live the life you want,and teaching americans addicted to apathy of the erosion of their Constitutional Rights. A Government OF,BY and FOR the people.
I think it is quite ridiculous that anyone would think that banning substances that are clearly harmful to the user and often times other people besides the user is seen as being communist by those who wish to use them. I agree with many people who say that alcohol is actually worse than marijuana but I do not think that the wrong of alcohol being legal should be used as a basis to say that every other illegal substance should be made legal.

If you give in to this way of thinking than why should anything be illegal? Perhaps a murderer can say he or she is just expressing his his or her artistic side. Who are we to lock them away and hold them back? An armed robber can say he or she is just trying to live the American dream in his or her own way by using the opportunity to make some extra money. Is this not the land of opportunity? Again, why should we lock them away?

I have personally arrested a good number of drug users and a good number of them were not for just a possession offense. By this, I mean that I have arrested heroine, crack/cocaine, meth and other drug users for offenses such as robbery, burglary, rape and other offenses often times while they were "high" or as I have seen some other people put it "while they were expanding their minds". And yes, I have also arrested alcoholics for some of these offenses as well.

Just for the record, I am far from being the type of person that thinks that everything in a person's life should be regulated but there are some things that should. For example, I believe carrying a gun should be legal everywhere within this country. A person who is an all around good person does not become a bad person when they own a gun. They are the same person. A person that is an all around good person can begin abusing drugs or alcohol. The abuse of drugs or alcohol can change that all around good person into an all around bad person. People can dispute this all they want but I have seen it first hand and know it to be fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,792,993 times
Reputation: 775
There is an historical reason for marijuana prohibition and for pre-screen and on-the-job drug screening.

First, the United States is and always has been a drug using society. Some of the drugs people used commonly in colonial times would be considered "poison" by today's standards, but in many cases this was all they had. Opium came to the United States by the early 1800s. Later in that century people marketed and sold snake oils or homemade remedies that contained any plethora of today's controlled substances, including cocaine, methedrine, THC, alcohol in all its forms, morphine, as well as various "unknown" substances (given that bottle labels usually kept the ingredients secret, company records indicate which drugs were commonly procured and manufactured into syrups). After emancipation and Reconstruction, an influx of immigration occurred, which included in addition to European and Asian nations, immigrants from Mexico. With them they brought their drug, namely marijuana.

African Americans, along with Chinese and Mexican immigrants, commonly worked together, especially in building any number of transcontinental railroads (as well as in the timber industry, turpentine production, and as common farm laborers). As these groups mingled, African Americans became exposed to marijuana and began using it. Combined with the racism and stereotypes of the day, along with temperance movements and alcohol reform initiatives, most whites in power feared what they considered a hyper-sexualized African-American male. An African American male on alcohol was bad enough, they reasoned, but they completely didn't understand marijuana. These whites, most whites, feared African Americans would get high on whatever substance and then come rape their wives, daughters, and mothers (any number of newspapers from the 1800s to 1930s contain numerous articles about fears of the black, male rapist).

Several states outlawed alcohol and thousands of localities legislated against marijuana until these efforts reached the U.S. Congress in the early 1900s. Essentially, as most historians who specialize on the subject agree, marijuana prohibition has a racial element to it. Over time and in conjunction with government inspired propaganda, the so-called "evils" of marijuana have proliferated as the country entered the age of mass communication and advanced technological developments such as radio and television (i.e. Reefer Madness). Most people accepted the propaganda regarding marijuana as the truth rather than what it really was.

On employee drug testing, I'm unsure of its origins, but I've heard of military personnel being tested shortly after the U.S. experience in Vietnam in which a disproportionate amount of servicemen and women regularly used illicit substances, namely marijuana, opiate (pain killers), sedatives, and LSD (as a footnote here, many many WWI and WWII veterans returned to the nation addicted to a powerful narcotic, paregoric, so Vietnam was not the government's only experience with mass drug use in the military, and at least one author purports that the CIA spread LSD use into the public sector during the late 1950s and early 1960s).

As others have mentioned, the private sector spread the drug testing phenom in the 1970s and 1980s in an attempt to weed out those individuals who used non-traditional drugs such as marijuana (namely blacks, mexicans, and hippies). Doing so lowers liability for business owners. So the blame should be on insurance companies and lawyers for the out of control drug testing done in the American workplace (why some one needs to be drug free to work at the Golden Arches or Wal-Mart is beyond me. If I worked at either place, I'd need drugs to get through the day).

So there's a distinction with Americans' use of drugs: those considered acceptable and those considered foreign.

Acceptable drugs include (currently) tobacco, alcohol, ritalin, adderall, valium, vicodin, lorazepam, ambien, and the whole host of SSRIs that, hopefully, someday, will be considered the "poison" that they are. Some sports fans, mostly, consider steroids and other performance enhancers as acceptable.

Foreign drugs include (but not limited to) marijuana, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine (which was not only once legal, but legal forms remain in common ADHD meds), among many, many others.

The main fallacy with drug testing is that most affordable tests really only test for marijuana since most other drugs are either untraceable (LSD) or leaves the body quickly (within a few days time) such as alcohol, methamphetamine, cocaine, etc. Further, drug testing is a sham in some of its practices, such as professional and intercollegiate sports. First of all, serious athletes would not use marijuana during the season of their sport (although the NBA no longer tests for this drug thanks to players' union agitation and lobbying), and most athletes are given a schedule of when drug tests will be performed, especially college athletes.

In short, drug testing is a racialized, stereotypical tactic to deny certain people from gainful employment, and within this rationale, if others get caught up in the dragnet, then all the better.

As for its continuation in this country, it'll always be a part of the workplace considering the economic impact of the practice. Drug testing is big business and companies are getting rich off of it. It'll never go away. Likewise, marijuana prohibition will continue in most states simply because of the revenue it produces for employees of drug courts, the authorities (state, local, and federal), and lawyers who prosecute and lawyers who defend people for simple possession (the most common crime in the U.S. today).

How does the saying go? Money talks, all else walks?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:24 PM
 
768 posts, read 937,841 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiogenesofJackson View Post
There is an historical reason for marijuana prohibition and for pre-screen and on-the-job drug screening.

First, the United States is and always has been a drug using society. Some of the drugs people used commonly in colonial times would be considered "poison" by today's standards, but in many cases this was all they had. Opium came to the United States by the early 1800s. Later in that century people marketed and sold snake oils or homemade remedies that contained any plethora of today's controlled substances, including cocaine, methedrine, THC, alcohol in all its forms, morphine, as well as various "unknown" substances (given that bottle labels usually kept the ingredients secret, company records indicate which drugs were commonly procured and manufactured into syrups). After emancipation and Reconstruction, an influx of immigration occurred, which included in addition to European and Asian nations, immigrants from Mexico. With them they brought their drug, namely marijuana.

African Americans, along with Chinese and Mexican immigrants, commonly worked together, especially in building any number of transcontinental railroads (as well as in the timber industry, turpentine production, and as common farm laborers). As these groups mingled, African Americans became exposed to marijuana and began using it. Combined with the racism and stereotypes of the day, along with temperance movements and alcohol reform initiatives, most whites in power feared what they considered a hyper-sexualized African-American male. An African American male on alcohol was bad enough, they reasoned, but they completely didn't understand marijuana. These whites, most whites, feared African Americans would get high on whatever substance and then come rape their wives, daughters, and mothers (any number of newspapers from the 1800s to 1930s contain numerous articles about fears of the black, male rapist).

Several states outlawed alcohol and thousands of localities legislated against marijuana until these efforts reached the U.S. Congress in the early 1900s. Essentially, as most historians who specialize on the subject agree, marijuana prohibition has a racial element to it. Over time and in conjunction with government inspired propaganda, the so-called "evils" of marijuana have proliferated as the country entered the age of mass communication and advanced technological developments such as radio and television (i.e. Reefer Madness). Most people accepted the propaganda regarding marijuana as the truth rather than what it really was.

On employee drug testing, I'm unsure of its origins, but I've heard of military personnel being tested shortly after the U.S. experience in Vietnam in which a disproportionate amount of servicemen and women regularly used illicit substances, namely marijuana, opiate (pain killers), sedatives, and LSD (as a footnote here, many many WWI and WWII veterans returned to the nation addicted to a powerful narcotic, paregoric, so Vietnam was not the government's only experience with mass drug use in the military, and at least one author purports that the CIA spread LSD use into the public sector during the late 1950s and early 1960s).

As others have mentioned, the private sector spread the drug testing phenom in the 1970s and 1980s in an attempt to weed out those individuals who used non-traditional drugs such as marijuana (namely blacks, mexicans, and hippies). Doing so lowers liability for business owners. So the blame should be on insurance companies and lawyers for the out of control drug testing done in the American workplace (why some one needs to be drug free to work at the Golden Arches or Wal-Mart is beyond me. If I worked at either place, I'd need drugs to get through the day).

So there's a distinction with Americans' use of drugs: those considered acceptable and those considered foreign.

Acceptable drugs include (currently) tobacco, alcohol, ritalin, adderall, valium, vicodin, lorazepam, ambien, and the whole host of SSRIs that, hopefully, someday, will be considered the "poison" that they are. Some sports fans, mostly, consider steroids and other performance enhancers as acceptable.

Foreign drugs include (but not limited to) marijuana, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine (which was not only once legal, but legal forms remain in common ADHD meds), among many, many others.

The main fallacy with drug testing is that most affordable tests really only test for marijuana since most other drugs are either untraceable (LSD) or leaves the body quickly (within a few days time) such as alcohol, methamphetamine, cocaine, etc. Further, drug testing is a sham in some of its practices, such as professional and intercollegiate sports. First of all, serious athletes would not use marijuana during the season of their sport (although the NBA no longer tests for this drug thanks to players' union agitation and lobbying), and most athletes are given a schedule of when drug tests will be performed, especially college athletes.

In short, drug testing is a racialized, stereotypical tactic to deny certain people from gainful employment, and within this rationale, if others get caught up in the dragnet, then all the better.

As for its continuation in this country, it'll always be a part of the workplace considering the economic impact of the practice. Drug testing is big business and companies are getting rich off of it. It'll never go away. Likewise, marijuana prohibition will continue in most states simply because of the revenue it produces for employees of drug courts, the authorities (state, local, and federal), and lawyers who prosecute and lawyers who defend people for simple possession (the most common crime in the U.S. today).

How does the saying go? Money talks, all else walks?
Probably the best post I've seen since I've been a member of this site.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,792,993 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkin about it View Post
Probably the best post I've seen since I've been a member of this site.
Wow, that's too kind. It's a synthesis of my own original research as well as numerous primary sources. Would you like a bibliography?

Numerous scholars are in agreement, from historians, sociologists, anthropologist, economists, political scientists that the drug war is indeed, a failure, it's nonsensical, and utterly racist in its origin and proliferation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,307 posts, read 38,666,280 times
Reputation: 7184
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiogenesofJackson View Post
and most athletes are given a schedule of when drug tests will be performed, especially college athletes.
That's bullbutter. A college athlete will know that (i) the NCAA is going to come to the school to randomly select a few student athletes at least once per year and (ii) they will receive a few hours notice if they have been selected for testing. The statement "most athletes are given a schedule of when drug tests will be performed, especially college athletes" is patently false.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 11:32 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,290 posts, read 87,094,098 times
Reputation: 55549
employers have rights, and substance abusers & and heavy debtors dont like that. they feel its discrimination. for those advocating for marajuana respectability, there are big arguments on both sides i feel marijuana is harmful. many i know were hurt by it and hung with the wrong crowd bek of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2010, 03:20 AM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,792,993 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
That's bullbutter. A college athlete will know that (i) the NCAA is going to come to the school to randomly select a few student athletes at least once per year and (ii) they will receive a few hours notice if they have been selected for testing. The statement "most athletes are given a schedule of when drug tests will be performed, especially college athletes" is patently false.
This is not what 50 college athletes have told me over the past 12 years that I've been interested in this subject. I've talked to Div. I athletes at major universities, as well as Div. III athletes who were not on scholarship. Most of the athletes I've interviewed participated in either football, basketball, or track & field.

Further, I've talked to a dozen professional athletes, mostly football players, who said they always knew when drug tests would be conducted when they were intercollegiate athletes. These were never conducted during the season unless there was cause.

In every interview, the athlete said graduate assistants on the coaching staffs provided them with regular drug testing schedules, usually at the beginning of each semester.

The only time these athletes said they were given a drug test without prior knowledge was when an "incident" occurred, such as a fight or altercation off the field, or some one otherwise got injured on campus property (such as in a dormitory or other campus building) or damaged campus property, or in the event of arrest for a drug-related offense. Four out of the 50 athletes I interviewed said they had to submit to drug testing a result of these circumstances without prior knowledge that the test would be done.

Most interviewees said the drug tests were conducted in the athletic department facilities by outside sample collectors from private clinics, but in some instances the tests were done at an outside clinic. To their knowledge, no NCAA official was ever present to oversee the procedure.

Was this how it was done at every school that participates in intercollegiate athletics? Probably not. Some programs run tighter ships. But a broad cross-section of college athletes at many different institutions agreed that their respective coaching staffs informed them of when tests would be conducted. To date, I have not interviewed an athlete who said that s/he was not informed of the inevitability of a routine test. Lastly, half of the people I've talked to volunteered countless tips on how to beat a drug test with the most common being purchasing clean urine on-line or using urine from a clean individual they knew. Another half said they never messed with drugs anyway, so it was not an issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2010, 03:23 AM
 
Location: Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon
11,137 posts, read 10,904,799 times
Reputation: 19503
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureBrennanDad View Post
What privacy is being invaded? The person is applying for a position to get paid for and the person who is going to paying them requires them to be at their best and not high. Seems reasonable to me. If the druggies do not want their criminal activity known then they should not apply.
I agree with most of this except one part. What does the pot I smoked three weeks ago at a party have to do with my job performance today? Heavy drugs are out of urine within 72 hours, yet the occasional pot smoker lives in fear of losing their job a month after they partake in a few hits. I'm not talking about a chronic user, just the occasional weekend warrior. It is nice to be able to fire one up once or twice a month without having to live in fear of the unemployment line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2010, 03:41 AM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,792,993 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditchlights View Post
I agree with most of this except one part. What does the pot I smoked three weeks ago at a party have to do with my job performance today? Heavy drugs are out of urine within 72 hours, yet the occasional pot smoker lives in fear of losing their job a month after they partake in a few hits. I'm not talking about a chronic user, just the occasional weekend warrior. It is nice to be able to fire one up once or twice a month without having to live in fear of the unemployment line.
FutureBrennan asked what privacy was being invaded in an employment-related drug screen. Well the answer to that is obvious: one's urine (or hair).

What's in my body (or part of it) belongs to me. Just because I agree to work for somebody should not, in a perfect world, be cause for that person or entity to take something that is mine.

Also, it's just a humiliating process that assumes one is guilty of some nefarious behavior without any cause (in the case of a pre-employment drug test). Maybe a 100 years from now or longer people will view this practice as ludicrous as it actually is, especially considering that the tests really only test for marijuana and not the dangerous substances that impair people to the point of being dangerous to others.

As I stated in another post, drug testing is a means to lock certain people out of gainful employment. Of course, the propaganda is that it's for the public safety, but that's (to use another commentator's term) "bullbutter."

In the case of legal authorities taking one's urine as a condition of parole or probation, well that's a different story because the testee has had their day in court or there's been "due process."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top