Where do you stand on pot? (claims, million, employees, female)
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.
Ya know, perhaps one could say "just keep your pot-smoking habit within the wall of your own home/living quarters so it is not pressed on society," except...all those pot heads who can't hold a job because of pot are still a burden to society in that now we have to pay welfare, wics, free medical care, etc., etc. because they can't hold a job and take care of themselves and their responsibilities.
There are all kinds of people who can't--or won't--hold a job. Based on your research, how many of them are in this position because of pot? Let's hear some real numbers and not just assumptions.
How many potheads as opposed to, say, alcoholics?
Quote:
It is a detriment to our society in many more ways, such as pot heads not having sense enough to control producing illegitimate offspring who end up on government welfare and it goes on and on. A good society needs all citizens to "contribute" and not "take!"
Again, in your judgment, and based on actual facts and not just things you pulled from your backside, what ratio of "illegitimate offspring" stem specifically from the fact that the parents smoked pot to that of illegitimate offspring produced by people who either don't use pot or for whom smoking pot had nothing to do with having illegitimate offspring?
You know, I worked in social services off and on (mostly on) for 25 years. Even until last month (when I took a new job) I was interviewing clients, determining eligibility for such things as food stamps, day care assistance, etc. I've done this same job in three different states for multiple agencies.
It might shock you to know that:
1. The majority of households receiving food stamps contain at least one adult who is in the workforce.
and
2. Drug-testing people before they receive benefits such as TANF and food stamps has been tried and has been a dreadful, expensive failure. Why? Because what they discovered is that only a very small percentage of people tested had any illicit drugs in their system.
For example: In 2011, Florida passed a law mandating drug testing for all TANF applicants. This, incidentally, was done at a huge cost to the state, and cost several times more than simply running the program and giving people TANF. What they found was:
Quote:
In the four months that Florida's law was in place, the state drug tested 4,086 TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs — a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs.
Moreover, the process didn't deter people from applying for TANF. During the period the law was in effect, TANF applications did not decrease and the number of TANF recipients remained steady.
A similar thing was tried in Oklahoma in 2013. 1, 890 TANF applicants were screened. Only 83 were found to have illegal drugs in their system. The cost to the state? About $85,000.
Similar legislation was proposed in nearly 25 states around 2010-2013. They weren't passed into law in any of the states. Why? Because, aside from unconstitutionally targeting the poor, trials showed again and again that it was a complete waste of money because most people applying for assistance were proven to not be drug users.
In short, it's preferable, if you are making claims on a forum such as this, to have those claims be based in some kind of reality or have some factual basis.
This can often prevent a person from looking ignorant when they are posting something as fact when the truth is they have just made up a bunch of nonsense and BS based on their own opinion and nothing else.
Yes. What should be done is to outlaw people who operate heavy machinery from OUI (operating under the influence), much like what is done with alcohol, with the caveat that only the existence of an actual victim (property or personal damage) warrants any type of prosecution.
I am sick and tired of people being prosecuted for victimless crimes. That's nothing more than tyrannical, IMHO.
When we operated our Construction Corporation, my husband refused to hire anyone who used drugs. He made that very clear and fired anyone who showed up "under the influence" of both drugs and/or alcohol.
No matter how much you try to equate alcohol with drugs...no, ain't happening. Alcohol takes years to destroy the body functions and brains. Drugs can do it overnight.
Must have been quite a night and some fancy drugs. Mood enhancing drugs, prescribed by psychiatrists, are some of the most powerful and have done more damage than anything I have seen.
Moderation is key. Not everyone drinks to get drunk, or smokes pot to get completely baked. For me, I like a nice little hum that just makes you relax. Especially, on a nice summer evening when you're sitting on the patio, watching the sun go down. Or walking through the woods....
I really pity people who abstain from weed and alcohol. When they wake up in the morning, that's the best they will feel for the entire day.
Pot is a drug that reduces the effects of stress. It interrupts the effects of the stress hormones. Smoking pot to get high is somewhat good for your health. It can reduce your risk of cancer and reverse cancer, in some cases.
Heart disease is the #1 killer in the USA, and stress is the #1 cause of heart disease. So yes, pot can be a very beneficial solution.
Ahem! I'm gonna go ahead and stop ya right there! You say cannabis users can't hold a job, are on welfare, and a burden on society? Let's see, I work in inside sales 40 hours a week, in which I've been with the same company for what will be 8 years. I own a home, have a wife and ONE child that was conceived AFTER we were married! I do not take welfare benefits from the government, nor do I ask for anything from anyone! I know another neighbor that works in engineering, travels, and partakes in cannabis, and is doing quite well for himself! Now you were saying something about not being able to hold a job???? Hmmm 8 years at the same company would contradict your silly little stereotype, now wouldn't it?
No my friend, the only detriment to society is continuing prohibition, and using government force to tell people what they can and cannot consume, and criminalizing them for doing so!
Then you are among one of the few whose body is able to process this crap without damage to your brain and body functions...so far!
I think when one does the percentages you will find those on government dole are, in the vast majority, drug users, including pot!
So, think again about how much someone's "fun and/or stress inhibitor" is costing every tax payer.
There are all kinds of people who can't--or won't--hold a job. Based on your research, how many of them are in this position because of pot? Let's hear some real numbers and not just assumptions.
How many potheads as opposed to, say, alcoholics?
As I stated before, pot destroys much faster than alcohol!
[quote}You know, I worked in social services off and on (mostly on) for 25 years. Even until last month (when I took a new job) I was interviewing clients, determining eligibility for such things as food stamps, day care assistance, etc. I've done this same job in three different states for multiple agencies.
It might shock you to know that:
1. The majority of households receiving food stamps contain at least one adult who is in the workforce.
and ... [/quote]
Working in social services is not something I would ever look at as contributing to the knowledge of the social problem.
The fact that households receiving food stamps contain anyone in the workforce simply tells me that the government has very stupid laws.
Take away welfare/food stamps, etc. and you will find that a lot of those non-workers will be working. Gingrich and the Young Republicans prove that when they passed welfare reform back in about 1996 and forced Clinton to sign it. Worked very well when welfare benefits were cut off after 5 years and those on it had to find a job. It was Obama who got his foolish fingers in that pie and stopped the work requirement and, I believe he did it illegally. No President has the authority to issue executive orders that interfere with any law passed by Congress.
Well I don't know. It depends on how big the pot is doesn't it?
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.
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.
Or walking through the woods....