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.
It is my belief that if you are not "on the clock", a company should not be able to fire you for what you happen to be doing (outside of being arrested). If you are "on the clock" and high or drunk, then yes, you should be fired immediately. But a company should have no say-so in your off the clock activities. You are not on their time then, you are on your own time.
You have any idea how highly it would be taxed if it would be made legal? And it would be a controlled substance still. I seriously doubt that it would still be legal to grow it in your back yard.
I personally think the price would not go up. The reason being, that many people would & could legally grow Cannabis in their backyard if it became legal because it would no longer be a controlled substance (look up controlled substance 4 reference). Take a look at amsterdam where marijuana is tolerated, not legal, but taxed & regulated in a very effective manner, & while it is taxed, the prices in amsterdam have not doubled or even increased, it is roughly equivilant to the american street price of marijuana.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kereczr
Coke is man made, is FAAAAAAAAR more destructive to the body, and it is a different kind of high, all more than reason enough not to touch the stuff.
No, cocaine is not man made. Cocaine comes from the coca plant & is an organic based drug. Cocaine is merely an extracted form of coca leaves (which are chewed, & are less addictive than caffeine). So while cocaine goes through an extraction process to concentrate the active naturally occuring chemical that produces the high, it is not man made. In terms of addiction, cocaine is definately more addictive than coca leaves (about as addictive as caffeine) & does have great potential for psychological dependance especially in the form of crack, but is not any more destructive than any other drug which is irresponsibly abused. Cocaine addiction has the same potential for physical harm as alcohol addiction does which is all the more reason the war on drugs is, in addition to being ineffective, biased.
I personally think the price would not go up. The reason being, that many people would & could legally grow Cannabis in their backyard if it became legal because it would no longer be a controlled substance (look up controlled substance 4 reference). Take a look at amsterdam where marijuana is tolerated, not legal, but taxed & regulated in a very effective manner, & while it is taxed, the prices in amsterdam have not doubled or even increased, it is roughly equivilant to the american street price of marijuana.
No, cocaine is not man made. Cocaine comes from the coca plant & is an organic based drug. Cocaine is merely an extracted form of coca leaves (which are chewed, & are less addictive than caffeine). So while cocaine goes through an extraction process to concentrate the active naturally occuring chemical that produces the high, it is not man made. In terms of addiction, cocaine is definately more addictive than coca leaves (about as addictive as caffeine) & does have great potential for psychological dependance especially in the form of crack, but is not any more destructive than any other drug which is irresponsibly abused. Cocaine addiction has the same potential for physical harm as alcohol addiction does which is all the more reason the war on drugs is, in addition to being ineffective, biased.
How Cocaine Is Made, Manufacturing Cocaine By your reasoning that, just because it comes from a plant, it isn't man made, than all things that originally come from plants are not man made. Chocolate bars, their all natural not man made, rubber...all natural not man made. Take a look at that link I provided you there are many steps in the manufacture of it. The end results IS VERY bad for you. I have seen what it does to people over time. I've worked in drug rehab units and it ain't pretty. THC is no where near as harmful as cocaine, sorry dear but I ain't buying that. Also when I said "it would still be a controlled substance", I meant controlled as in tightly regulated, not in terms of being on a schedule. As for you amsterdam example, do you seriously think that the US would be as lax as amsterdam in terms of the regulation of marijuana should it ever become legal? The us is tax happy, it would slap tax upon tax upon tax on it.
It is my belief that if you are not "on the clock", a company should not be able to fire you for what you happen to be doing (outside of being arrested). If you are "on the clock" and high or drunk, then yes, you should be fired immediately. But a company should have no say-so in your off the clock activities. You are not on their time then, you are on your own time.
maybe so, but it says a lot about your character and hence, the company that hired you. If they're not going to fire you over your outside activities, they'll find a petty reason with your work to fire you
As for the original post, my in-laws are Dutch and they and their Dutch friends often say that The Netherlands is a good example as to why you shouldn't legalize drugs.
maybe so, but it says a lot about your character and hence, the company that hired you. If they're not going to fire you over your outside activities, they'll find a petty reason with your work to fire you
As for the original post, my in-laws are Dutch and they and their Dutch friends often say that The Netherlands is a good example as to why you shouldn't legalize drugs.
Why is that? Could it be any worse than the massive underground market, and the crime that comes with it, here?
Why is that? Could it be any worse than the massive underground market, and the crime that comes with it, here?
From what I understand the newer Dutch politicians, etc are full of it. The Netherlands had no real problems with gangs and serious crime until the mid to late 90s. They had their drug laws since 1976. Now new school politicians are filling the public with fear saying it is the lax drug laws that are causing this. It is not you are going to have problems whether it is legal or illegal and making it illegal will just open up a pandoras box of problems more then they are seeing. The Netherlands are making a slow approach to making everything illegal and having harsher drug laws. I can guarantee that once they do this and see the amount of crime that follows will go through the roof on top of filling their prisons with pot heads rather then rapists, robbers,etc like we do here.
Mhhmm, made me think for a second; good point. True, tis the employer's right to hire who they please, but what I do in my spare time should have no bearing on my employment status unless what I do off duty is interfering with my work performance and jeopardizing the complacency and efficiency of the workplace. It's like getting drunk on the weekends. Should my job fire me because I get drunk on the weekends?? Yes, if I come into work every Monday morning with a hangover and the stench of alcohol. It is hampering the complacency of the work place and I would not be able to perform my job efficiently and correctly. But, if I get drunk on the weekends and come in on Monday morning with a bright clear face, smelling like flowers, and is able to perform my job duties with speed and efficiency, it'd be discriminating against my lifestyle if my employer decided to fire me because they didn't like that I drink. If someone is doing their job the way they are supposed to and they smoke OFF the worksite and don't come to work high, then what is the gripe, really?
i don't know if you have ever been a boss before but i'd hazzard a guess and say no. when you are a boss there are a number of challenges. half of your energy is taken up trying to conform with bureaucrat regulations. the other half of your time goes into looking for and holding onto quality staff. the time you steal from your kids and social life is taken up by monitoring staff who are incompetent.
if a boss has a quality employee and he decides to fire him because of weed, it's his loss and the competitions gain. for every 20 people you hire, 1 will be brilliant, 4 will be ok and the other 15 will be absolute clowns. the 1 brilliant one could be ted bundy and i'd still keep him on.
His eyes were bloodshot, he acted goofy, and uh, like I said, he kept running over sh*t.
so you'd let him continue driving the forklift if he came up negative for pot? i wouldn't have canned him for smoking pot. i would have canned him for running over things all the time. it's not rocket science!
Well, for the most part, Marijuana is usually for the poor, and Cocaine is for the rich. However, a lot of people do mix it up a bit. If they can get a fix from Marijuana, why go for something more expensive, more addictive, more difficult to get, and more mentally/physically destructive like Cocaine or Meth?
frankie, you sound like my dad. the way you use the word fix tells me that you're a stand-up church going dude who is oblivious to the fact that half of the country will smoke a tote occassionally. the reason you don't know this is that most people won't smoke anywhere near you much less tell YOU. you have an opinion based on what you've read, zero experience. cocaine for the rich, mj for the poor! hahahahahahahaha. you have no idea what you are talking about. this is how it is:
mj for people who like the mj buzz, rich or poor. cocaine for people who like the coke buzz, rich or poor
for the point 0.000001 percent of users who ABUSE and are addicts, they'll use anything for a buzz including over the counter diet meds and painkillers, booze, glue and whatever else they can get their hands on.
It is my belief that if you are not "on the clock", a company should not be able to fire you for what you happen to be doing (outside of being arrested). If you are "on the clock" and high or drunk, then yes, you should be fired immediately. But a company should have no say-so in your off the clock activities. You are not on their time then, you are on your own time.
this is a separate issue but here goes. if you believe in liberty then you believe in the rights of those to smoke AND of employers to hire and fire as they please. imo hiring and firing should be covered by contractual law. standard contract should cover employees and employers who don't enter into a separate formal contract. if an employers wants to test for drugs and fire accordingly he should make that known by getting employees to sign a formal contract stating so.
in other words, i hire you and don't get you to sign a contract, you will be covered by a standard state or federal contract. if i am a moron and i object to my employees smoking pot then i must provide a separate contract to state that i do std drug testing
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.
