MORE Act. Legal Weed?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

When states started approving it for medical use, I heard Sean Hannity ranting about how unnecessary it was, because cancer patients could just take four or five pills and get the same effect. Legalization or decriminalization would make heads explode.

Good. I'll help clean up the mess.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by plague311

Great, I'm not trying to convince you since you're not using any form of rationale to come to your conclusion. You're merely saying, "since this is how I experience it, this is how everyone experiences it." Which I've said is anecdotal and isn't the case for everyone.

1. I NEVER SAID THAT.
2. Since when isn't personal experience not a rationale?

And finally, I believe that most people are consuming drugs because it directly affects their brain chemistry.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm from the same gene pool. So I doubt it.

I think the genetics would, fairly easily, allow for an inherited trait to be present in them and not in you.

Quote:

Especially when I watched the decline and how it coincided with their use of drugs. Or when I would walk into their homes and see their zombie like contentment of being high.

That said, I see plenty of people who occasionally partake who don't seem to suffer long term effects.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

1. I NEVER SAID THAT.
2. Since when isn't personal experience not a rationale?

And finally, I believe that most people are consuming drugs because it directly affects their brain chemistry.

Or climbing rocks, or skydiving or playing sport or having sex or any one of an uncountable number of things that people do that not only affect their brain chemistry but also are detrimental to their health.


Affecting one's brain chemistry is the reason people do things.

[TragicMonkey]

Why do potheads get so defensive about their pot use? Do what you want, you don't need to get so defensive about it you attack anybody who says they don't like it. Aren't you people supposed to be easy-going? As you surf the couch in your groovy pad?

[DuvalHMFIC]

I think it comes down to stereotypes. Most pot users don't look or act anything like that. It's akin to you drinking two beers a night and having society think you're routinely beating up your SO in a drunken stupor. You'd be shocked at how many people you probably interact with each day that get high on a regular basis, and may, in fact, be high in your presence and you won't have the slightest clue.

And I'm speaking from experience, of course. I don't smoke anymore, but I used to smoke fairly regularly.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Why do potheads get so defensive about their pot use?

Who is getting defensive? I'm contesting something I see as not factual.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Do what you want, you don't need to get so defensive about it you attack anybody who says they don't like it.

Who is getting "attacked"?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Aren't you people supposed to be easy-going? As you surf the couch in your groovy pad?

I'd say nothing in this thread has been aggressive or attacking at all. I've asked some questions, stated that I don't agree, and stated why. Isn't that how, like, a conversation works?

The same could be said in the opposite. Marijuana is being "blamed" for something that it probably has absolutely nothing to do with (the lack of success or motivation of someone's relatives). It's baseless in my opinion.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Or climbing rocks, or skydiving or playing sport or having sex or any one of an uncountable number of things that people do that not only affect their brain chemistry but also are detrimental to their health.


Affecting one's brain chemistry is the reason people do things.

Oh, ok. Do you really think these things are comparable? I don't.

But I'm not sure why you are harping on my personal impression? Especially since I've been very clear that I am not interested in telling others how they should live their lives and oppose any laws that do.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

I think it comes down to stereotypes. Most pot users don't look or act anything like that. It's akin to you drinking two beers a night and having society think you're routinely beating up your SO in a drunken stupor. You'd be shocked at how many people you probably interact with each day that get high on a regular basis, and may, in fact, be high in your presence and you won't have the slightest clue.

And I'm speaking from experience, of course. I don't smoke anymore, but I used to smoke fairly regularly.

Most? Ive seen plenty that DO. Is it universal? No.

That said, Being an alcholic IMV is much worse. People certainly don't seem to be violent when stoned. The same is not true about drunks.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by BStrong

You know and I know that the only argument at the federal level will be the price of the tax stamp.

There's simply too much money for the feds to not want their piece of it.

I agree!

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by BStrong

You know and I know that the only argument at the federal level will be the price of the tax stamp.

There's simply too much money for the feds to not want their piece of it.

Are you thinking the Feds will eventually legalize so they can tax it? Consider that there are asset forfeiture rules in place now. And jobs at the DEA.

[Ranb]

One of my facebook friends commented on how a person should not be fired for smoking pot while not at work. I countered with my experiences in the shipyard regarding anyone who comes to work under the influence of drugs and operates for example, nuclear reactors or cranes.

I included being hung over, using prescription narcotics and weed. My point was that if a person signs a contract agreeing to drug testing and abstaining from drugs, then there is no way they should be complaining if they can't indulge in recreational use of drugs (including alcohol if it affects their work).

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

I think it comes down to stereotypes. Most pot users don't look or act anything like that. It's akin to you drinking two beers a night and having society think you're routinely beating up your SO in a drunken stupor. You'd be shocked at how many people you probably interact with each day that get high on a regular basis, and may, in fact, be high in your presence and you won't have the slightest clue.

And I'm speaking from experience, of course. I don't smoke anymore, but I used to smoke fairly regularly.

Good God, two beers a night? Alcoholic drunkenism!

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Ranb

One of my facebook friends commented on how a person should not be fired for smoking pot while not at work. I countered with my experiences in the shipyard regarding anyone who comes to work under the influence of drugs and operates for example, nuclear reactors or cranes.

I included being hung over, using prescription narcotics and weed. My point was that if a person signs a contract agreeing to drug testing and abstaining from drugs, then there is no way they should be complaining if they can't indulge in recreational use of drugs (including alcohol if it affects their work).

I don't think anyone should argue with that, they signed a contract. I signed no such contract at my job, and I'm extremely good at my job.

I saw a meme I agree with in its essence:

Quote:

Random drug testing is your company\bosses way of saying they have absolutely no idea who does drugs.

I even told my boss that I wouldn't take any drug tests upon my hire unless I've done something wrong, am failing at my job, or it's a requirement for something I'm doing (certifications, etc.). Had he said, "I'll actually need you to submit to random drug testing", and I was hired under that presumption, then I either wouldn't have taken the job, or argued it. People should honor their words.

[DuvalHMFIC]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Most? Ive seen plenty that DO. Is it universal? No.

That said, Being an alcholic IMV is much worse. People certainly don't seem to be violent when stoned. The same is not true about drunks.

More people are smoking pot regularly than you think. And my point is that for a lot of them, you wouldn't know it.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-w...145681414.html

This article says about as many are smoking marijuana regularly as are smoking cigarettes. So are you telling me that 1 in every 5 people you know looks like the stereotypical stoner? Based on my own experience, I'd say for every person that I could recognize as being high, there's probably another 3 or 4 that are high but you wouldn't know it unless they told you. Anecdotes, of course, but we've already introduced these into the conversation.

I think there's an old saying, "pot doesn't make people lazy, but plenty of lazy people sure do enjoy pot."

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ranb

One of my facebook friends commented on how a person should not be fired for smoking pot while not at work. I countered with my experiences in the shipyard regarding anyone who comes to work under the influence of drugs and operates for example, nuclear reactors or cranes.

I included being hung over, using prescription narcotics and weed. My point was that if a person signs a contract agreeing to drug testing and abstaining from drugs, then there is no way they should be complaining if they can't indulge in recreational use of drugs (including alcohol if it affects their work).

Yep a beer after work should get you fired in that situation. You promised to never drink and that is what you need to do to operate such equipment.

The problem here being of course that being drunk at work and testing positive for using pot are not remotely the same thing as the tests show positive for weeks after use and you don't stay high for weeks after use. So being employed should require total abstinence of all such substances. Like if they put you on opiods at the hospital you should lose your damn job.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Oh, ok. Do you really think these things are comparable?

Yup.

Quote:

I don't.

Could you explain the fundamental difference as you see it?

Quote:

But I'm not sure why you are harping on my personal impression? Especially since I've been very clear that I am not interested in telling others how they should live their lives and oppose any laws that do.

Fair point. Perhaps I'm trying to convince you that your personal impression is in error.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Are you thinking the Feds will eventually legalize so they can tax it? Consider that there are asset forfeiture rules in place now. And jobs at the DEA.

AF is a drop in the bucket compared to the sales tax the states that have legalized/decriminalized marijuana have raked in:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewd.../#34a5df7cf181

Not surprisingly, California is a juggernaut with over $2.75 billion in cannabis sales. Yet its northern neighbors Oregon and Washington are no slouches either. Oregon tallied more than $500 million in recreational sales and another $275 million in medical. Washington pulled in over $975 million through recreational, plus $61 million from medical sales.

Washington has marijuana sales in excess of $1 billion despite its population being a fraction of California's — 7.4 million in Washington vs. 39.5 million— while its GDP is less than a fifth of the Golden State's: $517 billion vs. $2.8 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Indeed, such outsize profits is one of the main draws of legalized, taxed marijuana. Meanwhile, in 17 other states, marijuana remains a controlled substance, and three states — Idaho, Kansas and Nebraska — don't even have standing laws addressing marijuana-related use.

And there is no reason that the feds couldn't still use AF against growers/dealers that they discover haven't paid for the appropriate tax stamps - just like alcohol & tobacco.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

More people are smoking pot regularly than you think. And my point is that for a lot of them, you wouldn't know it.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-w...145681414.html

This article says about as many are smoking marijuana regularly as are smoking cigarettes. So are you telling me that 1 in every 5 people you know looks like the stereotypical stoner? Based on my own experience, I'd say for every person that I could recognize as being high, there's probably another 3 or 4 that are high but you wouldn't know it unless they told you. Anecdotes, of course, but we've already introduced these into the conversation.

I think there's an old saying, "pot doesn't make people lazy, but plenty of lazy people sure do enjoy pot."

That must explain why I think so many people are morons. You think?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

That must explain why I think so many people are morons. You think?

LoL Jesus ******* Christ, what a ******** thing to say.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Yup.

Could you explain the fundamental difference as you see it?

IMV, one is an attempt to experience life to its fullest, the other is an artificial chemical.

Originally Posted by 3point14

Fair point. Perhaps I'm trying to convince you that your personal impression is in error.

I'm well aware that drugs affect people differently.

Perhaps I'm under a misapprehension. But given my experience, persuading me that canabis doesn't have a negative effect on cognitive functioning would be difficult.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

IMV, one is an attempt to experience life to its fullest, the other is an artificial chemical

THC is artificial? LoL ignorance at its finest.

Quote:

This includes cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), two natural compounds found in plants of the Cannabis genus...

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm well aware that drugs affect people differently.

Perhaps I'm under a misapprehension. But given my experience, persuading me that canabis doesn't have a negative effect on cognitive functioning would be difficult.

Ok Boomer.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by plague311

LoL Jesus ******* Christ, what a ******** thing to say.

Not everyone, but the world certainly seems full of them. I give you Jimmy Kimmel and his man on the street or CNN's recent interviews with Trump supporters on Pennsylvania Avenue.

[BStrong]

Having been on the front line of TWOD, we lost it 30 years back and there's no win to be had -legal;ize all of it, keep strict standards of purity and take all the money thrown away on enforcement towards treatment for the folks that want off the merry-go-round.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Not everyone, but the world certainly seems full of them. I give you Jimmy Kimmel and his man on the street or CNN's recent interviews with Trump supporters on Pennsylvania Avenue.

And that has what to do with marijuana?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Having been on the front line of TWOD, we lost it 30 years back and there's no win to be had -legal;ize all of it, keep strict standards of purity and take all the money thrown away on enforcement towards treatment for the folks that want off the merry-go-round.

I slightly disagree with regards to legalize it all, but I do agree that you should be able to do what you want until it affects other people. I completely agree with the last part of it though.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Having been on the front line of TWOD, we lost it 30 years back and there's no win to be had -legal;ize all of it, keep strict standards of purity and take all the money thrown away on enforcement towards treatment for the folks that want off the merry-go-round.

But the war on pot was only ever a way to attack mexicans and black jazz musicians anyway. So from that historical perspective it is working fine. You just have to remember the racism at the core of it and then the racism of TWOD fits perfectly.

[BStrong]

For interested parties, this is how California operates wrt the excise tax on marijuana:

https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/industry/cannabis.htm#Facts

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by plague311

THC is artificial? LoL ignorance at its finest.

You think the Canabis plant that people grow today is natural? Today's marijuana is the result of decades of horticultural experimentation and refinement.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by plague311

And that has what to do with marijuana?

Now you're taking it too far.

It was a joke.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But the war on pot was only ever a way to attack mexicans and black jazz musicians anyway. So from that historical perspective it is working fine. You just have to remember the racism at the core of it and then the racism of TWOD fits perfectly.

If you go back far enough racism or not the original anti-drug agency was the stop gap to employe the prohibition agents that lost their gig saving America from demon rum.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by BStrong

If you go back far enough racism or not the original anti-drug agency was the stop gap to employe the prohibition agents that lost their gig saving America from demon rum.

Recently Prohibition has been studied with a less biased perspective. There actually is a lot to be said for it, the situation beforehand was rather out of control. While not a perfect solution of course, Prohibition actually did achieve some positive outcomes. It has an unduly negative reputation.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by BStrong

If you go back far enough racism or not the original anti-drug agency was the stop gap to employe the prohibition agents that lost their gig saving America from demon rum.

Maybe as an agency but all anti drug campaigns were decided on because of racism. Hell with pot they even had to ignore the findings of the commission they had to study the dangers of it at the time.

Which also just shows it is working, it is oppressing minorities and providing jobs for cops, exactly what it was intended to do.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Recently Prohibition has been studied with a less biased perspective. There actually is a lot to be said for it, the situation beforehand was rather out of control. While not a perfect solution of course, Prohibition actually did achieve some positive outcomes. It has an unduly negative reputation.

Pluss no one likes those damn catholics anyway. We need to focus on good christian values(ie not papist)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Pluss no one likes those damn catholics anyway. We need to focus on good christian values(ie not papist)

OK, Boomer.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by BStrong

AF is a drop in the bucket compared to the sales tax the states that have legalized/decriminalized marijuana have raked in:

Are you sure? I haven't found a source that breaks it down the way I want but seizures appear to be in the billions.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_..._United_States

[Babbylonian]

A 5% tax will not significantly increase black market share. Taxes on cigarettes are much higher (20+% depending on the state) and they still sell.

Here in Oregon, I spent $60 on enough THC products to last two weeks (and I wasn't being particularly thrifty). A carton of cigarettes costs about that and might last two weeks if one smokes less than a pack per day.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep a beer after work should get you fired in that situation. You promised to never drink and that is what you need to do to operate such equipment.

Not really. This is sarcasm right?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Are you sure? I haven't found a source that breaks it down the way I want but seizures appear to be in the billions.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_..._United_States

California had to revise their estimated marijuana tax revenues down Oh Noe!

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/75379...-despite-gains

California's cannabis excise tax generated only $74.2 million in the second quarter of 2019, the state says, announcing numbers that are short of projections that were set months ago. It's the latest sign that the country's largest marijuana market has struggled to take off since sales of recreational pot became legal last year.

The second-quarter figure reflected a gain over the $63.1 million excise revenue from the first three months of 2019. But earlier this year, the results prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom to revise his office's estimates of how much money the state would net from its cannabis industry.

"In January, Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposed budget forecast $355 million and $514 million in excise tax revenues for fiscal years 2019 and 2020, respectively," as member station Capital Public Radio reported.

In May, Newsom's budget lowered its expectations for the cannabis excise tax, to $288 million in the current fiscal year and to $359 million in 2020.

That's a good chunk of money for the expenditure of writing statutes and opening a bank account, and like I pointed out earlier, legalizing drugs does not in any way mean the end of asset forfeiture.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by BStrong

California had to revise their estimated marijuana tax revenues down Oh Noe!


That's a good chunk of money for the expenditure of writing statutes and opening a bank account, and like I pointed out earlier, legalizing drugs does

not in any way mean the end of asset forfeiture.

But it means the end of asset forfeiture related to whatever the legal MJ industry displaces. It still seems up in the air to me as to whether Feds will see this the way you expect.