There is much talk about the legalizing of weed/ illegal drugs, and to a lesser extent, prostitution. Lets say we go down that road.


Ok, how 'bout this? You legalize it + let people smoke a pound a day if they want.

Are you going to let an employer discriminate against an applicant, JUST because he/she smokes weed?

Will you ok parent's rights to restrict their children's use of a legal product?

Will you take a stand, that those who smoke (weed, tobacco, cigars etc) are putting themselves at risk for heart + lung disease, and make health insurance more expensive for them? (including employer funded insurance. Non-smoker has a lower employee contribution than than Mr. Blacklung.)

Will you support mandatory sentencing laws for people who drive under the influence of alcohol and pot? Life sentences for those who kill someone while under the influence?

Will you enable a health insurance company to deny coverage completely to a smoker, alcoholic, or someone who is grossly obese? (these people should be paying "highRisk" premiums just like people who get speeding tickets, reckless driving etc. And StateFarm will refuse to insure some folks because of their behaviour.

If prostitutes are able to ply their trade legally, should they be denied health insurance? Aside from being a handgun test range dummy, I can't think of a more foolhardy occupation.

If hookers are legal, should they be restricted to certain commercial zoning requirements? I know that a man can't just open business wherever he pleases, and even mighty Wal-Mart sometimes has to abide by the wishes of communities they invade.

Now, certainly someone will say "But if we weren't spending the billions of tax dollars on police enforcement, prisons, etc, then tax payers could provide free health care to all of these people" Uh huh. Except, instead of funding some govt run healthcare package, I'd rather just have a tax refund....ie, my money back.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

BTW, this isn' t a repost of the prostitution thread. I expanded it to cover drugs, and other issues of personal choice. Also...

I don't believe its any of the governments business if I wear a helmet while on a motorcycle. However, I don't believe my insurance should have to cover any head injuries resulting from that act of stupidity. Same with seatbelts.

Live free and live with the consequences.
.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

There is much talk about the legalizing of weed/ illegal drugs, and to a lesser extent, prostitution. Lets say we go down that road.


Ok, how 'bout this? You legalize it + let people smoke a pound a day if they want.

Are you going to let an employer discriminate against an applicant, JUST because he/she smokes weed? Short answer (trust me, I just deleted two paragraphs), no. It's a grey area, think prescription drugs. It'd be handled like that.. being medicinal and all.

Will you ok parent's rights to restrict their children's use of a legal product? You'll need to be at least 18 years old to legally smoke it. Also, parents restrict their children's 'right' to use legal products every day.. it's called parenting.

Will you take a stand, that those who smoke (weed, tobacco, cigars etc) are putting themselves at risk for heart + lung disease, and make health insurance more expensive for them? (including employer funded insurance. Non-smoker has a lower employee contribution than than Mr. Blacklung.) Well, anytime you inhale smoke.. you're damaging your body. It's simple biology.. humans don't like carbon monoxide. So, we'd be ignorant to say it won't effect your health more than say, a person who had the same habits, minus smoking. As far as weed-only-smoking, an increased risk of heart disease, lung disease, yada, yada.. that's not proven. So no, I would not take that stance.. although I wouldn't turn-down scientifically proven facts. More expensive health insurance.. no to that as well.

Will you support mandatory sentencing laws for people who drive under the influence of alcohol and pot? Alcohol, yes. Driving while intoxicated is always dangerous (obviously depending on the amount).. it typically effects everyone the same when driving.. as in.. you CAN'T! Now, driving under the influence of marijuana.. some people drive better (not as anxious, usually stay the speed limit, paranoid as hell so looking all around for things).. I'm sure it has the complete opposite effect on a lot of others. But once again, I'd treat it like prescription drugs. Some people can drive after 700mg of Vicodin.. some people can't get the @!#$ out of bed.

Will you enable a health insurance company to deny coverage completely to a smoker, alcoholic, or someone who is grossly obese? (these people should be paying "highRisk" premiums just like people who get speeding tickets, reckless driving etc. And StateFarm will refuse to insure some folks because of their behaviour. No.

If prostitutes are able to ply their trade legally, should they be denied health insurance? Aside from being a handgun test range dummy, I can't think of a more foolhardy occupation. No.

If hookers are legal, should they be restricted to certain commercial zoning requirements? I know that a man can't just open business wherever he pleases, and even mighty Wal-Mart sometimes has to abide by the wishes of communities they invade. It'd be like Nevada.. licensed brothels. As long as it's not a private community, they can't just tell a business to leave. There has to be a law(s) broken, otherwise.. just don't go there.. they'll eventually pack up and move somewhere they can get more business.

how can someone say that whenever you inhale smoke you are damaging you body, but believe smoking unfiltered mari-cigs is just yada yada yada. True, there is no added chemicals, but it is still breathing in smoke.


Could you be more specific in your "no" answers than just "no" Is there is a reason?

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

as far as the prostitution, I would say legalize it(though I myself do not belive in paying for what I can get for free). just put some decency type regulations on it. i.e. zoning laws like not within X distance of a school or 'family' facility or some @!#$ like that like they do with alcohol in some states. and do something similar that they do in korea with the disease card they have to carry where it indicates when thier last checkup was. except mabey for us in the states have it more like a liscense (whore licensing FTMFW) that in order to keep up to date she has to have herself checked out regularly and not break any of the zoning laws.


and as far as pot it would be to easy and actually benifit the goverment to legalize it. just make laws like you have to be over 18, can only sell it in certain stores. then they can tax it and change fees on associated paperwork and make tons of money off of it. people bitch about letting criminals out of jail over it. but most people that are in are in for pot are in for major trafficing or selling and are usually associated with other things like gun charges and @!#$. most people that get caught with smaller amounts get a slap on the wrist comparatively speaking. its the drugs like heroin and cocain that get the bigger time.

as far as health insurance, I belive those companies can do whatever they want at thier own discresion. some companies screen for smokers already anyways.

plus I am a firm beliver that alcohol is more damaging and dangerouse then pot, but you can do that.......and it doesn't effect your health insurance premium






http://www.myspace.com/yourfavoriteprofile

Should it? Despite years of "wine is good for you", new research is surfacing that it may increase your risk for certain cancers.

Here's my take. If you engage in unhealthy habits like, smoking, excessive drinking, overeating to obesity, high colesterol, etc, you are at a higher risk for developing a mryiad of health problems and thus, a higher risk for the insurance company. You should therefore pay more.

Here's a comparison or two: Speeding tickets, running red lights = higher premiums and eventually coverage is terminated. Traveling to the Congo or Ugandab = a higher risk for contracting disease or dying.... higher insurance costs because of the potential for danger.

I, as a non-smoker, healthy blood pressure, good BMI, should not be paying the same employee insurance premium as my 300 lb, cheesecake-gobbling co-worker, who can't walk across the parking lot without arriving to work wheezing. Same concept.

Does this make me a better person than her? No, just less likely to flatline on the sales floor.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

ScottaWhite wrote:how can someone say that whenever you inhale smoke you are damaging you body, but believe smoking unfiltered mari-cigs is just yada yada yada. True, there is no added chemicals, but it is still breathing in smoke.


Could you be more specific in your "no" answers than just "no" Is there is a reason?

.

Smoking weed hasn't been linked to any lung or heart diseases.. cigarettes have. Like I said, the smoke itself is still bad for you.. but that alone won't necessarily put you more at risk of disease. You'll have a lot of phlegm, cough often and probably have wheezing problems.

Sure, there's a reason. If you pay taxes, you should be entitled to health insurance. End of story. I don't care what you do for a living, if you're doing it legally, why shouldn't you be entitled to those benefits?

I've been smoking daily for the past four years. I have asthma. I still wheez from time to time, I cough often, I have a lot of phlegm. Other than that, couldn't be healthier. It's amazing what a healthy diet can do. Oh, and yes.. I've had my lungs checked out. Not a thing wrong with 'em as of yet.

I havnt read most of that above yet (i'm tired and will later) so I apologize if this seems off.

They will never legalize marijuana like its alcohol...... although I'de be for it if they did.

Here's the reason why....

With alcohol..... you can drink till you pass out on a regular basis and as long as your sober by the time you drive or go to work..... you will pass a alcohol test.

If you use marijuana on a regular basis you will show positive for THC even if you are not under the influence of it at the time..... and if your a regular user of it.... you cant accurately tell the difference through blood or piss tests.

With alcohol..... the cops and your employer can prove if your drunk or not.

With marijuana they cant prove if you high or not.... just roughly how much you use it. Thus all the no smoking weed and driving laws they would make couldn't be enforced unless you were blitzed out of your mind or you where caught actually puffing the stuff while you where driving. (like how they get you for it now LOL)

I should have started an insurance thread instead Fred.

1) In America, why should paying taxes entitle someone to health insurance? Why not free car insurance, life insurance, car insurance too? I am, after all, paying taxes.

2) I pay low rates on my car insurance because I have no tickets on record. My neighbor pays 4x what I do, because he has a DUI and a speeding ticket within the last year. If I was paying the same rate as him, it would mean 1 of 2 things. (1) The insurance companies dont care about dui's, speeding etc. or (2) I was paying a higher rate to subsidise his rates....to keep the playing field level. -------why shouldn't this standard hold true for people buying their own health insurance outright, or for employees who contribute monthly to an employer funded plan?

3) O.B.ama's nifty health care reform plan, reportedly says: If your employer provides health insurance, and you like it, keep it....you're fine buddy. BUT if you are unemployed, refuse to work, or if your job doesn't offer a plan, then The People's Republic of America will cover you.

-What is one of the biggest financial drains on G.M and other major corporations? One of the biggest is employee and retiree health insurance. Doesn't anyone suspect that someone at GM/ Wal-mart/ Disney etc. is thinking: "Well, shucks, if eliminate benefits for the retirees, we'll save billions a year in costs, and Dear Leader will take care of them from now on??????????????????

So much for a down payment on universal health care....hellow People's Republic of America.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

ScottaWhite wrote:...Why not free car insurance, life insurance, car insurance too?......

it causes short term memory loss lol

would I restrict my children's use of a legal product?

As of right now, I'm teaching the 7 year old not to smoke and how to say no to drugs and how to say no to cigarettes, how to walk away and say get that crap away from me.

The best part, she comes to me for advice. I never force her to do or say anything. And I do not smoke or do any drugs myself so I'm good.

if they legalize everything we're going to end up like the money idiocracy






Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:09 AM

96RedCav wrote:

ScottaWhite wrote:...Why not free car insurance, life insurance, car insurance too?......

it causes short term memory loss lol

I didnt read the entire thread yet. Too many words.

One of my friends has absolutely no short term memory anymore. He used to be really smart but decided to get high every day and now he goes througha lot of situations of "uh I had something to tell you but I cant remember."
If you made unrestricted access to it youre essentially just dumbing down everyone.

But on the same token there are sone who no matter if it was legal or not wouldnt use it for religious reasons, health reasons etc. I dont think it would really change too much usage-wise. But it would affect how openly its done. Personaly I wouldnt want to work next to someone who is baked all the time because how am I supposed to work when hes giggling because my head is awesome looking.

Ron Paul = WIN!

"I'm sorry, over the what?" C'mon, a congressman vs. a Baldwin brother?


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

TheSundownFire wrote:

96RedCav wrote:

ScottaWhite wrote:...Why not free car insurance, life insurance, car insurance too?......

it causes short term memory loss lol

I didnt read the entire thread yet. Too many words.

One of my friends has absolutely no short term memory anymore. He used to be really smart but decided to get high every day and now he goes througha lot of situations of "uh I had something to tell you but I cant remember."
If you made unrestricted access to it youre essentially just dumbing down everyone.[\quote]

I have a friend with the same problem. When he talks he can not finish his sentence or the word he's looking for. He did weed and crack


"is not that I don't care, it is not my responsibility"

That has to be one of the more respectful debates that ive seen in a long time about something like that..

Someone mentioned something about some people driving better when they smoke weed......... thats not true... some people just think they do... it lowers reaction time and awareness much like alcohol does.

Ive been around A LOT of pot heads, and I used to smoke it myself back in the day.... I know what i'm talking about here.

The reason you never see any american tests linking lung and health issues to the smoking of marijuana is because you cant legally conduct a test like that... you would have to have people smoking it in a controlled environment... and thats not going to happen when its illegal to do.... thats common scene.

I do believe that the laws controlling it are a bit strict.... and the gateway thing is just a cop out.... the real problem isn't the drug itself.... it's the fact that we cant rely on people to use it responsibly and the whole driving or working under the influence thing is to hard to regulate...

And people get arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana every day..... its called a DUI (not DWI) it stands for driving under the influence..... its different than driving while intoxicated.... Ron Paul is wrong about that one.

I agree about the state controlled and freedom of choice thing.... the problem is that 99% of people rallying to legalize marijuana are dumb ass pot heads that just want to get high all the time (like they already are) without having to worry about the cops as much.... and when you have idiots like that on the "legalize it" side of the debate..... it doesnt help there cause at all.....

If you want to smoke pot.... fine.... but suffer the consequences if you get cought..... or just do what I do..... just stop doing it and grab a beer instead.

Stop whining about the fact that what your doing is illeagle.... do you really need a joint that damn bad to get through your day.

You're all part of a free country I don't see what part of freedom to choose you don't understand? It sounds pretty straight forward to me... I know that I'm going to live my life based on what I know and how I feel and not by the word of some fags with more money wasting skills than me smoking a few damn joints and maybe ending up in the hospital for a bit in about 40 years after I've paid more in tax than I ever should have.

I think the problem lies in where other people start footing the bill for other peoples choices.

And weebel, beer is no substitute for pot. Beer makes me want to get rowdy and party, and then wake up sick in the morning, whereas weed makes me hungry, tired, then I get up well rested. I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me I need Advil LiquiGels or Nyquil to go to bed when a nice fat bowl will do the same, and make that last hour or 2 of halo that much funner.

God damn I hate how @!#$ up the world is lol. It's like everyone wants to be your mom and tell you what to do based on their opinions.

wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.

LOL

^^^^^^^ Your right...... I actually really miss smoking the stuff...... (alcohol just isnt the same) but I cant because of my job and I accept it.

I have nothing against pot..... I just have something against the people that abuse it and think they cant get through the day without it.

The problem is that we cant have Freedom and security at the same time..... it's one of the other.... and when you do what our government is doing you end up not having either.

It like what I say about gun control...... just let everyone carry guns regardless..... sure some people are going to die at first..... but hey.... so be it.

wow.....a baldwin? seriously now......

but RP is correct: it should be a state's issue, not a federal one. if cali wants pot and iowa doesnt, then thats how it should be.

^ damnit, iowa better want it!

but seriously, thats how everything should be. whats right for people in connecticutt isn't necessarily right for the people in idaho, and so on. states should have the power to make their own rules and regulations without the feds butting in and telling them what to do.




Check out my build thread!

What It comes down to for me, as well as Dr. Paul, is this, (and it covers everything)

The Constitution dose NOT cover it, There for, its up to the INDIVIDUAL state (10 Amendment and all)

Good parenting, is what it comes down to.

(Yes, I have Never done any of the above )

It is NOT the Federal Governments job\place to regulate its CITIZENS, If we wanted that, we can move to the UK.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Maybe and I just tired but let me put a few arguments up on the board.

First off besides the debate of the effect of drugs on each individual person the MAIN reason and Constitutional reason is money (commerce). Specifically the Commerce Clause of the Constitution

Quote:

Article 1 Section 8

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;......

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Now why is that important because that is what the Supreme Court used to allow the 1970 Controlled Substances Act to stand and become law.
Which in short bands such illegal drugs
Summary here http://www.enotes.com/drugs-alcohol-encyclopedia/controlled-substances-act-1970

Second there are a few case when this has been challenged first on a quick search is GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al. 2004
Opinion here http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

Quote:

The District Court denied respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that they had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient’s physician pursuant to valid California state law. The court relied heavily on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, to hold that this separate class of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power. ......

(b) Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.

Here is another case in 2005 http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=4613 It also provides agreement (rant) against this clause.

So simply put its illegal because it can effect interstate commerce. For the argument of just legalize it and tax the crap out of do any of you remember when they tried to tax pimps and prostitutes for thier income? http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/pimp.tax/
Same principle different item, oh btw how did that work out?
So in reality are you going to pay the government every time you buy something from a dealer? Are the dealers and the massive drug rings just going to stop and suddenly obey the law and pay taxes on what they sell. Instead of the DEA and various other law enforcement agencies arresting and going after the sellers now you would have the IRS? Its laughable.
Oh we can open stores and sell it with the taxes and charge a higher price, but you would still have the dealers on the street selling at a lower price and thus the same problem we have now.

Do I have a solution no but there a few agreements and legal points as to why. I am against legalizing drugs until somebody can prove to me as the other person posted, the individual effects on each person and the danger it can cause.

My biggest problem is that Drinking and Driving is illegal and wrong but yet you can get 100 DUI's and still nothing "stops" you from drinking and driving. You say make it legal but you can't drive stoned or high- what is stopping you just like drinking and driving. If you going to out and have a chance of killing or endangering others then there should be more laws against it.

What about mixing drugs, people who drink and then smoke pot- I have seen it first hand where it can cause dangerous situations.
Legalizing drugs and putting stipulations on where and how you can do them is a moot point. Your asking people to make a rational and logical decision who in all honestly are not in a mind set to do so. Just like somebody who drinks, and I don't care if you one of the few people who are clear and sober high we can't just make a law apply only to you.

I don't think dope is going to get MORE expensive if we were allowed to distribute, sell, and grow it legally. And if it did, @!#$ I'd just grow it. It's @!#$ easy to grow. Maybe it won't be skunk 1 or green crack when I'm done growing it, but I'm sure with some time and practice I could make some potent stuff. I don't see how you can outlaw a plant.

And as far as your drinking and driving vs smoking and driving... I do agree that people shouldn't do either, but if you're allowed to drink and be trusted not to drive, why the @!#$ can't I smoke and be trusted not to drive? Mcdonalds might sound too delicious at 2 am while I'm sitting on my couch playing halo3 bothering no man minding my business? I don't give a @!#$, I get bigger temptations for grease while I'm drinking. And dope wears off in like an hour or two as long as you didn't go overboard so I'm sure by the time my munchies are uncontrollable I'll be good to go. Ooo but who's going to regulate when I can and can't decide for myself when I'm good to go? Wah wah wah. The government can't regulate @!#$. They suck at just about everything they do, I don't trust them to make decisions for anyone, therefore I am not going to obey a law with absolutely no reason for existing other than infringing on my right to choose. End of story. You can have your opinions. At the end of the day, there are people that are sober who can't control a vehicle, speak proper English, or function normally all by themselves. I wouldn't worry too much about a drug that is less harmful than most OTC drugs, definitely more safe than alcohol and less of a gateway drug as well, and I'd vouch that it's less addictive than smoking OR drinking.

wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.

LOL

mclonedogmcwad:
Very well said. I agree with you except for where you mention the drunk drivers. I live in Iowa and here they put you in jail, impound your car suspend your license. After you are past all that and legally allowed to drive again they install a breathalizer in your car. The lenght and severity of these sanctions increases upon each offense.

First conviction: If you are convicted of an OWI for the first time, you will be required to serve from two days to one year in jail and pay a fine up to $1,000. You will also lose your license for six months.

Second conviction: If it is your second offense within 12 years, you will lose your license for two years, be given a seven-day to two-year sentence, and be fined $1,500 to $5,000.

Third conviction: A third offense within a 12-year period is a Class D felony that will earn you up to five years in jail and a $2,500 to $7,500 fine. You'll lose your license for six years.

In addition to spending time behind bars, paying a hefty court fine, and losing your driving privileges, you will also need to complete a course for drinking drivers and undergo a substance abuse evaluation or treatment program¯whether this is your third offense or your first. Iowa law requires that you pay for these services at your own expense. You'll also be hit with a $200 fine that goes toward the state's victim restitution fund.

If you are caught driving while your license is revoked, you'll be charged with another misdemeanor and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine

My apologies for going waayyy off topic. Now back to the current topic.




FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!