Legalizing weed.....My question...

SPEEDY MCCREADY

So lets say the good ole USA legalizes weed...And everyone can go out, buy their dope legally, pay a huge amount of taxes on that weed, and get stoned out of their fucking mind.....

My questions are...

What happens to the drug testing policies that employers use today when hiring? What happens to the employers right to send employees for random drug testing? Would we need to change those policies?

If weed were legal, would employers still have the right to refuse employment to somebody who smokes dope?

eyedclaar

Drug testing policies would still be in place. It would be like alcohol. Nobody cares if you drink, until you show up to work drunk and then it's a big problem. Of course, it is much, much harder to detect a stoned person compared to a drunk one, but if an employee is suspected of being stoned, they could then be tested.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Pre-employment testing would remain the same? You can legally smoke all the fucking dope you want, but you would have to pass a pre-emloyment drug test, in order to be hired by certain employers?

eyedclaar

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Pre-employment testing would remain the same? You can legally smoke all the fucking dope you want, but you would have to pass a pre-emloyment drug test, in order to be hired by certain employers?

If they legalize it, you can't really consider it a drug. That would be like not hiring someone because you found past evidence of alcohol use in their system. All you could say as an employer is "don't be high at work." There wouldn't be a pre-employment screen on THC. At least there shouldn't if it were legalized.

yahamita

My question............... How soon can we pull this off? Here in Oregon it is local news all the time, in the papers, radio. Town hall meetings. everyone seems to be for it..including me!

Jason P

yahamita wrote:

My question............... How soon can we pull this off? Here in Oregon it is local news all the time, in the papers, radio. Town hall meetings. everyone seems to be for it..including me!

Yeah . . . but Oregon is run by the hippies. Oregon, Cali, and Washington are basically spearheading the issue. It will be interesting to see how the dominoes fall if the first one drops . . .

VINNY GOOMBA

Who wants to pay taxes on it? Grow your own! Get it from your neighbor if he's got it!

Can a business drug test for it? I suppose so. Private business = their rules (philosophically anyway, reality is a different story). There will be a stigma still attached to weed fro sometime, and some employers are not going to want to hire people who smoke pot. Poor choice on their behalf, if you ask me, but their choice nonetheless. Of course they will be right in some cases, and wrong in others by making generalizations about people who smoke. State jobs should differ from state to state with its legal status there. National repeal of Marijuana laws does not mean that states will necessarily follow suit. But, in the case of 100% legalization everywhere, state jobs should not and cannot deny employment over it and shouldn't waste time and money testing for it.

I could see people lobbying for laws to make it illegal to fire someone for failing a marijuana test if it is prescribed for them, and those laws passing. I don't see it possible to ban testing for pot for private businesses. If it were to become 100% legal, it will probably be a non-issue in 10 years after legalization.

the wolf

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Who wants to pay taxes on it? Grow your own! Get it from your neighbor if he's got it!

Can a business drug test for it? I suppose so. Private business = their rules (philosophically anyway, reality is a different story). There will be a stigma still attached to weed fro sometime, and some employers are not going to want to hire people who smoke pot. Poor choice on their behalf, if you ask me, but their choice nonetheless. Of course they will be right in some cases, and wrong in others by making generalizations about people who smoke. State jobs should differ from state to state with its legal status there. National repeal of Marijuana laws does not mean that states will necessarily follow suit. But, in the case of 100% legalization everywhere, state jobs should not and cannot deny employment over it and shouldn't waste time and money testing for it.

I could see people lobbying for laws to make it illegal to fire someone for failing a marijuana test if it is prescribed for them, and those laws passing. I don't see it possible to ban testing for pot for private businesses. If it were to become 100% legal, it will probably be a non-issue in 10 years after legalization.

I"ve never even thought of that.... probably cause i don't do it at all anymore...

but that has to be part of the reason why it's not leagal.... it's too easy to grow on your own. they wouldn't make shit from taxes if everyone was growing the shit.

Godfather.

the wolf wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Who wants to pay taxes on it? Grow your own! Get it from your neighbor if he's got it!

Can a business drug test for it? I suppose so. Private business = their rules (philosophically anyway, reality is a different story). There will be a stigma still attached to weed fro sometime, and some employers are not going to want to hire people who smoke pot. Poor choice on their behalf, if you ask me, but their choice nonetheless. Of course they will be right in some cases, and wrong in others by making generalizations about people who smoke. State jobs should differ from state to state with its legal status there. National repeal of Marijuana laws does not mean that states will necessarily follow suit. But, in the case of 100% legalization everywhere, state jobs should not and cannot deny employment over it and shouldn't waste time and money testing for it.

I could see people lobbying for laws to make it illegal to fire someone for failing a marijuana test if it is prescribed for them, and those laws passing. I don't see it possible to ban testing for pot for private businesses. If it were to become 100% legal, it will probably be a non-issue in 10 years after legalization.

I"ve never even thought of that.... probably cause i don't do it at all anymore...

but that has to be part of the reason why it's not leagal.... it's too easy to grow on your own. they wouldn't make shit from taxes if everyone was growing the shit.

kinda reminds ya of the old and current bootlegers, as long as a buck can be made the bootlegers will be there.

Godfather.

pandora

This is a world of convenience, I think most would buy it, hell a lot of people can't even grow a houseplant!
I would imagine pot cafes etc would spring up, new business, new tax money. Plus all the commercial growers being taxed, distribution and the final salestax. Lots of money for the States and Feds.
Along with the legalization there will be an increase in driving under the influence of marijuana and some may do so dangerously impaired so there will be new fines collected for that, additional legal funds coming in, treatment programs making money etc.
It's hard to imagine a world where it is legal and I think it will be sometime yet but hopefully in my lifetime, to see at least, cause I may not be smoking at 75.

VINNY GOOMBA

the wolf wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Who wants to pay taxes on it? Grow your own! Get it from your neighbor if he's got it!

Can a business drug test for it? I suppose so. Private business = their rules (philosophically anyway, reality is a different story). There will be a stigma still attached to weed fro sometime, and some employers are not going to want to hire people who smoke pot. Poor choice on their behalf, if you ask me, but their choice nonetheless. Of course they will be right in some cases, and wrong in others by making generalizations about people who smoke. State jobs should differ from state to state with its legal status there. National repeal of Marijuana laws does not mean that states will necessarily follow suit. But, in the case of 100% legalization everywhere, state jobs should not and cannot deny employment over it and shouldn't waste time and money testing for it.

I could see people lobbying for laws to make it illegal to fire someone for failing a marijuana test if it is prescribed for them, and those laws passing. I don't see it possible to ban testing for pot for private businesses. If it were to become 100% legal, it will probably be a non-issue in 10 years after legalization.

I"ve never even thought of that.... probably cause i don't do it at all anymore...

but that has to be part of the reason why it's not leagal.... it's too easy to grow on your own. they wouldn't make shit from taxes if everyone was growing the shit.

There are lots of people who profit more from its criminalization, that's for sure. From the drug cartels, to the black-budget-funded intelligence agencies, to the politicans who are lobbied to keep it illegal (under the table), to the politicians who are lobbied to keep it illegal (legit), to pharmaceutical companies, to the oil / plastics / chemical industry, all of them thrive from less competition being available because of its illegal status.

If $100 dollar bills grew on trees, and anyone could plant them, what would they be worth? Pot wouldn't be $300 - 500 an ounce if anyone could grow it. Some better grades would cost more for obvious reasons, but still wouldn't be THAT much. Gold is $1200 an ounce right now-- it's amazing that something that could grow like wheat is as expensive as it is currently, at almost half the price of an ounce of gold. On top of that, it's also far more dangerous and difficult to obtain with it being illegal (well, maybe not that dangerous for some of us , but I'd still rather pluck it from my garden next to my basil and tomatoes). That's government interference in the market for you! Even better, that's not counting the ridiculous amount of money it costs for extra law enforcement to police it thanks to that ultra-successful War on Drugs. That's where the state should attempt to save money-- not by taking more of it from us.

As far as "regulating" it and quality control, what better quality control than growing it yourself? You always know where it comes from, and would start with the cleanest seeds possible if you knew what was good for you. If not yourself, then a trusted friend or farmer maybe? People will certainly jump on this opportunity once it is made available.

If it does go legal, people should not compromise-- DO NOT push for it to be taxed into oblivion just to get around criminalization! What good has giving more money to the state ever done anyway? They spend our money like junkies, with us having no choice in the matter. What's the difference between giving $10 and $100 to a crackhead? Whatever you give him, he spends it like a crackhead anyway! I use this analogy all the time, but to me it's fitting.

Sorry to get off-topic, but I couldn't resist pointing out how many ways that keeping pot illegal has such far-reaching effects on all of us, smokers or not.

aerial

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

So lets say the good ole USA legalizes weed...And everyone can go out, buy their dope legally, pay a huge amount of taxes on that weed, and get stoned out of their fucking mind.....

My questions are...

What happens to the drug testing policies that employers use today when hiring? What happens to the employers right to send employees for random drug testing? Would we need to change those policies?

If weed were legal, would employers still have the right to refuse employment to somebody who smokes dope?

Some employers will not hire cigarette smokers so I am sure employers will not hire pot smokers.

Flagg

aerial wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

So lets say the good ole USA legalizes weed...And everyone can go out, buy their dope legally, pay a huge amount of taxes on that weed, and get stoned out of their fucking mind.....

My questions are...

What happens to the drug testing policies that employers use today when hiring? What happens to the employers right to send employees for random drug testing? Would we need to change those policies?

If weed were legal, would employers still have the right to refuse employment to somebody who smokes dope?

Some employers will not hire cigarette smokers so I am sure employers will not hire pot smokers.

My wife works a dentist office. They have a no smoking policy. They have to sign an agreement and can be fired for smoking cigarettes.

I know that sounds harsh, but when you think about it, most people don't want someone who smells like smoke to be right in their face for hours at a time.

But to the original question, I would think it would depend on the employer.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

pandora wrote:

Along with the legalization there will be an increase in driving under the influence of marijuana and some may do so dangerously impaired so there will be new fines collected for that, additional legal funds coming in, treatment programs making money etc..

Wait a second...

Did you just say legalize it....

So we can have more addicts....
Which would be good for the cops and lawyers when we bust these addicts driving under the influence????

Did you just say legalize it...

So we can have more addicts...
And then there is money to be made when we rehabilitate those addicts?????

know1

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

So lets say the good ole USA legalizes weed...And everyone can go out, buy their dope legally, pay a huge amount of taxes on that weed, and get stoned out of their fucking mind.....

My questions are...

What happens to the drug testing policies that employers use today when hiring? What happens to the employers right to send employees for random drug testing? Would we need to change those policies?

If weed were legal, would employers still have the right to refuse employment to somebody who smokes dope?

Employers should be able to test whatever they want to test. If people find that objectionable, don't work there.

BTW - the legalizing weed argument always falls apart for me when people talk about taxing it heavily. Unless those increased taxes are offset by lower taxes in another sector, I would never support giving the government more of our money and freedoms.

OutOfBreath

know1: The point of the matter is that today, there's charged a pretty high price for the goods, on the basis of it being illegal. If it were legal, and taxed, it'd have to be taxed pretty high, in order for it's price to match today's levels. So, if legalized, with a tax similar to cigarettes or whatever, it will still be cheaper for the buyer than the current illegal stuff. So you, the consumer, dont lose money, some of it just goes to taxes instead of funding organized crime.

Throw in what an economic hit such a legalization move would be for organized crime, and that it would increase control of quality on the product (as opposed to none today), I really see just about nothing but upside to this.

Peace
Dan

Austicman

One of the biggest hurdles to legalizing weed is being able to find a test to say that a person is high, At the moment they can do a swab test(much like a DNA test. where they collect saliva on a cotton bud) and that will tell them whether you smoked in the last 48 - 72 hours. If weed's legal then someone can say that they smoked it last night, 2 days ago etc. If a test is invented thats proves your under the influence you'll find alot of objections from law enforcement agencies will go away.

ed243421

doowatchyalike
stop judging other people and their habits
enjoy your enjoyment
be prepared to suffer the consequences
assume responsibility for your actions

know1

OutOfBreath wrote:

know1: The point of the matter is that today, there's charged a pretty high price for the goods, on the basis of it being illegal. If it were legal, and taxed, it'd have to be taxed pretty high, in order for it's price to match today's levels. So, if legalized, with a tax similar to cigarettes or whatever, it will still be cheaper for the buyer than the current illegal stuff. So you, the consumer, dont lose money, some of it just goes to taxes instead of funding organized crime.

Throw in what an economic hit such a legalization move would be for organized crime, and that it would increase control of quality on the product (as opposed to none today), I really see just about nothing but upside to this.

Peace
Dan

Why does the price have to match today's levels?

People seem so anxious for it to be legal that they're willing to just give a knee jerk answer that we should tax it very heavily. I don't see any reason for it unless we lower other taxes - like income tax - accordingly.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

I am going to take a guess here and say 99% of the people who post here, on the moving train, do not trust our government as far as they can throw them...Right???

I am going to say I have read 1,543,934 posts here on the moving train, about how the government steals our tax money and throws it away.....Right???

But these same people here, who all have the same opinion, about are crooked, inept, thieving, no good rotten government offficials......

Have NO PROBLEM with letting these same people control, distribute and tax their dope????

OutOfBreath

know1 wrote:

Why does the price have to match today's levels?

People seem so anxious for it to be legal that they're willing to just give a knee jerk answer that we should tax it very heavily. I don't see any reason for it unless we lower other taxes - like income tax - accordingly.

It doesn't. And I'm not saying the prices have to match at all. My point was that even with taxes, it'll likely be cheaper than the illegal price. The illegal market here has some enormous overhead and risk compensation after all.

What I'm saying is treat weed just like nicotine and alcohol. I'm guessing you have some taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Apply them to weed like the others. Remove weed from the illegal unregulated over to the legal regulated.

To me the question of weed does not run deeper than that. It's a net cost to society to keep it illegal, so it shouldn't be. And it shouldn't get any special treatment whatsoever.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

I am going to take a guess here and say 99% of the people who post here, on the moving train, do not trust our government as far as they can throw them...Right???

I am going to say I have read 1,543,934 posts here on the moving train, about how the government steals our tax money and throws it away.....Right???

But these same people here, who all have the same opinion, about are crooked, inept, thieving, no good rotten government offficials......

Have NO PROBLEM with letting these same people control, distribute and tax their dope????

It's all about which parts of government one trusts and not, and in what ways. I'll grant you the libertarian percentage is probably greater on here than elsewhere. But do remember government is not one monolithic entity, nor is it god. Just because tax dollars may be wasted here and there, does not exclude that legalized (and hence regulated) weed will be a net gain to society.

Besides, taxing something is a far cry from controlling. The government does not control your beer, even if you pay some taxes on it...

Peace
Dan

eyedclaar

OutOfBreath wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

I am going to take a guess here and say 99% of the people who post here, on the moving train, do not trust our government as far as they can throw them...Right???

I am going to say I have read 1,543,934 posts here on the moving train, about how the government steals our tax money and throws it away.....Right???

But these same people here, who all have the same opinion, about are crooked, inept, thieving, no good rotten government offficials......

Have NO PROBLEM with letting these same people control, distribute and tax their dope????

It's all about which parts of government one trusts and not, and in what ways. I'll grant you the libertarian percentage is probably greater on here than elsewhere. But do remember government is not one monolithic entity, nor is it god. Just because tax dollars may be wasted here and there, does not exclude that legalized (and hence regulated) weed will be a net gain to society.

Besides, taxing something is a far cry from controlling. The government does not control your beer, even if you pay some taxes on it...

Peace
Dan

And frankly, I’d rather see it legalized and in the hands of an inept government than have to worry about having my whole life turned upside down, future fucked, and possibly sent to prison for something so ridiculous. There are a ton of harmless people already in cells that would probably be happy to see it legalized as well. Maybe we could let them out and actually lock up those that deserve it.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

So lets say the state of Illinois legalizes dope....The state of Illinois decides THEY will harvest their own crops, and distribute marijuana the same wasy cigarettes are distributed.

A pack of cigarettes is costing about $10 these days here...right?

Lets say the State decides a pack of good sensi bud, rolled into 20 cigarettes, will cost $100.00 a pack. $5 a joint sounds about right? And on top of that $100.00 they are going to charge $10 state tax and another $20 going to the Fed.

Now your pack of dope is going to cost you $130.00....Is everyone ok with that?

keeponrockin

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

So lets say the state of Illinois legalizes dope....The state of Illinois decides THEY will harvest their own crops, and distribute marijuana the same wasy cigarettes are distributed.

A pack of cigarettes is costing about $10 these days here...right?

Lets say the State decides a pack of good sensi bud, rolled into 20 cigarettes, will cost $100.00 a pack. $5 a joint sounds about right? And on top of that $100.00 they are going to charge $10 state tax and another $20 going to the Fed.

Now your pack of dope is going to cost you $130.00....Is everyone ok with that?

But why would pot be more expensive to grow than tobacco?

SPEEDY MCCREADY

keeponrockin wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

So lets say the state of Illinois legalizes dope....The state of Illinois decides THEY will harvest their own crops, and distribute marijuana the same wasy cigarettes are distributed.

A pack of cigarettes is costing about $10 these days here...right?

Lets say the State decides a pack of good sensi bud, rolled into 20 cigarettes, will cost $100.00 a pack. $5 a joint sounds about right? And on top of that $100.00 they are going to charge $10 state tax and another $20 going to the Fed.

Now your pack of dope is going to cost you $130.00....Is everyone ok with that?

But why would pot be more expensive to grow than tobacco?

Do you think pot would go for the same amount as tobacco?

keeponrockin

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

So lets say the state of Illinois legalizes dope....The state of Illinois decides THEY will harvest their own crops, and distribute marijuana the same wasy cigarettes are distributed.

A pack of cigarettes is costing about $10 these days here...right?

Lets say the State decides a pack of good sensi bud, rolled into 20 cigarettes, will cost $100.00 a pack. $5 a joint sounds about right? And on top of that $100.00 they are going to charge $10 state tax and another $20 going to the Fed.

Now your pack of dope is going to cost you $130.00....Is everyone ok with that?

But why would pot be more expensive to grow than tobacco?

Do you think pot would go for the same amount as tobacco?

I think it'd be more, but not THAT much more.

Drowned Out

It seems so many people have this distorted perspective regarding the number of impaired drivers on the road, and just how impaired it makes you. The people that get right fucked are the ones that rarely smoke. If someone is really inexperienced, and gets really f’d up from it…do you think they’re likely to drive high unless they have a total disregard for public safety? …the people that don’t get that fucked up from it, and have a lot of experience, either already have a position/habit regarding driving high….why would that position/habit change with legalization, if impaired driving laws didn’t change? Same goes for working impaired….

Combine that with the fact that legalization tends to result in long term DECREASES in the number of users, and you are not likely to see more people driving or working impaired, in fact the numbers may go down.

The second part to the driving argument, and I’ve stated this here a number of times, is that impairment levels and reaction times are generally better than someone who blows a .08% BAC…so unless you support zero tolerance for drinking and driving, this argument is moot. As stated, there is no practical test for MJ use…. but do we want one that only tells you how recently someone smoked, if their impairment level is within the already established legal tolerance? Wouldn’t this still lead to unjust prosecutions? Why not use roadside motor-skill testing instead? Or better yet, develop a test that is based soley on impairment, regardless of the drug? You can’t tell me we don’t have the technology available to figure this out if we wanted to.
But really…..there is no test for pain or anxiety pills, or other over the counter psychotropic’s….nor tests for awareness/sleepiness. So why are so many people worried about pot???? Because of the propaganda campaign against it, plain and simple. And people call smokers paranoid :roll:

Now, the taxation issue….If a concession to legalization is to allow taxation of commercially grown pot, I would accept that, based on eyed’s argument – we need to stop destroying lives over this asap….BUT…I would only be willing to make that concession if growing was either completely deregulated, or very loosely regulated in a way that would not allow search/seizure of private property. With strict regulation, the government would likely try to bring the hammer down on private growers in order to force people to ‘voluntarily’ pay their ‘luxury’ tax…..which means even stiffer penalties than we have currently, for anything but possession. if there are still huge penalties for home-growing, quantity-based charges, distribution-based charges, etc., in an effort to protect their tax base, then we’d still be fighting a war against a plant.

VINNY GOOMBA

Drowned Out wrote:

It seems so many people have this distorted perspective regarding the number of impaired drivers on the road, and just how impaired it makes you. The people that get right fucked are the ones that rarely smoke. If someone is really inexperienced, and gets really f’d up from it…do you think they’re likely to drive high unless they have a total disregard for public safety? …the people that don’t get that fucked up from it, and have a lot of experience, either already have a position/habit regarding driving high….why would that position/habit change with legalization, if impaired driving laws didn’t change? Same goes for working impaired….

Combine that with the fact that legalization tends to result in long term DECREAESES in the number of users, and you are not likely to see more people driving or working impaired, in fact the numbers may go down.

The second part to the driving argument, and I’ve stated this here a number of times, is that impairment levels and reaction times are generally better than someone who blows a .08% BAC…so unless you support zero tolerance for drinking and driving, this argument is moot. As stated, there is no practical test for MJ use…. but do we want one that only tells you how recently someone smoked, if their impairment level is within the already established legal tolerance? Wouldn’t this still lead to unjust prosecutions? Why not use roadside motor-skill testing instead? Or better yet, develop a test that is based soley on impairment, regardless of the drug? You can’t tell me we don’t have the technology available to figure this out if we wanted to.
But really…..there is no test for pain or anxiety pills, or other over the counter psychotropic’s….nor tests for awareness/sleepiness. So why are so many people worried about pot???? Because of the propaganda campaign against it, plain and simple. And people call smokers paranoid :roll:

Now, the taxation issue….If a concession to legalization is to allow taxation of commercially grown pot, I would accept that, based on eyed’s argument – we need to stop destroying lives over this asap….BUT…I would only be willing to make that concession if growing was either completely deregulated, or very loosely regulated in a way that would not allow search/seizure of private property. With strict regulation, the government would likely try to bring the hammer down on private growers in order to force people to ‘voluntarily’ pay their ‘luxury’ tax…..which means even stiffer penalties than we have currently, for anything but possession. if there are still huge penalties for home-growing, quantity-based charges, distribution-based charges, etc., in an effort to protect their tax base, then we’d still be fighting a war against a plant.

BEST POST EVER.

Drowned Out

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

BEST POST EVER.

Thanks bud, you've made a lot of good points too ...but it's pretty much all common sense...I think a lot of people don't even realize how influenced they've been by an egg in a frying pan on tv....

Flagg

Double post.