who would carry these drugs you ask? if no one in Minneapolis were to open an opium den if it were legal you could count me as the first...any time there is a market for a product there are going to be those who want to sell it. until someone harms you or others, it isn't your business what they do...
Restaurants may be getting sued, but who is getting money for that? which jury found those restaurants guilty? I don't know as I have never heard of one.
So you open up an opium den, what do you do the first time someone dies in your establishment from a product that you sold him and their family sues you? And as far as the resturant example goes, even if the people who sue them don't win it still costs the restaurant money to respond to a lawsuit. For that matter if you are selling a product that could kill people with one does, how would you even get insurance for your business. I can't see any way you would. So not only would get sued and possibly be on the hook if someone OD's in your place, you would also possibly be on the hook if someone slipped on the floor and broke their leg. Honestly I don't really have a problem if drugs were to be legalized, I just think a lot of the times when people talk about legalization, they don't seem to think of all the side issues that will come from selliong extremly dangerous and addictive products.
disclaimers. they are great...I would also reserve the right to manage the amount of opium a person can get at my store...a lot like the fact you can only give plasma twice a week...somehow they even know if you don't go to their particular place. you see people are responsible for their own choices...if there is a warning in the office and a policy that I control about the amount a person can buy in a week, bases can and will be covered...we can do what ifs all day long, but ultimately people are responsible for their choices...if it is found to be my fault that a person died than I would be responsible for the death...a risk I am willing to take.
I would buy insurance from an insurance carrier, and probably pay handsomely for it. but you see as there is a need for a product the market usually provides a solution...if people can get insured for having people jump off bridges or out of planes, I am sure I could find opium den insurance for a reasonable price
I think that people who want to keep them illegal completely ignore all the available information from countries who have decriminalized it...so if there is some unforeseen circumstance that would cause a problem the problem would be solved...but the BENEFITS from decriminalizing possession and possible the legalization of production and sale, would VASTLY outweigh the current benefits from keeping them illegal...because criminal organizations and government profiteers are currently the only ones benefiting from illegal drugs...not the public.
but I don't think I am saying anything people haven't heard, I just get disappointed that they don't listen to it...pretty strange for a complete non-drug user to try to champion drug legalization, but that is something that gets me going for some reason.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Can those who oppose marijuana legalization answer this one simple question:
Can you explain to me why alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't?
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Can those who oppose marijuana legalization answer this one simple question:
Can you explain to me why alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't?
the Irish lobby?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Can those who oppose marijuana legalization answer this one simple question:
Can you explain to me why alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't?
Great question, and I believe alcohol to be truly much more dangerous than weed ever could be.
How many people have you heard of that have smoked too much pot and overdosed and died? What about someone that passed out and choked on their vomit? Nope.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Can those who oppose marijuana legalization answer this one simple question:
Can you explain to me why alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't?
Great question, and I believe alcohol to be truly much more dangerous than weed ever could be.
How many people have you heard of that have smoked too much pot and overdosed and died? What about someone that passed out and choked on their vomit? Nope.
hooooo trust me..perminit damage from weed is very possible, I don't care whats more dangerous or what get's leaglized just saying I know at least 3 people that have turned their brains to mush just smoking weed.
Great question, and I believe alcohol to be truly much more dangerous than weed ever could be.
How many people have you heard of that have smoked too much pot and overdosed and died? What about someone that passed out and choked on their vomit? Nope.[/quote]
hooooo trust me..perminit damage from weed is very possible, I don't care whats more dangerous or what get's leaglized just saying I know at least 3 people that have turned their brains to mush just smoking weed.
Godfather.[/quote]
Agreed, and I'm not saying it's safe, it's just hypocritical to me that weeds not legal but booze is. How many people do you know that have drank themselves to death? This doesn't include the guys that get in fights when drunk, get angry and behave badly. If someone's stoned, the worst they're gonna do is take your doritos.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Why Florida's New Gov Fought to Save the State's Poison "Pill Mills"
What drove Florida's freshman Governor to kill a wildly popular bill that promised to shut down dozens of America's most dangerous "pill mills?" His $62 million interest in a chain of local clinics might have something to do with it.
What makes Ricky run? Is it money ... After all, what else would drive the leader of the country’s most drug-damaged state to veto an overwhelmingly popular measure aimed at cutting down its out-of-control traffic in illicit oxycodone and other legal narcotics? "When it doesn't make sense, just follow the money," goes the old adage. …
Scott, who has built up a nearly $219 million fortune, made most of his money in 2002, after founding a chain of walk-in clinics in Florida called Solantic. Scott holds stock in Solantic Corporation valued at $62,034,298, according to the financial disclosure form he filed with the state on June 18, 2010. The Solantic stock is the largest single holding in his overall net worth.” Since he ran for public office, the stock is now technically owned by his wife, which in Republican circles passes for divestiture.
Florida prescribes more prescription pills than all other states combined, the idea of implementing an effective database already in use by almost 40 states drew near-unanimous support from law enforcement officials, physicians and the vast majority of the state’s residents. In a particularly partisan state, the measure also enjoyed rare backing from legislators on both sides of the aisle, which made Scott's last-minute move to kill the bill particularly shocking. ...
Florida’s storefront pain clinics, which are still handing out Vicodins like Tic-Tacs, and overdosing customers at the rate of seven fatalities per day—more than heroin, crystal meth and cocaine combined.
… Next to Disneyworld and South Beach, Florida's pain management clinics rank among the state's top tourist attractions, attracting up to a million pill-seeking visitors a year. …
Solantic, which has 32 clinics scattered across the state, is Dubbed the “Starbucks of Health Care”...
Scott's Solantic happens to sell drug-testing kits for both the home and office.
[
[excerpts cause of length] Here's the link to the full story http://www.thefix.com/content/what-it-f ... rick-scott
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
By Jenee Desmond-Harris, The Root.com - Thanks to Florida Gov. Rick Scott's insistence that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population, the state's Legislature implemented a policy earlier this year requiring all applicants for temporary cash assistance to pass a drug test before getting any help.
The results: Ninety-eight percent passed. And the process will cost the state $178 million.
The Tampa Tribune reports that the Department of Children and Families says about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test and another 2 percent are not completing the application process for unspecified reasons.
Here's the Tribune's assessment of how much the state will pay:
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
The results: Ninety-eight percent passed. And the process will cost the state $178 million.
I would also be curious to know how accurate the test is? It is obviously not 100% accurate so how many times to false-positives show up saying someone is on drugs when they aren't? So if you are doing 1000-1500 a month, how many are just wrong?
The results: Ninety-eight percent passed. And the process will cost the state $178 million.
I would also be curious to know how accurate the test is? It is obviously not 100% accurate so how many times to false-positives show up saying someone is on drugs when they aren't? So if you are doing 1000-1500 a month, how many are just wrong?
By Jenee Desmond-Harris, The Root.com - Thanks to Florida Gov. Rick Scott's insistence that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population, the state's Legislature implemented a policy earlier this year requiring all applicants for temporary cash assistance to pass a drug test before getting any help.
The results: Ninety-eight percent passed. And the process will cost the state $178 million.
The Tampa Tribune reports that the Department of Children and Families says about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test and another 2 percent are not completing the application process for unspecified reasons.
Here's the Tribune's assessment of how much the state will pay:
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
Damn facts trying to deny people their prejudices!
By Jenee Desmond-Harris, The Root.com - Thanks to Florida Gov. Rick Scott's insistence that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population, the state's Legislature implemented a policy earlier this year requiring all applicants for temporary cash assistance to pass a drug test before getting any help.
The results: Ninety-eight percent passed. And the process will cost the state $178 million.
The Tampa Tribune reports that the Department of Children and Families says about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test and another 2 percent are not completing the application process for unspecified reasons.
Here's the Tribune's assessment of how much the state will pay:
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
Damn facts trying to deny people their prejudices!
well let's be fair, if you know you are going to be piss tested then why on earth would you show up with drugs in your urine. Especially scheduled urine tests.
178 million. Can anyone point to how that number that was casually thrown in was calculated?
All in all it would save more tax payer money by simply decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The results: Ninety-eight percent passed. And the process will cost the state $178 million.
I would also be curious to know how accurate the test is? It is obviously not 100% accurate so how many times to false-positives show up saying someone is on drugs when they aren't? So if you are doing 1000-1500 a month, how many are just wrong?
Does it matter?
Of course it does. Just for example if the story says that these tests are only 2% of people are failing the drug test what if the test itself has a 2% failure rate when it comes to false-positives?
I checked the article on the Tampa Bay Tribune ... they note that the results have yet to be tabulated ... and then in the next paragraph they base their logic on "So far, they say ..."
Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.
So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.
Of course it does. Just for example if the story says that these tests are only 2% of people are failing the drug test what if the test itself has a 2% failure rate when it comes to false-positives?[/quote]
But it's still such a small %, the point i'm making is, the whole thing was/is a failure.
Of course it does. Just for example if the story says that these tests are only 2% of people are failing the drug test what if the test itself has a 2% failure rate when it comes to false-positives?
But it's still such a small %, the point i'm making is, the whole thing was/is a failure.[/quote]
Not if you're Rick Scotts wife and you own stock in the drug testing clinics.
By Jenee Desmond-Harris, The Root.com - Thanks to Florida Gov. Rick Scott's insistence that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population, the state's Legislature implemented a policy earlier this year requiring all applicants for temporary cash assistance to pass a drug test before getting any help.
The results: Ninety-eight percent passed. And the process will cost the state $178 million.
The Tampa Tribune reports that the Department of Children and Families says about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test and another 2 percent are not completing the application process for unspecified reasons.
Here's the Tribune's assessment of how much the state will pay:
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
Damn facts trying to deny people their prejudices!
well let's be fair, if you know you are going to be piss tested then why on earth would you show up with drugs in your urine. Especially scheduled urine tests.
178 million. Can anyone point to how that number that was casually thrown in was calculated?
All in all it would save more tax payer money by simply decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana.
Well, that's the whole problem with this type of policy in the first place. To truly weed out drub abusers from the welfare system, you'd have to have random testing, and repeat testing. At that point then, you are spending so much on testing, that it's not really cost effective.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Comments
disclaimers. they are great...I would also reserve the right to manage the amount of opium a person can get at my store...a lot like the fact you can only give plasma twice a week...somehow they even know if you don't go to their particular place. you see people are responsible for their own choices...if there is a warning in the office and a policy that I control about the amount a person can buy in a week, bases can and will be covered...we can do what ifs all day long, but ultimately people are responsible for their choices...if it is found to be my fault that a person died than I would be responsible for the death...a risk I am willing to take.
I would buy insurance from an insurance carrier, and probably pay handsomely for it. but you see as there is a need for a product the market usually provides a solution...if people can get insured for having people jump off bridges or out of planes, I am sure I could find opium den insurance for a reasonable price
I think that people who want to keep them illegal completely ignore all the available information from countries who have decriminalized it...so if there is some unforeseen circumstance that would cause a problem the problem would be solved...but the BENEFITS from decriminalizing possession and possible the legalization of production and sale, would VASTLY outweigh the current benefits from keeping them illegal...because criminal organizations and government profiteers are currently the only ones benefiting from illegal drugs...not the public.
but I don't think I am saying anything people haven't heard, I just get disappointed that they don't listen to it...pretty strange for a complete non-drug user to try to champion drug legalization, but that is something that gets me going for some reason.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Can you explain to me why alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't?
the Irish lobby?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Great question, and I believe alcohol to be truly much more dangerous than weed ever could be.
I couldn't resist!
hooooo trust me..perminit damage from weed is very possible, I don't care whats more dangerous or what get's leaglized just saying I know at least 3 people that have turned their brains to mush just smoking weed.
Godfather.
Always love the logic of trying to show how bad something is that is legal to get something else legalized. Shooting yourself in the foot on that one.
hooooo trust me..perminit damage from weed is very possible, I don't care whats more dangerous or what get's leaglized just saying I know at least 3 people that have turned their brains to mush just smoking weed.
Godfather.[/quote]
Agreed, and I'm not saying it's safe, it's just hypocritical to me that weeds not legal but booze is. How many people do you know that have drank themselves to death? This doesn't include the guys that get in fights when drunk, get angry and behave badly. If someone's stoned, the worst they're gonna do is take your doritos.
i would think "big pharma" will get the opportunity to control you more.
Sounds Good
What drove Florida's freshman Governor to kill a wildly popular bill that promised to shut down dozens of America's most dangerous "pill mills?" His $62 million interest in a chain of local clinics might have something to do with it.
What makes Ricky run? Is it money ... After all, what else would drive the leader of the country’s most drug-damaged state to veto an overwhelmingly popular measure aimed at cutting down its out-of-control traffic in illicit oxycodone and other legal narcotics? "When it doesn't make sense, just follow the money," goes the old adage. …
Scott, who has built up a nearly $219 million fortune, made most of his money in 2002, after founding a chain of walk-in clinics in Florida called Solantic. Scott holds stock in Solantic Corporation valued at $62,034,298, according to the financial disclosure form he filed with the state on June 18, 2010. The Solantic stock is the largest single holding in his overall net worth.” Since he ran for public office, the stock is now technically owned by his wife, which in Republican circles passes for divestiture.
Florida prescribes more prescription pills than all other states combined, the idea of implementing an effective database already in use by almost 40 states drew near-unanimous support from law enforcement officials, physicians and the vast majority of the state’s residents. In a particularly partisan state, the measure also enjoyed rare backing from legislators on both sides of the aisle, which made Scott's last-minute move to kill the bill particularly shocking. ...
Florida’s storefront pain clinics, which are still handing out Vicodins like Tic-Tacs, and overdosing customers at the rate of seven fatalities per day—more than heroin, crystal meth and cocaine combined.
… Next to Disneyworld and South Beach, Florida's pain management clinics rank among the state's top tourist attractions, attracting up to a million pill-seeking visitors a year. …
Solantic, which has 32 clinics scattered across the state, is Dubbed the “Starbucks of Health Care”...
Scott's Solantic happens to sell drug-testing kits for both the home and office.
[
[excerpts cause of length] Here's the link to the full story
http://www.thefix.com/content/what-it-f ... rick-scott
you might be suprized to find out why. do some home work and find out, it will blow you away.
it all started the first drug to be illegal..opium.
Godfather.
By Jenee Desmond-Harris, The Root.com - Thanks to Florida Gov. Rick Scott's insistence that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population, the state's Legislature implemented a policy earlier this year requiring all applicants for temporary cash assistance to pass a drug test before getting any help.
The results: Ninety-eight percent passed. And the process will cost the state $178 million.
The Tampa Tribune reports that the Department of Children and Families says about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test and another 2 percent are not completing the application process for unspecified reasons.
Here's the Tribune's assessment of how much the state will pay:
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
Does it matter?
Damn facts trying to deny people their prejudices!
well let's be fair, if you know you are going to be piss tested then why on earth would you show up with drugs in your urine. Especially scheduled urine tests.
178 million. Can anyone point to how that number that was casually thrown in was calculated?
All in all it would save more tax payer money by simply decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Of course it does. Just for example if the story says that these tests are only 2% of people are failing the drug test what if the test itself has a 2% failure rate when it comes to false-positives?
Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.
So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
Seems irresponsible to write an article with down-to-the-dollar specifics without having specific information to base it on. :think:
I would also like to know if applications increased, stayed the same, or decreased due to the testing initiative.
Of course it does. Just for example if the story says that these tests are only 2% of people are failing the drug test what if the test itself has a 2% failure rate when it comes to false-positives?[/quote]
But it's still such a small %, the point i'm making is, the whole thing was/is a failure.
But it's still such a small %, the point i'm making is, the whole thing was/is a failure.[/quote]
Not if you're Rick Scotts wife and you own stock in the drug testing clinics.
Well, that's the whole problem with this type of policy in the first place. To truly weed out drub abusers from the welfare system, you'd have to have random testing, and repeat testing. At that point then, you are spending so much on testing, that it's not really cost effective.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln