Orton's Arm Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Umm alcohol and cigarette's are "recreational narcotics" now? Thats news to me. Shouldn't you be making a post about how JP failed a spelling test in 4th grade or something? 607332[/snapback] By "recreational" I mean that people use these substances because of how they make people feel, and not to cure any given illness. By "narcotic" I mean any potentially addictive substance that influences a person's brain. I'm not trying to say that everyone who drinks a can of beer is on his way to becoming an alcoholic, or producing some other socially unacceptable outcome. What I am saying is that a certain (small) percentage of people who drink alcohol will drive drunk, or become alcoholics, or drink while pregnant, or engage in other socially unacceptable behavior. Also, many non-smokers (such as many children of smokers) get exposed to a great deal of secondhand cigarette smoke. If we legalize marijuana, we should expect the same problems with it we've had with legal recreational substances: impaired driving, use while pregnant, smoking it around kids or other non-users, etc. I don't see where there'd be huge benefits to offset these costs.
cantankerous Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Stop being so cantankerous! Regarding your post don't you mean some of you anal people need to light up. 607099[/snapback] LOL, you're right!
Fan in Chicago Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 What I am saying is that a certain (small) percentage of people who drink alcohol will drive drunk, or become alcoholics, or drink while pregnant, or engage in other socially unacceptable behavior. Also, many non-smokers (such as many children of smokers) get exposed to a great deal of secondhand cigarette smoke. If we legalize marijuana, we should expect the same problems with it we've had with legal recreational substances: impaired driving, use while pregnant, smoking it around kids or other non-users, etc. I don't see where there'd be huge benefits to offset these costs. 607396[/snapback] As this thread seems to have been hijacked anyway, I will feed it further. I think marijuana, or heck drugs even, should be legalized. While I agree with your last sentence, I don't see why the government should spend so many $$ in controlling drugs. Looking at it from an economics stand-point, legalizing it will drop prices, go a long way in destroying drug cartels, reduce crime and save a bunch of law enforcement money/effort. Will this cause social problems ? Possibly for a while they will increase till they stabilize in time. Society has programs to discourage use of alcohol and drugs which can continue anyway. Also, organizations, such as the NFL, can continue to enact and enforce rules against personnel that consume these substances. It is not much different, philosophically, than showing up for work drunk. I think the illegal status of drugs is a political issue which no one dare go against. Back to the current RW issue - he should be suspended for life from the NFL. He is a repeat offender and should be treated according to the rules. Sc*mbag !
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 By "recreational" I mean that people use these substances because of how they make people feel, and not to cure any given illness. By "narcotic" I mean any potentially addictive substance that influences a person's brain. I'm not trying to say that everyone who drinks a can of beer is on his way to becoming an alcoholic, or producing some other socially unacceptable outcome. What I am saying is that a certain (small) percentage of people who drink alcohol will drive drunk, or become alcoholics, or drink while pregnant, or engage in other socially unacceptable behavior. Also, many non-smokers (such as many children of smokers) get exposed to a great deal of secondhand cigarette smoke. If we legalize marijuana, we should expect the same problems with it we've had with legal recreational substances: impaired driving, use while pregnant, smoking it around kids or other non-users, etc. I don't see where there'd be huge benefits to offset these costs. 607396[/snapback] Not to take this into full OT or PPP mode, if it isn't there already, but... Don't people do these things already? If marijuana was legal and regulated (and taxed), there might be LESS problems of people involved with shady dealings, drug murders, less likelihood of laced weed that could be far worse than the regular stuff. We're losing the drug war. If we could waste less resources and government money fighting pot (and instead MAKE money off of it), the really hard stuff could be more aggressively prosecuted, if it remained illegal. Marijuana is also not quite a habit in the way that cigarettes are, in most users are not constantly smoking the stuff (equivalent to packs a day of cigarettes). Admittedly, it is generally unfiltered, which can be more likely to lead to cancer for the habitual smoker. I know FAR less people who are seriously, seriously addicted to pot in the way many are to alcohol -- even as a proportion of users (because obviously far less people use the illegal drug here). It's also not an aggressive drug for most in the way that alcohol can be. I can't see exposure being a problem, really, for the same reasons. It's a less frequently used drug. No-smoking zones could include pot and be extended to other areas, like school zones, etc. And responsible parents shouldn't be using pot regularly any more than they should be drinking all the time (as many already do, and it's a far worse problem). Chastise Ricky Williams (rightly) for screwing up AGAIN when the rules are clearly stated and he's been given numerous second chances. But I'm not sure that you see the full picture as to how fighting this drug is actually draining our resources -- and pretty petty when one gets right down to it.
justnzane Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Not to take this into full OT or PPP mode, if it isn't there already, but... Don't people do these things already? If marijuana was legal and regulated (and taxed), there might be LESS problems of people involved with shady dealings, drug murders, less likelihood of laced weed that could be far worse than the regular stuff. We're losing the drug war. If we could waste less resources and government money fighting pot (and instead MAKE money off of it), the really hard stuff could be more aggressively prosecuted, if it remained illegal. Marijuana is also not quite a habit in the way that cigarettes are, in most users are not constantly smoking the stuff (equivalent to packs a day of cigarettes). Admittedly, it is generally unfiltered, which can be more likely to lead to cancer for the habitual smoker. I know FAR less people who are seriously, seriously addicted to pot in the way many are to alcohol -- even as a proportion of users (because obviously far less people use the illegal drug here). It's also not an aggressive drug for most in the way that alcohol can be. I can't see exposure being a problem, really, for the same reasons. It's a less frequently used drug. No-smoking zones could include pot and be extended to other areas, like school zones, etc. And responsible parents shouldn't be using pot regularly any more than they should be drinking all the time (as many already do, and it's a far worse problem). Chastise Ricky Williams (rightly) for screwing up AGAIN when the rules are clearly stated and he's been given numerous second chances. But I'm not sure that you see the full picture as to how fighting this drug is actually draining our resources -- and pretty petty when one gets right down to it. 607402[/snapback] Amen . to quote peter griffin,"that is the smartest thing that anyone has ever said about anything." I feel the same way: Legalize it, but if your bosses don't want you doing it, don't do it (or don't get caught). A hit off the pipe is not worth losing security and stability
Kelly the Dog Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 wagging the dog..... 607411[/snapback] Even though he is a moron, and a better nosepicker than gamepicker, Hank Goldberg is pretty close to all things Dolphin. Apparently, however, they don't know which substance it was that he failed the test for. It may or may not be chronic. Dolphins | Williams reportedly failed test; not missed oneMon, 20 Feb 2006 11:42:17 -0800 Updating ongoing reports, ESPN's Hank Goldberg reports sources have said Miami Dolphins RB Ricky Williams' violation of the league's substance-abuse policy was in fact a failed drug test and not a matter of a missed test.
Keuka Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Lighten Up Folks. It's not like he shot his hunting partner. I don't feel bad for Ricky. he will be fine.
Fan in Chicago Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Lighten Up Folks. It's not like he shot his hunting partner. I don't feel bad for Ricky. he will be fine. 607465[/snapback] Aah don't worry nobody here is feeling bad for him, just for the dolfins. oh wait .. nevermind ...
MikeSpeed Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Reasons why not to legalize any drugs.... 1. Ricky Williams. I rest my case.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Check your sarcasm monitor, Exiled... 607148[/snapback]
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 If i fail a drug test i get removed from my profession? This is exactly the attitude that lets OJ off. Follow the goddamn rules and you don't have this problem. 607245[/snapback] I don't really agree, but I see your point... Most likely you get tossed from your current employer... Doesn't always mean you can't find new employment within the same field. It is kinda funny where I work... We get towing outfits in here all the time. One time this deckhand came through and I noticed he was on a different boat with a different towing outfit... He said he failed a piss test with the previous employer and bounced to another carier just days later... The strange thing is he is back with his orignial employer. ... Not sure if there was some appeal process though? The bottom line is... It really depends on the line of work and the market.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 My employer offers me pot all the time and I turn him down.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Reasons why not to legalize any drugs....1. Ricky Williams. I rest my case. 607480[/snapback] Why? Has it affected his play? Seems the legal run around did more to affect his play than the actual weed. If the whole legal and rules spiral didn't catch up with him... I bet he remains a very productive back and doesn't miss a step at this point. After a Sunday beating and work out... Why shouldn't he be not allowed to "unwind", ease the pain, and blow some smoke? Is it any more dangerous than alcohol? Heck, the BoSox admitted to doing shots of "Jack" before the games during their WS run to "unwind"... What kinda of "image" does that portray? But, that is okay... Only because of the fact that it is legal.
Orton's Arm Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Don't people do these things already? If marijuana was legal and regulated (and taxed), there might be LESS problems of people involved with shady dealings, drug murders, less likelihood of laced weed that could be far worse than the regular stuff. We're losing the drug war. If we could waste less resources and government money fighting pot (and instead MAKE money off of it), the really hard stuff could be more aggressively prosecuted, if it remained illegal. Marijuana is also not quite a habit in the way that cigarettes are, in most users are not constantly smoking the stuff (equivalent to packs a day of cigarettes). Admittedly, it is generally unfiltered, which can be more likely to lead to cancer for the habitual smoker. I know FAR less people who are seriously, seriously addicted to pot in the way many are to alcohol -- even as a proportion of users (because obviously far less people use the illegal drug here). It's also not an aggressive drug for most in the way that alcohol can be. I can't see exposure being a problem, really, for the same reasons. It's a less frequently used drug. No-smoking zones could include pot and be extended to other areas, like school zones, etc. And responsible parents shouldn't be using pot regularly any more than they should be drinking all the time (as many already do, and it's a far worse problem). Chastise Ricky Williams (rightly) for screwing up AGAIN when the rules are clearly stated and he's been given numerous second chances. But I'm not sure that you see the full picture as to how fighting this drug is actually draining our resources -- and pretty petty when one gets right down to it. 607402[/snapback] You guys make a number of good points as to the benefits of legalization. Nonetheless, I feel the costs outweigh the benefits. Consider the tax issue. Currently, people get around paying taxes on cigarettes by buying them on Indian reservations. This loophole could be used for legalized pot. Secondly, even with taxation, legal marijuana would still be cheaper than it is now. Lower costs, greater availability, and lower social stigmas would mean higher rates of use. A certain percentage of the users would drive impaired, or expose their children to the smoke, or do other harmful things. I agree responsible parents wouldn't do this, but not all parents are responsible. While I agree marijuana is less addictive than nicotine, marijuana creates a greater disconnect with reality than does nicotine. You also have to bear in mind that if marijuana is being sold, companies would exist to sell it. These companies would run ad campaigns, lobbying efforts, etc. to try to get marijuana more broadly accepted. Would such efforts truly be helpful? Some of the benefits of legalizing pot could be had without actually legalizing it. For example, severe punishments could be instituted for lacing pot joints with harder drugs. (I know harder drugs are criminalized anyway, but you could really hammer people for lacing pot joints with them.)
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 My employer offers me pot all the time and I turn him down. 607499[/snapback] We aren't taking about a "pot to piss in" Kelly...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 We aren't taking about a "pot to piss in" Kelly... 607508[/snapback] A dog don't need no pot to piss in.
shibuya Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 I oculd care less about marijuana use, in fact its a dumb thing to test for. But he knows better and if he really wanted to stay in football he would of abstained. Still I love the fact he continues to use. Keep smokin Ricky, now if he can just stick to his guns and tell the NFL to kiss his ass and NOT try to come back I'd find it more interesetng. However there is not much pride in standing by your convictions if your gonna cave the next time you need some coin.
Recommended Posts