Legalizing Marajuana

[Mycroft]

That's the same with a majority of jobs (pee tests are practically a universal requirement). Are you trying to argue that this testing is inappropriate and needs to be stopped?

That's my opinion.

I'd support a law making drug tests for employment illegal.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Sounds nice in principle, but doesn't work in practice. Case in point. Kids huffing gold spray paint.

The problem isn't the substances themselves. It's the abuse of them. You can allow the sale of some substances and prohibit the sale of others. From a drug abuse standpoint, it doesn't matter. Some people are going to get high, and some of them will use whatever is available, lawfully obtained or not.

Prohibition of substances in demand creates black markets. Substances that can get persons high will always be in demand, to varying degrees. The black markets themselves create tremendous problems, and to me, those problems, as viewed in terms of overall social cost to society, far outweigh the problem of persons getting high.

Continuing to prohibit the sale of substances that get one high perpetuates a black market in the trafficking and sale of those substances.

AS

As usual, VERY well said.

 

[AmateurScientist]

As usual, VERY well said.

Thank you very much.

AS

 

[webfusion]

Posting the link is great. Suggesting that I have short term memory loss, attention span deficit, and lack of recall abilities is uncalled for. You think I don't realize that there has probably already been a thread about it? There has probably already been a thread for just about everything. Does that mean that every single member took place in the discussions in previous thread? NOPE. Is it now a requirement that if a thread about a certain subject already existed months ago that you are not allowed to post the topic? NOPE. If its too repetitive for you, then by all means DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD.

Get rid of your attitude, dude. Maybe you should imbibe 420, if that's what it takes to chill!

My comments were meant as a joke, so lighten up, sparky.
Today is March 6. The previous thread was started on Jan 29 and the last post was Feb 12th --- so that's not "months ago" by any calculation.

Since you're a newbie, and certainly cannot possibly know what has and has not been discused previously here on JREF, I think you might have some use from the following link -- http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/search.php

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to scurry off and start a new thread about Israel and the Palestinians...

 

[Belz...]

The problem isn't the substances themselves. It's the abuse of them. You can allow the sale of some substances and prohibit the sale of others. From a drug abuse standpoint, it doesn't matter. Some people are going to get high, and some of them will use whatever is available, lawfully obtained or not.

Not to sound overly cynical, but people do commit murder even if it's illegal. Should we drop those laws, too ? How is this different (especially considering the stuff people can do when on drugs) ?

 

[Mycroft]

I am merely speculating and that is all opinion, but can anyone offer me a more rational suggestion? It would also be great if we could tax marijuana and sell it legally.

I came to the opinion that MJ should be legalized years ago while watching one of those real-life cops shows on television. It was in some state with a zero tollerance policy, and this one guy was pulled over in front of his own house for some minor traffic thing, and because he had a joint in the ashtray and a little pot in a baggie (he wasn't smoking it, wasn't driving stoned) he got arrested, his vehicle confiscated, all while his wife watched while holding on to their diapered kid. At the end of the show, it reported he went to jail for three months.

After the show all I could think of was:

1) How devastating losing a vehicle is to a working class family.

2) How few employers will hold a job open for three months while a person is in jail.

3) How hard it would be to keep the mortgage up to date for three months and the subsequent job search.

I suppose hypothetically society would be better if nobody smoked pot (but even that is arguable) but I see no benefit at all in treating people like criminals for it.

 

[webfusion]

Weird, I hear that a lot, but I've never been piss-tested when applying for a job. In fact, I've never been piss-tested period.

In any event, I think from purely a practical perspective piss-testing makes sense for certain jobs (pilot, truck driver, cop, etc) but is pretty pointless for stuff like Wal-Mart greeters, computer programmers, accountants, and congressmen.

The mention of WalMart pre-employment testing was made by Mephisto, in relation specifically to the WalMart shelf-stocking job. Those guys have to handle forklifts, maneuver hydraulic hand-trucks loaded with heavy pallets of merchandise, and climb high industrial ladders. Not tasks you would want someone who is rip-stoned to be doing.

The greeters, on the other hand, would be better at 420.

OK, Mycroft, what's up with Rudy?
He's Mr. Law & Order, personified.
His record as the DA (and later, as Mayor) in NYC stands as a milestone in the War on Drugs.
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/

 

[gnome]

Sounds nice in principle, but doesn't work in practice. Case in point. Kids huffing gold spray paint.

Where does my idea break down here... gold spray paint isn't sold for human consumption. If some idiot huffs it, that's their own problem and I don't see where the law comes into it.

The problem isn't the substances themselves. It's the abuse of them. You can allow the sale of some substances and prohibit the sale of others. From a drug abuse standpoint, it doesn't matter. Some people are going to get high, and some of them will use whatever is available, lawfully obtained or not.

Prohibition of substances in demand creates black markets. Substances that can get persons high will always be in demand, to varying degrees. The black markets themselves create tremendous problems, and to me, those problems, as viewed in terms of overall social cost to society, far outweigh the problem of persons getting high.

Continuing to prohibit the sale of substances that get one high perpetuates a black market in the trafficking and sale of those substances.

AS

And yet I cannot justify the legal sale of an inherently harmful product... shall we remove all product safety standards for other consumer goods, if the unsafe version is in demand?

 

[Luke T.]

That's the same with a majority of jobs (pee tests are practically a universal requirement).

I've held a variety of jobs since retiring from the military, including working in a semiconductor manufacturing cleanroom working on some of the most complex machines ever devised by man, and never once been piss tested.

 

[Luke T.]

I started my piss-testing career early when the military instituted "Operation Golden Flow." They were checking troops returning from Vietnam for drugs and I thought it was particularly noteworthy that most drugs they were looking for (heroin in particular) were out of the body within a relatively short time, whereas marijuana (being fat soluble) takes quite a bit more time to eradicate.

It seemed somehow ironic that the marijuana users were targeted early, when the heroin and coke users simply laid off for an average of three to four days before they were able to start up again. The tests were supposed to be random, but nearly everyone had a friend (usually a medic) "in the know" regarding when tests would be held for a particular unit.

That all changed a long time ago, Mephisto. There's no heads-up any more.

Starting in 1981, the Navy began really cracking down on drugs, and I have to admit, it made one hell of a difference.

For a while, we got piss tested every payday. When you gave them your bottle of pee, they handed you your paycheck.

For E-7 and above, it was "zero tolerance". One positive return, and they were discharged. E-6 and below were given two chances.

Then they moved the line down to E-6 and above.

And so on for a couple years until it was zero tolerance for everyone.

The urinalysis program is managed by the Chief Master-At-Arms, and he generates a random list of command personnel every week. As soon as the list prints out, he starts making calls.

Zero notice.

And the reliablity of the urinalysis now is such that if a person tests positive for a drug, there is as near a certainty as one can get that they did that particular drug.

 

[Admiral]

That's my opinion.

I'd support a law making drug tests for employment illegal.

I actually wouldn't (even though I'm greatly in favor of both drug legalization and every privacy issue you can name). I'll tell you why- I don't think the government should be allowed to force anyone to give a job to anyone. If I'm an employer, I should be allowed to give out jobs as I see fit- including testing potential employees for drugs. (If the people don't want to be tested, they don't have to be, but they won't get the job.)

I don't support any government agency doing this, nor would I allow any such test to be used as evidence in court. However, private firms should be allowed to hire however they want- they shouldn't be forced to give a job to anyone.

This logic does lead to even more controversial positions- for example, it suggests that racial or sexual discrimination should be legal for employers. I personally think that while racial or sexual discrimination is despicable, it should be legal- I don't support government forcing any company to give anyone a job, no matter how positive the reason is. If a company wants to hire only white employees or only black employees, they should be allowed to do so (Incidentally, I personally would never do business with such a company, and I would support boycotting their products, but not sending them to jail or using the government to shut down their business).

If you think that making discrimination legal would lead to social problems, with companies hiring only based on race and minorities losing out, consider this: any time a company hires a less qualified person over a more qualified minority, they're financially punished. If a restaraunt doesn't allow black customers in, they'll be losing business compared to restaurants that do. In short, the desire of people to make money will lead them to hire the most qualified people, and be as inclusive as possible, without the government ever getting involved. (And if they remain racist? Well, that's none of the government's business- they should be allowed to do what they want with the property).

 

[gnome]

I actually wouldn't (even though I'm greatly in favor of both drug legalization and every privacy issue you can name). I'll tell you why- I don't think the government should be allowed to force anyone to give a job to anyone. If I'm an employer, I should be allowed to give out jobs as I see fit- including testing potential employees for drugs. (If the people don't want to be tested, they don't have to be, but they won't get the job.)

I don't support any government agency doing this, nor would I allow any such test to be used as evidence in court. However, private firms should be allowed to hire however they want- they shouldn't be forced to give a job to anyone.

This logic does lead to even more controversial positions- for example, it suggests that racial or sexual discrimination should be legal for employers. I personally think that while racial or sexual discrimination is despicable, it should be legal- I don't support government forcing any company to give anyone a job, no matter how positive the reason is. If a company wants to hire only white employees or only black employees, they should be allowed to do so (Incidentally, I personally would never do business with such a company, and I would support boycotting their products, but not sending them to jail or using the government to shut down their business).

If you think that making discrimination legal would lead to social problems, with companies hiring only based on race and minorities losing out, consider this: any time a company hires a less qualified person over a more qualified minority, they're financially punished. If a restaraunt doesn't allow black customers in, they'll be losing business compared to restaurants that do. In short, the desire of people to make money will lead them to hire the most qualified people, and be as inclusive as possible, without the government ever getting involved. (And if they remain racist? Well, that's none of the government's business- they should be allowed to do what they want with the property).

Would you support a law that legalized discrimination by business owners, but only if they forego all government contracts / tax breaks / subsidies? And, for example, the right to incorporate... which is a government-granted benefit? That's the only way it can truly not be the government's business how they hire.

 

[Mycroft]

The mention of WalMart pre-employment testing was made by Mephisto, in relation specifically to the WalMart shelf-stocking job. Those guys have to handle forklifts, maneuver hydraulic hand-trucks loaded with heavy pallets of merchandise, and climb high industrial ladders. Not tasks you would want someone who is rip-stoned to be doing.

The greeters, on the other hand, would be better at 420.

Here is the problem:

Drug tests have an error rate of about 10% That means if you don't do drugs, you still have about a 10% chance of comming up dirty.

People that actually do drugs know how to beat the tests. It's not that hard.

Even assuming a drug tests does exactly what it's supposed to do, a "positive" only means you've been stoned in the past 30 days. It doesn't mean you're stoned at work while driving a forklife. Personally I'm okay if the forklift driver wants to get stoned on his day off, doesn't bother me a bit.

OK, Mycroft, what's up with Rudy?
He's Mr. Law & Order, personified.
His record as the DA (and later, as Mayor) in NYC stands as a milestone in the War on Drugs.
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/

I like Rudy. If he runs it my be the first time ever I vote Republican for President.

 

[webfusion]

I've held a variety of jobs since retiring from the military, including working in a semiconductor manufacturing cleanroom working on some of the most complex machines ever devised by man, and never once been piss tested.

Neither I nor any of my friends has ever applied for a job where the tests were not required. You've been lucky.

My claim of there being "universally" a testing requirement is something that I cannot back up with hard data, although I have read somewhere that most Fortune 500 companies go this route. In any case, the whole rationale behind the drug-tests is in regards to the billions of $$$ in workplace-injury compansation annually, and many companies have decided to make an overall effort to try and cut those costs by reducing on-the-job intoxication.
The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that drug use in the workplace costs employers $75 billion to $100 billion annually in lost time, accidents, health care and workers' compensation costs. Sixty-five percent of all accidents on the job are related to drugs or alcohol.


I would suspect that if marijuana was legalized (and don't hold your breath for that to happen) this drug-testing would become even more widespread than it already is.

 

[Mycroft]

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that drug use in the workplace costs employers $75 billion to $100 billion annually in lost time, accidents, health care and workers' compensation costs. Sixty-five percent of all accidents on the job are related to drugs or alcohol.

I am skeptical of these statistics.

 

[webfusion]

Mycroft --- I hate it when you do that! Now I'll have to actually go look for the data. Darn you. BRB.

 

[webfusion]

Well, my initial search turned up this --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet-related_injury

On-the-job injuries, indeed!



Here is the D.O.L. website, but I'm too stoned lethargic to dig deeper.
http://www.bls.gov/iif/#tables
and
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcdnew.htm --- from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[AmateurScientist]

Not to sound overly cynical, but people do commit murder even if it's illegal. Should we drop those laws, too ? How is this different (especially considering the stuff people can do when on drugs) ?

That doesn't follow from my point. The issue with respect to Prohibition of substances that get people high, including alcohol, is that if there is a substantial demand for getting high, resourceful people will find some means of doing it. The substance itself is actually irrelevant. When you prohibit a substance that is in demand because it gets persons high (not an act, but a substance), you create a black market for that substance. The black market and all the crime that accompanies it in the form of turf protection, bribes, murders, theft, robbery, etc., is the much greater evil than the abuse of the substance itself.

Where is the black market for murder? Sure, there is such a thing as murder for hire, but in the universe of all murders in a given year, murder for hire is a very small subset. The analogy to prohibition of substances that get you high is inapt and ill-fitting. You are correct, of course, that prohibiting murder doesn't prevent murders from occurring, but again, that misses the point about black markets and why they themselves are a huge problem. The ancillary crime they bring with them, particularly in the case of alcohol (from 1920s era Prohibition) and drugs (1980s to present, in particular for the worst of it), are much greater social problems than drug abuse and/or dependence.

In short, I think you mistake my arguing for decriminalization of substances to be akin to advocating anarchy and lawlessness. I'm not for doing away with criminal law. I'm for removing possession and sale of substances that persons use to get high from the criminal law.

AS

 

[Admiral]

Would you support a law that legalized discrimination by business owners, but only if they forego all government contracts / tax breaks / subsidies?

I'll do you one better- let's get rid of ALL government contracts/taxes/subsidies!

Obviously it's impossible to get rid of them all, even I don't support that. After all, the sections of government that I do agree we need (police, military, judicial system, and the like) need to buy services from companies. However, the vast, vast, VAST majority of private industry shouldn't get any help from the goverment at all. (I find it funny that many liberals accuse libertarians of being pro-corporation and many conservatives accuse us of being anti-corporation at the same time. After all, we don't support hurting corporations OR helping them).

As for tax breaks- I don't support most of the tax breaks in the system, but I also would like to lower taxes dramatically. However, tax breaks don't "help" a corporation so much as "hurt them less." Obviously it's the same effect, but the definition in this case is important- would you argue that by giving a company tax breaks, you are giving them money, and therefore should be able to control what they do? Sounds strange to me. I'd support a much, much more flat tax system where those breaks aren't a concern.

Government contracts is the only thing that convinces me, since I think it's wrong that tax money should go to racist or sexist causes- which is why I want to get rid of all the government contracts that we can! The more you privatize, the less taxpayer money is forced into the hands of people the taxpayers don't want it to go to.

By the way, this is an interesting example of a point I like to make- statist policies justify other statist policies. In this case, higher taxes give the government a stake in many companies, which means the government gets to restrict their freedom in hiring. Other examples of statist policies leading to other statist policies:

-Government-provided health care justifies helmet laws- since when someone gets in an accident, tax dollars go towards their recovery, the government gets to regulate their safety.
-Unemployment insurance justifies drug criminalization- I've heard people argue that since drug users are less productive, they get to take taxpayer money- meaning society has to force them to be productive by making drugs illegal. That's like saying, "We're going to help you be productive. Oh, but since we're helping you, you have to do whatever we say"- it's a totalitarian position.
-Drug criminalization leads to expanded police power- police are granted far more priviledge in searching people, huge amounts of tax money goes towards undercover operations and police raids on drug deals...
-The legalization of corporate welfare leads to campaign finance laws- if politicians didn't have the ability to pass pork (give money and benefits to corporations), there wouldn't BE bribery or corruption in government. The answer statists come up with is to pass complex ethics laws about how money is allowed to flow in campaigns, and when organizations are allowed to show political ads (laws that say "During a certain portion of an election year, you are not allowed to criticize a candidate running for office." Isn't that almost scary?)

These are only a very few examples. The point I'm making with them is that if you support limiting government in the economic sphere, you can't do that without supporting limitied government in the social sphere. A few statist policies expand outwards to support a much more intrusive government.

in this case, the fiscally liberal position (supporting government contracts and subsidies) has a consequence of limiting freedom in other areas (justifying making discrimination illegal). Just a little force has far reaching consequences.

And, for example, the right to incorporate... which is a government-granted benefit?

I honestly don't know what you mean by the right to incorporate. Could you explain? (And is it literally a service granted by the government, or is it just something that the government can choose not to prevent you from doing? If it's the latter, then your argument is silly- that's like saying that your life is granted to you by the government because the government chooses not to kill you.)

 

[AmateurScientist]

Where does my idea break down here... gold spray paint isn't sold for human consumption. If some idiot huffs it, that's their own problem and I don't see where the law comes into it.

Perhaps you weren't around in the early 1990s when there was a big gold paint huffing craze among certain teenagers. As a response to a large number of such cases landing in juvenile court, and to pressure from parents, gold paint was removed from the shelves of most stores and unavailable for purchase without ID (and possibly other conditions). I don't recall whether states passed laws regarding it.

Anyway, my point was not about gold paint itself or its intended use. My point was that certain persons enjoy getting high, and some of those persons are so devoted to getting high that they will use whatever substances they can get their hands on. You can prohibit substances to your heart's content, but the fact still remains that some of those determined persons will find something available, through legal means or not, that will get them high.

Prohibiting substances does nothing to prevent that. As an approach to solving a problem, it is woefully ineffective, and may be counterproductive.

And yet I cannot justify the legal sale of an inherently harmful product... shall we remove all product safety standards for other consumer goods, if the unsafe version is in demand?

It's not a matter of safety when it comes to Prohibition. It's a matter of supply and demand. You make the supply illegal, and you drive it underground. It will still be there if there is a demand. We know there is a demand, like it or not. It's a fact of life that certain persons will abuse substances in order to get high. Under Prohibition, that underground supply is a black market. With black markets come crime, not just the possession and sale themselves, but ancillary crime which involves theft, robbery, and violence.

Given the choice between the ancillary crime and lawful drug sales and possession, I'd choose the drug sales and possession any day of the week.

Spend a few years as a police officer in a city or prosecuting or defending persons in criminal courts involving felony offenses. Then come back and tell me the drug use itself is worse than the crime which is ancillary to Prohibition.

AS