Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.

[Mikey]

Most of the stoners forget to vote anyway.

[BSmack]

Obama is playing just a shade to the left of the GOP on this. It is flawless triangulation. Where's a stoner to go?

FYI, the only way this issue gets resolved rationally is for the GOP to implode Whig style and for the Libertarians to assume their mantle.

[Mikey]

15 states have legalized medical pot, and yet the DEA is still sending jack-booted thugs to bust legitimate dispensaries.

Can you say Adolf Obama?

[Dinsdale]

The consequences of illicit drug use in America’s workforce include job-related accidents and injuries, absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity

Study after study has shown this as balderdash, but then again they're still pushing the "settled science" that is at complete odds with proven science.

But grifters are always going to grift, and the abolishion of the Tenth Amendment way back when has made it a whole bunch easier for the grifters to get their grift on, on a much larger scale.

And the war on the inanimate object is one hell of a monster grift.

[Screw_Michigan]

I don't have a problem in the world with a company saying "fuck no" to drugs and testing. THEY should be the ones who make that decision - not the fucking government's

Why do you hate the Constitution? Swallow a fucking bullet, already. Hypocrite.

[Dr_Phibes]

These programs provide employees with the opportunity to self-identify and get help. Often, such programs give employees an opportunity to return to the same job, or a similar job in the same industry, thereby creating an incentive to succeed in their recovery and resume a fulfilling career.

you're finished, morelike

[M2]

I don't have a problem in the world with a company saying "fuck no" to drugs and testing. THEY should be the ones who make that decision - not the fucking government's

Why do you hate the Constitution? Swallow a fucking bullet, already. Hypocrite.

Porky's not a smart guy.


As evidenced by his thinking that a "Grand Jury report"... was a newspaper article in a well documented thread just a few months ago.


There's a reason people live in Georgia and other southern states... they ain't too bright.



If "Porky" was ever smart enough to run a business ... he'd know that the insurance companies are the ones that ask for a drug policy before they insure a said business.


But, he's not... so it's a moot point.

[Dinsdale]

I don't have a problem in the world with a company saying "fuck no" to drugs and testing. THEY should be the ones who make that decision - not the fucking government's

Why do you hate the Constitution? Swallow a fucking bullet, already. Hypocrite.

This is about the most astonishing, jaw-dropping, spectacular example of a KYOA ever witnessed.

So, Screw... care to cite the Article or Amendment that authorizes the Fed to require all employers to drugs test?

When you get done being a stellar idiot, I'll gladly cite the part that says the Fed can't do any such thing. Actually, it's covvered by two of them, if you want to get into it.

[M2]

So, Screw... care to cite the Article or Amendment that authorizes the Fed to require all employers to drugs test?.

I think you're missing the funny... where "Porky" thinks the government may have a say in such matters.

[Dinsdale]

I think you're missing the funny... where "Porky" thinks the government may have a say in such matters.

Oh, sorry -- I was too busy focusing on the part where he quite clearly said it should be up to the company, and not the government.

But have fun rolling in bed with Screwey.

[M2]

Oh, sorry -- I was too busy focusing on the part where he quite clearly said it should be up to the company, and not the government.

Hmmm.... so you're saying he thought the government may have such pull ???


It's always been and will always be up to the company... this will never be up for debate.

[Goober McTuber]

If President Barack Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. So the president famously said.

And the president’s son would thereby find himself at significantly greater risk of running afoul of the so-called “War on Drugs” than, say, a son of George W. Bush. Depending on what state he lived in, a Trayvon Obama might be 57 times more likely than a Trayvon Bush to be imprisoned on drug charges.

This is not because he would be 57 times more likely to commit a drug crime. To the contrary, white American men commit the vast majority of the nation’s drug crimes, but African-American men do the vast majority of the nation’s drug time. It is a nakedly racial disparity that should leave the U.S. Department of “Justice” embarrassed to call itself by that name.

So it is difficult to be anything but disappointed at President Obama’s recent declaration at a summit in Colombia that “legalization is not the answer” to the international drug problem. The president argued that drug dealers might come to “dominate certain countries if they were allowed to operate legally without any constraint.” This dominance, he said, “could be just as corrupting if not more corrupting than the status quo.”

One wonders if the president forgot to engage brain before operating mouth.

Dealers might “dominate certain countries?” Has Obama never heard of Mexico, that country on our southern border where drug dealers operate as a virtual shadow government in some areas? Is he unfamiliar with Colombia, his host nation, where, for years, the government battled a drug cartel brutal and brazen enough to attack the Supreme Court and assassinate the attorney general? That scenario Obama warns against actually came to pass a long time ago.

Similarly, it is a mystery how the manufacture and sale of a legal product could be “just as corrupting if not more corrupting than the status quo.” How could that be, given that there would no longer be a need for drug merchants to bribe judges, politicians and police for protection? What reason is there to believe a legal market in drugs would be any more prone to corruption than the legal markets in cigarettes and alcohol? Or, popcorn and chocolate?

The president’s reasoning is about as sturdy as a cardboard box in a monsoon. Even he must know, who can still deny? that the drug war has failed. When it comes to quantifying that failure, several numbers are stark and edifying:

Forty-one. That’s how many years the “War” has raged.

Forty million-plus. That’s how many Americans have been arrested.

One trillion-plus. That’s the cost.

Two thousand, eight hundred. That’s the percentage by which drug use has risen.

One-point-three. That’s the percentage of Americans who were drug addicted in 1914.

One-point-three. That’s the percentage of Americans who are drug addicted now.

The numbers come from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, DEA agents and other drug warriors who are demanding an end to the drug war. Their statistics call to mind an old axiom: the definition of crazy is to continue doing the same thing but expecting a different result.

That said, it is not difficult to understand why the president, or anyone, might flinch at the notion of legalizing drugs. It is a big, revolutionary idea, an idea that would change the way things have been done since forever. If someone feels a need to pause before crossing that line, that’s understandable.

But let none of us do as the president did , hide behind a specious argument that offers no solution, no way forward and, most critically, no leadership.

Drug legalization is not the answer? OK, Mr. President, fair enough.

What is?

[smackaholic]

If President Barack Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. So the president famously said.

And the president’s son would thereby find himself at significantly greater risk of running afoul of the so-called “War on Drugs” than, say, a son of George W. Bush. Depending on what state he lived in, a Trayvon Obama might be 57 times more likely than a Trayvon Bush to be imprisoned on drug charges.

This is not because he would be 57 times more likely to commit a drug crime. To the contrary, white American men commit the vast majority of the nation’s drug crimes, but African-American men do the vast majority of the nation’s drug time. It is a nakedly racial disparity that should leave the U.S. Department of “Justice” embarrassed to call itself by that name.

So it is difficult to be anything but disappointed at President Obama’s recent declaration at a summit in Colombia that “legalization is not the answer” to the international drug problem. The president argued that drug dealers might come to “dominate certain countries if they were allowed to operate legally without any constraint.” This dominance, he said, “could be just as corrupting if not more corrupting than the status quo.”

One wonders if the president forgot to engage brain before operating mouth.

Dealers might “dominate certain countries?” Has Obama never heard of Mexico, that country on our southern border where drug dealers operate as a virtual shadow government in some areas? Is he unfamiliar with Colombia, his host nation, where, for years, the government battled a drug cartel brutal and brazen enough to attack the Supreme Court and assassinate the attorney general? That scenario Obama warns against actually came to pass a long time ago.

Similarly, it is a mystery how the manufacture and sale of a legal product could be “just as corrupting if not more corrupting than the status quo.” How could that be, given that there would no longer be a need for drug merchants to bribe judges, politicians and police for protection? What reason is there to believe a legal market in drugs would be any more prone to corruption than the legal markets in cigarettes and alcohol? Or, popcorn and chocolate?

The president’s reasoning is about as sturdy as a cardboard box in a monsoon. Even he must know, who can still deny? that the drug war has failed. When it comes to quantifying that failure, several numbers are stark and edifying:

Forty-one. That’s how many years the “War” has raged.

Forty million-plus. That’s how many Americans have been arrested.

One trillion-plus. That’s the cost.

Two thousand, eight hundred. That’s the percentage by which drug use has risen.

One-point-three. That’s the percentage of Americans who were drug addicted in 1914.

One-point-three. That’s the percentage of Americans who are drug addicted now.

The numbers come from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, DEA agents and other drug warriors who are demanding an end to the drug war. Their statistics call to mind an old axiom: the definition of crazy is to continue doing the same thing but expecting a different result.

That said, it is not difficult to understand why the president, or anyone, might flinch at the notion of legalizing drugs. It is a big, revolutionary idea, an idea that would change the way things have been done since forever. If someone feels a need to pause before crossing that line, that’s understandable.

But let none of us do as the president did , hide behind a specious argument that offers no solution, no way forward and, most critically, no leadership.

Drug legalization is not the answer? OK, Mr. President, fair enough.

What is?

Rack that dude.

Legalization, along with a healthy dose of taxation is the answer.

Did we not learn a single fukking thing from prohibition?

Of course, the illegal drug enforcement industrial complex (cops/DEA/lawyers/judges/prison guards) might have to go out and find something productive to do, so it won't pass.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

The consequences of illicit drug use in America’s workforce include job-related accidents and injuries, absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity

Study after study has shown this as balderdash, but then again they're still pushing the "settled science" that is at complete odds with proven science.

But grifters are always going to grift, and the abolishion of the Tenth Amendment way back when has made it a whole bunch easier for the grifters to get their grift on, on a much larger scale.

And the war on the inanimate object is one hell of a monster grift.

I am not scientist, but the part about drug users missing work and having lower productivity than your non drug user sorta makes sense to me. Speaking of addicts, I've never hired anyone that reeks of cigarettes during the interview process either. Ya see... people who duck out for a smoke 10 times/day tend to be less productive than someone who's actually in his seat... working.

Again.... call me crazy, but it's just this weird theory I have that isn't backed up by any dumbassed "study" you're about to link me up with.

[smackaholic]

The consequences of illicit drug use in America’s workforce include job-related accidents and injuries, absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity

Study after study has shown this as balderdash, but then again they're still pushing the "settled science" that is at complete odds with proven science.

But grifters are always going to grift, and the abolishion of the Tenth Amendment way back when has made it a whole bunch easier for the grifters to get their grift on, on a much larger scale.

And the war on the inanimate object is one hell of a monster grift.

I am not scientist, but the part about drug users missing work and having lower productivity than your non drug user sorta makes sense to me. Speaking of addicts, I've never hired anyone that reeks of cigarettes during the interview process either. Ya see... people who duck out for a smoke 10 times/day tend to be less productive than someone who's actually in his seat... working.

Again.... call me crazy, but it's just this weird theory I have that isn't backed up by any dumbassed "study" you're about to link me up with.

Yeah, but that nicotine buzz makes them work extra hard during those 20 minute spells of productivity between smoke breaks.

[Screw_Michigan]

illegal drug enforcement industrial complex (cops/DEA/lawyers/judges/prison guards) might have to go out and find something productive to do, so it won't pass.

You forgot to mention the alcohol lobby, the (second) biggest impediment to sensible drug policy.

EDIT: and the restaurant lobby.

[smackaholic]

illegal drug enforcement industrial complex (cops/DEA/lawyers/judges/prison guards) might have to go out and find something productive to do, so it won't pass.

You forgot to mention the alcohol lobby, the (second) biggest impediment to sensible drug policy.

Yeah, there's that too.

[Dinsdale]

Legalization, along with a healthy dose of taxation is the answer.

Uhhhh... no.

Legalization, yes.

Taxation... gets into the realm of "fucking stupid."

At present, drugs are sold exclusively on the black market. Anything but the slightestamount of taxation will, 100% guaranteed, crack-a-book-sometime-assuredly will also create a black market -- not up for debate.

Pot grows in the ground. Papavars grow in the ground. Coca leaves grown in the ground. If it grows in my yard, it's none of your fucking business, so keep your dirty mitts off my fucking wallet.

[mvscal]

Anything but the slightestamount of taxation will, 100% guaranteed, crack-a-book-sometime-assuredly will also create a black market -- not up for debate.

Not really. Much of the production costs are security and risk/reward calculations.

[Truman]

Legalization, along with a healthy dose of taxation is the answer.

Uhhhh... no.

Legalization, yes.

Taxation... gets into the realm of "fucking stupid."

At present, drugs are sold exclusively on the black market. Anything but the slightestamount of taxation will, 100% guaranteed, crack-a-book-sometime-assuredly will also create a black market -- not up for debate.

Pot grows in the ground. Papavars grow in the ground. Coca leaves grown in the ground. If it grows in my yard, it's none of your fucking business, so keep your dirty mitts off my fucking wallet.

If you say so.

But I've got pals that still jar their own moon, an' friends that bottle their own ale. Seagram's and Budweiser ain't 'zactly shakin in their boots.

Legalization... And taxation... Cure more ills than they cause. 'Sayin'.

[smackaholic]

Anything but the slightestamount of taxation will, 100% guaranteed, crack-a-book-sometime-assuredly will also create a black market -- not up for debate.

Not really. Much of the production costs are security and risk/reward calculations.

What ^^^^ said.

99% of the cost of dope is just what mvscal said. If it is grown legally, it will get cheaper/better. Plenty of room to tack on a healthy bit of taxation, before the black market becomes an issue.

[smackaholic]

Legalization, along with a healthy dose of taxation is the answer.

Uhhhh... no.

Legalization, yes.

Taxation... gets into the realm of "fucking stupid."

At present, drugs are sold exclusively on the black market. Anything but the slightestamount of taxation will, 100% guaranteed, crack-a-book-sometime-assuredly will also create a black market -- not up for debate.

Pot grows in the ground. Papavars grow in the ground. Coca leaves grown in the ground. If it grows in my yard, it's none of your fucking business, so keep your dirty mitts off my fucking wallet.

If you say so.

But I've got pals that still jar their own moon, an' friends that bottle their own ale. Seagram's and Budweiser ain't 'zactly shakin in their boots.

Legalization... And taxation... Cure more ills than they cause. 'Sayin'.

And they do so because they enjoy the challenge of doing it well. Growing weed takes considerably less skill. It kind of does it all itself.

Now this fact will keep taxes somewhat in check. Plus there is the general lack of industriousness that comes along with being a pothead.

[R-Jack]

illegal drug enforcement industrial complex (cops/DEA/lawyers/judges/prison guards) might have to go out and find something productive to do, so it won't pass.

You forgot to mention the alcohol lobby, the (second) biggest impediment to sensible drug policy.

EDIT: and the restaurant lobby.

Really? the restaurant lobby? I guess Dennys and IHOP don't carry much influance in their industry if their lobby is trying to block legalization.

[Screw_Michigan]

Not Denny's and IHOP, moron, but bars and bars/restaurants. Many people who attend bars would just stay home and get stoned if they had the choice.

[smackaholic]

Not Denny's and IHOP, moron, but bars and bars/restaurants. Many people who attend bars would just stay home and get stoned if they had the choice.

So, why don't they stay home and drink? It's much cheaper.

You are as stupid as goobs is old.

If dope is legal, people will still go to these places. Some will just smoke a joint rather than get hammered.