Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Moderator: Jesus H Christ
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Most of the stoners forget to vote anyway.
-
- 2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
- Posts: 29350
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
- Location: Lookin for tards
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
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.
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.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."
—Earl Sinclair
"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.
- Antonio Brown
—Earl Sinclair
"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.
- Antonio Brown
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
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?
Can you say Adolf Obama?
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
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.The consequences of illicit drug use in America’s workforce include job-related accidents and injuries, absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity
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 got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
- Screw_Michigan
- Angry Snowflake
- Posts: 21096
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
- Location: 20011
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Why do you hate the Constitution? Swallow a fucking bullet, already. Hypocrite.Papa Willie wrote: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
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
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
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Screw_Michigan wrote:Why do you hate the Constitution? Swallow a fucking bullet, already. Hypocrite.Papa Willie wrote: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
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.

Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Screw_Michigan wrote:Why do you hate the Constitution? Swallow a fucking bullet, already. Hypocrite.Papa Willie wrote: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
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.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Dinsdale wrote: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.

Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
M2 wrote:
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.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Dinsdale wrote: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.

-
- World Renowned Last Word Whore
- Posts: 25891
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote: 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?
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
- smackaholic
- Walrus Team 6
- Posts: 21787
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
- Location: upside it
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Rack that dude.Goober McTuber wrote:Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote: 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?
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.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
- ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 5532
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:19 pm
- Location: The corner of get a map and fuck off.
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Dinsdale wrote: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.The consequences of illicit drug use in America’s workforce include job-related accidents and injuries, absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity
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
- Walrus Team 6
- Posts: 21787
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
- Location: upside it
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Yeah, but that nicotine buzz makes them work extra hard during those 20 minute spells of productivity between smoke breaks.ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Dinsdale wrote: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.The consequences of illicit drug use in America’s workforce include job-related accidents and injuries, absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity
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.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
- Screw_Michigan
- Angry Snowflake
- Posts: 21096
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
- Location: 20011
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
You forgot to mention the alcohol lobby, the (second) biggest impediment to sensible drug policy.smackaholic wrote: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.
EDIT: and the restaurant lobby.
- smackaholic
- Walrus Team 6
- Posts: 21787
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
- Location: upside it
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Yeah, there's that too.Screw_Michigan wrote:You forgot to mention the alcohol lobby, the (second) biggest impediment to sensible drug policy.smackaholic wrote: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.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
smackaholic wrote: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.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
Not really. Much of the production costs are security and risk/reward calculations.Dinsdale wrote:Anything but the slightestamount of taxation will, 100% guaranteed, crack-a-book-sometime-assuredly will also create a black market -- not up for debate.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
If you say so.Dinsdale wrote:smackaholic wrote: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.
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
- Walrus Team 6
- Posts: 21787
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
- Location: upside it
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
What ^^^^ said.mvscal wrote:Not really. Much of the production costs are security and risk/reward calculations.Dinsdale wrote:Anything but the slightestamount of taxation will, 100% guaranteed, crack-a-book-sometime-assuredly will also create a black market -- not up for debate.
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.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
- smackaholic
- Walrus Team 6
- Posts: 21787
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
- Location: upside it
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
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.Truman wrote:If you say so.Dinsdale wrote:smackaholic wrote: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.
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'.
Now this fact will keep taxes somewhat in check. Plus there is the general lack of industriousness that comes along with being a pothead.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
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 wrote:You forgot to mention the alcohol lobby, the (second) biggest impediment to sensible drug policy.smackaholic wrote: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.
EDIT: and the restaurant lobby.
- Screw_Michigan
- Angry Snowflake
- Posts: 21096
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
- Location: 20011
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
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
- Walrus Team 6
- Posts: 21787
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
- Location: upside it
Re: Obama's going to get tougher on DRUGS.
So, why don't they stay home and drink? It's much cheaper.Screw_Michigan wrote: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.
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.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.