Why Are So Many Still Against Hemp / Marijuana ?

[pudly]

Cannabis smokers warned they risk poorer exam grades | Society | The Guardian

 

[wagyu52]

Hemp is a "niche" industry? Tell that to Canada where it's pulling in almost a billion dollars a year. Hell of a "niche".

A tip for American farmers: Grow hemp, make money - LA Times

According to this you're about half right http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=888159

 

[yote hunter]

When I was a kid we use to go fishing on a buddy's family farm that use to be a hemp farm and it was everywhere... Didn't even know what it was back then, but it was grown to make rope from so I don't think it was the stuff people smoke today ? But I guess you could of if you wanted ? There was so much we had to walk thru it to get to the fishing spot... lmao , And that was in Indiana...

 

[ModernGunner]

Don't care if someone wants to smoke a pound of pot a day. Just don't go to work with it still in their system, 'cause termination is imminent. They want to call off a few days a week to 'get clean'? LOL, sure, that'll work.

More and more businesses are going to random drug screening, and it's being heavily promoted and endorsed, particularly in the Safety industry. Companies just don't want the liability, or potential liability. Already can't go to work under the influence of anything else without risking termination. Should be the same thing with pot. And it's headed more and more in that direction, as it should be.

Doesn't matter if it's legal in that State, or legalized in other States. Legalization does not mean a person is 'entitled' to work still under the influence of pot, or anything else. Colorado is a prime example, where such terminations for going to work still high have begun to appear. And that 'zero tolerance for pot' (and other substances) program began right here, in NWI.

Get fired from a job or two from smoking weed, and that person won't be working anywhere, any more. Well, maybe the local 'head shop', LOL. As it should be. We have too many folks looking for jobs that won't head to work under the influence, why put up with those that choose to do so?

Where I work, anyone suspected of being under the influence is tested immediately, on-site. Test positive, suspended subject to termination. Sure, the suspected person can then object, and be immediately re-tested. On their dime. If the initial result turns out to be incorrect, they're returned to work, reimbursed for the test they paid for, and had a few days or week's paid vacation. If not, they're history. As it should be.

Every business should be strongly encouraged to incorporate the same (or same type of) program. Employees under the influence are a detriment and hazard to that business, and every other employee.

 

[Drail]

"Hemp" and "marijuana" are NOT the same thing. You can smoke all the hemp you want and all you'll ever get is a bad headache. This is just another stupid law made by stupid people who want to control your life. I have never found anything in the U.S Constitution that states the Federal Govt. has any authority whatsoever to restrict what any citizen chooses to eat, drink, smoke, sniff or lick. The Govt. simply gave themselves that authority. I will never work for any company that requires I be drug tested because I "might" be taking drugs. Now if you have an employee who doesn't show up for work on time or is obviously wasted or hung over when he does - that's a different story. The last place I worked that started "random" drug testing (because we were going to start working in Federal Govt. installations and were told we had to sign a document that we agreed that if ANY Federal agent walked up to us and wanted to take us into a room and strip search us for any reason at any time - we would comply. When some of us objected the boss told us that the Supreme Court had ruled that this was allowable. I asked the boss - "So maybe we should test your mama for venereal disease because she might be a prostitute? That would be OK right?" And then resigned. The Supreme Court can take their interpretation of the Constitution and stick it. I didn't volunteer and serve my country to be treated like that.

 

[mrjarrell]

OMG! They legalised it in Washington, Colorado, Alaska and DC and you know what happened? Nothing bad. (And Drail is 100% right. You can smoke hemp all day long and all you'll get is sore lungs and a headache. You can't get high off of it).

I Thought Legalizing Pot Would Be a Disaster But It Was Wonderful

 

[Drail]

The only reason "cannabis sativa" has been legalized in selected States is because all of those States were just foaming at the mouth thinking about all the tax revenue they could skim off of it - and it is a LOT OF MONEY. Like, "we could throw the pot users in jail OR we could all get rich off of them by taking even MORE of their money". What I am hearing now from Colorado is that the State taxes have driven the price up to the point where most people are simply returning to buying off of the street where it is cheaper and they pay no taxes. The State has essentially priced themselves out of the market. Imagine that. Any time you want to really screw something up for everyone involved - put it under the control of the State. That's the problem with "democracy" - stupid people are allowed to make the rules up as they go along.

 

[mrjarrell]

The only reason "cannabis sativa" has been legalized in selected States is because all of those States were just foaming at the mouth thinking about all the tax revenue they could skim off of it - and it is a LOT OF MONEY. Like, "we could throw the pot users in jail OR we could all get rich off of them by taking even MORE of their money". What I am hearing now from Colorado is that the State taxes have driven the price up to the point where most people are simply returning to buying off of the street where it is cheaper and they pay no taxes. The State has essentially priced themselves out of the market. Imagine that. Any time you want to really screw something up for everyone involved - put it under the control of the State. That's the problem with "democracy" - stupid people are allowed to make the rules up as they go along.

The problem with regulation lies in the fact that the politicians see it as a cash cow. If they put it on a parity with alcohol there would be no resurgent black market. Would their profits be less? Maybe, but they'd kill of the perception of the need for a black market and it would wither and die in the face of even a regulated market. The hand of government is entirely too heavy in this matter.

 

[AA&E]

Obama says legal weed ain't happening.

Obama fields Rasta's question on marijuana

He's the boss.

Well, as much as I'd hate to be seen as defending the president, he did say he does not foresee 'congress changing the law' regarding the status of marijuana in the US. He completely skirts the issue and his personal opinion on the matter other then to say the current war on drugs has been too heavy handed. Apparently the president remembered that congress is actually required to impact changes to laws, as opposed to his executive order a few weeks back regarding illegal immigration.

Fast forward to his final days and he will pull a Bill Clinton and explain how legalization is something we as a nation should look into. This nation sure does love spineless politicians...

 

[AA&E]

There used to be billboards up ( not that long ago ) around town that said something to the affect of " every 37 minutes someone OD's on prescription drugs " , yet pills are still legal and IMO easier to get ahold of than pot .

I don't know what the statistics are on how many people die from alcohol poisoning or alcohol related injuries , yet it's still legal and WAY easier to get than pot .

Not one person , NOT ONE PERSON has ever OD'd on pot and any quack that tells you different is full of **** and I'd have no problem telling them so .

I've known pot smokers all of my life , ( 40 years ) and have been a smoker ( off and on ) for the last 20 years . In earlier years ( service days ) I drank enough whiskey to float a battleship .

You know what I'm addicted to ? Marlboro reds . In situations where I can't smoke for a couple of hours , I'm ready to shank the first person that's being an ******* or idiot .

Most of the people I know that are smokers ( pot ) are productive " blue collar " ( although I've known a hand full of white collar , MEDICAL professionals that smoke ) folks that work every day , go home and smoke much in the same way some folks like to have a six pack .

Now for the rant .

We have a plant that can / does so much yet we can't use it because some busy body , nanny mother****er can't keep their noses out of other people's business .

No ****s are given about the ONE basement dwelling ijit you know of that doesn't have their **** together ! The MAJORITY of smokers are productive .

All this jackassed , nonsense talk about crime going up if it's legalized is BULL**** from folks that don't have a clue what they are blathering about .

I'm not saying that weed can cure the world's ills but it sure as hell seems like it could do a lot to improve this countries problems .

We have infinite problems with the middle east , what's the solution ? Hemp oil / bio fuel , **** the petrodollar , let the rest of the world fight over the oil .


We have affordable housing problems where many folks simply can't afford traditional stick built houses , what's the solution ?

Hempcrete housing , people can grow their own houses / structures and with some sweat equity the houses are cheaper to build , maintain , heat and cool saving more money than traditional housing .

How many sissies are being born now that can't even be in the same room with a ****ing peanut or shrimp without fear of dying because ( pure speculation on my part ) they've been fed GMO / chemically altered foods all of their lives ?

Their are plenty of videos on YT about the healthy benefits of ingesting hemp seeds and oil .

But NO , instead of eating a natural , VERY nutritious plant we'd rather suck down heavily processed , Monsanto chemical laced garbage and keep pumping out sick kids that can't even handle the environment they live in .

You can build with it , run / maintain your machines with it , eat it , wear it , cure some illnesses with it ( probably more than we currently know ) , help manage the economy with it , improve international relations with it , one friggan plant that can do so much so WTF IS THE PROBLEM FOLKS ?

Oh yeah , too many busy body , social engineering ****tards want to run other folks lives for them instead of minding their own damed business .

That first line caught my attention. My wife suffers from chronic pain. If you've never sat helpless watching the woman you love cry and sob for hours on end because the pain never ends you might not fully understand the significance of what these types of laws and the people they impact. Last year the DEA changed scheduling on a relatively low level non-narcotic pain medication that was capable of providing my wife with some level of relief without clouding her mind (she is a full time college student). Tramdrol (spelling?) for decades was viewed as having minimal potential for abuse. Somehow, something changed recently. No longer is she able to get refills without monthly visits to see her doctor ($275/visit). Because it is now considered a controlled substance she is subject to random drug testing that is exceedingly thorough and exceptionally expensive. She got tapped for the test last month for the first time $1100 out of pocket. Factor in monthly prescription costs exceeding $300. When you combine the ACA healthcare coverage fiasco with policy changes like these I am left very concerned for the ability to continue providing medical care for my wife.

The DEA made a bad situation worse in my opinion. Those that followed the rules and didn't abuse the system and the drugs are being punished for those that did. An additional side effect of this ruling is there has been an uptick in the number of pain relief patients seeking rehabilitation for heroin addiction.


I have recently stated seeking different employment. My primary focus is better medical/prescription coverage. At the current rate this is not sustainable for me.

 

[AA&E]

Marijuana?

I don't know about building with it, but it is considered a sustainable biofuel crop. It makes a biodiesel. Not real sure about costs/efficiency.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That first line caught my attention. My wife suffers from chronic pain. If you've never sat helpless watching the woman you love cry and sob for hours on end because the pain never ends you might not fully understand the significance of what these types of laws and the people they impact. Last year the DEA changed scheduling on a relatively low level non-narcotic pain medication that was capable of providing my wife with some level of relief without clouding her mind (she is a full time college student). Tramdrol (spelling?) for decades was viewed as having minimal potential for abuse. Somehow, something changed recently. No longer is she able to get refills without monthly visits to see her doctor ($275/visit). Because it is now considered a controlled substance she is subject to random drug testing that is exceedingly thorough and exceptionally expensive. She got tapped for the test last month for the first time $1100 out of pocket. Factor in monthly prescription costs exceeding $300. When you combine the ACA healthcare coverage fiasco with policy changes like these I am left very concerned for the ability to continue providing medical care for my wife.

The DEA made a bad situation worse in my opinion. Those that followed the rules and didn't abuse the system and the drugs are being punished for those that did. An additional side effect of this ruling is there has been an uptick in the number of pain relief patients seeking rehabilitation for heroin addiction.


I have recently stated seeking different employment. My primary focus is better medical/prescription coverage. At the current rate this is not sustainable for me.

Have your wife talk to her doctor. DoggyMama also suffers from chronic pain and has to jump through the hoops you mentioned for her medication, however she was able to get her doctor to give her several months' worth of paper prescriptions (since refills are no longer allowed) so that she doesn't have to go to the office everytime she needs to refill. If her doctor refuses, it may be time to look for another doctor.

 

[HoughMade]

Cannabis smokers warned they risk poorer exam grades | Society | The Guardian

I'm glad it's the Dutch who spent money on this study that solidly in the "No **** Sherlock" realm.

 

[D-Ric902]

I'm glad it's the Dutch who spent money on this study that solidly in the "No **** Sherlock" realm.

We we wouldn't do the study.
we might get an answer that didn't fit our agenda

 

[rambone]

We we wouldn't do the study.
we might get an answer that didn't fit our agenda

I, for one, don't fear the results, and I don't care about them either.

Its no different than legal alcohol. Regular drunks probably do worse on performance exams. You know what? It has no bearing on my position that alcohol should be legal.

That is because I do not view the government as a parent or a nanny to the people. What do you think, D-Ric? Should government be our nanny?

 

[HoughMade]

Hey, reducing the competition my kids will face?

I'm all for it!

 

[jamil]

I, for one, don't fear the results, and I don't care about them either.

Its no different than legal alcohol. Regular drunks probably do worse on performance exams. You know what? It has no bearing on my position that alcohol should be legal.

That is because I do not view the government as a parent or a nanny to the people. What do you think, D-Ric? Should government be our nanny?

I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a minute here. Let's say we made everything legal. Pot. Meth. Cocaine. Heroin. Got rid of the entire concept of schedules. For the purpose of discussion, we'll ignore the medicinal prescription drugs.

So what if, years later, the toll to society has become very dire, such that it threatens the existence of society? Not saying it would, but just for the sake of the discussion, let's say that such conclusion is demonstrable; proven.

Does society have the right to tell people they can't do some things because those things have been proven to devolve society?

And if society has that right, do the results of those studies then matter?

ETA: I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just asking what you think.

 

[D-Ric902]

Do you want the police to be able to smoke pot on the job. (they can smoke tobacco)
how about truck drivers?
ambulance drivers?
how about your heart surgeon before surgery? (You wouldn't want him to uptight)

who decides who it is legal for and who it isn't. When can you do a doob and when can you not?
employers?
the public?

no not the public, that would by like elected officials or something?

 

[steveh_131]

So what if, years later, the toll to society has become very dire, such that it threatens the existence of society? Not saying it would, but just for the sake of the discussion, let's say that such conclusion is demonstrable; proven.

Does society have the right to tell people they can't do some things because those things have been proven to devolve society?

This is a very interesting question, with one big issue for me: It requires me to set aside some basic assumptions about human nature that make me a libertarian to begin with. It requires me to set aside reality and assume that the government can effectively force individuals to behave responsibly. Should I also assume that this government can do so without corruption?

Thought-provoking.

Do you want the police to be able to smoke pot on the job. (they can smoke tobacco)
how about truck drivers?
ambulance drivers?
how about your heart surgeon before surgery? (You wouldn't want him to uptight)

who decides who it is legal for and who it isn't. When can you do a doob and when can you not?
employers?
the public?

no not the public, that would by like elected officials or something?

Employers, definitely. The free market is quite effective at ridding itself of bad practitioners. Druggies are no exception.

 

[jamil]

Do you want the police to be able to smoke pot on the job. (they can smoke tobacco)
how about truck drivers?
ambulance drivers?
how about your heart surgeon before surgery? (You wouldn't want him to uptight)

who decides who it is legal for and who it isn't. When can you do a doob and when can you not?
employers?
the public?

no not the public, that would by like elected officials or something?

I would guess that employers would be able to make work rules just as they do now. I'm pretty sure police forces would keep that one in the rule book.