Legalization of drugs, pros and cons!

[UofMfan]

Should drugs be legalized?

Yes, no; if yes what are the consequences, benefits. If no, can we continue waging another losing war?

Who gains, who loses?

Opinions, facts, etc, all are welcome as long as cookies are provided for the OP.

:)

[Apocalipstic]

Legalize marijuana and mushrooms and use the tax money to pay for health care.

Keep Chrystal Meth and other "hard core" drugs illegal.

Would make for way less people in prison for us to pay for and increase revenues and taxes. No one loses.

Cookies all around! :)

[Corkey]

Should drugs be legalized?

Yes, no; if yes what are the consequences, benefits. If no, can we continue waging another losing war?

Who gains, who loses?

Opinions, facts, etc, all are welcome as long as cookies are provided for the OP.

:)

From the title you've had one too many already. Yes, legalize pot, tax it and grow it. I am a non drug user BTW. I think it was put here for a reason, it wasn't manufactured.

[Jess]

Opinion only...

Legalize pot. Never heard of anyone od'ing on pot or committing homicide in a pot induced haze. Never heard of anyone jonesing so bad for pot they commit larceny or murder or rape. Keep narcotics/ opiate derivitives /methamphetamines etc illegal.

[UofMfan]

From the title you've had one too many already. Yes, legalize pot, tax it and grow it. I am a non drug user BTW. I think it was put here for a reason, it wasn't manufactured.

Dude, where are my cookies?

I agree, and ditto on not being a drug user.

Why do you think people are against this? DO you have an opinion on that?

[UofMfan]

Legalize marijuana and mushrooms and use the tax money to pay for health care.

Keep Chrystal Meth and other "hard core" drugs illegal.

Would make for way less people in prison for us to pay for and increase revenues and taxes. No one loses.

Cookies all around! :)

Did you know that the minimum sentence, according to guidelines, for any drug offense is 5 years?

Let's do the math and see how much money we would save on housing these non-violent offenders and how much we would gain from taxing this stuff.

Thanks for the cookies :)

[SuperFemme]

Legalize ALL drugs and prostitution.
Who gains? Everyone but the criminals.
Who loses? The cartels and the CIA.

But it MUST be done at a Federal Level otherwise you end up with the mess we have here in CA. Medical Marijuana growers being prosecuted by the DEA and a Federal Jury not being told about the state law. Long sentences handed out.

[Corkey]

Dude, where are my cookies?

I agree, and ditto on not being a drug user.

Why do you think people are against this? DO you have an opinion on that?

Dude you ate the cookies, lookie at your title........^
People are always against that which they don't understand.
Oh my I have an opinion on most things LOL:chef:

[UofMfan]

Opinion only...

Legalize pot. Never heard of anyone od'ing on pot or committing homicide in a pot induced haze. Never heard of anyone jonesing so bad for pot they commit larceny or murder or rape. Keep narcotics/ opiate derivitives /methamphetamines etc illegal.

I think I may have heard of someone breaking into a bakery to steal the brownies, but maybe I am just making that up.

Why keep the hard stuff illegal? Not that I don't agree, I am just curious.

You also forgot the cookies!

[UofMfan]

Dude you ate the cookies, lookie at your title........^
People are always against that which they don't understand.
Oh my I have an opinion on most things LOL:chef:

OK I am blind, I ate a freaking G. Where is a mod when you need one?

[Mitmo01]

I agree with Superfemme

make prostitution legal and drugs legal and tax the hell out of both

treat adults like adults let them make thier own choices since we all know that people are going to do both no matter what....


by having drugs and prostituition illegal all that does is make more money for the government and the cartels....

oh and it does create a hell of a lot of jobs and fills up prisons which create more jobs......

[betenoire]

oh and it does create a hell of a lot of jobs and fills up prisons which create more jobs......

But legalizing it would -also- create a tonne of jobs. They would have to go real heavy on education and harm reduction - and they'd have to hire people to do that.

Like I said in that other thread: making it legal doesn't mean that people who don't currently do drugs are going to start. I don't do any currently illegal drugs - at all. I don't even smoke pot. And my not doing drugs has -nothing- to do with it being illegal - legalizing it isn't going to make me start sticking needles in my veins and stuff up my nose. It's just not.

People are going to do what they are going to do. We may as well create an environment where they are less of a danger to themselves.

[Apocalipstic]

Did you know that the minimum sentence, according to guidelines, for any drug offense is 5 years?

Let's do the math and see how much money we would save on housing these non-violent offenders and how much we would gain from taxing this stuff.

Thanks for the cookies :)


Pot needs to not be an offense at all. It is just dumb. I agree with SF, it need to be legalized at the Federal Level. Mushrooms, Poppies, Peyote, etc.

I do think Chrystal Meth is scary and it makes the entire area it is cooked toxic and can explode easily and kill innocent bystanders. Other than that, I really don't care. Decriminalize away. Yes, prostitution too.

I agree that the government does not need to legislate morality.

[UofMfan]

Legalize ALL drugs and prostitution.
Who gains? Everyone but the criminals.
Who loses? The cartels and the CIA.

But it MUST be done at a Federal Level otherwise you end up with the mess we have here in CA. Medical Marijuana growers being prosecuted by the DEA and a Federal Jury not being told about the state law. Long sentences handed out.

I agree any legalization must be done on a federal level. I also agree that The Cartels and the DEA, CIA and all the other unknown govt. agencies would lose.

But legalize hard core drugs? I am not sure about that yet. It sounds too me too close to legalizing AK47s, but I am still pondering that.

[Cyclopea]

I'm "anti-drug". Don't like them, don't do them.
But I think all drugs including pharmaceuticals should be legalized and the taxes put towards treatment for addiction.
The practical problem with this is that there is a massive economy built around drugs which would collapse. If the black market was wiped out and most of the prisons closed by legalizing drugs what would replace this economy? What would happen to all the people who make a living on the black market? Would they sell Avon or what? It's not just "cartels" that make a living in the drug economy but lots of regular people too. There are not enough jobs in the legal economy as it is without displacing the massive underground economy and all the legal jobs that feed off it. Would the average street dealer be re-trained as an addictions counselor in the new "treatment economy"?

[Apocalipstic]

Of course for those people who think pot is a gateway drug and leads to Crystal......

I think they need to read up and look a their logic.

[SuperFemme]

But legalizing it would -also- create a tonne of jobs. They would have to go real heavy on education and harm reduction - and they'd have to hire people to do that.

Like I said in that other thread: making it legal doesn't mean that people who don't currently do drugs are going to start. I don't do any currently illegal drugs - at all. I don't even smoke pot. And my not doing drugs has -nothing- to do with it being illegal - legalizing it isn't going to make me start sticking needles in my veins and stuff up my nose. It's just not.

People are going to do what they are going to do. We may as well create an environment where they are less of a danger to themselves.

We could legalize and treat addicts for the disease of addiction.
Offer a safe place to buy/use and save tons on future medical care costs by taking away the risks of HepC and HIV.
Open up rehabs to ALL who need it, not just the folk that can afford a 30k stay.

And no, nobody is gonna start shooting heroin just because they can. I agree with Betenoire.

[SuperFemme]

I agree any legalization must be done on a federal level. I also agree that The Cartels and the DEA, CIA and all the other unknown govt. agencies would lose.

But legalize hard core drugs? I am not sure about that yet. It sounds too me too close to legalizing AK47s, but I am still pondering that.

Check this out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8255418.stm

[UofMfan]

From my personal experience. I don't do drugs and legalizing it is not going to change that. I think most people would fall under that same category.

Anyone who wants to do drugs now does it, the fact that it is illegal is not a deterrent.

As for the economy and jobs. What happened back during prohibition when booze was finally legalized? New economies sprung up. Selling it legally would be a profitable business. I doubt the economic benefits would be negative. I must look for some articles I have read in the financial and economic areas regarding this very topic.

[weatherboi]

Legalizing drugs benefits us all for many reasons!!

Here are some off the top of my head.

1-Societal Benefits- Illegal drug sale creates a criminal culture. People, such as myself (recreational user),has to come in contact with not so nice people. It also affects our youths and creating a space to choose a life of crime selling drugs on the street.

2-The Potency Effect- Remember prohibition...more people chose to drink alcohol over wine or beer because it was more potent. Alcohol related deaths skyrocketed. When it comes to drugs if a dealer is gonna take a risk, then the dealer is more likely to risk transporting/selling a more potent product for the public to purchase. Potency does not equate quality!!

3-Health Benefits- Legalizing would ensure market driven high quality substances to purchase. There would be brand name competition and accountablity.

4-Reduction in Crime- four reasons for this thought
1-reduction in market prices from the influx of users that were normally deterred because of criminal laws.
2-substance related crime will decrease because the courts will now be open for companies to settle disputes in court.
3-Profits for cartels = money for terrorists!!!
4-legalizing sale,transport and possession will now be viewed as legal buisness transactions.


This is all I have for now...

[Apocalipstic]

From my personal experience. I don't do drugs and legalizing it is not going to change that. I think most people would fall under that same category.

Anyone who wants to do drugs now does it, the fact that it is illegal is not a deterrent.

As for the economy and jobs. What happened back during prohibition when booze was finally legalized? New economies sprung up. Selling it legally would be a profitable business. I doubt the economic benefits would be negative. I must look for some articles I have read in the financial and economic areas regarding this very topic.


The Great Depression happened and crime got organized to bring in the booze.

[Soft*Silver]

gave up drinking and drugs 21 years ago. (one relapse).But I agree that pot should be decriminilized. And I also come from the economic stance as well as the quality control stance. Other drugs I am not ok with becoming legal. I cant imagine walking into Main Street Market and buying some acid to go along with my Orange Juice for my lunch break.

And I think, because we have outlawed smoking in almost every public place, containing pot smoke in public would be so limited it would not be difficult to control for those who dont wish to be subjected to it, like myself, who counts contact highs with relapse.

and I wish to god they would make prostitution legal and regulate it and get a union going for the sex workers. Its insane that its not.

but then this is a nation that allowed bush to reign for two rounds and picked the actor over the jackass before bush.

shaking my head...in my head there is a much kinder simpler world...too damn bad it has as much clout as playing with Barbies....

[Apocalipstic]

No acid for lunch?

*POUT*

[betenoire]

No acid for lunch?

*POUT*

No, but only because I'm sure our employers wouldn't like us doing that on our lunch breaks any more than they want us to have a martini on our lunch breaks.

I'm not allowed to have any alcohol within the TWELVE hours before I go to work. I'm sure it doesn't take that long for a person to sober up - but the rule is fair.

[MsDemeanor]

Legalize everything and tax everything. I'd much rather have meth manufactured in a controlled environment and sold with an ingredients list than have it manufactured in someone's shed where it's polluting the water and endangering lives.

There's no down side to full legalization. Massive layoffs in the prison industry and DA's offices don't count as a downside in my book.

[MsDemeanor]

I'm not allowed to have any alcohol within the TWELVE hours before I go to work. I'm sure it doesn't take that long for a person to sober up - but the rule is fair.
That's a bit rough. For most folks, that means not even being able to have a glass of wine with dinner if you work the next day. I guess it depends on what one does for living.

[Apocalipstic]

Legalize everything and tax everything. I'd much rather have meth manufactured in a controlled environment and sold with an ingredients list than have it manufactured in someone's shed where it's polluting the water and endangering lives.

There's no down side to full legalization. Massive layoffs in the prison industry and DA's offices don't count as a downside in my book.

Good point on the Meth, I had not thought of that. Thank you!

[Apocalipstic]

That's a bit rough. For most folks, that means not even being able to have a glass of wine with dinner if you work the next day. I guess it depends on what one does for living.

Maybe if one were a surgeon or airline pilot?

[betenoire]

That's a bit rough. For most folks, that means not even being able to have a glass of wine with dinner if you work the next day. I guess it depends on what one does for living.

I don't know anybody who eats dinner after 9pm, though.

I work in healthcare. If I worked in an office, the rule would be stupid. But the nature of my job means that there can't be any doubt that I have my shit together.

[Apocalipstic]

I don't know anybody who eats dinner after 9pm, though.

I work in healthcare. If I worked in an office, the rule would be stupid. But the nature of my job means that there can't be any doubt that I have my shit together.


I often do if I am working (eat after 9pm I mean), but my job is frivolity incarnate.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I say legalize all drugs and prostitution on a federal level. Too many can benefit from this. The smoking and allergies are now in effect depending on where you live. In Maryland, and Delaware, in certain counties you are not allowed to wear colognes or perfumes, banned the usage of scented deodorizers (think Febreze) in office buildings, and in company vehicles. Tax the drugs and all, and use that money to pour back into our failing economy.

I think the advantage of smoking pot on cancer patients and AIDS patients would be so beneficial when they hit the wasting stage.

[UofMfan]

Airline Pilots can't report for duty within 8 hrs. of consuming drugs and/or alcohol. That also applies for many in the industry, not just pilots.

Common sense.

[UofMfan]

Legalize everything and tax everything. I'd much rather have meth manufactured in a controlled environment and sold with an ingredients list than have it manufactured in someone's shed where it's polluting the water and endangering lives.

There's no down side to full legalization. Massive layoffs in the prison industry and DA's offices don't count as a downside in my book.

Excellent point. Besides, crime is constant, so those who work for prisons and the DA will be busy anyway.

[weatherboi]

Constitutional Rights

Right to choose what is good for me. Pursuit of happiness.
It is every persons constitutional right to control their own body. When the government oulaws drugs it is essentially taking control of our bodies and partially enslaving us.

[Jess]

I agree any legalization must be done on a federal level. I also agree that The Cartels and the DEA, CIA and all the other unknown govt. agencies would lose.

But legalize hard core drugs? I am not sure about that yet. It sounds too me too close to legalizing AK47s, but I am still pondering that.


You said earlier..

"I think I may have heard of someone breaking into a bakery to steal the brownies, but maybe I am just making that up.

Why keep the hard stuff illegal? Not that I don't agree, I am just curious. "

Not sure if you are playing devil's advocate or just waffling. Playing D.A. without stating it as such doesn't bode well here. Jus sayin.

I don't agree with legalizing chemically altered or produced drugs as that involves pharmaceuticals to become legal. I say keep the drug companies and insurance industry out of it altogether. They legalized alcohol again, but only govt certified regulated companies can make it and sell it legally. What about the organic home distilleries who have generations of producing "shine" in their lineage? What about organic "growers" who spend countless hours toiling over their crop? Why just hand this to Pifzer?

Let the govt run the man made drugs. They have enough resources to perfect meth. Fuckabunchathat anyway. I don't use pot or any other drug, so it truly is of little personal concern to me. However, I do see benefits in marijuana that far outweigh the prohibition placed on it here in the states.

The notion that "all" drugs should be legalized is just silly in my book. What practical purpose does meth serve? What "healing" properties does it hold? How do you go about acquiring a script for it? Go in to your doc and say "I am feeling way too normal and need a break" ??? WTF?

I have my opinions which will always differ from someone. One of those is that this is an interesting topic that unfortunately derailed an interesting thread.

[UofMfan]

You said earlier..

"I think I may have heard of someone breaking into a bakery to steal the brownies, but maybe I am just making that up.

Why keep the hard stuff illegal? Not that I don't agree, I am just curious. "

Not sure if you are playing devil's advocate or just waffling. Playing D.A. without stating it as such doesn't bode well here. Jus sayin.

I don't agree with legalizing chemically altered or produced drugs as that involves pharmaceuticals to become legal. I say keep the drug companies and insurance industry out of it altogether. They legalized alcohol again, but only govt certified regulated companies can make it and sell it legally. What about the organic home distilleries who have generations of producing "shine" in their lineage? What about organic "growers" who spend countless hours toiling over their crop? Why just hand this to Pifzer?

Let the govt run the man made drugs. They have enough resources to perfect meth. Fuckabunchathat anyway. I don't use pot or any other drug, so it truly is of little personal concern to me. However, I do see benefits in marijuana that far outweigh the prohibition placed on it here in the states.

The notion that "all" drugs should be legalized is just silly in my book. What practical purpose does meth serve? What "healing" properties does it hold? How do you go about acquiring a script for it? Go in to your doc and say "I am feeling way too normal and need a break" ??? WTF?

I have my opinions which will always differ from someone. One of those is that this is an interesting topic that unfortunately derailed an interesting thread.

Neither, as I stated, I am/was curious.

Why if I stated that was or is it hard to believe? I want to hear the opinions of all, I may not agree with everyone, but part of me is really interested in hearing what you or anyone else may have to say, not only about this subject but anything else we may engage in conversation about. That is just how I am.

I am not sure what you meant by the underlined part of your statement, so I am asking you for clarification.

[Jess]

Neither, as I stated, I am/was curious.

Why if I stated that was or is it hard to believe? I want to hear the opinions of all, I may not agree with everyone, but part of me is really interested in hearing what you or anyone else may have to say, not only about this subject but anything else we may engage in conversation about. That is just how I am.

I am not sure what you meant by the underlined part of your statement, so I am asking you for clarification.


For clarification, I am asking if you were being a "devil's advocate" as it has been stated by more than one member here that it ain't cool unless you say you are "upfront" and even then.. not cool unless you are going along with the popular opinion en masse. Do I need to pull up examples? I will do so in pvt if needed. I could not discern by the contrasting statements of your previous posts if you were A) agreeing with everyone B) being devil's advocate to further the discussion to some more pertinent destination or C) just talkin or D) had no real opinion and just made this thread cause someone suggested it on the AZ boycott thread.

I was confused. Seeking public opinion is cool in my book. if that is all this is about then cool. Carry on.

[MsDemeanor]

The notion that "all" drugs should be legalized is just silly in my book. What practical purpose does meth serve? What "healing" properties does it hold? How do you go about acquiring a script for it? Go in to your doc and say "I am feeling way too normal and need a break" ??? WTF?
For me, legalize means over the counter, not by prescription. As for practical purposes or healing properties, one could ask the same of pretty much every food item sold in a convenience store. There's no practical purpose to twinkies. Oh, wait, except for pot munchies.

Question for everyone. If all drugs were legal, would people still do shit like meth? Or would they opt for a good high that doesn't fuck you up so badly?

[betenoire]

I can't find the original post, but in the other thread someone alluded to the fact that you can tell who has children and who doesn't have children based on their stance on this subject.

I really -really- just need to say that I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all. My choosing not to become a parent has no relation at all to my political or morale stance. On this issue or -any- issue.

[Jess]

For me, legalize means over the counter, not by prescription. As for practical purposes or healing properties, one could ask the same of pretty much every food item sold in a convenience store. There's no practical purpose to twinkies. Oh, wait, except for pot munchies.

Question for everyone. If all drugs were legal, would people still do shit like meth? Or would they opt for a good high that doesn't fuck you up so badly?

Sorry but the only reported case of murder/ mayhem by twinkie was the Harvey Milk case and we all know what a fucked up piece of legalese that was. Buying a handful of meth over the counter and a twinkie is kinda apples to oranges. Evil fucked up oranges.

[MsDemeanor]

I can't find the original post, but in the other thread someone alluded to the fact that you can tell who has children and who doesn't have children based on their stance on this subject.

I really -really- just need to say that I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all. My choosing not to become a parent has no relation at all to my political or morale stance. On this issue or -any- issue.
Absolutely. If there were any truth to the nonsense that there's a correlation between one's stance on drugs and one's parental status, then there wouldn't be any junkie parents in the world.

[PearlsNLace]

I work for a clinic that treats people who have become addicted to prescription drugs.

We also treat Heroin and cocaine addictions also.

I can not tell the desperation apart, when these people first come into treatment. Without reading the charts, all I see are the miserable symptoms of withdrawl.


Knowing this, would I make it legal? Hell yeah. Making it illegal really only punishes the families, and makes the cycles of addiction worse, due to the compound effect of secretive shame, the harrassment of law enforcement- and the financial drain that at this point benfits NOT A DAMN person worth having it. Use the money from taxes and what-not for education and then treatment if/when addiction happens.

I dont see a difference, outside of cultural acceptance, of a prescribed pill vs a street drug. They are all hard drugs. The road to recovery is brutal for all of them. Less likely for Heroin? Perhaps. But I do believe a large portion of that is due to the very nature of what it takes to AQUIRE those drugs, and that has to do with it being illegal, and not regulated.

So, just in case you were wondering, YES I do believe we need to change the way prescription drugs are regulated in this country. The current system has some doctors scared to medicate patients when they have pain, have other doctors just writing carte blanc scripts that get sold on the black market. Our system is NOT working. And then there are the countless who are no longer even seeking medical advice, and aquiring meds somehow on their own without medical training at all. These things scare me. Our system does not work.
I dont see this changing though. Currently the system is benifiting pharmaceutical companies, and they pay the politicians.

If you want something changed, you dont protest, you shell out cash. If this is jaded, I am willing to look at another view. For today, this is my opinion.

[UofMfan]

For clarification, I am asking if you were being a "devil's advocate" as it has been stated by more than one member here that it ain't cool unless you say you are "upfront" and even then.. not cool unless you are going along with the popular opinion en masse. Do I need to pull up examples? I will do so in pvt if needed. I could not discern by the contrasting statements of your previous posts if you were A) agreeing with everyone B) being devil's advocate to further the discussion to some more pertinent destination or C) just talkin or D) had no real opinion and just made this thread cause someone suggested it on the AZ boycott thread.

I was confused. Seeking public opinion is cool in my book. if that is all this is about then cool. Carry on.

Thank you for clarifying.

I never heard about having to be up front about playing DA, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And no, I don't need examples, either in private or here.

A) I have stated my opinion, several times actually. I am not sure what parts are contrasting but I will be willing to clarify if you need me to.

B) I am seeking public opinion.

C) I don't make/start threads just because people ask me to.

and finally D) It is safe to say that I hardly agree with everyone, that is not who I am. I state my points and opinions quite openly and passionately.

[Andrew, Jr.]

Betenoire,

I agree with you. I think about the kids who are violent and go on shooting rampages in their schools. What about violent video games that kids play? And the R rating that everyone knows kids of all ages watch due to the internet, Blockbuster, and Netflix.

I don't have kids. That has nothing to do with my morals or my values. Same as you.

Plus my older sister is a cocaine and heroine addict. She has 2 kids.

[Jess]

I work for a clinic that treats people who have become addicted to prescription drugs.

We also treat Heroin and cocaine addictions also.

I can not tell the desperation apart, when these people first come into treatment. Without reading the charts, all I see are the miserable symptoms of withdrawl.


Knowing this, would I make it legal? Hell yeah. Making it illegal really only punishes the families, and makes the cycles of addiction worse, due to the compound effect of secretive shame, the harrassment of law enforcement- and the financial drain that at this point benfits NOT A DAMN person worth having it. Use the money from taxes and what-not for education and then treatment if/when addiction happens.

I dont see a difference, outside of cultural acceptance, of a prescribed pill vs a street drug. They are all hard drugs. The road to recovery is brutal for all of them. Less likely for Heroin? Perhaps. But I do believe a large portion of that is due to the very nature of what it takes to AQUIRE those drugs, and that has to do with it being illegal, and not regulated.

So, just in case you were wondering, YES I do believe we need to change the way prescription drugs are regulated in this country. The current system has some doctors scared to medicate patients when they have pain, have other doctors just writing carte blanc scripts that get sold on the black market. Our system is NOT working. And then there are the countless who are no longer even seeking medical advice, and aquiring meds somehow on their own without medical training at all. These things scare me. Our system does not work.
I dont see this changing though. Currently the system is benifiting pharmaceutical companies, and they pay the politicians.

If you want something changed, you dont protest, you shell out cash. If this is jaded, I am willing to look at another view. For today, this is my opinion.


So, please help me here. Regulated, prescribed drugs are being abused, so we need all drugs no matter of the consequence of taking them to be legal? This will help you in your daily encounters with addicts how?

I am seriously amazed and confused by this position within our community. A community laden with addiction.

[UofMfan]

I can't find the original post, but in the other thread someone alluded to the fact that you can tell who has children and who doesn't have children based on their stance on this subject.

I really -really- just need to say that I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all. My choosing not to become a parent has no relation at all to my political or morale stance. On this issue or -any- issue.

Really? I want to see that. Could you find it for me?

I have made a few posts on this forum referencing my son, so yeah I have one, and my stance is not based on that fact, nor does it or did it change my stand.

I can't believe someone would make such a blanket statement.

[Jess]

Thank you for clarifying.

I never heard about having to be up front about playing DA, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And no, I don't need examples, either in private or here.

A) I have stated my opinion, several times actually. I am not sure what parts are contrasting but I will be willing to clarify if you need me to.

B) I am seeking public opinion.

C) I don't make/start threads just because people ask me to.

and finally D) It is safe to say that I hardly agree with everyone, that is not who I am. I state my points and opinions quite openly and passionately.


I appreciate your position. Thanks for clarifying.

[Jess]

I can't find the original post, but in the other thread someone alluded to the fact that you can tell who has children and who doesn't have children based on their stance on this subject.

I really -really- just need to say that I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all. My choosing not to become a parent has no relation at all to my political or morale stance. On this issue or -any- issue.

Can you however say the same thing for the addicted woman who is raped, used, or too high to know better who ends up pregnant as a result of needing that fix?

How will making these drugs readily available without consequence change that? I am just really boggled.

[UofMfan]

Can you however say the same thing for the addicted woman who is raped, used, or too high to know better who ends up pregnant as a result of needing that fix?

How will making these drugs readily available without consequence change that? I am just really boggled.

I think anyone who is raped, no matter what the circumstances where, should have the option of having an abortion. That is another topic.

Someone could be raped not just because they are high on drugs, so this statement boggles my mind.

Drugs are readily available now, it is just more dangerous and more expensive to get them. Shouldn't THAT be a deterrent to those who are addicted? It obviously isn't.

[betenoire]

Really? I want to see that. Could you find it for me?


I pm'd you the quote and post number.

Can you however say the same thing for the addicted woman who is raped, used, or too high to know better who ends up pregnant as a result of needing that fix?

You are completely missing my point. My point being that being a parent or not being a parent has NO correlation to my (or anybodies) political or moral ideas. HOW someone becomes a parent doesn't change this.

How will making these drugs readily available without consequence change that? I am just really boggled.

Change what? Change the fact that not having children is irrelevant to my thoughts/feelings on the subject? Again, you are missing my point and not making any sense.

Now I shall go walk to the grocery store. Toodles, bfp-people.

[SuperFemme]

So, please help me here. Regulated, prescribed drugs are being abused, so we need all drugs no matter of the consequence of taking them to be legal? This will help you in your daily encounters with addicts how?

I am seriously amazed and confused by this position within our community. A community laden with addiction.

Addiction is a DISEASE.

Alcohol is legal. Oxycontin is legal. Where I live, medicinal marijuana is legal.

Regulate the disease, take away the criminal element of most substances and let doctors treat addiction patients in offices, in a medical setting where the disease can be addressed.

It would help me in my daily encounters with addicts because I would not worry about somebody robbing my home, stealing my car, etc. etc., in order to procure illegal substances. Instead, a medical professional can help the addict and treat the disease.

Imagine the taking back of neighborhoods? The removal of the allure of quick cash selling crack/heroin/meth on the street corner for fast big cash? We'd get our youth back, and our future may not look so bleak.j

I don't think it is completely crazy to think about.

[Jess]

I think anyone who is raped, no matter what the circumstances where, should have the option of having an abortion. That is another topic.

Someone could be raped not just because they are high on drugs, so this statement boggles my mind.

Drugs are readily available now, it is just more dangerous and more expensive to get them. Shouldn't THAT be a deterrent to those who are addicted? It obviously isn't.



Yes, absolutely someone can be raped without drugs being involved. It is an act of violence as well as opportunity. Unfortunately, the "opportunity" aspect increases dramatically under the influence of drugs. Yes, indeed a topic for another discussion.

Yes, agreed it should be a deterrent, just like vomiting with heroin would make normal folks go "ewwwwwwwww". However, in the throes of addiction folks will do insane things to get that "high". Why make such detrimental outcomes that much easier? Why not focus the energy into healthier options? Like equal human rights? Something that creates CORE issues within folks who turn to drugs out of debased self esteem? Like REAL healthcare.. something that sends chronic pain patients to street drugs for relief?

Go to the REAL shit instead of the bogus trappings is all i am thinking.

I agree with your points and truly do appreciate the discourse.

[Jess]

I pm'd you the quote and post number.



You are completely missing my point. My point being that being a parent or not being a parent has NO correlation to my (or anybodies) political or moral ideas. HOW someone becomes a parent doesn't change this.



Change what? Change the fact that not having children is irrelevant to my thoughts/feelings on the subject? Again, you are missing my point and not making any sense.

Now I shall go walk to the grocery store. Toodles, bfp-people.

I do get your point and agree that "choosing" to not have children is not an immoral act. It is a choice. I chose the same. My point was for addicts, sometimes those options aren't there. They are victims to their disease. Period.

[Andrew, Jr.]

Oxycotin caused me to have a heart attack. I am not surprised it legal in CA. It takes a year or so for things to come across and make it to the East Coast.

[SuperFemme]

Drug addicts are humans too. Legalizing drugs just might give them a chance at equality.

BTW, its lack of heroin that makes one vomit. Same with vicodin or any other opiate based pain reliever. Chronic pain patients are treated like criminals at the local pharmacy every day...

[weatherboi]

Most people that opt for narcotics like crystal meth ,heroin,crack, and cocaine are gonna most likely continue on that road. Choosing to enslave one's self to an addiction goes much deeper than the drugs available on the street or the drugs that are legal. I don't think recreational experiences will satisfy that need. I think we would see only a small percentage of addicts be able to sustain themselves with pot or other less addictive drugs alone.
Experimental use of narcotics will probably remain the same.

For me, legalize means over the counter, not by prescription. As for practical purposes or healing properties, one could ask the same of pretty much every food item sold in a convenience store. There's no practical purpose to twinkies. Oh, wait, except for pot munchies.

Question for everyone. If all drugs were legal, would people still do shit like meth? Or would they opt for a good high that doesn't fuck you up so badly?

[Jess]

Addiction is a DISEASE.

Alcohol is legal. Oxycontin is legal. Where I live, medicinal marijuana is legal.

Regulate the disease, take away the criminal element of most substances and let doctors treat addiction patients in offices, in a medical setting where the disease can be addressed.

It would help me in my daily encounters with addicts because I would not worry about somebody robbing my home, stealing my car, etc. etc., in order to procure illegal substances. Instead, a medical professional can help the addict and treat the disease.

Imagine the taking back of neighborhoods? The removal of the allure of quick cash selling crack/heroin/meth on the street corner for fast big cash? We'd get our youth back, and our future may not look so bleak.j

I don't think it is completely crazy to think about.


Sorry to disagree with your logic, although I can see it. I don't see where making becoming addicted easier will make getting treatment any better. They don't give federal money now for addicts. Why would that change? There was a short period in the 80's where "treatment" was the trendy thing to do and insurance companies actually paid for it. Those days are way over and it is now "optional". Imagine that. It's optional to get treatment, as it is optional to become an addict. So says Blue Cross.

I try to see the point in legalizing highly addictive chemicals, but sorry, I just don't.

[UofMfan]

Yes, absolutely someone can be raped without drugs being involved. It is an act of violence as well as opportunity. Unfortunately, the "opportunity" aspect increases dramatically under the influence of drugs. Yes, indeed a topic for another discussion.

Yes, agreed it should be a deterrent, just like vomiting with heroin would make normal folks go "ewwwwwwwww". However, in the throes of addiction folks will do insane things to get that "high". Why make such detrimental outcomes that much easier? Why not focus the energy into healthier options? Like equal human rights? Something that creates CORE issues within folks who turn to drugs out of debased self esteem? Like REAL healthcare.. something that sends chronic pain patients to street drugs for relief?

Go to the REAL shit instead of the bogus trappings is all i am thinking.

I agree with your points and truly do appreciate the discourse.

Thank you for engaging.

Here is the way I see this, and this doesn't mean it is the ONLY way or the RIGHT way to see it, it simply means this is the way I see it. Instead of saying, "Why make such detrimental outcomes that much easier?" and I quote you, I say, why not make such a detrimental outcome that much safer?

I think that we agree that addiction sees no deterrents, or at least that is what I see by your post. So, if there are no deterrents, why not make it safer? Why not supply more help where it counts, as in counseling?

I am not an expert, this is jut my opinion.

As for the other issues I agree, we need real health care, we need Human Rights to be Equal rights, but I don't see how this applies to addiction. Perhaps you can help me with that.

[UofMfan]

Oxycotin caused me to have a heart attack. I am not surprised it legal in CA. It takes a year or so for things to come across and make it to the East Coast.



It is sold with a prescription in FL. Perhaps the State you reside at is different.

[apretty]

Legalize everything and tax everything. I'd much rather have meth manufactured in a controlled environment and sold with an ingredients list than have it manufactured in someone's shed where it's polluting the water and endangering lives.

There's no down side to full legalization. Massive layoffs in the prison industry and DA's offices don't count as a downside in my book.

agreed.

making it *legal* isn't going to make me want to use meth/crack/whatever.

this also would de-criminalize the addict.

also, anything can make an addict fixate--have you seen those people that have 'loving relationships' with inanimate objects like the eiffel tower?

(i say addict/fixate and i do think that addiction and your 'drug of choice' takes the place of a REAL relationship, when an addict is in an active-addiction stage)

STCOo9Hh5lE

[Massive]

I have to say, I found this thread very interesting, but mostly for the fact that not many who've posted have mentioned actually using these so called 'recreational' drugs, I personally smoke pot, but not for fun, I smoke because first and foremost it is the most effective painkiller for my disability.
I've had rheumatoid arthritis since I was in my teens and I've been put on most of the drugs available from the BMA (British Medical Association), now there are some which are only available in the US, because the medical association here deems them to be too unsafe/untested to prescribe to Brits, and those I have taken have more often than not had such major side-effects that I was worse off on them than off, so, if my RA's really bad, I'd much rather smoke, even my Consultant in hospital only has issues with my smoking pot because of the fact that I am smoking and not eating it ... Most doctors and police officers I know would legalise some drugs in a heart-beat, because they know of the benefits and in regards to the police, it would be far less paperwork/foot slogging for them to do.
Amsterdam hasn't fallen apart since it was made legal there, and I don't see how a country cannot benefit from legalising the likes of pot. Harder drugs, however, is a different matter, I've seen heroin kill people, I've bured two friends, so far, who've OD'd, and I don't care to see that happen to any more of my friends.
So, should drugs be legalised? IMHO, some should yes, whereas others, definately not, isn't it bad enough that kids are out on the streets killing each others with knives and guns without giving them free reign to then kill each other with 'bad' batches of their drug of choice??

[Jess]

Thank you for engaging.

Here is the way I see this, and this doesn't mean it is the ONLY way or the RIGHT way to see it, it simply means this is the way I see it. Instead of saying, "Why make such detrimental outcomes that much easier?" and I quote you, I say, why not make such a detrimental outcome that much safer?

I think that we agree that addiction sees no deterrents, or at least that is what I see by your post. So, if there are no deterrents, why not make it safer? Why not supply more help where it counts, as in counseling?

I am not an expert, this is jut my opinion.

As for the other issues I agree, we need real health care, we need Human Rights to be Equal rights, but I don't see how this applies to addiction. Perhaps you can help me with that.


Sure. And thanks. I DO see a correlation between drug abuse and core issues such as self esteem/ poverty/ childhood abuse.. the list goes on. How many addicts do you know grew up with a complete sense of self? That "something" wasn't wrong with them in their sense of self worth? ALL of the core issues stem from feeling less than and seeking an easy way to "escape" that dark place.

Whether it being gay/ poor/ of color/ differently abled.. such a huge part of our country grows up feeling "othered" as it were that they seek solace in drugs/ alcohol/ sex. As adults we see it as "choice", but as a child who starts using early on, it is just surviving.

Make marijuana legal, sure. It has it's place. As for the rest, keep it illegal and force our legislators to step up and do the right thing for our people. Make discrimination in all forms illegal. Make education the priority for our youth and stop wasting funds on bullshit like sports., or 6 billion for NASA when we have such high unemployment. Tax corporations who send our jobs overseas and use slave labor in other countries while our people are without jobs. Bust up labor unions , which had their purpose in the beginnings but now just price common labor too high for companies to pay, while all of the rights that were needed back in the day are part of equal employment opportunity. We have no need for the high cost of unions today., Half of the folks are unemployed part of the year anyway cause they are on strike. Make immigration easier for folks truly just trying to make a new start.

We have so many common sense things that can be done to make America safe and profitable again and we are weighlayed daily by our "elected" officials. I don't think we are as "under-informed" as folks like to say, moreover we are over-stimulated by floods of half truths coming at us from every direction. More folks need to settle down and look around them and see what really is "real".

What is real is that we need to do away with the two party system as neither are any longer what they say they are. We need to do away with the electoral college ( cause no one is unable to vote anymore which was it's purpose) and the public vote can truly count again. We need to demand resumes from our candidates and see what the hell they have really done and not vote by popularity. If we truly want to be a country run by the people/ for the people, then the people need to get off our ass and hold our representatives responsible to carry out our wishes.

My opinions only and sorry to blurt them out here, I just see so many circular conversations regarding similar ( though worded differently) situations that it makes my skin crawl.

[SuperFemme]

Sorry to disagree with your logic, although I can see it. I don't see where making becoming addicted easier will make getting treatment any better. They don't give federal money now for addicts. Why would that change? There was a short period in the 80's where "treatment" was the trendy thing to do and insurance companies actually paid for it. Those days are way over and it is now "optional". Imagine that. It's optional to get treatment, as it is optional to become an addict. So says Blue Cross.

I try to see the point in legalizing highly addictive chemicals, but sorry, I just don't.

It's okay. We can totally agree to disagree. I don't think decriminalization will make becoming an addict any easier.

When I walk down the alcohol aisle in my supermarket? I always people watch who is buying booze. Because anyone buying it could be an alcoholic, but not everyone buying it is an alcoholic. They're walking by the same racks of booze after all.

I was almost killed by a drunk driver, but because it was a hit & run case when we got to court he was sentence to the maximum allowed for hit & run. Four years. I pleaded with the court to send him to a rehabilitation facility or to at least order AA when he paroled. The law didn't allow for that. I don't think prison time is going to help this young man at ALL but rather send out an angrier more volatile person. Who most likely will drink and drive again. How is that justice for either one of us or for potential victims?

As for the Blue Cross? Often times when you have cancer they deem chemo "not medically necessary" so yeah. They are the devil because they are allowed to be.

[AtLast]

I have to say, I found this thread very interesting, but mostly for the fact that not many who've posted have mentioned actually using these so called 'recreational' drugs, I personally smoke pot, but not for fun, I smoke because first and foremost it is the most effective painkiller for my disability.
I've had rheumatoid arthritis since I was in my teens and I've been put on most of the drugs available from the BMA (British Medical Association), now there are some which are only available in the US, because the medical association here deems them to be too unsafe/untested to prescribe to Brits, and those I have taken have more often than not had such major side-effects that I was worse off on them than off, so, if my RA's really bad, I'd much rather smoke, even my Consultant in hospital only has issues with my smoking pot because of the fact that I am smoking and not eating it ... Most doctors and police officers I know would legalise some drugs in a heart-beat, because they know of the benefits and in regards to the police, it would be far less paperwork/foot slogging for them to do.
Amsterdam hasn't fallen apart since it was made legal there, and I don't see how a country cannot benefit from legalising the likes of pot. Harder drugs, however, is a different matter, I've seen heroin kill people, I've bured two friends, so far, who've OD'd, and I don't care to see that happen to any more of my friends.
So, should drugs be legalised? IMHO, some should yes, whereas others, definately not, isn't it bad enough that kids are out on the streets killing each others with knives and guns without giving them free reign to then kill each other with 'bad' batches of their drug of choice??

I hear this often from other RA sufferers - pot helping with pain and even the swelling, stiffness, etc. There are times I wish this was something I could utilize for RA. I have just never cared for pot myself, even when first using it as a teen. It just makes me too anxious and I don't like feeling out of control, which the anxiety brings with iton for me. Probably a wiring thing.... However, I have met other people that have the same difficulty with pot. Alcohol isn't something I like all that much either and don't like to be around people that are way drunk or high. Acupuncture helps me quite a bit, but my insurance won't cover the treatments. Crazy- they will cover pain killers that can be addictive or are not so great to take while trying to work, or just live life.

CA has a pot decriminalization measure coming up and it includes taxation. I am going to vote for it. Msdemeanor's sentiments about this align with mine. Criminalization of pot just seems nuts to me overall.

I do not, however, believe pot to be totally safe, but think adults ought to make up their own minds about its possible side effects, especially with frequent, long-term use. On the other hand, it does have some positive medicinal purposes that have been demonstrated for a very long time. Other substances are a different matter for me.

[Mitmo01]

California hopefully passes that measure and then the rest of the country will be sure to follow... not only will that measure help all people access marijuana if they want to without legal retribution but it will also help California out with its huge deficit and take the money away from the cartels and the criminals....

also Atlast...i know a lot of people that do not like smoking it so they use the vaporizer method, clean and smoke free with all the benefits of the THC...might be something that could help you with your pain....

[Massive]

Here in the UK they partially decriminalised pot and then not long after they reinstated it as higher classification, it really amazes me, when there are doctors here who will prescribe it for arthritis sufferers and people with cancer, my little brother could've used it when he was having chemo and radiotherapy and a friend of mine went out of her way to get him some medical grade pot to help him!
I know there are some people who have issues with smoking it too AtLast, and my advice to them is to cook with it, you can make a tincture in vodka which you can apply directly to the affected areas, and that's not something new, I read about it when reading about victorian medical practices ... Also, when ingested the effects last for longer, but what they really need to do is further research into using the painkilling element of the canaboid for pain relief.
Also, and this is an aside from the legalisation issue, and something which still disgusts me to this day, the research department in Newcastle University found a cure for arthritis, which was one injection, per year, which left sufferers of arthritis totally pain free until the next injection and the pharmaceutical companies here quashed it because, from what I saw, they knew they would lose millions in revenue :angry:

[UofMfan]

California hopefully passes that measure and then the rest of the country will be sure to follow... not only will that measure help all people access marijuana if they want to without legal retribution but it will also help California out with its huge deficit and take the money away from the cartels and the criminals....

also Atlast...i know a lot of people that do not like smoking it so they use the vaporizer method, clean and smoke free with all the benefits of the THC...might be something that could help you with your pain....

I wish that were true, but so far that hasn't been the case with other issues like same-sex marriage, etc.

I think the Conservative side of California, those folks who voted for Prop 8, are only considering legalizing it because of its fiscal benefits.

So although I agree with your sentiment, I don't believe that because CA passes this law other states are just going to follow suit.

[Mitmo01]

and on the subject of rape victims---here is something that can acutally help victims of rape and ptsd if it were legal....MDMA and Psyilociban--magic mushrooms and LSD

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_he_me/us_med_psychedelic_therapy;_ylt=AjOiDDB0sknV.Erb7l TcEFHVJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2bTUyYXNzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMT AwNDIzL3VzX21lZF9wc3ljaGVkZWxpY190aGVyYXB5BHBvcwM0 BHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDcHN5Y2 hlZGVsaWN0

Psychedelic research organization: http://www.maps.org

[Toughy]

For the sake of disclosure.........

I have done damn near every street drug in every way you can think of and probably some you can't......laughin.... starting back in 1970 when I was 18 yrs old. So I have a bit of experience around this. I gave all that shit up 20-25 years ago. I'm just a pot smoker now and I have a medical marijuana card (I have RA). You could not pay me enough money to do white powder every again. Mother Nature's hallucinogens (mushrooms, peyote).....well I might do them again....although I am taking way to many pharmaceuticals and I worry about interactions.

I say legalize every drug on the street........all of them and make needles available for free at every drugstore (this would help out diabetics cuz they use the same needles junkies use). Legalize, tax, control the manufacture and distribution of said drugs. Treat them like alcohol and tobacco with age restrictions. It's really a no-brainer in my mind. Europe has models that work well for this.

Legalize prostitution also, but that is another thread.

There are other abstinence based recovery programs. AA is not the only game in town. LifeRing is one of them and it doesn't require powerlessness or giving up control to some higher power/god. It is against the law for a court to mandate AA as the treatment program. Courts can mandate treatment, but they can't say it has to be AA/12 Step based.

No one knows why one becomes an addict. It is not a character defect. People who have perfectly normal self esteem can be addicted to any substance. It does not run in families despite what folks say....there is no data to back that up. I personally don't subscribe to the 'disease' model. That was thought up so the health insurance companies and treatment programs could make big time bucks treating the disease. Addiction is a change in brain chemistry.....particularly in the dopamine (the pleasure chemical) pathways.

Oxycontin is a brand name for oxycodone....so is Percocet, Percodan, etc. Oxycontin is a time released version and was approved in the mid 90's. Percocet/Percodan have been around since the mid 70's. It is similar to morphine and is used for chronic pain. The FDA controls drugs and to my knowledge no state has said these drugs cannot be sold in their state..........I'm not sure they can and it would be incredibly stupid if they did.

ok done I think...........but back to the original question and as I have said many times over many years........legalize them all......you can't control what is illegal.

[MainelyButch]

I now have the munchies....:D

[UofMfan]

Sure. And thanks. I DO see a correlation between drug abuse and core issues such as self esteem/ poverty/ childhood abuse.. the list goes on. How many addicts do you know grew up with a complete sense of self? That "something" wasn't wrong with them in their sense of self worth? ALL of the core issues stem from feeling less than and seeking an easy way to "escape" that dark place.

Whether it being gay/ poor/ of color/ differently abled.. such a huge part of our country grows up feeling "othered" as it were that they seek solace in drugs/ alcohol/ sex. As adults we see it as "choice", but as a child who starts using early on, it is just surviving.

Make marijuana legal, sure. It has it's place. As for the rest, keep it illegal and force our legislators to step up and do the right thing for our people. Make discrimination in all forms illegal. Make education the priority for our youth and stop wasting funds on bullshit like sports., or 6 billion for NASA when we have such high unemployment. Tax corporations who send our jobs overseas and use slave labor in other countries while our people are without jobs. Bust up labor unions , which had their purpose in the beginnings but now just price common labor too high for companies to pay, while all of the rights that were needed back in the day are part of equal employment opportunity. We have no need for the high cost of unions today., Half of the folks are unemployed part of the year anyway cause they are on strike. Make immigration easier for folks truly just trying to make a new start.

We have so many common sense things that can be done to make America safe and profitable again and we are weighlayed daily by our "elected" officials. I don't think we are as "under-informed" as folks like to say, moreover we are over-stimulated by floods of half truths coming at us from every direction. More folks need to settle down and look around them and see what really is "real".

What is real is that we need to do away with the two party system as neither are any longer what they say they are. We need to do away with the electoral college ( cause no one is unable to vote anymore which was it's purpose) and the public vote can truly count again. We need to demand resumes from our candidates and see what the hell they have really done and not vote by popularity. If we truly want to be a country run by the people/ for the people, then the people need to get off our ass and hold our representatives responsible to carry out our wishes.

My opinions only and sorry to blurt them out here, I just see so many circular conversations regarding similar ( though worded differently) situations that it makes my skin crawl.

There are a lot of good points in your post, but I am going to start with those in bold because they struck a chord with me.

The same can be said for those of us who grew up like that but did not turn out to be addicts, thank God.

I think addiction is a disease, at times it is also hereditary. I am not a addict, so I am not coming from a place of experience of knowing, What I know I have read or learned while working in paces that do deal with addition. I came across a lot of addicts that came from affluent families and who where never exposed to abuse of any kind. So what made them addicts?

To me Human Rights and Equal rights mean different than to you, and that is OK. We simply see things different.

The other part that I highlighted I did because Bullshit like sports kept me away from drugs and alcohol and I know from my life experience and all those thousands of kids that later on I helped through sports, that it did the same from them. So I humbly disagree with that statement, wholeheartedly.

You make a lot of other points that I do agree with, but one, they are off topic and two I have a sugar induced headache. So perhaps at another time I can engage fully on those.

[AtLast]

California hopefully passes that measure and then the rest of the country will be sure to follow... not only will that measure help all people access marijuana if they want to without legal retribution but it will also help California out with its huge deficit and take the money away from the cartels and the criminals....

also Atlast...i know a lot of people that do not like smoking it so they use the vaporizer method, clean and smoke free with all the benefits of the THC...might be something that could help you with your pain....

Ah, HA!!! Wonder if it would make a difference with the anxiety thing.... dunno... Interesting, never thought of this! Amazing what this site brings!!

[betenoire]

There are other abstinence based recovery programs. AA is not the only game in town. LifeRing is one of them and it doesn't require powerlessness or giving up control to some higher power/god. It is against the law for a court to mandate AA as the treatment program. Courts can mandate treatment, but they can't say it has to be AA/12 Step based.

Good to know that the courts can't demand a person goes to AA specifically. I get (believe me, I do!) that AA has done a world of good for some people - but the whole god thing kinda squicks me out. I always felt like they were just encouraging people to replace one crutch with another, you know?

[Jess]

There are a lot of good points in your post, but I am going to start with those in bold because they struck a chord with me.

The same can be said for those of us who grew up like that but did not turn out to be addicts, thank God.

I think addiction is a disease, at times it is also hereditary. I am not a addict, so I am not coming from a place of experience of knowing, What I know I have read or learned while working in paces that do deal with addition. I came across a lot of addicts that came from affluent families and who where never exposed to abuse of any kind. So what made them addicts?

To me Human Rights and Equal rights mean different than to you, and that is OK. We simply see things different.

The other part that I highlighted I did because Bullshit like sports kept me away from drugs and alcohol and I know from my life experience and all those thousands of kids that later on I helped through sports, that it did the same from them. So I humbly disagree with that statement, wholeheartedly.

You make a lot of other points that I do agree with, but one, they are off topic and two I have a sugar induced headache. So perhaps at another time I can engage fully on those.


Just to let ya know... I never once used heredity as a premise for addiction , although some science does say it plays a role.

While I do see professional sports as bull shit, that is just my opinion and I also played sports in school and found great commraderie in the kinship of completing a common goal.

I don't know how you define Human Rights vs Equal rights, nor do you know how I do as we have not directly addressed this, so I do not understand how you can so readily disagree.

I am sorry you have a headache. Feel better.

[betenoire]

You make a lot of other points that I do agree with, but one, they are off topic and two I have a sugar induced headache. So perhaps at another time I can engage fully on those.


Hah! Lightweight. ;) I will see your sugar induced headache and raise you a caffeine-withdrawl headache -and- upset stomache. (I get a headache and throw up if I don't get enough coffee - speaking of which...I need to go make another pot.)

[SuperFemme]

Good to know that the courts can't demand a person goes to AA specifically. I get (believe me, I do!) that AA has done a world of good for some people - but the whole god thing kinda squicks me out. I always felt like they were just encouraging people to replace one crutch with another, you know?

I wonder why the secretary at the AA meetings signs court cards at the end of meeting then?

I go with a *friend* (wink wink nudge nudge) to open meetings and listen. I have noticed that the God quotient squicks many people out. The program HAS helped oodles of people, so whatever works.

[UofMfan]

Hah! Lightweight. ;) I will see your sugar induced headache and raise you a caffeine-withdrawl headache -and- upset stomache. (I get a headache and throw up if I don't get enough coffee - speaking of which...I need to go make another pot.)

Ha! Since I am not allowed to have caffeine, I will raise you a pot of the best decaf coffee in the world and the upset stomach (I am sure to get one) plus I will throw in a little of my day did not start well headache. So there!

[Toughy]

I wonder why the secretary at the AA meetings signs court cards at the end of meeting then?

I go with a *friend* (wink wink nudge nudge) to open meetings and listen. I have noticed that the God quotient squicks many people out. The program HAS helped oodles of people, so whatever works.

The secretary signs it so the court knows they are going to meetings. LifeRing conveners sign those documents also. So do the facilitators of other recovery meetings.

You would be surprized at the data on all recovery programs. More folks get clean and sober without a program than with a program.....and no they are not what AA calls 'dry drunks'.........

this is a derail I think............

[Toughy]

headaches are contagious...........I have one now......my cure is:

hot black tea and a big fat joint...........and no stomach upset......

:riding2:

[UofMfan]

Just to let ya know... I never once used heredity as a premise for addiction , although some science does say it plays a role.

While I do see professional sports as bull shit, that is just my opinion and I also played sports in school and found great commraderie in the kinship of completing a common goal.

I don't know how you define Human Rights vs Equal rights, nor do you know how I do as we have not directly addressed this, so I do not understand how you can so readily disagree.

I am sorry you have a headache. Feel better.

No, you didn't, I did. I think it does play a role, but I am only saying that from what I have observed, not backed by any scientific fact.

Playing sports while in school keeps kids off the streets and by default mostly off drugs, I truly believe that. Again, this from personal experience.

I wasn't saying Human Rights Vs. Equal Rights. I am thinking I may not be as articulate as I hope to be. We can certainly discuss that topic at another time.

Thanks for your sentiments about my headache, I have only myself to blame. Darn trip to "Candy's factory", the place I ran into after lunch. How could I resist nerds and gummy bears when I hardly ever get to eat them?!

[UofMfan]

headaches are contagious...........I have one now......my cure is:

hot black tea and a big fat joint...........and no stomach upset......

:riding2:

Ha, and I usually take to Advils go figure.

[SuperFemme]

The secretary signs it so the court knows they are going to meetings. LifeRing conveners sign those documents also. So do the facilitators of other recovery meetings.

You would be surprized at the data on all recovery programs. More folks get clean and sober without a program than with a program.....and no they are not what AA calls 'dry drunks'.........

this is a derail I think............

I am not an AA member, and am not in any way advocating that theirs is the only way. I used them in my post because it was the first thing that came to mind. My court card question was mere curiosity. I'd seen it done and was curious as to why.

Sorry for the derail and the headache. Pass that thing please. :fastdraq:

[betenoire]

Ha, and I usually take to Advils go figure.

Brandy's headache remedy:

3 Advil, 2 Tylenol Sinus, half a pot of coffee, a hot bath, an icepack on my forehead, tigerbalm to the temples, eat something with lots of protein in it, scoop the kittylitter box.

I figure if I do all of those things pretty much at once that I've covered my basis and solved whatever it is that caused the headache to begin with.

Hi. I'm being offtopic.

[AtLast]

No caffiene? Oh, no....

:bolt:

[AtLast]

Just to let ya know... I never once used heredity as a premise for addiction , although some science does say it plays a role.

While I do see professional sports as bull shit, that is just my opinion and I also played sports in school and found great commraderie in the kinship of completing a common goal.

I don't know how you define Human Rights vs Equal rights, nor do you know how I do as we have not directly addressed this, so I do not understand how you can so readily disagree.

I am sorry you have a headache. Feel better.


Early brain studies demonstrated a consistent hereditary relationship between male children and their father’s. concerning alcoholism incidence. But I don’t know if current research has shed any light on this and also the early work just did not focus on women alcoholics. Kind of the same thing as has been true in many medical research areas in which men were the focus (i.e., early heart disease research). Lots of factors of male privilege and stereotypical assumptions about women are behind this. The woman alcoholic was pretty much disregarded for decades. And not studied until women began to enter colleges, professions and the workforce at large in greater numbers. Now, in relationship to breast cancer (in women) and prostate cancer and even testicular cancer in men, the research was skewed in the other direction. Interesting to think about this as historically men seek medical attention less than women and this has some pretty stereotypic gender role assumptions behind it.


This could be very different today (I’m just no longer up with this literature). Also, the advances in MRI imaging and brain studies could have yielded new data. Maybe someone here knows more about current heredity research and alcoholism or other types of addictions that isn’t influenced in the same ways. There could possibly be research today that takes into consideration transgendered and intergendered people and addiction from a heredity perspective. I wonder..... this could throw a whole new set of variables in the mix!

My mind just works this way.... seems there are ever evolving ways to look at things.

[Gemme]

Opinion only...

Legalize pot. Never heard of anyone od'ing on pot or committing homicide in a pot induced haze. Never heard of anyone jonesing so bad for pot they commit larceny or murder or rape. Keep narcotics/ opiate derivitives /methamphetamines etc illegal.

I share this opinion.

Alcohol is legal and yet it's abused regularly and, during the course of the abuse, others are hurt through domestic violence, vehicular homicide, home invasions, etc. That won't change and it won't change if harder drugs are legal, either.

Pot has medicinal value. I do think it should be legal and bought and sold with few or no restrictions, as long as parameters are put into place to prevent folks from coming to work high, thus endangering any and all they come into contact with. I also think that...as someone already mentioned...sex workers should be legal and should be allowed to Unionize if they wish.

[Toph]

Legalize Marijuana!!! think of the generated tax revenue that will cushion the tax payer!!!

not that i smoke it or partake but, with its' prooven medicinal qualities, it can not be any worse than alcohol... however, many have lost their jobs over the use of it.

my view is simple
if workers are forced to into [the humiliation of] random drug tests in order to work (and pay taxes), then career social system abusers ought to be randomly drug tested in order to collect our taxes every month...

*please note* i said career social system abusers!!!

[MainelyButch]

headaches are contagious...........I have one now......my cure is:

hot black tea and a big fat joint...........and no stomach upset......

:riding2:

I like your style Toughy. Nothing beats a fatty for a headache. Now where'd I put that roach clip?? :D

[weatherboi]

What is more humane people?? Letting the cartels control whats available on the street or a country that takes responsibility for a systemic and societal problem that is not going away no mater what we do??


Legalization of all drugs may work if we strictly enforce the points below and allow them the opportunity to systemically work there way into our society.The demand for drugs will always exist. Fear based laws and restrictions only allow the cartels the opportunity to put the drugs on our street. People, those drugs will be finding the way on the street no matter what!!!! We as a country have been fighting the war on drugs since Nixon and it has only cost lives and money. Being in the hospitality industry there is one thing I have learned. If an employee is gonna do drugs on the job it doesn't matter if they are legal or not...he/she is gonna do drugs. If a person is so depressed or distressed that they turn to heroin then they are gonna find it and do it weather it is legal or not.

People have been choosing drugs for self medication purposes, in some form or fashion, since time began. It is inherent in almost every culture on this earth. Why not make them legal so we can control the product???


Permit private companies to compete for licenses to cultivate, harvest, manufacture, package and peddle drugs.

Create regulation agencies (sorry libertarians and paleo-conservatives).

Sanitation, potency and purity. Standards people!! Set em and enforce em!!

In no way shape form or fashion can anything be advertised.

Taxes, fees and fines need to be imposed. Drug-abuse prevention and treatment programs can be paid from this and cover admin costs from regulation.

Just like the alcoholic-beverage-control agencies keep bars and liquor stores in check, the same can be dome with drugs. Understand there will always be a negative element to the drug world weather they are legal or not. Such reforms would in no way excuse drug users who commit crimes.

[Apocalipstic]

I used to teach the alcohol classes to be able to serve alcohol in TN, I could start a new career teaching drug classes.

*beam*

[Jess]

Early brain studies demonstrated a consistent hereditary relationship between male children and their father’s. concerning alcoholism incidence. But I don’t know if current research has shed any light on this and also the early work just did not focus on women alcoholics. Kind of the same thing as has been true in many medical research areas in which men were the focus (i.e., early heart disease research). Lots of factors of male privilege and stereotypical assumptions about women are behind this. The woman alcoholic was pretty much disregarded for decades. And not studied until women began to enter colleges, professions and the workforce at large in greater numbers. Now, in relationship to breast cancer (in women) and prostate cancer and even testicular cancer in men, the research was skewed in the other direction. Interesting to think about this as historically men seek medical attention less than women and this has some pretty stereotypic gender role assumptions behind it.


This could be very different today (I’m just no longer up with this literature). Also, the advances in MRI imaging and brain studies could have yielded new data. Maybe someone here knows more about current heredity research and alcoholism or other types of addictions that isn’t influenced in the same ways. There could possibly be research today that takes into consideration transgendered and intergendered people and addiction from a heredity perspective. I wonder..... this could throw a whole new set of variables in the mix!

My mind just works this way.... seems there are ever evolving ways to look at things.


Great points. Actually breast cancer research was primarily done on men for years. I think it was around 1989 or so that a huge push was made to do more research on women, cause gee, ya know.. we have breasts.

Now that we actually have cases of men getting types of breast cancer of course we need to do more work with their bodies.

[AtLast]

What is more humane people?? Letting the cartels control whats available on the street or a country that takes responsibility for a systemic and societal problem that is not going away no mater what we do??


Legalization of all drugs may work if we strictly enforce the points below and allow them the opportunity to systemically work there way into our society.The demand for drugs will always exist. Fear based laws and restrictions only allow the cartels the opportunity to put the drugs on our street. People, those drugs will be finding the way on the street no matter what!!!! We as a country have been fighting the war on drugs since Nixon and it has only cost lives and money. Being in the hospitality industry there is one thing I have learned. If an employee is gonna do drugs on the job it doesn't matter if they are legal or not...he/she is gonna do drugs. If a person is so depressed or distressed that they turn to heroin then they are gonna find it and do it weather it is legal or not.

People have been choosing drugs for self medication purposes, in some form or fashion, since time began. It is inherent in almost every culture on this earth. Why not make them legal so we can control the product???


Permit private companies to compete for licenses to cultivate, harvest, manufacture, package and peddle drugs.

Create regulation agencies (sorry libertarians and paleo-conservatives).

Sanitation, potency and purity. Standards people!! Set em and enforce em!!

In no way shape form or fashion can anything be advertised.

Taxes, fees and fines need to be imposed. Drug-abuse prevention and treatment programs can be paid from this and cover admin costs from regulation.

Just like the alcoholic-beverage-control agencies keep bars and liquor stores in check, the same can be dome with drugs. Understand there will always be a negative element to the drug world weather they are legal or not. Such reforms would in no way excuse drug users who commit crimes.

[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT="Century Gothic"][COLOR="Navy"]It seems (need to look at the actual language) that the proposed decriminalization and taxation of pot in CA proposition could begin movement toward this kind of model for other substances in CA and nationwide. Just have to see how it plays out, if it passes (looks like it will... well, if mega-bucks religious neo-cons don't grab hold with campaigns to defeat it).

It is hard for a lot of people (including myself, sometimes) to let go of long standing beliefs about drug use and certain kinds of drugs, but, these beliefs have certainly not done much to really deal with this whole issue effectively. The entanglements with crimes related to drugs really gets in the way with changing attitudes. Or to have effective and equally accessible treatment available to people.

I think you should write the legislation! Wouldn't it be great to have short, clear, direct language instead of the mega-loophole compositions most legislation ends up being! Also, what has been done in the past and still exists, isn't working.

[PearlsNLace]

So, please help me here. Regulated, prescribed drugs are being abused, so we need all drugs no matter of the consequence of taking them to be legal? This will help you in your daily encounters with addicts how?

I am seriously amazed and confused by this position within our community. A community laden with addiction.

My positition is that there is no law, no war, no defense against addiction outside of education.

My postition is pro regulation, not because it will be an addiction deterrent. But because it would provide better resources for the addictions that will happen, no matter how they are accessed.


My positition is that laws criminalizing chemicals compounds, not prevents, the complicated problems of addictions.

My position is that the war on drugs does nothing to prevent addiction, and has only profitted the wrong people.

My postition is that ESPECIALLY for our community, education is vital, alternative social outlets that are NOT chemically centered are essential, and that our members suffer harsher consequences in our current legal system when caught.

Is that more clear?

[UofMfan]

My headache is gone thanks to everyone that wished it so. I have a lot to read and catch up on.

I want to thank everyone who has participated.

Be back later to comment.

[Jess]

My positition is that there is no law, no war, no defense against addiction outside of education.

My postition is pro regulation, not because it will be an addiction deterrent. But because it would provide better resources for the addictions that will happen, no matter how they are accessed.


My positition is that laws criminalizing chemicals compounds, not prevents, the complicated problems of addictions.

My position is that the war on drugs does nothing to prevent addiction, and has only profitted the wrong people.

My postition is that ESPECIALLY for our community, education is vital, alternative social outlets that are NOT chemically centered are essential, and that our members suffer harsher consequences in our current legal system when caught.

Is that more clear?


Thanks Miss Pearls. I do get what you are saying. I don't see addiction(s) ever going away. Legal or not folks are still going to do illegal things to get drugs. Percocet is legal and how many folks sell their scripts on the street? Know what I mean?

I guess legalizing it all does remove it more from the hands of "dealers" and puts it back into the hands of the government. It will also make the "outlaws" just find new illegal drugs. I think a huge part of the whole drug lure is IN it's illegality. Part of the "gangster" ( outlaw/ rebel/ moonshiner/ anti-authority) mindset.

I guess my biggest thing is seeing access to helpful medicinal drugs more readily available and not necessarily the narcotics, etc.

[AtLast]

Great points. Actually breast cancer research was primarily done on men for years. I think it was around 1989 or so that a huge push was made to do more research on women, cause gee, ya know.. we have breasts.

Now that we actually have cases of men getting types of breast cancer of course we need to do more work with their bodies.

Thanks... I kind of remember the nutso collection of breast cancer data about men initially. I think that the push to study women (yeah, we do have those breasts!) also shifted due to the upsurge of estrogen related breast cancer after the early years of women taking birth control pills. The first BC pills available had insane amounts of estgrogen!!! My Mom was in the first clinical trials of the little pink pill and devoloped one of these breast cancers. Also, many women taking the early generation of the pill developed problems conceiving when they did desire to get pregnant.

Absolutely, cancer research needs to be gender neutral...

[Toughy]

I'm not remembering that breast cancer research was done in men first.........shrug...........who has a link for this? Cancer research should not always be gender neutral. There are cancers that are not gender neutral.

Narcotics.......poppy based pharmaceutical drugs in the morphine family.........have huge medicinal value.

I'm a self proclaimed outlaw and proud of it. I never have done any drug because of the thrill of doing something illegal.....and none of my friends did it for some bogus crap like that.............

My granddaddy was a moonshiner (and the sheriff)........he didn't make moonshine for some thrill of breaking the law...he was the law.....he did it cuz he liked moonshine and liked the money he made from selling it..........

Romanticizing why folks use is not useful.

I think it is a red herring to suggest pot or any other drug should be legal based on medicinal value. I'm not a fan of the 'legalize pot because it's medicinal' club. Legalize pot because it's stupid to have it illegal. It grows everywhere and I mean everywhere in the world.

I think drug testing for employment is bullshit. I don't care if the clerk at the local grocery store is stoned or not.......who gives a shit as long as they can pass the product across the bar code machine. Drug testing that finds THC present says nothing about my ability to function at the time I pissed in the cup. It just says I smoked pot sometime in the last 2-3 days or month or was in a room full of folks smoking the night before. General employment drug screens only say positive or negative. You can test positive for pot for years after you last smoked some........THC is fat soluble (is stored in fat) chemical and if you start losing weight you can test positive even if you haven't smoked pot for months.

Anyone with half a brain can figure out the half-life of the their prescribed or illegal drug of choice..........it's all out there on the net. Pre-emploment drug testing is kind of like you have to take off your shoes and are limited to only 3 oz containers of liquids and toothpaste and they must be in a quart baggie ....and then there was you can have up to 3 books of matches but NO lighters.........ignorant bullshit that gives you a false sense of security. And if you have a prescription then it's all good.

[Nat]

I have mixed feelings. I think most drugs should be legal, but I would hesitate at really damaging drugs like meth and coke and heroine, etc. Drugs where the minute you get addicted, you may very easily do permanent damage to your health and brain.

Still, I'd rather see people placed in treatment than in prison.

I do not think that drug use is a victimless crime - when it comes to serious drugs. When a person is seriously addicted to something that keeps them from living, wanting to live, thinking relatively clearly, working, parenting, etc., I really feel like that's a crime that affects everybody in that person's life and also people that person doesn't even know - like those who end up paying the hospital bills. At the same time, most of that can be said of alcohol too, and that idea puts me right back on the fence.

I guess I'd go for legalizing the safer drugs and decriminalizing the rest. If use of some drug leads to driving while intoxicated or the commission of other crimes either due to lack of judgment or a need to feed the addiction with cash, then those crimes should most definitely be punished.

[Gemme]

Narcotics.......poppy based pharmaceutical drugs in the morphine family.........have huge medicinal value.


Based on what you say about pot below and its medicinal value (red herring), I wonder you mention this.

I think it is a red herring to suggest pot or any other drug should be legal based on medicinal value. I'm not a fan of the 'legalize pot because it's medicinal' club. Legalize pot because it's stupid to have it illegal. It grows everywhere and I mean everywhere in the world.

I think drug testing for employment is bullshit. I don't care if the clerk at the local grocery store is stoned or not.......who gives a shit as long as they can pass the product across the bar code machine. Drug testing that finds THC present says nothing about my ability to function at the time I pissed in the cup. It just says I smoked pot sometime in the last 2-3 days or month or was in a room full of folks smoking the night before. General employment drug screens only say positive or negative. You can test positive for pot for years after you last smoked some........THC is fat soluble (is stored in fat) chemical and if you start losing weight you can test positive even if you haven't smoked pot for months.




Who gives a shit? Well, if...for example...it's a police officer and his actions or the speed (or lack thereof, depending on what he's high on) of his actions causes me to get hurt, then fuck yeah, I give a shit.

I give a shit if the people I leave my baby with are smoking it up or snorting or shooting something and my baby wanders off or gets hurt or develops medical issues because of being in the room with them while they processed meth, for example. I'd give one helluva shit about that.

If the doctor performing surgery on me is under the influence of anything, I give a shit.

I would give a shit if a firefighter was buzzing and had reduced reaction times and wasn't able to get all of my family out in time.

I can see a lot of potential lawsuits, actually, which is never a good thing.

On a personal level, my hotel's maintenance department...all two of them...are bona fide potheads. They don't need it. They do it because they're in a band and think that shit is cool. Okay, fine. But they come to work stoned and they smoke it at work and the "work" they do while here is sub-par so when guests find something that's not done right (and occasionally dangerous), then MY ass gets chewed out because I'm the face of the hotel. Fuck that and fuck them for putting the rest of their coworkers in this position. Obviously my personal opinion of them being shitheads colors my vision, but the point is the same. It's not isolated. We all are connected in different ways and the stupid shit one person does drips onto the next.

I can kind of see your line of thinking here, but I'm looking at the big picture. I don't think we'd be able to have one and not the other. Testing is non-negotiable to me.

[wolfwalker]

this is strictly my thoughts on the subject.

the netherlands have long ago given up on doing the drug battle. figuring out that they can not stop people from doing drugs if they so desire. you can sit in a cafe and order a joint of weed as an after dinner treat. you can also buy at shops as in california.

it is interesting to note that they dont have large issues with a lot of other drugs. they do have some problems with addicts but they treat their addicts as humans with problems, not bait for a long jail term. they give their addicts their drugs and clean equipment to use them.they also offer treatment to anyone wanting treatment, not a jail sentence. reason? so they dont go killing, maiming and stealing from people and causing huge grief. this also lowers the aids transmission.

there is a percentage of people destine to be addicts, no way around it.these people are humans and the cost of treatment is much lower then throwing people in jail. they feel that it is the christian thing to do and i agree with their train of thought.

what I do or someone else does in the privacy of their home is not the concern of the law. if i drive down the road and I am high , then the law has a right to do something then, just as they do if i am drunk.

we have laws in place to protect the safety of others. use them to control just as we do with alcohol.

there is a very high percentage of people walking around everyday taking prescibed or over the counter drugs which can be just as dangerous as many non legal drugs. little is done about that other then a warning on the label.

more violence is done in the name of illegal then there would be if they were legal. just look at the border issues and the deaths involved in the illegal trade. people getting tainted drugs and dying etc.

legalize it, regulate it and spend some money on drug treatment.

wolf

[Nat]

I think pot functions for many people as an anti-anxiety and anti-depressant med (that works better in many cases than anti-anxiety and anti-depressant meds). I would say maybe a third of the people I know (hey, I'm from Austin) are regular smokers, and most of them are pretty high-functioning (no pun intended) - even the wake-n-bakers. I knew a physics major at UT (which has a very difficult physics program) who made straight A's while smoking pot on a daily basis. I know another person who struggles with anorexia, and pot's the only thing that allows him to eat. Another friend of mine has fibromyalgia, and pot is one of the only things that helps her handle the pain. It probably helps many many people in this country endure dead-end miserable jobs. For some people, pot really is the only or best-working medicine available for them.

I may have figured out (a couple years ago) that it's not for me, but my experience with others is that most people who do use pot are more accepting, more understanding, warmer, calmer, less judgmental and more able to deal than people who don't - and that's something I can appreciate.

I think people's reactions to it vary, but there are many people you meet a day who are on mind- and mood-altering drugs. Some are legal and some aren't. Legal anti-depressant and anti-anxiety drugs are just one category of drugs that affect all sorts of brain function and are still perfectly legal. .

[Martina]

My problem is that rich folks do not get busted for drugs although they use them all the time. Criminalization of drugs puts poor people in jail. That has huge social consequences. Occasionally some well off person will accidentally get caught holding and get arrested, but poor people get arrested all the time for having drugs on them. That means time in jail and fewer opportunities for work in the future.

i am an addict. i believe that it is genetic. i think that environment plays a part. i have also seen lots and lots of people benefit in a hundred ways from twelve step. i don't think 12-step is the only way, but i have seen it work.

Re drug use itself, i don't find it charming or appealing. i guess that's because i grew up with an alcoholic mother. Countries that have decriminalized still have problems, i agree. BUT they are not contributing to the class polarization of their society by incarcerating the poor over and again, helping to fuck them up and make them less employable. For god's sake, how stupid is that?

[Apocalipstic]

I will not , not have I ever worked for a place which drugs tests. I find it incredibly invasive.

The state makes us drug test our truck drivers to get their licenses, so I no longer drive the big trucks...I am getting too old and mostly have too much to do otherwise now anyway. I just liked to drive then because it was fun. :)

But giving urine or blood samples to get a job? Not for me.

[Jess]

When I was drug tested for work, there was an initial test upon hiring and then random testing with names being generated by a computer. Sort of like a lottery.

The test was non-invasive using a cotton swab type thing that you kept in your mouth for three or so minutes and was then shipped off to be tested for whatever agent they were looking for.

Did I need a drug test to run a meat department? I doubt it. Even though I worked with knives and a bandsaw, which would probably put me in a higher liability bracket for insurance purposes, I doubt a cashier would face the same liability, however, they are directly handling money and customers and could potentially affect business. Still... not all that great a reason to be tested.

Surgeons, train conductors, pilots.. em.. yeah, I kinda want to know they are without hallucinogenics in their system. Folks with guns ( cops/ soldiers) again.. test their ass.

Can I decide who should get tested and who not? Nope. Because there will always be someone saying, well if I have to then joe blow has to. I think part of it is for insurance purposes and part is just plain old safety.

I don't really care if the kid who works for us sometimes gets high. I do care when he gets high before coming over and wastes four hours doing something that would otherwise take him a half hour. I do also care when he smashes a finger or cuts himself or lets my dog wander off because of carelessness that accompanies the "high".

I guess I may not be getting a good grip on how a lot of folks see legalization. Are you saying make it legal in the "over 21 OTC sales" sort of way, or in the "go to doctor and get a script sort of way? Like, you can go pick up a dime of meth( not sure if meth is in dimes or what, sorry) or a rock of crack at Walmarts drug section when you pick up your tylenol, milk and big screen tv?

[UofMfan]

Snip...
I think drug testing for employment is bullshit. I don't care if the clerk at the local grocery store is stoned or not.......who gives a shit as long as they can pass the product across the bar code machine. Drug testing that finds THC present says nothing about my ability to function at the time I pissed in the cup. It just says I smoked pot sometime in the last 2-3 days or month or was in a room full of folks smoking the night before. General employment drug screens only say positive or negative. You can test positive for pot for years after you last smoked some........THC is fat soluble (is stored in fat) chemical and if you start losing weight you can test positive even if you haven't smoked pot for months.

Anyone with half a brain can figure out the half-life of the their prescribed or illegal drug of choice..........it's all out there on the net. Pre-emploment drug testing is kind of like you have to take off your shoes and are limited to only 3 oz containers of liquids and toothpaste and they must be in a quart baggie ....and then there was you can have up to 3 books of matches but NO lighters.........ignorant bullshit that gives you a false sense of security. And if you have a prescription then it's all good.

I think that there are certain jobs that MUST require drug testing. I am not a fan of any invasive procedures, but I also work for the aviation industry and I can tell you firsthand that not only do I not want the flight crew on ANY drug, I don't want any of the ground personnel, mechanics or anyone remotely involved with the aircraft or flight on them, prescribed or illegal.

Yesterday I was so affected by a report that I read on an airline mechanic that died while at work. I am not saying drugs were involved, but it clearly shows how any lapse in judgmental/concentration can have devastating effects.

I have mixed feelings. I think most drugs should be legal, but I would hesitate at really damaging drugs like meth and coke and heroine, etc. Drugs where the minute you get addicted, you may very easily do permanent damage to your health and brain.

Still, I'd rather see people placed in treatment than in prison.

I do not think that drug use is a victimless crime - when it comes to serious drugs. When a person is seriously addicted to something that keeps them from living, wanting to live, thinking relatively clearly, working, parenting, etc., I really feel like that's a crime that affects everybody in that person's life and also people that person doesn't even know - like those who end up paying the hospital bills. At the same time, most of that can be said of alcohol too, and that idea puts me right back on the fence.

I guess I'd go for legalizing the safer drugs and decriminalizing the rest. If use of some drug leads to driving while intoxicated or the commission of other crimes either due to lack of judgment or a need to feed the addiction with cash, then those crimes should most definitely be punished.

I agree with you, I also have mixed feelings. And I am totally against criminalizing it like it is now. It is business, just like jailing illegal/legal immigrants is.


Who gives a shit? Well, if...for example...it's a police officer and his actions or the speed (or lack thereof, depending on what he's high on) of his actions causes me to get hurt, then fuck yeah, I give a shit.

Snipped...

I can kind of see your line of thinking here, but I'm looking at the big picture. I don't think we'd be able to have one and not the other. Testing is non-negotiable to me.

I give a shit too.

this is strictly my thoughts on the subject.

the netherlands have long ago given up on doing the drug battle. figuring out that they can not stop people from doing drugs if they so desire. you can sit in a cafe and order a joint of weed as an after dinner treat. you can also buy at shops as in california.

it is interesting to note that they dont have large issues with a lot of other drugs. they do have some problems with addicts but they treat their addicts as humans with problems, not bait for a long jail term. they give their addicts their drugs and clean equipment to use them.they also offer treatment to anyone wanting treatment, not a jail sentence. reason? so they dont go killing, maiming and stealing from people and causing huge grief. this also lowers the aids transmission.

there is a percentage of people destine to be addicts, no way around it.these people are humans and the cost of treatment is much lower then throwing people in jail. they feel that it is the christian thing to do and i agree with their train of thought.

what I do or someone else does in the privacy of their home is not the concern of the law. if i drive down the road and I am high , then the law has a right to do something then, just as they do if i am drunk.

we have laws in place to protect the safety of others. use them to control just as we do with alcohol.

there is a very high percentage of people walking around everyday taking prescibed or over the counter drugs which can be just as dangerous as many non legal drugs. little is done about that other then a warning on the label.

more violence is done in the name of illegal then there would be if they were legal. just look at the border issues and the deaths involved in the illegal trade. people getting tainted drugs and dying etc.

legalize it, regulate it and spend some money on drug treatment.

wolf

I think you bring a very important point to this conversation when you talk about the dangers of prescribed drugs. This is something that needs to be looked at also.


I think pot functions for many people as an anti-anxiety and anti-depressant med (that works better in many cases than anti-anxiety and anti-depressant meds). I would say maybe a third of the people I know (hey, I'm from Austin) are regular smokers, and most of them are pretty high-functioning (no pun intended) - even the wake-n-bakers. I knew a physics major at UT (which has a very difficult physics program) who made straight A's while smoking pot on a daily basis. I know another person who struggles with anorexia, and pot's the only thing that allows him to eat. Another friend of mine has fibromyalgia, and pot is one of the only things that helps her handle the pain. It probably helps many many people in this country endure dead-end miserable jobs. For some people, pot really is the only or best-working medicine available for them.

I may have figured out (a couple years ago) that it's not for me, but my experience with others is that most people who do use pot are more accepting, more understanding, warmer, calmer, less judgmental and more able to deal than people who don't - and that's something I can appreciate.

I think people's reactions to it vary, but there are many people you meet a day who are on mind- and mood-altering drugs. Some are legal and some aren't. Legal anti-depressant and anti-anxiety drugs are just one category of drugs that affect all sorts of brain function and are still perfectly legal. .

I think it is great to take them as anti-anxiety drugs, as long as you don't take either prescribed or illegal ones during the course of your job, more so if your job requires that you handle people's lives. If you need them to perform any of those jobs then you need to change careers, this is of course my personal opinion.

I know all about Austin being laid back and all, and I can totally get behind students at UT or other Universities doing this, as long as they are not involved in any medical research, safety research, etc.


My problem is that rich folks do not get busted for drugs although they use them all the time. Criminalization of drugs puts poor people in jail. That has huge social consequences. Occasionally some well off person will accidentally get caught holding and get arrested, but poor people get arrested all the time for having drugs on them. That means time in jail and fewer opportunities for work in the future.

i am an addict. i believe that it is genetic. i think that environment plays a part. i have also seen lots and lots of people benefit in a hundred ways from twelve step. i don't think 12-step is the only way, but i have seen it work.

Re drug use itself, i don't find it charming or appealing. i guess that's because i grew up with an alcoholic mother. Countries that have decriminalized still have problems, i agree. BUT they are not contributing to the class polarization of their society by incarcerating the poor over and again, helping to fuck them up and make them less employable. For god's sake, how stupid is that?

You are so right, like in most cases, minorities are the ones who get incarcerated and punish for this. We need to provide counseling and rehab, not jail beds.

I will not , not have I ever worked for a place which drugs tests. I find it incredibly invasive.

The state makes us drug test our truck drivers to get their licenses, so I no longer drive the big trucks...I am getting too old and mostly have too much to do otherwise now anyway. I just liked to drive then because it was fun. :)

But giving urine or blood samples to get a job? Not for me.

I totally get it, I wouldn't want to have to go through one. I have had to take them in the past for pre-employment screening, and that did not make any sense. My job did not warrant such a test. I believe that it was done for insurance purposed like Jess mentioned, and that irritates me. I understand the premise and logic behind it, but it irritates me nonetheless.

I think there are legitimate reasons to have one done, as I mentioned in a previous post.

I also think that like you, Apocalisptic, we get to choose if we want to go through that or not.


When I was drug tested for work, there was an initial test upon hiring and then random testing with names being generated by a computer. Sort of like a lottery.

The test was non-invasive using a cotton swab type thing that you kept in your mouth for three or so minutes and was then shipped off to be tested for whatever agent they were looking for.

Did I need a drug test to run a meat department? I doubt it. Even though I worked with knives and a bandsaw, which would probably put me in a higher liability bracket for insurance purposes, I doubt a cashier would face the same liability, however, they are directly handling money and customers and could potentially affect business. Still... not all that great a reason to be tested.

Surgeons, train conductors, pilots.. em.. yeah, I kinda want to know they are without hallucinogenics in their system. Folks with guns ( cops/ soldiers) again.. test their ass.

Can I decide who should get tested and who not? Nope. Because there will always be someone saying, well if I have to then joe blow has to. I think part of it is for insurance purposes and part is just plain old safety.

I don't really care if the kid who works for us sometimes gets high. I do care when he gets high before coming over and wastes four hours doing something that would otherwise take him a half hour. I do also care when he smashes a finger or cuts himself or lets my dog wander off because of carelessness that accompanies the "high".

I guess I may not be getting a good grip on how a lot of folks see legalization. Are you saying make it legal in the "over 21 OTC sales" sort of way, or in the "go to doctor and get a script sort of way? Like, you can go pick up a dime of meth( not sure if meth is in dimes or what, sorry) or a rock of crack at Walmarts drug section when you pick up your tylenol, milk and big screen tv?

Jess, I agree with most of what you said here.

And as far as your last paragraph, I think that although we have spoken about legalization, no one has clearly stated how that would work, so I understand you not getting it a grip on that yet. We have all kind of tossed ideas/opinions around. You bring up a very good point.

That would be a very good topic to focus on, how do we see this legalization if it were to happen?

[Apocalipstic]

Let me be more clear.

I do not think one should go to work impaired, but I do not think what one does in one's off time is anyone's business.

There has to be a line, and for me testing what I do after hours or on vacation is not OK.

We have the right to privacy.

Invasive for me is a test at all, not how it is administered.

ps. also, some of the stereotypes of how smoking pot affects people are just not true.

[Gemme]

this is strictly my thoughts on the subject.

the netherlands have long ago given up on doing the drug battle. figuring out that they can not stop people from doing drugs if they so desire. you can sit in a cafe and order a joint of weed as an after dinner treat. you can also buy at shops as in california.

it is interesting to note that they dont have large issues with a lot of other drugs. they do have some problems with addicts but they treat their addicts as humans with problems, not bait for a long jail term. they give their addicts their drugs and clean equipment to use them.they also offer treatment to anyone wanting treatment, not a jail sentence. reason? so they dont go killing, maiming and stealing from people and causing huge grief. this also lowers the aids transmission.

there is a percentage of people destine to be addicts, no way around it.these people are humans and the cost of treatment is much lower then throwing people in jail. they feel that it is the christian thing to do and i agree with their train of thought.

what I do or someone else does in the privacy of their home is not the concern of the law. if i drive down the road and I am high , then the law has a right to do something then, just as they do if i am drunk.

we have laws in place to protect the safety of others. use them to control just as we do with alcohol.

there is a very high percentage of people walking around everyday taking prescibed or over the counter drugs which can be just as dangerous as many non legal drugs. little is done about that other then a warning on the label.

more violence is done in the name of illegal then there would be if they were legal. just look at the border issues and the deaths involved in the illegal trade. people getting tainted drugs and dying etc.

legalize it, regulate it and spend some money on drug treatment.

wolf

You have some good points, but Europe and other countries have been treating their people better for eons now. Think of how members of our community are treated there versus here. What works for them won't work for us until WE change, not just our policies.

I think pot functions for many people as an anti-anxiety and anti-depressant med (that works better in many cases than anti-anxiety and anti-depressant meds). I would say maybe a third of the people I know (hey, I'm from Austin) are regular smokers, and most of them are pretty high-functioning (no pun intended) - even the wake-n-bakers. I knew a physics major at UT (which has a very difficult physics program) who made straight A's while smoking pot on a daily basis. I know another person who struggles with anorexia, and pot's the only thing that allows him to eat. Another friend of mine has fibromyalgia, and pot is one of the only things that helps her handle the pain. It probably helps many many people in this country endure dead-end miserable jobs. For some people, pot really is the only or best-working medicine available for them.

I may have figured out (a couple years ago) that it's not for me, but my experience with others is that most people who do use pot are more accepting, more understanding, warmer, calmer, less judgmental and more able to deal than people who don't - and that's something I can appreciate.

I think people's reactions to it vary, but there are many people you meet a day who are on mind- and mood-altering drugs. Some are legal and some aren't. Legal anti-depressant and anti-anxiety drugs are just one category of drugs that affect all sorts of brain function and are still perfectly legal. .

I agree that not all folks who smoke pot are dopes, lazy, etc. It's been my personal experience that most of those that I have come into contact with, and knew they were smokers, did fit many if not all of the stereotypes of pot smokers. I'm sure that I've come into contact with hundreds of thousands of people throughout my professional career that did smoke or do harder drugs and didn't know it. But since I don't know it, or them, my personal reference is skewed towards those I do know.

On a side note, there was a blurb on the news last night about a mother giving her 9 year old son pot. Apparently, it helps him cope with the anxiety and pain of being autistic. I'm all for medicinal use. It's the recreational use I have a difficult time with but when you look at all the other things we do to medicate ourselves (overeating, prescription drug abuse, etc), I think pot is at the bottom of our list of concerns.

Let me be more clear.

I do not think one should go to work impaired, but I do not think what one does in one's off time is anyone's business.

There has to be a line, and for me testing what I do after hours or on vacation is not OK.

We have the right to privacy.

Invasive for me is a test at all, not how it is administered.

ps. also, some of the stereotypes of how smoking pot affects people are just not true.


I mentioned stereotypes above but you are right, it affects each person differently. I forget what movie it was but Woody Harrelson was in it and his character said that pot made him "try to take his pants off over his head".

*grin*

Although it's rare, I have seen folks become violent on it. A lot of people see stereotypes as a purely negative thing, but they exist simply because there are certain patterns of behavior that have been noticed with a particular type or person or whatnot. Stereotypes themselves are not bad. It's all in the usage and intent.

I agree that your time should be your own but your time off the clock ends the second before you clock in. Not everyone is going to use their common sense and say, "Hey, I go to work in an hour. I shouldn't have this drink." Or joint. Or pill. Or whatever. Because that shit doesn't exit your system immediately. It's in there for hours or days, depending on the substance.

[Apocalipstic]

You have some good points, but Europe and other countries have been treating their people better for eons now. Think of how members of our community are treated there versus here. What works for them won't work for us until WE change, not just our policies.



I agree that not all folks who smoke pot are dopes, lazy, etc. It's been my personal experience that most of those that I have come into contact with, and knew they were smokers, did fit many if not all of the stereotypes of pot smokers. I'm sure that I've come into contact with hundreds of thousands of people throughout my professional career that did smoke or do harder drugs and didn't know it. But since I don't know it, or them, my personal reference is skewed towards those I do know.

On a side note, there was a blurb on the news last night about a mother giving her 9 year old son pot. Apparently, it helps him cope with the anxiety and pain of being autistic. I'm all for medicinal use. It's the recreational use I have a difficult time with but when you look at all the other things we do to medicate ourselves (overeating, prescription drug abuse, etc), I think pot is at the bottom of our list of concerns.




I mentioned stereotypes above but you are right, it affects each person differently. I forget what movie it was but Woody Harrelson was in it and his character said that pot made him "try to take his pants off over his head".

*grin*

Although it's rare, I have seen folks become violent on it. A lot of people see stereotypes as a purely negative thing, but they exist simply because there are certain patterns of behavior that have been noticed with a particular type or person or whatnot. Stereotypes themselves are not bad. It's all in the usage and intent.

I agree that your time should be your own but your time off the clock ends the second before you clock in. Not everyone is going to use their common sense and say, "Hey, I go to work in an hour. I shouldn't have this drink." Or joint. Or pill. Or whatever. Because that shit doesn't exit your system immediately. It's in there for hours or days, depending on the substance.


I so agree, some people are idiots, take advantage and ruin things for everyone.

and having worked in hotels, I feel your pain!

[cinderella]

Again we agree...great minds and all... :)

Legalize marijuana and mushrooms and use the tax money to pay for health care.

Keep Chrystal Meth and other "hard core" drugs illegal.

Would make for way less people in prison for us to pay for and increase revenues and taxes. No one loses.

Cookies all around! :)

[PearlsNLace]

But they come to work stoned and they smoke it at work and the "work" they do while here is sub-par so when guests find something that's not done right (and occasionally dangerous), then MY ass gets chewed out because I'm the face of the hotel. Fuck that and fuck them for putting the rest of their coworkers in this position..

Then why not just fire them for the work they do is Sub Par? Or at least begin the process of write ups, counseling, documentation of "does not meet expectations"

We are at a time when jobs are hard to find. There are replacements. Give them a chance to improve, and if they dont, find the replacements?

I know nothing is ever that simple. But it just seems to me that you can focus on what is within your circle of influence, and be happier, instead of what is out of your circle, and be resentful.

[Gemme]

Then why not just fire them for the work they do is Sub Par? Or at least begin the process of write ups, counseling, documentation of "does not meet expectations"

We are at a time when jobs are hard to find. There are replacements. Give them a chance to improve, and if they dont, find the replacements?

I know nothing is ever that simple. But it just seems to me that you can focus on what is within your circle of influence, and be happier, instead of what is out of your circle, and be resentful.

Why not? Because it's not up to me. I am a worker bee, not the Queen. I have a ton of responsibility and no voice.

Thank you for your opinion. I'll take it into consideration when someone calls me at 11pm and berates me for the water shooting out of their wall from a poorly repaired pipe or someone's fallen off the balcony because the railing wasn't secured properly. Or maybe I'll pass that onto them, although I really don't think they will appreciate the nuance of it at that hour and if someone is cold, wet, hurt or all of the above. I don't mean to be harsh, but it's so easy to pass judgment when you are not involved in the situation.

Jobs ARE scarce and that's why I present my argument for whatever the issue of the day is (and yes, there are issues daily), then suck it up when people who are in the hospitality industry for the first time ever tell me what is the right thing to do, then tell me they feel it's best to cut hours for myself and the only other full time person on staff, and try to remind myself that I'm only here for a few more months since I am more likely to get canned than them. Sad but true.

Now, back onto topic! :)

If you'd like to further engage me on this, please pm me.

[foxyshaman]

If good old Canada were to legalize or decriminalize mary-jane it would free up approx. 40% of criminal court time. It would also cost quite a few jobs... saving tax payers a bundle. How to decriminalize it? NOt a lawmaker, have no idea. Cretian was close... until the south of the border big brother got nasty... funny how plans change.

I would rather be in a room with 10 pot smokers than one drinker... hands down anytime. Alcohol can be a serious issue, often times without warning. Don't trust drunks, do trust "pass me the bong" sista's.

Working with Children's Services the long term affects of alcohol and other harder drugs create children without hope or little hope. Not that mary-jane is harmless in some homes, but the costs are far less.

Give me pot anyday.

[PearlsNLace]

Gemme, you have a PM, per your request.

To the thread, I apologize for the derail.

Back on topic:


I have worked in the kind of jobs you just dont want to see an employee impaired with. And yet, I have seen things happen poorly, because of impairment from drugs we DO accept.

Ive seen patients get neglected due to nurses taking excessive smoke breaks.

Ive seen patients get unnecessarily poked repetitively by IV nurses who have had so much coffee their hands shake to much to get the needle in right.

Ive seen patients get snapped at because the nurse was tired from a sugar crash, or they are jonesing for the next cigg, or they have not had thier cup of coffee yet.

We certainly dont test for caffiene, nicotine, or even A1c levels for surgical doctors. But who wants a doc to be impatient with THEM during surgery, just because they need a cigg, or even a twinkie?

In my experience with these more mild responses is that the result was targeted - limits were put on breaks, education increased on patient right to be treated with dignity, ext and that this treated the problem the substance was causing, wich CAN be fixable. When the drug is socially acceptable, the problems are treated differently. The focus becomes the job performance, not the substance.

It just makes sense to me that less accepted drugs could be delt with in the same way.

[Jess]

Let me be more clear.

I do not think one should go to work impaired, but I do not think what one does in one's off time is anyone's business.

There has to be a line, and for me testing what I do after hours or on vacation is not OK.

We have the right to privacy.

Invasive for me is a test at all, not how it is administered.

ps. also, some of the stereotypes of how smoking pot affects people are just not true.

I agree. Some folks get "wasted" some just catch enough of a "high" to take the edge off. Like alcohol, tolerance and intent upon use varies.

[firie]

Gemme, you have a PM, per your request.

To the thread, I apologize for the derail.

Back on topic:


I have worked in the kind of jobs you just dont want to see an employee impaired with. And yet, I have seen things happen poorly, because of impairment from drugs we DO accept.

Ive seen patients get neglected due to nurses taking excessive smoke breaks.

Ive seen patients get unnecessarily poked repetitively by IV nurses who have had so much coffee their hands shake to much to get the needle in right.

Ive seen patients get snapped at because the nurse was tired from a sugar crash, or they are jonesing for the next cigg, or they have not had thier cup of coffee yet.

We certainly dont test for caffiene, nicotine, or even A1c levels for surgical doctors. But who wants a doc to be impatient with THEM during surgery, just because they need a cigg, or even a twinkie?

In my experience with these more mild responses is that the result was targeted - limits were put on breaks, education increased on patient right to be treated with dignity, ext and that this treated the problem the substance was causing, wich CAN be fixable. When the drug is socially acceptable, the problems are treated differently. The focus becomes the job performance, not the substance.

It just makes sense to me that less accepted drugs could be delt with in the same way.

Wow, what a great post and with it, points.

I haven't read the thread, but just saw this first post, so please forgive me if I am repeating things already pointed out, but recently CPS here in TX decided that it would start testing a certain set of caseworkers because we are essentially deemed a child placing agency, because we do license foster homes, so law requires drug testing for those workers.

This is problematic to me not because I advocate for drug usage in the workplace, and certainly not when one is responsible, as a caseworker is, for making decisions impacting lives, as well as driving around children, parents, and other caseworkers in cars on a daily basis, but because we, as an agency, who drug test clients on an hour by hour basis, know quite well that drug tests are often flawed and do not catch dysfunctional and harmful usage unless it is really truly chronic (which would be evident without the drug test), except of course when it comes to marijuana. Marijuana, even slight usage, harmless usage, I would say, shows up regardless and for quite awhile, and so the test doesn't, in my opinion, really help any agency address what might be quite bigger issues with impairment than just "illegal" drug use, and really doesn't help identify the more severe types of illegal drug use, say cocaine use (because it leaves the system rather fast, and so coke users can beat drug tests pretty easy, same goes for other drugs of this sort).

I would also like to add that drug tests are so fallible because of the things you mentioned above that might impair worker functioning, and things that are perfectly legal. And I'd also like to throw in to that mix the legal prescribed treatments of painkillers, anxiety meds, and certain psychotropics. There are folks, who under doctor's orders, take a great deal of impairing "drugs" and so are much more likely than the occasional pot smoker to wreck a car (with a kid in it), and are also much more likely to be impaired in the other job responsibilities they have. Also, such issues like functional alcoholism, as even just a hangover can impact one's day. Caseworkers, too, are also very likely to be on the job after a 14 hour day and very little sleep, and add to that further (because it's so common an equation) to be working under those conditions when they are sick. So many get so swamped and are quite dedicated, so they head out in cars (more than 60% of the job is travel, transporting kids) on cold and cough medicines, and with all the symptoms, even severe, of cold, flu, etc (CPS management often has to "force" people to take sick days, believe it or not).

I actually would rather trust the rested and organized caseworker who tokes a bit here and there on weekends and in the privacy of their non-work realms, than the over anxious, freaked out, constantly stressed, never rested caseworker who is making life decisions every day, and, well, has the great potential to fuck up an awful lot, truly damaging people's lives. But the drug test will indicate marijuana more so than it will ever detect impairment that may seem functional on the surface but truly is impairment and thus brings with that a risk of harm in performing the job, and as such, in positions like casework or nursing, can possibly greatly harm other people.