Happy 4/20

Warren · **Posted:** April 19th, 2011, 11:42 pm

Don't go smoke weed on Parliament Hill and then when your teacher asks where you were the next day say you were at a protest as if everyone doesn't know the real reason you went.

So with the Canadian marijuana laws struck down as unconstitutional by the Ontario Supreme Court a little over a week ago, do you think this will bring about any change? The decision has obviously been appealed. Basically what happened was this person with legitimate symptoms that make him eligible for the medicinal marijuana program (fibromyalgia, scoliosis, seizures, depression) was unable to obtain the licence multiple times, so rather than turning to the black market, he started to grow his own. Then he got caught and arrested and took the case up to the supreme court. So the federal government was given 90 days (assuming the appeal is unsuccessful) to amend the laws. If they don't find a solution then the marijuana laws will be of no effect in Ontario. The person was giving a temporary personal exemption until then to which I say grow on, my friend.

So anyways do you think this will bring any significant change? Obviously not if the conservatives are elected to a majority, but assuming that doesn't happen, and that the appeal is not successful.

Do you even think that marijuana has a medicinal purpose? Federally the United States likes to say there are no proven uses despite making it difficult to perform research on the subject and ignoring the studies of every other country in that regard. But now that their National Cancer Institute is recognizing that it is medicinal, good fight to that?

I dunno why but one day long ago (long as in maybe a year) I was watching some interview with Stephen Harper with questions submitted from people and one was pretty in depth on marijuana and his answer was "I'm a parent so obviously I'm against it? I care about our children." That was his reasoning to why it should be illegal, so of that do you think being tough on marijuana is actually smart on marijuana?
I really do believe that, if you really did care about keeping it out of the hands of minors, you would not be supporting this kind of prohibition. I can offer this, I did not go to a bad school (i.e. it's not like it was filled with drug dealers) and yet even in grade 9 having never even looked for it, I knew how to go about getting it. But with alcohol, I knew all the locations of liquour stores and stuff but I had no idea how I would go about getting it because obviously I wasn't 19... or was I, I dunno. Go to grade 10 when some people started making purchases, even with them their means of alcohol was through sneaking their parents liqour cabinets. Then in the higher grades they know more older people so it's not like obtaining alcohol was impossible... but even now I'm still a minor and with people I know it's easier than ever for them to buy marijuana and still a hassle to get alcohol but they'll all be 19 soon anyways I guess and will be magically able to make their own decisions.

SO HAPPY 4/20 *INSERT REGGAE MUSIC OH WAIT DOWNPRESSER MAN IS THE ONLY REGGAE SONG I KNOW OK INSERT THAT*

Adbot · **Posted:** April 19th, 2011, 11:42 pm

Shane · **Posted:** April 20th, 2011, 2:04 am

I'd also like to point out it's Hitler's birthday. (Just as a side note, not that anyone liked the guy.)

I can sum up my views easily: if I was a cop I would have a field day arresting people who smoke up publicly. It should be illegal to smoke it, use it for medicinal purposes, and grow it. If there are true medicinal values I'm sure scientists could find the active ingredients and extract or simulate them somehow without all the negative side effects.

Proliferation of marijuana can be equated to that of hand guns. Even though they're illegal, you will always be able to get one if you try hard enough.

Besides, if you legalize it what's next?

hummerwar921 · **Posted:** April 20th, 2011, 7:23 am

Shane wrote:

I'd also like to point out it's Hitler's birthday. (Just as a side note, not that anyone liked the guy.)

I can sum up my views easily: if I was a cop I would have a field day arresting people who smoke up publicly. It should be illegal to smoke it, use it for medicinal purposes, and grow it. If there are true medicinal values I'm sure scientists could find the active ingredients and extract or simulate them somehow without all the negative side effects.

Proliferation of marijuana can be equated to that of hand guns. Even though they're illegal, you will always be able to get one if you try hard enough.

Besides, if you legalize it what's next?

It's also the anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre.

They have extracted THC from marijuana, and made pills. One of which is called Marinol.

Recently it was proven to make tumors stop destroying other cells and eat themselves.

Also, there are CBNs that can only be received through smoking.

...and negative side effects? What do you mean? The worst side effect I can think of is cotton mouth.

I'm happy for Canada, I heard you guys are deciding on full legalization in the next few months or so, good luck with that.

Here in Washington State, we are trying to get it legalized for recreational purposes as well.

Well happy 4/20 guys.

Warren · **Posted:** April 20th, 2011, 10:03 am

Yeah, I thought what side effects too. Because with every drug that can be prescribed there are side effects, and marijuana has relatively low side effects to other drugs that can be prescribed that will have crazy side effects but AT LEAST ITS NOT MARIJUANA. Like what are they... it makes you happy? Within depression treatment that's kind of the point, and I'm sure other patients aren't like "I just wish I could use this without getting high".
It makes you hungry? Well within patients that have loss of appetite, that's kind of the point.
Like Hummer said, cotton mouth? That's probably only through smoking and I think only if you smoke a fair bit.
Obviously the health effects of inhaling the combustion of anything aren't good for you, but look at cigarettes. They're not dangerous because you're inhaling smoke or because tobacco is bad for you, it's because they're crazy addictive and the intake you need to satisfy the addiction adds up over years to actual health effects. But saying that is just ignoring edibles, creams, balms, tinctures, pills, vapourizers, drinks, etc. That's a place where the Canadian Medical marijuana program fails, where it only accounts that the only alternative that exists is edibles, and you have to decide if you're going to intake orally or through smoking. Go to California where the dispensaries sell all of the alternatives... and I guess that's another failure, and I think a reason the laws were struck down, was that some patients couldn't get the amounts they're prescribed and just how slow it was to receive the marijuana.
What's like the only other health effect of it? That on heavy consumption some people start to become schizophrenic (how do you not recognize that happening to you anyways)? But that's not even a side effect (those are things that happen commonly right) anyways but marijuana is also shown to cure schizophrenia and the like in others.
It can make you paranoid? No wonder you'd be paranoid when there could be a cop just waiting to ruin your life. XD But in reality the paranoia that you get wouldn't be like you crazy paranoid for a whole hour thinking everyone is going to kill you so you go and kill them first or something. In reality it would be like making you more likely to be like "**** is someone breaking in?" when there is a noise outside and then being like "whatever" a second later.
Makes you tired.. obviously desired for insomniac patients, and other patients could just take before bed if it bothered them that much..
The only other one I can think of is that you get high, which would be desirable for patients who use it for pain relief, and that decreases your abilities somehow that you shouldn't be driving and stuff. Well duh it's not the kind of medicine you would bring to work and take during break...
That said I think the biggest problem is people are like LOL IT DOENST MAKE YOU BAD AT DRIVING YOU WILL BE GOING TO SLOW AND ITS NOT LIKE ALCOHOL. Yeah ******* driving under influence of marijuana is a lot safer than driving drunk but you're still twice as likely be in an accident (although im not sure if thats a legitimate study or just one of those trying to boost statistics by counting people who had marijuana in their system from weeks before as being influenced or the ones that include people who were found to have possession in some way or another) There are so many things that impair your driving and none of them should be used before driving. You're already in danger of fatal accidents when you're completely sober of anything... if you're going to drive, you should take nothing at all that would inhibit that (even like strong cigarettes or sugar/caffeine overdose and others and just your general mood)

So essentially you'd be a fascist cop attempting to ruin peoples lives like that when they've done nothing to hurt anyone and when you're being told not to from the top. XD
It's significantly harder to obtain a hand gun. 'No matter how "hard" you try to get marijuana'? How it is it hard? And yeah it is similar in that regard, but they are two different things. With one you pose a threat to the safety of others and it is something that only purpose is to kill other people. The other is the complete opposite, no ones safety is threatened, hardly your own as well... but in a way yeah might harm you with over use. Just like McDonalds bingeing is going to harm you XD
Not making hand guns available to everyone makes sense. But marijuana?

And what's next? I don't know. We'll have to wait years down the line with new information and new situations to know. Rather I would hope that "what's next" would refer to taking charge on the obesity problem and outlawing everything that's not healthy for you and taking a charge on the treatment of animals in our world as well as obesity and outlawing all factory farms and not allowing new legitimate farmers to take their place because if we were able to eat meat on the level we do without animal abuse then you would just destroy the world. In reality I'd only support the thing about factory farms but when you have a plant less harmful to your health than a cheeseburger why continue a prohibition.

Pennstate315 · Runite Member 5-25-10

First off, Shane it's a lot easier at least here to obtain marijuana then a handgun (if your underage). Plus, I mean you might as well legalize it, Alcohols effects are worse than pot. And you could get decent tax revenue from it. I mean were 14 trill in debt anything can help. Shane you mentioned what next? Nothing stuff like Cocaine and Heroin are way to extreme to be legalized compared to something like marijuana.

Just a side note, Today in my school multiple kids in my school got busted for there little "wake and bake" smoke before school.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Pennstate315 wrote:

First off, Shane it's a lot easier at least here to obtain marijuana then a handgun (if your underage). Plus, I mean you might as well legalize it, Alcohols effects are worse than pot. And you could get decent tax revenue from it. I mean were 14 trill in debt anything can help. Shane you mentioned what next? Nothing stuff like Cocaine and Heroin are way to extreme to be legalized compared to something like marijuana.

Just a side note, Today in my school multiple kids in my school got busted for there little "wake and bake" smoke before school.

1) Taxing people for their heath choices is wrong, esp. when it can be harmful.
2) The answer to solving debt isn't to tax more, but to spend less. Derp!

I personally agree with Shane that scientists should have found a way by now to solve the same problems people want to use marijuana to treat. And at that point, it's more a recreational drug than a medicinal drug. Although in truth, some people who use marijuana for medicinal purposes are using it for recreational purposes, too, and giving it to others as well. Ultimately, I wouldn't have a problem with them legalizing it in the United States, since most people who would start smoking it would be instantly removed from the job market as many employers don't like their employees smoking on the job.

Adbot · **Posted:** April 20th, 2011, 10:00 pm

Warren · **Posted:** April 20th, 2011, 11:49 pm

Lol you actually believe that "the right to get high on the job" stuff? Do you have the right to get drunk on the job? Seriously lol have you ever seen that? That would be funny actually, depending. XD
And I dunno what you mean by "who would start smoking it". Again it's so widely available that most people who have any interest in using it would already.

Anyways since you bring up the non existent, non requested, wouldn't happen "right to get high on the job", I think you should be fined for smoking anything in any public area though, I don't appreciate breathing in your smoke. I think you can already get fined for drinking in public but if not fine that too.
MONEY MONEY MONEY... WE NEED SOME MORE...

Taxing people for their health choices is wrong? Ok but putting them in jail is right? XD And who said marijuana was harmful :-s

lol but I dunno having tax on it would be preventative to use enough, I think. I mean you can make your election campaign "theyre gunna raise taxes!" and win on that alone.

And you were like "scientists should have found a way" well we already know that marijuana can be made into many different forms but the Canadian medical marijuana program does not recognize them. You have the choice of oral intake or through inhaling the combustion... then again if you choose to vapourize instead not like they will come to revoke your licence but I'm sure the ordinary person isn't able to extract it into the other stuff. But all those alternatives, they probably get you high anyways so ITS BAD!!!!!!
So they already know how to do different forms like you guys are talking about, and it's not like they're unpopular at Californian dispensaries, yet in the end it is made with marijuana which is .. illegal rite

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Here's what I meant. As is now, many jobs require drug tests. If you can't pass a drug test, there are plenty of other people out there that can and get the job over you. If marijuana is legalized, I don't believe employers will drop their standards. There will still be people not willing to smoke and those people will be better fit for more jobs than people who do smoke. That's what I meant. As for people already in jobs, just cause you smoke or drink on the job and get away with it, doesn't mean that in the future you could get caught and punish/fired. I still think employers in many job areas will still expect higher standards even if it is legal. Case in point is alcohol. You come in drunk to work, your boss will probably not be happy.

No, people shouldn't be jailed for getting caught smoking. If anything, they should be fined as you say. The only reason jails are overpacked and over used is mostly because of the fight on drugs and a higher abundance of court convictions regarding drugs.

Just because studies or experience hasn't shown marijuana to be harmful in the short or long term, it doesn't mean that it can't be. Lack of evidence or experience doesn't prove it's safe or harmless.

I've never heard of a politician EVER running on raising taxes and winning. That just doesn't happen. And taxing marijuana would not prevent people from using it. Case in point, again...alcohol and cigarettes. Both are two of the most highly used commodities in the United States and yet people still choose to do both. Whenever tax increases come, they usually hit these two items first.

And Warren, you really need to train up your English. The implication I mean behind saying "scientists should have found a way by now to solve the same problems people want to use marijuana to treat" was to say that scientists should have found a suitable substitute to marijuana (eg. pain pills, natural remedies, anything that can treat the same way and the same symptoms as marijuana usage). Marijuana is not even a cure. It's just like pain pills or alcohol...it simply overrides the affects of an existing problem. Scientists are always coming up with new remedies for problems that are less harmful, yet achieve the same means as older conventions such as marijuana. Understand what I mean? There are probably substitutes out there that could easily have the same effects as marijuana. If that is true, then using marijuana becomes more about becoming high rather than becoming better, meaning it only serves to provide a recreational/fun use rather than healing use.

Burnt Joint · **Posted:** April 21st, 2011, 8:42 am

Hay guys, what's goin on in this thread? :lol:

Warren · **Posted:** April 21st, 2011, 10:45 am

idk jc

But is having 5 different prescriptions that you pay for each with their own set of side effects, each with their own dangers, better than having just one.
Dunno what you mean by my "English skills" when it comes down to misreading, I was more thinking you were agreeing with what Shane said. But you're saying that studies are all finding that in the short term, it's not harmful, but in the long term we don't actually know? But how does substituting it with a bunch of new drugs better, because it would also be unknown the long term dangers as well on them. With marijuana it's been around ... long enough ... and been used "mainstream"ish since like the 60s, that at the very least there is something to study long term dangers on rather than creating new stuff.
Before you comment on my Inglish skills again I just reread what you said and it seems that you're saying there is lack of evidence that even in the short term it's not harmful as well. I trust the research of health organizations, including that of my own country, that consistently finds that it is not very harmful.
In my non experty opinion I think the most harmful aspect is the munchies as we're people who surround ourselves with junk XD

But I dunno how many other medications that have anti-tumour effects where they kill cancer cells and cut off blood supply to tumours. It's not only useful for making life bearable during chemotherapy (i.e. reducing nausea from other medicines, increasing appetite, pain relief), but it is actually a chemotherapy in itself. It's also preventative to cancer (don't trust this statistic because it's probably unreliable I read 50% less chance of getting cancer).
So yeah it actually is a cure for some things.

I'm not sure the laws of the United States so I can't say that employers don't actually have the right to deny employment based on legal lifestyle choices that would not interfere in work. I know in Canada that no employer drug tests because it's illegal for them to fire or not hire someone based on discrimination, and drug addiction is included in discrimination.

And that's what I was saying. The key to a winning campaign is to say you're going to lower taxes or that your competitor will raise taxes tah dah you're a winner. So there is such a tax-phobia that taxes should prevent use right?? right?? I don't really think so it's just funny imo.

On the debt thingy. I'm not sure you can eliminate a $14 000 000 000 000 debt by merely spending less. I'm not sure you can eliminate it at all, though XD.

Uncle Dano · **12 99's on 12/12/12!**

Shane wrote:

If there are true medicinal values I'm sure scientists could find the active ingredients and extract or simulate them somehow without all the negative side effects.

I do agree with Shane in some respects. Firstly, I do believe it to have medicinal properties. The science does show that. So, therefore, it should be developed into a prescription drug for those purposes. Also, as a "recreational" drug, it could be regulated like alcohol is. Now, I'm not saying the effects are the same as alcohol, they are different. No one should for instance drive a vehicle under the influence of any substance that could affect their judgment and reaction time. That is just unsafe, period. Just like alcohol other drugs affect different people different ways. So strict regulation could be put in to control its use. However, there will always be people who think they are above the law and will use it when they shouldn't, just like alcohol (underage, while driving, etc.)

Its a topic of much debate. The substance which produces the effects is a naturally occurring substance. It is not an artificial chemical. I don't think it is any worse than getting drunk, which is also not necessarily desirable, but still allowed by law.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

@Warren
Research is research and studies are studies. Simply put...you can find facts, figures, or studies that support anything. I'm sure there is a study out there that says going to school increases your intelligence as opposed to one that says it does not. You can find studies to prove global warming is a major issue and studies to show it isn't. Point is, I don't just take studies at face value. You must carefully read through and understand how studies are conducted, where they are done, why they are done, etc. Time is the better judge of how things work. With marijuana, the short term effects are the munchies and a lesser awareness of exactly where you are or what you are doing. Indirectly, marijuana can lead to you doing/saying stupid things which may hurt you more than the actual drug. This probably doesn't apply as much to medicinal use, but it is a problem. Anyways, simple put, I hate studies and research and I don't trust them as much as experience and time unrelated to studies.

Spoiler for Sites about Medical Marijuana Substitutes:

In a quick Google search, I have found a few sites proving that there are better substitutes for marijuana without the same adverse health affects as marijuana. But don't take my word for it. Go do your own research and see if what I'm seeing has credibility. You seem quick to deny what I'm saying without actually providing proof.

Spoiler for Sites about Marijuana Use and Workplace Discrimination:

What does this show? Proof that it's quite perfectly legal to "discriminate" based on drug use. And does that only make sense to me? People now a days think "discrimination" means terrible things and that we should all be equal. But in the real world, companies are looking for the best person suited for the job. Racial and gender quotas are a load of bs. Most companies could care less about what your gender or race is. They want to see if you can do the work and do it well. They discriminate to find the best people for the job. In turn, this causes the workforce to compete and provide a continually improving workforce and an incentive to work hard. If companies have to higher you just because of your skin or gender, you may not be the best for the job. But because of fairness, you have to hire people. Oh, and it's very difficult to prove discrimination on any grounds. In any case, one thing I would say about drug users is that they don't show self restraint. If we are talking medical users, that's one thing. But recreational users is quite another. If you can't stop yourself from doing something, then why should a company hire you? How can they trust you or depend on you to get the job done? Just something to think about.

Taxes/fines would hardly impact usage. That's all that needs to be said there.

Lastly, you'd be surprised how much debt you can eliminate by decreasing spending. There is plenty of unnecessary spending the government carries out that can be avoided. If anything, experience and history has proven that the government is the most inefficient entity at performing any task. The debt will probably never be eliminated, but it could be paid off. Just trust me on this one, Warren. If you aren't spending excessively, you eventually develop a surplus which can go towards paying off the debt. Raising taxes only increases government spending, and once they are there, they never go away. The only way to decrease the debt to to cut spending (which few people in Congress like to do unfortunately).

Warren · **Posted:** April 21st, 2011, 4:40 pm

I really hope studies done by the health organizations of countries are doing it in the name of information and do not have interest in one way or another.

Lol and you're accusing me of denying that there were other drugs? I never said anything about that there aren't other drugs. So I don't know where you're coming from. If anything I conveyed that I thought that it would have to have a combination of a number of different drugs - that I didn't think there was one that did everything marijuana did (medically at least, like not a food, clothing, paper, fuel, etc).
So assuming there is one drug that was 100% identical to marijuana in effects except that it does not give you a high - #1 why is the high such a bad thing, besides if you want to dose at work and stuff
#2 Marijuana still has a HUGE advantage, at least to me, in that it is a natural plant and thus cannot be patented and thus less profitable interests
Still interested in when I denied the existence of anything lol

Spoiler for those sites are misleading:

And maybe you should brush up on your English skills (lol not really just returning the jab

) because I definitely said about the Canadian laws, not American. I know it would obviously be very different in America. You're talking about the racial quotas and others, which I agree are kind of dumb, but in reality would not be necessary if no one was racist or discriminatory in any fashion. And America was a very racist country, I guess many places were, and it still is pretty racist in parts. And it's still very discriminatory, homophobia much? That's one of the reasons marijuana was made illegal in the first place (racism), and why it's called marijuana rather than something more Englishy - was a pastime of the MEXICANS!! (I think in the Jazz culture too and you can guess their colour)
But if we want to talk about what I think of denying employment because of marijuana use if it becomes legal, and not business' rights within the US:
Your employer has absolutely no right to know what you do when not at work and when you're not representing their company UNLESS it interferes with your work habits.
If I was an employer I'd have no right to fire you because you are not vegetarian just because a proper vegetarian diet is more healthy than one with meat and I care about animals (at least in my world I wouldn't have that right).
Ability to separate your personal and your work life is something that I think should be desirable in an employee. Because you like to get high when you're not at work doesn't mean you're not a good candidate for the position. If you come in to the interview with a YAY POT shirt, that's a different story. If the employer calls the references and they say you came into work high sometimes, that's a different story.
And self restraint? You can restrain yourself from a lot of things but it would be better to ask why should you. Everything comes down to responsible use. You can stop your self from playing RuneScape and quit, but unless you have a problem and its affecting your life, why?

And you missed my point about the tax thing, think IRONY.

And I dunno how you would even go to $14 trillion in debt anyways... Wasn't a lot of that on wars? Which is interesting how much people will spend on destruction but spending any money to actually help people, well then, that's absurd!

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Studies, more often then not have interests behind them (even if conducted by a "good organization" or country).

I took what you said about medications as ignoring the fact that they do exists and that you can only get the same effects of marijuana by having to take multitudes of pills and other crap. Anyways, I'll try to streamline this reply a bit. If my answers seem incomplete, it's probably be cause I'm trying to back off massive text.

If there was a drug 100% identical to marijuana except without the effects of getting high...Well, why would you want to get high unless it was for means of pleasure rather than for ignorance of pain. In a sense, if a drug simply took away pain rather than put you in a euphoric state, than what becomes the purpose of a euphoric state other than to pleasure? Sure, marijuana is natural, but it's not like things synthetically developed can't be cheap. It's all about economics. America is an economy driven country. If you take economics or ever took economics in school, it would be a little easier to explain, but I'm not gonna go all into that.

As for your analysis if the sites, you are still providing only hearsay and no actually "evidence" to back up your claims. If you post sites up there or quote a book, I could just as easily blab on as you do (you are seeming to blab a lot; quite a bit of use of LOL AND LOTS OF CAPS kind of takes away from any credibility you are trying to establish) and say that what those sites claim are wrong. This goes full circle back to studies. You can infer anything you want about studies five different ways from Sunday. You can infer anything you like about these sites and their biases and yata, yata, yata, etc. Essentially, if we continue on like this, we are going to get no where. In a sense, I can't take you seriously if you don't take these arguments seriously. "YA LOL NOBODY BELIEVES IN TEH DEA" isn't really saying much. That's more an opinion if anything. And I thought you said you didn't know much about American government, and therefore wouldn't understand much about how departments such as the DEA operates or the credibility they carry. In conclusion, all I will say is this. Of course these sites and sources are biased, but I'm sure anything you put forward would be just as biased as well. And to each of these arguments there is at least a grain of truth. They wouldn't say it if they didn't at least partially mean it and do some research to back up their findings/opinions/assumptions.

I know you were not speaking about American laws and I did take not that you said you didn't know much about them. All I did was show that there is indeed discrimination based on drug testing. Again, I will point out that you seem to follow the bandwagon with everyone else in assuming that discrimination is wrong in every single case. If so, then you can not possible believe in capitalism or free markets, but rather socialism, communism, and the like. And I know you are probably going to object to me saying that, but think about it this way. If you can't discriminate on any basis, then are you really working in a capitalist society anymore or a government controlled one? A major part of capitalism is the freedom of employers to choose who they hire and who they fire. Just something to think about before you claim I'm assuming wrong about you.

To answer a littler further, I agree employers have no right to know what you do when you aren't at work and just at home or elsewhere. Police don't have a right that right as well. That still doesn't prevent them from giving a drug test. The vegetarian example is poor because I doubt most people would have a problem with vegetarians. But know this as well. As I mentioned before, it's difficult to prove discrimination. A boss would basically have to tell you the position wasn't yours based on something about you. Otherwise, they can internally discriminate all they want. And the government has no right that I know of to interrogate or torture employers to reveal their biases or discrimination or their reasons behind decisions. So it would seem we are at an impasse in that regard.

I wholeheartedly agree it comes down to responsible use. But how many responsible people you know. COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE people. Can't depend on that to win a job.

I really don't care about the tax issue at this point.

Yes, a lot of money has gone into "Department of Defense" spending. We used to have a War Department, but it was merged with some other departments to form the defense department. I believe defense spending should go down, but try to prove that to every member of Congress who has their hands in the defense spending cookie jar. It's not about destruction, but deterrence and defense. If you carry the biggest stick, no one will want to mess with you and hence there is no need for destruction.

Warren · **Posted:** April 21st, 2011, 7:41 pm

I loose all credibility because I'm not treating this as if it's a serious debate? Sorry but I'm not an expert, neither are you. Dunno why we have to pretend we are.
Of pleasure, I don't know why having the bonus of pleasure is a bad thing, really. I don't know anyone would be like I HATE PLEASURE ALL HAPPY THINGS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

I didn't say nobody believes in the DEA. If anything I implied nobody should believe in the DEA. And duh that's an opinion lol, but it is an objective one. I look at the DEA and I become disgusted. Seriously, they want to help people? In what way does devoting resources to targeting dispensaries operated in accordance to Californian law and shutting them down and prosecuting the owners and employees prosecuting medical marijuana patients legal under Californian law help anyone? Just because they can, just because they have an interest in it.
I don't know much about the American systems, but I know they have a drug enforcement agency dedicated to ruining peoples' lives, and I know they have a federal authority, but that's the extent I know. And arresting and charging medical marijuana patients abiding by their state's laws is synonymous with ruining peoples' lives, that's not an opinion.

No, I don't follow this "bandwagon" that discrimination is wrong in every case. Discrimination isn't even a negative word. But when you take the definition of discrimination as "UNJUST or PREJUDICIAL treatment of different categories of people", then that is definitely wrong in every case.
And I don't believe or trust in capitalism in the first place. "*insert thing here* works in theory, but not in practice" I think is a ridiculous phrase altogether BUT people like to say that about communism, and I think it can just as legitimately be said about capitalism.

And the vegetarian example is poor? First of all, the example was discriminating against non-vegetarians, not vegetarians. Second of all, its analogous to not hiring someone because of what drugs they choose to take. Choosing not to hire someone because of something that does not interfere in their work habits is completely irrational. If an employer didn't want to hire an alcoholic they shouldn't test all the candidates for alcohol: if a person had a formal dinner the night prior and they were served wine, should they be discriminated against? They don't want an alcoholic, after all.
Discrimination is hard to prove, but on this subject it's easy to make impossible: if allowed to require drug tests, then the disallow the drug testing company to disclose results of legal drugs to the employer. Although I quite like in Canada that the laws set it up that if you drug test, you're already discriminating (and in a negative way).

And of the responsible people thing, that is why employers should check experience and check references. Not drug tests... just because you don't have any drugs in your system doesn't mean you're a responsible person. And it doesn't mean that you have any higher chance of being more responsible than the next person.

"I agree employers have no right to know what you do when you aren't at work and just at home or elsewhere. Police don't have a right that right as well. That still doesn't prevent them from giving a drug test."
Police are not allowed to give drug tests until it is in the interest of public safety and such, until they have reason to do so. It's not even the same case for employers. You hire someone expecting a certain level of work. If anything gets in the way of that and the employer and employee can't work the problem out, then they have reason to be dismissed. No drug test even necessary even in the possibility that it is drugs.

Spoiler for heres your stuff: