3 ms·

"Compassion and understanding and freedom will lead to a better world. Prisons and prohibition perpetuate suffering." I'm all for drug legalization as long as

by rick888 16y ago

"Compassion and understanding and freedom will lead to a better world. Prisons and prohibition perpetuate suffering." I'm all for drug legalization as long as I, as a taxpayer don't ever have to pay (if we do ever have a public health care plan) for anyone that decides to become a drug addict. I say decides, because the consequences of doing these drugs might just mean you become an addict. This means you won't get covered if you become addicted. Also, businesses should have the ability to fire a drug addict at any time. Even if it doesn't directly affect productivity. You are free to make any choice you want in this world, but I shouldn't have to pay for your mistakes. As it is, people are still suing the cigarette companies for getting cancer (even though it's been well known for 50+ years that smoking causes cancer). We also need to have tort reform.

anthonyb 16y ago
But you are paying, for drug enforcement and imprisonment. Plus increased taxation, because people who are incarcerated generally aren't working steady jobs, but are stamping licence plates or something stupid like that. > Also, businesses should have the ability to fire a drug addict at any time. Even if it doesn't directly affect productivity. Would you fire someone who drank? or smoked? or was obese? They're equally addicted.
rick888 16y ago
"But you are paying, for drug enforcement and imprisonment. Plus increased taxation, because people who are incarcerated generally aren't working steady jobs, but are stamping licence plates or something stupid like that." Generally, those people would otherwise have low-paying jobs and wouldn't be contributing very much anyway. The people in prison aren't your daily pot smoker. They are dealers and people who committed crimes while under the influence of an illegal substance. 50% of the population already doesn't pay federal taxes. If we are going to go after revenue, we should start with this. "Would you fire someone who drank? or smoked? or was obese? They're equally addicted." Smoking cigarettes and obesity don't get you high, which has profound effects on your state-of-mind. If someone drinks on a daily basis and comes in hung-over..then yes. All of these also shouldn't be under the same category as "discrimination" because they are choices you make (freedom can have consequences) not uncontrollable qualities that you are born with.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  > The people in prison aren't your daily pot smoker. They are dealers[....] That distinction has become meaningless. Anyone who gets caught with more than the "intent to distribute" threshold (which apparently isn't a lot) is simply presumed to be a dealer.
- rick888 16y ago
  "That distinction has become meaningless. Anyone who gets caught with more than the "intent to distribute" threshold (which apparently isn't a lot) is simply presumed to be a dealer." It's more than just quantity: "Anyway, several things can determine intent, including quantity. Other factors might include quality, packaging, what type of area the person was in and the time of day." http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?77095-Intent-to-Distribute-Question http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?77095-Intent... If you are by yourself or with a few friends smoking a joint, the cops won't really bother you.
- rick888 16y ago
  I love the bias on HN. Anyone that has anything negative to say about your precious weed gets down voted. If you really believe in this, you need to come to terms with the fact that there are negative health effects to smoking weed.
  - carussell 16y ago
    Rather than whine about it, perhaps you should examine why you got voted down. There's only one comment of yours in the thread that's rated less than 0, besides this unsubstantial one. I'd wager you were voted down for proposing that employees could be let go "[e]ven if it doesn't directly affect productivity", and then you subsequently abandoned it when you defended cigarettes and alcohol by taking purporting to take their effects into account. If you're going to propose something like that, at least stick to it, and especially don't whine about it when people don't like that you've created an inconsistent system.

by rick888 16y ago

anthonyb 16y ago

But you are paying, for drug enforcement and imprisonment. Plus increased taxation, because people who are incarcerated generally aren't working steady jobs, but are stamping licence plates or something stupid like that. > Also, businesses should have the ability to fire a drug addict at any time. Even if it doesn't directly affect productivity. Would you fire someone who drank? or smoked? or was obese? They're equally addicted.

rick888 16y ago

"But you are paying, for drug enforcement and imprisonment. Plus increased taxation, because people who are incarcerated generally aren't working steady jobs, but are stamping licence plates or something stupid like that." Generally, those people would otherwise have low-paying jobs and wouldn't be contributing very much anyway. The people in prison aren't your daily pot smoker. They are dealers and people who committed crimes while under the influence of an illegal substance. 50% of the population already doesn't pay federal taxes. If we are going to go after revenue, we should start with this. "Would you fire someone who drank? or smoked? or was obese? They're equally addicted." Smoking cigarettes and obesity don't get you high, which has profound effects on your state-of-mind. If someone drinks on a daily basis and comes in hung-over..then yes. All of these also shouldn't be under the same category as "discrimination" because they are choices you make (freedom can have consequences) not uncontrollable qualities that you are born with.

prodigal_erik 16y ago
> The people in prison aren't your daily pot smoker. They are dealers[....] That distinction has become meaningless. Anyone who gets caught with more than the "intent to distribute" threshold (which apparently isn't a lot) is simply presumed to be a dealer.
rick888 16y ago
"That distinction has become meaningless. Anyone who gets caught with more than the "intent to distribute" threshold (which apparently isn't a lot) is simply presumed to be a dealer." It's more than just quantity: "Anyway, several things can determine intent, including quantity. Other factors might include quality, packaging, what type of area the person was in and the time of day." http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?77095-Intent-to-Distribute-Question http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?77095-Intent... If you are by yourself or with a few friends smoking a joint, the cops won't really bother you.
rick888 16y ago
I love the bias on HN. Anyone that has anything negative to say about your precious weed gets down voted. If you really believe in this, you need to come to terms with the fact that there are negative health effects to smoking weed.
- carussell 16y ago
  Rather than whine about it, perhaps you should examine why you got voted down. There's only one comment of yours in the thread that's rated less than 0, besides this unsubstantial one. I'd wager you were voted down for proposing that employees could be let go "[e]ven if it doesn't directly affect productivity", and then you subsequently abandoned it when you defended cigarettes and alcohol by taking purporting to take their effects into account. If you're going to propose something like that, at least stick to it, and especially don't whine about it when people don't like that you've created an inconsistent system.