Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-25-2014, 04:16 PM   #21
TF Site Team
 
FlyWright's Avatar
 
City: California Delta and SF Bay
Country: Sacramento, CA, USA (boat in Vallejo)
Vessel Name: FlyWright
Vessel Model: Marshall Californian 34 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaltimoreLurker View Post
If the WoD ends, do you suppose that the people on whom you rely for your or your family's safety are any more likely to perform their duties stoned than they are currently likely to perform them drunk? Or under the influence of any of a myriad of currently legal, prescription opiates?

You seem to be relying on one of the Drug Warriors long running false arguments -"If drugs are legal, everyone will be stoned all the time."
Do you understand the long term affects of regular weed use? Have you ever studied it? Here's a succinct article on the facts.

Marijuana Users Have Abnormal Brain Structure and Poor Memory: Northwestern University News

I never limited my position on drug use by these professionals to only those who could be stoned on the job. It's the memory loss and brain function changes what come after long term use that needs to be addresses. And where will tomorrow's professionals come from if our teens decide to partake in this 'legal' weed?

How do we measure for drug levels in the field by LEOs during vehicle stops? Should we just allow all stoners to drive anytime under any conditions, regardless of THC levels in their system? How much is too much? What activities should be restricted during drug use? These are tough issues that need to be addressed before giving carte blanche to the masses seeking legalized drug use.

I'm all for relaxing the laws on recreational use of SOME drugs by SOME members of society, but feel strongly that we need to continue to prohibit its use by safety-related and LEO positions. I don't want my surgeon, pilot, cabbie, bus driver, educator, firefighter, nurse, heavy equipment operator, etc suffering from brain dysfunction as a result of unbridled and legalized drug use. Do you?
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Al

Custom Google Trawler Forum Search
FlyWright is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2014, 05:07 PM   #22
Curmudgeon
 
BaltimoreLurker's Avatar
 
City: Stoney Creek, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Moon Dance
Vessel Model: 1974 34' Marine Trader Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWright View Post
Do you understand the long term affects of regular weed use? Have you ever studied it? Here's a succinct article on the facts.
I'm not suggesting that everyone, much less anyone, HAS to smoke marijuana. Just like they don't have to damage their brain, heart, pancreas, liver, immune system or increase their risk of cancer by drinking alcohol. It's the same personal responsibility issue. Handle your intoxicants or they will handle you.

Drink, or don't. Smoke, or don't. But do it responsibly or face the consequences.

MJ should be treated like alcohol - not for sale to minors and not for use when operating in a public trust position. The same people that produce today's drug tests (and are big advocates of mandatory drug tests for welfare and unemployment recipients, AKA - crony capitalism, again) will have a road side test for LEOs as soon as the market demands it.

As I mentioned earlier - I'm a conservative, not a Republican or a Democrat and certainly not a nanny state Puritan dictating morals to others. I believe in staying out of other people's personal business. Correct me if I've got "conservative" wrong.
__________________

BaltimoreLurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2014, 06:17 PM   #23
TF Site Team
 
FlyWright's Avatar
 
City: California Delta and SF Bay
Country: Sacramento, CA, USA (boat in Vallejo)
Vessel Name: FlyWright
Vessel Model: Marshall Californian 34 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,162
I'm not trying to define your political allegiance and I could not possibly care less what your pronounced alliance is. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

I'll tell you what's happening in my state of California. Out here, they're giving prescriptions to 16 year old kids for marijuana. I know because I have neighbor kids, 20 and 17 who have scripts and have had them for over a year. I know for a fact that in this family's case, there are 'counselors' supporting this medical weed use against the wishes of the parents. The legal users in CA, WA and CO are out there driving on the roads under the influence without a measurable method to weed out (pun intended) those under the influence. I think you'd sing a different tune if your loved one was killed by a stoner out for a pleasure drive. It's happening now.

As far as the welfare and unemployed benefits are concerned, if they have the money and choose to do drugs, then they can step out of line for my tax dollars. When they clean up, then get back in line.

I help a lot of folks who need a helping hand. I don't blow my own horn about it, but I help where I see a need and can contribute. If a panhandler chooses to smoke cigarettes, that's his choice. But if he's got enough money to support his $10 per day habit, he doesn't need my money for food. He makes a choice. He lives with the consequences. I'm not telling him not to smoke...just that he won't get my money because he does. IMO, it should be the same with our taxpayers' money handouts.
__________________
Al

Custom Google Trawler Forum Search
FlyWright is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2014, 06:10 AM   #24
Curmudgeon
 
BaltimoreLurker's Avatar
 
City: Stoney Creek, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Moon Dance
Vessel Model: 1974 34' Marine Trader Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,629
OK. How about if we look at it like this: All of the following are bad health risks - alcohol, tobacco, sugary drinks, red meat, trans-fats, motorcycles, fast cars, hang gliding, private aviation.

Who gets to decide if I partake of any of these activities? Me or the State?

Bad stuff happens. We live with it. If a minority of morons can't control their bad habits the State has no right, neither God given nor constitutionally, to prohibit the vast majority of us from imbibing if we so choose.

As for subsidizing the drug testing industry, why stop at testing only welfare and unemployment recipients? If your justification for testing them is because they receive your tax dollars, then we should test every elected official, every civil servant and every Gov't contractor. Every one of them lives off of your tax dollars. I know for a fact that many of them drink, smoke, do drugs, drive fast, eat red meat, and never visit a gym. Most of them get tax payer funded health care too. If they are going to engage in risky behavior I should not have to pay for their health care either, right?

How far do you want to take this? I'll point out the BS & hypocrisy of the Puritan nanny state, controlling do-gooders any time you want to start telling me what I can and can't put into my own body.
__________________

BaltimoreLurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012