• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

The problems that legalized pot would cause wouldn't be offset by the tax revenue that would be earned. More resources would be expended chasing people dodging taxes than there is now chasing drug dealers. Dealers selling meth, coke, crack, etc. would use pot sales as a front to sell the rest of it.
 
stekim said:
So what. It's none of your business what I do.
Click to expand...

So then, would you take away businesses right to test for, and hire based on, if someone tests positive for drug use?

Selfishly speaking, legalizing drugs would do wonders for me. It would eliminate half the competition. lol
 
Jerry said:
Yeah, it is, because your drug use would violate my life, liberty or property.
Click to expand...

How exactly?



Oh yes they can, I live 4 blocks away from one, and Pine Ridge reservation...which is on the other side of my ****ing state...affects me directly.
Click to expand...

How exactly? And notice the drugs are illegal and yet they are addicted anyway. Weird.

You keep assuming I give a crap about you. I give a crap about me, and that **** is harming me,
Click to expand...

How exactly? You keep talking about all this "harm", yet you haven't explained HOW it's harming you. It's not harming me in any way, so I'm curious how it's harming you.

so **** you and liberties
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true, freedom loving conservative.
 
Erod said:
So then, would you take away businesses right to test for, and hire based on, if someone tests positive for drug use?
Click to expand...

Nope. Businesses are free to hire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. So is the government.
 
stekim said:
Nope. Businesses are free to hire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. So is the government.
Click to expand...

I can't believe how ignorant your argument is.

Yeah, so, as a contractor, I can hire drug abusers, and when they hurt themselves while working your property, if I don't have insurance, you as the property owner are liable for their medical costs and lost wadges.

Maybe the forklift operator who loaded the flatbed with block was high at the time, and left a pallet or 2 off center or a strap loose. When that pallet falls on your car and kills you, many people will be held criminally liable, but you'll still be dead.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I can't believe how ignorant your argument is.

Yeah, so, as a contractor, I can hire drug abusers, and when they hurt themselves while working your property, if I don't have insurance, you as the property owner are liable for their medical costs and lost wadges.

Maybe the forklift operator who loaded the flatbed with block was high at the time, and left a pallet or 2 off center or a strap loose. When that pallet falls on your car and kills you, many people will be held criminally liable, but you'll still be dead.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe that he is stating that although he is for legalization (we'll stick with pot here for our scenario) he also supports a company's right to pre-employment screening. If this is how he feels, I agree 100% and it seems like you would to. I would be among the first in line to buy legal marijuana if given the opportunity, but agree that it is still an employer's right to administer any screening they deem necessary for that particular job.
 
Jerry said:
I can't believe how ignorant your argument is.

Yeah, so, as a contractor, I can hire drug abusers, and when they hurt themselves while working your property, if I don't have insurance, you as the property owner are liable for their medical costs and lost wadges.

Maybe the forklift operator who loaded the flatbed with block was high at the time, and left a pallet or 2 off center or a strap loose. When that pallet falls on your car and kills you, many people will be held criminally liable, but you'll still be dead.
Click to expand...

Very true, You can not have someone working under the influence of any drug.
There is to much risk involved.
 
They would have to make pot like drinking when it comes to working, driving, intoxicated outside, etc. When you drink or smoke pot you are very distant you feel like you are outside your body in a sort. you body functions/reactions get slower as the same for your thinking ability, also you lose all common sense. Legalize but make the same laws that apply for drinking the same for smoking pot.
 
Last edited:
JustinDeeMan said:
They would have to make pot like drinking when it comes to working, driving, intoxicated outside, etc. When you drink or smoke pot you are very distant you feel like you are outside your body in a sort. you body functions/reactions get slower as the same for your thinking ability, also you lose all common sense. Legalize but make the same laws that apply for drinking the same for smoking pot.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it's very difficult to prove WHEN a person smoked marijuana...it's part of why people are against legalizing it. A test can say if you have smoked in the last thirty days, but not the last thirty minutes, and let me tell you from experience, eye drops work wonders! ;)
 
Jerry said:
Yeah, so, as a contractor, I can hire drug abusers, and when they hurt themselves while working your property, if I don't have insurance, you as the property owner are liable for their medical costs and lost wadges.

Maybe the forklift operator who loaded the flatbed with block was high at the time, and left a pallet or 2 off center or a strap loose. When that pallet falls on your car and kills you, many people will be held criminally liable, but you'll still be dead.
Click to expand...
So are you for making alcohol illegal too Jerry? Everything described above happens with alcohol.
 
Midwest Lib said:
I agree, but it's very difficult to prove WHEN a person smoked marijuana...it's part of why people are against legalizing it. A test can say if you have smoked in the last thirty days, but not the last thirty minutes, and let me tell you from experience, eye drops work wonders! ;)
Click to expand...


All a person has to do is ask the person smoking pot a bunch question and make them walk straight line like they do with drunks.
 
Legalizing pot would bring in revenue to California. Would there still be a black market business? I wonder.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I have no issues with legalizing Marijuana, but I think some drugs, particularly methamphetamine, crack, etc. should remain illegal. I don't really put pot on the same level as those drugs, though.
Click to expand...

The US Government does...
 
scourge99 said:
So are you for making alcohol illegal too Jerry? Everything described above happens with alcohol.
Click to expand...

Tell us all about the meth heads who only use recreationaly.
 
Last edited:
JustinDeeMan said:
Very true, You can not have someone working under the influence of any drug.
There is to much risk involved.
Click to expand...

And I'm gona slam the pot-head who comes to work stoned just as I would the drunk.

You can't just put meth down and wait until after work, however, which is why the hard-drug proponents fail.
 
Jerry said:
And I'm gona slam the pot-head who comes to work stoned just as I would the drunk.

You can't just put meth down and wait until after work, however, which is why the hard-drug proponents fail.
Click to expand...

No. No failure there.

If someone is so stupid they just have to go and get their dumbasses addicted to something that ruins their ability to keep a job, it's their problem, and there's no reason anyone should be taxed or have their liberties curtailed to keep those dumbasses from getting their substances of devotion.

Just use them as object lessons for kids: See, children, this is what voting for Democrats ....er taking some other toxic substance does to people. Don't be like them.
 
Jerry said:
Tell us all about the meth heads who only use recreationaly.
Click to expand...

This is about California legalizing pot, not meth. Your argument was about fear of contractors being high from pot, not meth. You're double speaking. (Or are you drunk or high :mrgreen:)
 
Jerry said:
I can't believe how ignorant your argument is.

Yeah, so, as a contractor, I can hire drug abusers, and when they hurt themselves while working your property, if I don't have insurance, you as the property owner are liable for their medical costs and lost wadges.

Maybe the forklift operator who loaded the flatbed with block was high at the time, and left a pallet or 2 off center or a strap loose. When that pallet falls on your car and kills you, many people will be held criminally liable, but you'll still be dead.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that fine, a company can currently fire a man for coming in to work drunk, but they can't fire him if drugs are legalized and he comes to work on PCP?

The employer can set any criteria for employment he wishes.

Also....by golly damn, drugs are illegal now....but there are still people on the shop floors, including a helicopter factory I know, who've been busted by surprise drug tests and fired. So the effort to keep those evil chemicals out of the workforce has failed.

Please keep that salient and inescapable fact in mind: The War on Drugs was never winnable, was lost, and we're still spending billions and billions of dollars restricting the freedoms of EVERYONE as a result of this failure.

Lost freedoms include:

Loss of the presumption of innocence.

Inability to carry larges amounts of cash out of the country, or even around the country.

Civil forfeiture laws incentivize law enforcement agencies to bend the rules and break other laws, and have resulted in the murder of innocent citizens.

Vehicle inspections at the borders.

Citizens stopped for routine traffic violations may be held on the spot until a trained dog sniffs their vehicle, in the complete absence of any probable cause.

etc etc etc
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. No failure there.

If someone is so stupid they just have to go and get their dumbasses addicted to something that ruins their ability to keep a job, it's their problem, and there's no reason anyone should be taxed or have their liberties curtailed to keep those dumbasses from getting their substances of devotion.
Click to expand...

Certain addictions can affect society. This is reason enough to regulate certain substances. Please read about late 19th century China and its opium addiction if you need a case study in the consequences of epidemic addiction.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Just because a lot of anti-drug propaganda calls pot a gateway drug doesn't mean that it would actually remain one if it is made legal. That's absurd.
Click to expand...

"Gateway drug".....practically every meth addict has eaten carrots. That must mean carrots are a gateway vegetable.
 
apdst said:
The problems that legalized pot would cause wouldn't be offset by the tax revenue that would be earned. More resources would be expended chasing people dodging taxes than there is now chasing drug dealers. Dealers selling meth, coke, crack, etc. would use pot sales as a front to sell the rest of it.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that if the government can't make a profit, then everyone's liberty should remain curtailed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom