Exarch Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I know a girl who has a marketing position where they actually have alcohol on hand for employees to drink at work (if they desire) because it helps them be more creative and open to ideas.I'm wondering how long the feds will tolerate possession/usage the newly legal states? I'm guessing they'll look the other way under a certain amount but will hammer those over that amount.Are there any regulations in the new states or is it all underground still? I'm sure it's still underground, but I'm talking about future plans for the sell of recreational weed like dispensaries or whatnot. The states that allow medical and have dispensaries already are under close watch, but the feeds don't give them too much trouble considering they arnt shut down completely.Also for state law(obviously feds trump) is there an established carry limit? Can you get in trouble for selling? Can you smoke in public? Can you drive high? Can you go out in public high? I'm sure some of these questions may seem obvious of course people drive and go out in public high, but will it now be treated like public intox/ovi? Also is paraphernalia legal? I'm talking bongs/bowls/pipes or is that still an offense? So many questions out there, hopefully all the kinks will get worked out and all the other states will follow suit.I know I won't smoke weed, atleast not on a regular basis if it does become legal in Ohio, but I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjachic Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 hell if ohio legalized it, I'd start smoking again. Everyone loved me a lot more when I was high all the time. I def got along with everyone more, wasnt nearly as much of a bitch, and did get annoyed as much. I also would get a lot more work done stoned then I did not stoned off my ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radio Flyer Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) LoL.. because people aren't smoking now because of the prohibition? I could give a shit if it's legal' date=' or not.. but don't assume that folks are not smoking it because the government says they're not allowed to. Hemp was outlawed to promote the cotton industry in the country. More fabulous government intervention that has landed innocent people in prison for a victimless crime. Just about half of our prison population is made up of non-violent drug offenders. Your logic is shit.. unless I was just trolled, in which case you can't blame me because I'm high as balls.[/quote']Hemp and weed are very different. You don't smoke hemp. The laws that are passing now aren't to promote the growing of hemp for resources but to make smoking weed acceptable.Working at Waterbeds N' Stuff as long as I did I got tired of pot heads coming in and talking to me, sharing their pot head ideas and blah blah blah. MOST of them are dumb as shit.I know a lot of people are in prison for marijuana related crimes however, since it is the most highly used illegal drug out there it gives police a job to go catch cannabis users and gives a prison guard a job and gives the government another reason to tax YOU to support the prison system.In the sense of financials, if it was a product that would pull us out of debt we would have made it a legal taxable product by now but, the fact is keeping it illegal keeps more money flowing through the system. Is it harmless? Yes. Should you go to jail for having it/ using it? No. Is it worth a lot of money to the government if taxed? Yes. Would they make more by legalizing it and taxing it than what they make off of the drug war on marijuana now? No.When is the last time the government passed up an opportunity to make some big dollars? Edited November 7, 2012 by Radio Flyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHill Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Government profiting should have no place in a decision like this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Federal Government should have kept it's nose out of it to begin with... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cOoTeR Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I know a girl who has a marketing position where they actually have alcohol on hand for employees to drink at work (if they desire) because it helps them be more creative and open to ideas.I'm wondering how long the feds will tolerate possession/usage the newly legal states? I'm guessing they'll look the other way under a certain amount but will hammer those over that amount.Depends on the agency. None are out looking for it. But when they come across it they take it. Where they draw the line on how much is the limit before citing/prosecuting is normally over what the state says is legal. The agency I work for you need several pounds before they will prosecute. If your over the state limit we will call local or state Leo's to deal with it. If your within state regs its taken along with any accessories (pipes bongs pop cans). Then it gets turned over to DEA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted November 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Hemp and weed are very different. You don't smoke hemp. The laws that are passing now aren't to promote the growing of hemp for resources but to make smoking weed acceptable.They killed hmep too because it hindered LE spotting MJ growers from the air since it was indistinguishible (from the air). They use some special filter or UV camera to spot it...I don't remember the details, mainly because I don't grow it or smoke it. Now, if it was legal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radio Flyer Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I'm not saying I condone their actions. Just bringing to light the fact that it doesn't create more money by changing the way that it is now.I still have my reasons as to why I would dislike it if the law were to be changed but I'm not going to complain whether it goes one way or the other as it wouldn't effect my life in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 The government cannot create jobs in a way that supports economic growth or in a way that private companies do... Sorry, I had to butt in here. Someone employed by the government spends the same and stimulates the economy the same as someone not employed by the government. You don't get "special non-economy-growing" money just because you're working for the government. That renovation you're doing while on a government salary? Stimulating local business and the local economy. Economic growth is about the velocity of money, not about who your employer is. Don't get me wrong, government jobs shouldn't be handed out to everyone like they did in Greece, but your argument doesn't hold any water. The "war on drugs does not create jobs, it creates an apparent need for more task forces and more committees and more use of the tax dollars that could be going to something useful like roads or schools or whatever...The War on Drugs does create jobs, unfortunately those jobs are more cops to staff the bullshit task forces and prison guards to run the now-private prison system. I couldn't agree more that this money is much better suited for about a million other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 That... OR' date=' we could legalize it and not tax it. Just a thought... [/quote']I have only glanced at the CO legislation, but it allows for private citizens to grow up to 6 plants.That takes some investment and time, but 6 plants ought to be more than enough for personal use...They do have to be in a "secure location," or something to that effect, so you can't just have weed growing in your garden, and you can't carry more than an ounce at a time, and I suspect you can't be dealing out of your home, even if you're only selling in 1 ounce bags.but it's a start. Kind of like home brewing, except with no comparable big-business competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KZ900 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) ... Edited November 13, 2012 by KZ900 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Sorry, I had to butt in here. Someone employed by the government spends the same and stimulates the economy the same as someone not employed by the government. You don't get "special non-economy-growing" money just because you're working for the government. That renovation you're doing while on a government salary? Stimulating local business and the local economy. Economic growth is about the velocity of money, not about who your employer is. Don't get me wrong, government jobs shouldn't be handed out to everyone like they did in Greece, but your argument doesn't hold any water. I think what he means is that the DEMAND is artificially stimulated when Uncle Sam decides to rebuild a bridge.That's not really creating a job, it's creating a project. The government isn't making a job, they're just acting as a customer. The construction company who will complete the job already existed and had employees. Perhaps that project allows them to keep some people on and avoid layoffs, and perhaps it even allows them to hire more people, but for how long? If they keep those people on forever, then the government has legitimately created a job. If they're laid off again after the bridge (or whatever) is complete, then you're seeing the summary argument for why "stimulus" only amounts to "spend-ulus," and all you have to show for it is a new bridge rather than a lasting stronger economy.On the flip side of that coin, loosening the burden on employers would theoretically allow them to hire more people permanently. While it's slower to start, the effect would be created by real consumer demand, rather than artificially bubbled by a government infusion of cash and demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I think what he means is that the DEMAND is artificially stimulated when Uncle Sam decides to rebuild a bridge.well it is never just "A" bridge... bridges are everywhere, and constantly falling into disrepair, weathering, and wearing due to public use...If these bridges are constantly being repaired, and their maintenence is being supplied by taxpayers, then the government did create a permenet job (or at least part of one with each bridge) by creating that bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 well it is never just "A" bridge... bridges are everywhere, and constantly falling into disrepair, weathering, and wearing due to public use...If these bridges are constantly being repaired, and their maintenence is being supplied by taxpayers, then the government did create a permenet job (or at least part of one with each bridge) by creating that bridge.I suppose that is accurate if the government is using its own DOT workers to do the repair.If it's contracting with private parties to complete the work, they have not created a job, they've just been a customer for a private company. The private company actually did the job-creating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHill Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Just re-read the title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I suppose that is accurate if the government is using its own DOT workers to do the repair.If it's contracting with private parties to complete the work, they have not created a job, they've just been a customer for a private company. The private company actually did the job-creating.so what are these companies doing when they are not under contract from the government?Do they carry the same staff on less work, or do they hire workers thanks to the new contract?The customer creates the job, the business just scrapes a profit off the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 If we legalize it the people on assistance will never have to get a job. They can smoke weed and breed. Then we the taxpayers will cover the Obama Care,food stamps, housing, and the abortions because all they want to do is sit around and screw all day on my dime. Then when there brain is baked after 20 years or more of blazing they will get Social Security that they never Paid in to and continue to get high while they have the oxygen tubes in their nose. But hey they will have a smile on their face and Cheetos dust on their fingers. PUT THE BONG DOWN!Dude that was fucking brilliant, hilarious and probably spot on!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 I think what he means is that the DEMAND is artificially stimulated when Uncle Sam decides to rebuild a bridge.That's not really creating a job, it's creating a project. The government isn't making a job, they're just acting as a customer. The construction company who will complete the job already existed and had employees. Perhaps that project allows them to keep some people on and avoid layoffs, and perhaps it even allows them to hire more people, but for how long? If they keep those people on forever, then the government has legitimately created a job. If they're laid off again after the bridge (or whatever) is complete, then you're seeing the summary argument for why "stimulus" only amounts to "spend-ulus," and all you have to show for it is a new bridge rather than a lasting stronger economy.On the flip side of that coin, loosening the burden on employers would theoretically allow them to hire more people permanently. While it's slower to start, the effect would be created by real consumer demand, rather than artificially bubbled by a government infusion of cash and demand.As the son of a (now happily retired) operating engineer, I feel I can intelligently say that the microcosm of construction "job creation" you're latching onto isn't indicative of the whole picture. Construction jobs are cyclical, seasonal (in Ohio, at least), and quasi-temporary by their very nature. Something needs built, hire on the people to build it, it gets built, people go away. The only "permanent" jobs in the construction field are the sales guys and management, the rest are brought in as necessary. That's why the union was so beneficial to us, they knew where my Dad was, they knew his skillset, and they knew if he was already on the job or not. If he wasn't and they needed him, he got the call.Something a little more appropriate to your analogy would be a lowly BMV worker. Population goes up in a certain area, lines become even more soul-crushingly longer than usual, fees rise with population to the point where a new employee can be hired with the extra overhead, lines become less mind-searingly long, everyone is that much happier, and new employee person has money in their pocket to be a productive member of society. Easy-peasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gixxus Christ! Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Law enforcement and subsidies for prisons are a negative cash flow.Incoming revenues from taxing pot sales is a positive cash flow.Right now the bulk of the smokers pot dollar is going into the black market and eventually funneled either into the pockets of Mexican gangs or cartells or the local green thumb. This has a nagative effect on the economy. Legal, taxed selling of weed would funnel that money into the govt and the local business owners of the dispensaries and their employees. Positive effect on the economy.Until its off the federal drug no-no list the federal govt shouldn't see a fucking dime. Let the tax revenue go to the city and state.Who wants to go open up a hydroponic grow store with me in Denver? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIJI-9-Brother Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Sorry, I had to butt in here. Someone employed by the government spends the same and stimulates the economy the same as someone not employed by the government. You don't get "special non-economy-growing" money just because you're working for the government. That renovation you're doing while on a government salary? Stimulating local business and the local economy. Economic growth is about the velocity of money, not about who your employer is. Don't get me wrong, government jobs shouldn't be handed out to everyone like they did in Greece, but your argument doesn't hold any water. I agree that people employed by the government spend money and put some of our own money back into the economy but I don't pay taxes so Gov. employees can stimulate the economy. I dont know about the rest of you guys, but I pay taxes so my friends and my family are safe from foreign and domestic enemies, so I can travel around this great country a little easier (roads, planes...), have people to help me in extreme emergencies, among other things. I absolutely do not want to pay more taxes so more of us have less freedom and a larger Government. I was stating that the Gov. has no basis for creating new jobs because they are not a company, so they should attempt (at a Federal level) to minimize increases in ANYTHING not absolutely essential, which inevitably increases the tax and financial burden on the general public to support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIJI-9-Brother Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 As the son of a (now happily retired) operating engineer, I feel I can intelligently say that the microcosm of construction "job creation" you're latching onto isn't indicative of the whole picture. Construction jobs are cyclical, seasonal (in Ohio, at least), and quasi-temporary by their very nature. Something needs built, hire on the people to build it, it gets built, people go away. The only "permanent" jobs in the construction field are the sales guys and management, the rest are brought in as necessary. That's why the union was so beneficial to us, they knew where my Dad was, they knew his skillset, and they knew if he was already on the job or not. If he wasn't and they needed him, he got the call.Something a little more appropriate to your analogy would be a lowly BMV worker. Population goes up in a certain area, lines become even more soul-crushingly longer than usual, fees rise with population to the point where a new employee can be hired with the extra overhead, lines become less mind-searingly long, everyone is that much happier, and new employee person has money in their pocket to be a productive member of society. Easy-peasy.Im pretty sure BMV's are privately owned in Ohio... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 That's because marijuana is harmless. And it makes you so much smarter! Like alcohol makes you a better singer. Sorry seen the dark side of marijuana use too many times, I will never support it's uncontrolled use, growth or sale. Yes, some people seem to handle it just fine, but like alcoholism it can also tear your world apart and flush you down a endless shit hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 like alcoholism it can also tear your world apart and flush you down a endless shit hole.So we should also reinstate prohibition?since they are the same and everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowdog Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 And it makes you so much smarter! Like alcohol makes you a better singer. Sorry seen the dark side of marijuana use too many times, I will never support it's uncontrolled use, growth or sale. Yes, some people seem to handle it just fine, but like alcoholism it can also tear your world apart and flush you down a endless shit hole.Examples? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Have never seen violence from anybody that was high, helps with pain, and alcohol is pure poison in the body and the body works overtime to get it out. But prescription painkillers are about as bad as things can get right now, and talk about addictive with many bad consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.