Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on February 27, 2013, 03:04:09 PM
-
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16967535-gop-senate-leader-mitch-mcconnell-supports-bill-to-legalize-hemp-production?lite
GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell supports bill to legalize hemp production
By Kasie Hunt, NBC News
The federal government currently puts hemp in the same category of illegal drug as heroin, LSD and ecstasy -- but the Senate's top Republican wants to change that.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R - Ky., joined forces Thursday with a pair of West Coast Democrats -- Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley -- to cosponsor a bill that would allow American farmers to grow hemp without fear of punishment. Also on board is libertarian Rand Paul, McConnell's fellow Republican Bluegrass State senator.
“I am proud to introduce legislation with my friend Rand Paul that will allow Kentucky farmers to harness the economic potential that industrial hemp can provide,†McConnell said in a statement Thursday. "During these tough economic times, this legislation has the potential to create jobs and provide a boost to Kentucky’s economy and to our farmers and their families."
The debate over legalization of hemp is contentious in Kentucky. The Chamber of Commerce supports legalization, but some law enforcement groups say it is a step that could lead to the legalization of marijuana.
McConnell's move follows action in the Kentucky state Senate, which voted Thursday to legalize hemp production there -- if the federal government also decrees that it's legal. Oregon has approved hemp production, but farmers can still be prosecuted under federal law.
Hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa, the plant species that also produces marijuana. McConnell wants to legalize so-called industrial hemp, which contains a much smaller amount of THC, the chemical that produces marijuana's high.
Proponents of industrial hemp tout its many legal uses, such as in soap, cosmetics, and rope for sailboats and other watercraft. Farmers say hemp twine is much stronger than other rope used to bind bales of hay. Toyota -- which builds Camrys in Kentucky -- has spoken in favor of hemp legalization, saying they want to use the fibers in car panels and insulation.
Typically, the plants that make great industrial hemp make less potent marijuana. Plants that make great pot don't usually produce the strongest industrial fibers.
-
Toyota -- which builds Camrys in Kentucky -- has spoken in favor of hemp legalization, saying they want to use the fibers in car panels and insulation
(http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/drugs-border.jpg)
-
(http://i.qkme.me/3pj28t.jpg)
-
The water...Cascading off yo boooody...
-
This will be fighting big money oil. hemp was ding just fine till the early part of the 19 century when the oil companies paid to have the government classify it as cannabis. Overnight the nylon rope was king.
The uses of hemp far outweigh the risk of someone smoking an 8 foot tall plant all at once just to get the same high as one marijuana joint.
-
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16967535-gop-senate-leader-mitch-mcconnell-supports-bill-to-legalize-hemp-production?lite
Well, good. Maybe a stance on national pot decriminalization isn't far away; FedGov needs as many revenue streams as possible. On the other hand I can't hire anybody who can't pass the drug test; my bonding company won't allow it, my insurance company won't allow it, and my clients won't allow it.
-
I have no issue with this. At all. The GOP needs to get on board with this kind of thought.
-
This will be fighting big money oil. hemp was ding just fine till the early part of the 19 century when the oil companies paid to have the government classify it as cannabis. Overnight the nylon rope was king.
The uses of hemp far outweigh the risk of someone smoking an 8 foot tall plant all at once just to get the same high as one marijuana joint.
Actually, you're close, but not accurate.
It was Citizen Kane himself, William Randolph Hurst that demonized it. He ran the news papers, and also owned paper mills to produce these papers. Because hemp was so much more economical, and better quality, it would have put his paper mills out of business, and hence the yellow journalism campaign.
Marijuana was colloquially referred to as cannabis and was not thought of as a big deal. Hearst started the campaign against the "new drug" called Marijuana. A lot more people thought like you back in those days and were terrified by anything that sounded like it was associated with teh brown people. He ran bullshit stories about how it fueled rape and murder sprees and must be stopped. Also it was much easier to demonize something people had never heard of. If most people had known that marijuana and cannabis were the same thing, they would have probably called bullshit.
Hence the marijuana laws we have today.
(http://www.pseale.com/blog/content/binary/TheMoreYouKnow.png)
Well, good. Maybe a stance on national pot decriminalization isn't far away; FedGov needs as many revenue streams as possible. On the other hand I can't hire anybody who can't pass the drug test; my bonding company won't allow it, my insurance company won't allow it, and my clients won't allow it.
That's the problem. If it were legalized, that's the first step in eliminating those silly restrictions.
-
I have no issue with this. At all. The GOP needs to get on board with this kind of thought.
Yes, but is your support because of the possible economic enhancement or simply because you are a pot head?
-
I have no issue with this. At all. The GOP needs to get on board with this kind of thought.
I agree. Would be probably the single best possible way at earning back some youth vote.
If you remove the silly "morality" tag from this (which I think I've beaten to death in regards to the negative effects of marijuana vs. alcohol), this should be what Republicans stand for.
Prohibition = bad. Government overreach = bad. The government spending involved in the war on drugs = bad. Freedom = good. The economic benefit to applying the free market to marijuana = good.
If the GOP could convey this message without fucking it up, I think it would gain some youth votes.
-
Yes, but is your support because of the possible economic enhancement or simply because you are a pot head?
Mine is for the possible economic enhancement and furthermore, I don't give a fuck if anyone smokes it as long as it doesn't infringe on any of my freedom.
-
Mine is for the possible economic enhancement and furthermore, I don't give a fuck if anyone smokes it as long as it doesn't infringe on any of my freedom.
To elaborate on my previous point, what I meant by the GOP should "communicate this effectively", is that the stigma of the GOP as "the man" in the eyes of the youth, could be reversed with the message of, "Hey, we want to legalize pot. We want to legalize gambling in your state. We want to give you more freedoms, because that's what we're about. We don't believe the government should be your nanny."
If the GOP would sell this message, with conviction, it would go a long way with the 18-30 crowd, which is who they've pretty much lost entirely.
Do I have faith that they will actually do this? No. Too much influence from the Christian right.
-
That's the problem. If it were legalized, that's the first step in eliminating those silly restrictions.
Let me ask this...When an accident happens on a job site and workers comp has to be involved, who and how determines whether they were high at the time of the accident?
-
Let me ask this...When an accident happens on a job site and workers comp has to be involved, who and how determines whether they were high at the time of the accident?
Someone else who lives in Realsville.
-
Someone else who lives in Realsville.
and while I'm at it let's continue this thought stream....
Since I am required by the state gubment to have workers comp insurance will the federal gubment now pay my premiums since I'm sure it will be illegal for me to discriminate against anyone who tests positive for inhaling the leafy rope? And if da "feral" gubment pays my state premiums will they have more say in how I run my privately owned business which by definition would no longer be privately owned.
There is much more to this discussion than whether or not someone should be able to get stoned in the comfort of their own home.
I'm actually all for that but you cannot create the nanny state in regards to other things and then expect it to not bleed over into everything else.
-
Let me ask this...When an accident happens on a job site and workers comp has to be involved, who and how determines whether they were high at the time of the accident?
How is it done now with alcohol? Why should it be treated differently?
-
How is it done now with alcohol? Why should it be treated differently?
Well I can test someone on the spot and tell you if they are drunk/what their BAC level is.
How do you do that with mary jane?
-
Well I can test someone on the spot and tell you if they are drunk/what their BAC level is.
How do you do that with mary jane?
I thought there were piss test that could tell immediately?
-
Well I can test someone on the spot and tell you is they are drunk.
How do you do that with mary jane?
THC tests.
Related:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2013/02/13/dnt-driving-under-influence-marijuana.kiro
Both interesting, relevant, and funny.
-
I thought there were piss test that could tell immediately?
You just throw a twinky out on the ground. If they jump on it, you got'em!
-
THC tests.
Related:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2013/02/13/dnt-driving-under-influence-marijuana.kiro
Both interesting, relevant, and funny.
So now I have to perform a blood test to ensure someone is below the legal limit?
Yea, this ends well.
And who pray tell do you think is going to regulate the strength of the pot itself? Oh yea, the gubment then gets in that business as well.
-
You just throw a twinky out on the ground. If they jump on it, you got'em!
+5
-
So now I have to perform a blood test to ensure someone is below the legal limit?
Yea, this ends well.
And who pray tell do you think is going to regulate the strength of the pot itself? Oh yea, the gubment then gets in that business as well.
I mean, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. At least, certainly not worse than regulating the alcohol content of booze. As a full-blown libertarian, I'd prefer no regulation in either of those areas, but I'm also a realist.
As for the problem with a blood test, I think you're just being stubborn. First of all, it can be administered with a piss test too. Just the same as a long-term test. What's the difference in testing for long term and short term use?
FWIW, based on that video, I think the legal limit of 5 nanograms they are proposing should be upped to near 20, since all of the test cases were well over that and still drove fine.
-
As for the problem with a blood test, I think you're just being stubborn. First of all, it can be administered with a piss test too.
So I can also collect urine specimens? Where will the fun end?
Until they can make it quick and clean like a breathalyzer, this is just one more problem business has to deal with.
Still waiting to hear who is going to pay my workers comp insurance when I am forced to hire someone who regularly smokes out?
Drove fine? I think we were watching a different video.
-
So I can also collect urine specimens? Where will the fun end?
Until they can make it quick and clean like a breathalyzer, this is just one more problem business has to deal with.
Currently, your business has to deal with the exact same thing if you're doing drug tests for long term use, except if marijuana were made legal these tests would be just as unnecessary as testing for alcohol use.
Still waiting to hear who is going to pay my workers comp insurance when I am forced to hire someone who regularly smokes out?
You won't be. Just as you're not forced to hire someone who "regularly" gets drunk.
If you can prove that it's affecting job performance, then you have the right to fire them for it, exactly as it is with alcohol today. These made-up differences between pot & alcohol are just that. Made up.
-
Yes, but is your support because of the possible economic enhancement or simply because you are a pot head?
Neither.
Because its a dumbass arbitrary law, just like state wide blue laws.
But I think it would take pressure off police more to pursue real criminals that actually cause harm to people. And yes it could also be an opportunity for monetary side effects if handled right.
It's less dangerous to the human body that huge volumes of hard liquor and prescription drugs. Just saying.
-
and while I'm at it let's continue this thought stream....
Since I am required by the state gubment to have workers comp insurance will the federal gubment now pay my premiums since I'm sure it will be illegal for me to discriminate against anyone who tests positive for inhaling the leafy rope? And if da "feral" gubment pays my state premiums will they have more say in how I run my privately owned business which by definition would no longer be privately owned.
There is much more to this discussion than whether or not someone should be able to get stoned in the comfort of their own home.
I'm actually all for that but you cannot create the nanny state in regards to other things and then expect it to not bleed over into everything else.
You handle it the same way you do when someone does the same thing when intoxicated and or under the influence of narcotics. What's different? A substance is a substance.
-
Currently, your business has to deal with the exact same thing if you're doing drug tests for long term use, except if marijuana were made legal these tests would be just as unnecessary as testing for alcohol use.
You won't be. Just as you're not forced to hire someone who "regularly" gets drunk.
If you can prove that it's affecting job performance, then you have the right to fire them for it, exactly as it is with alcohol today. These made-up differences between pot & alcohol are just that. Made up.
So I am agreeing with chad and not Sani in a political forum? What in the hell is the world coming to.
-
Currently, your business has to deal with the exact same thing if you're doing drug tests for long term use, except if marijuana were made legal these tests would be just as unnecessary as testing for alcohol use.
You won't be. Just as you're not forced to hire someone who "regularly" gets drunk.
If you can prove that it's affecting job performance, then you have the right to fire them for it, exactly as it is with alcohol today. These made-up differences between pot & alcohol are just that. Made up.
You let me know when the space shuttle lands cause there is not a chance in hell that there is not going to be litigation if someone is hurt or killed on a job site and then the person at fault is found to be "under the influence". I don't care what influence it is, but at this point in time the employer has the tools to easily test someone they suspect of being under the influence of alcohol. No such test exists for marijuana.
Once again understand that I don't give a shit if someone gets stoned or not but as one of the guardians of my company against litigation I have to be on the offensive about not having people under the influence of anything working for us.
-
You just throw a twinky out on the ground. If they jump on it, you got'em!
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7d1bjMs211r4a47uo1_500.jpg)
-
You let me know when the space shuttle lands cause there is not a chance in hell that there is not going to be litigation if someone is hurt or killed on a job site and then the person at fault is found to be "under the influence". I don't care what influence it is, but at this point in time the employer has the tools to easily test someone they suspect of being under the influence of alcohol. No such test exists for marijuana.
Do you know how many people there are walking around on mind altering cocktails of Xanax, Zoloft, Lexipro and others? Yes, most people that open fire on crowds are on this shit. How do they test them on the job of something goes wrong? After all, those are legal but controlled substances that can affect someone's state of mind.
We're forgetting too that Mary Jane most likely wouldn't be wide open. It would be controlled just like other things that are legal.
-
Neither.
Because its a dumbass arbitrary law, just like state wide blue laws.
But I think it would take pressure off police more to pursue real criminals that actually cause harm to people. And yes it could also be an opportunity for monetary side effects if handled right.
It's less dangerous to the human body that huge volumes of hard liquor and prescription drugs. Just saying.
This stuff as well. I was in a hurry when I typed out what I did earlier and didn't mention any of it.
-
Do you know how many people there are walking around on mind altering cocktails of Xanax, Zoloft, Lexipro and others? Yes, most people that open fire on crowds are on this shit. How do they test them on the job of something goes wrong? After all, those are legal but controlled substances that can affect someone's state of mind.
We're forgetting too that Mary Jane most likely wouldn't be wide open. It would be controlled just like other things that are legal.
When something goes wrong on a job they test them with a piss/blood test.
My job is to do everything within my ability to make sure that fucked up person is not on a job site to begin with, and until there is no litigation that involves assigning blame to a person and their company then I am doing my company a disservice by not being adamant in keeping those people out of our workforce.
-
When something goes wrong on a job they test them with a piss/blood test.
My job is to do everything within my ability to make sure that fucked up person is not on a job site to begin with, and until there is no litigation that involves assigning blame to a person and their company then I am doing my company a disservice by not being adamant in keeping those people out of our workforce.
Classic fallacy of false dilemma.
Doubt you're so concerned about "fucked up" alcohol users on your job site...unless they're showing up drunk.
-
Let me ask this...When an accident happens on a job site and workers comp has to be involved, who and how determines whether they were high at the time of the accident?
My work comp ins likes drug testing after a work comp injury, so my answer would be the independent lab that does the test. If the rope shows up in the pee pee, they were high and the work comp has right (imo) to not pay for that employees injury. But, it will not surprise me if this is considered an invasion of privacy under the current regime.
Having said that, I'm still o.k. with decriminalization and am esp o.k. with this particular bill in Ky. More to do with economics, industrial use, etc than with the whole legalization issue.
-
Doubt you're so concerned about "fucked up" alcohol users on your job site...unless they're showing up drunk.
Well when the fuck else would I be concerned about it? I don't care if they are drunk at home or at a bar, or in a gutter. I care if they are under the influence at work. I have a $100 breathalyzer that is accurate to 1/10 of a % of BAC which allows me to deal with an alcohol problem then and there before it becomes a legal problem.
If anything, alcohol is a lot easier to deal with.
So the only way to deal with pot or any other drug OTHER THAN ALCOHOL is to have a zero tolerance on it and attempt to screen at the point of employment.
As soon as I can EASILY screen for it when there is suspicion then I'll start playing Peter Tosh in the break room.
-
Well when the fudge else would I be concerned about it? I don't care if they are drunk at home or at a bar, or in a gutter. I care if they are under the influence at work. I have a $100 breathalyzer that is accurate to 1/10 of a % of BAC which allows me to deal with an alcohol problem then and there before it becomes a legal problem.
If anything, alcohol is a lot easier to deal with.
So the only way to deal with pot or any other drug OTHER THAN ALCOHOL is to have a zero tolerance on it and attempt to screen at the point of employment.
As soon as I can EASILY screen for it when there is suspicion then I'll start playing Peter Tosh in the break room.
Can you get in trouble there for the beating of one's meat? What's the limit on spanking the monkey? Yous guys just don't seem to allow for much in the way of sex, drugs and Rock n Roll. Work, work, work.
-
Well when the fuck else would I be concerned about it? I don't care if they are drunk at home or at a bar, or in a gutter. I care if they are under the influence at work. I have a $100 breathalyzer that is accurate to 1/10 of a % of BAC which allows me to deal with an alcohol problem then and there before it becomes a legal problem.
If anything, alcohol is a lot easier to deal with.
So the only way to deal with pot or any other drug OTHER THAN ALCOHOL is to have a zero tolerance on it and attempt to screen at the point of employment.
As soon as I can EASILY screen for it when there is suspicion then I'll start playing Peter Tosh in the break room.
While I see what you're saying, that's a very minor and secondary reason to keep it illegal from a big picture standpoint.
And I'll ask again - what would you do if someone is under the influence of Xanax (let's say 2 too many) and their work suffers or they cause an incident because of it? Piss/blood test right? You would treat these cases the same.
Where I work, if you fuck up - its a write up no matter what caused it. The reason is usually secondary u less it's illegal.
-
While I see what you're saying, that's a very minor and secondary reason to keep it illegal from a big picture standpoint.
And I'll ask again - what would you do if someone is under the influence of Xanax (let's say 2 too many) and their work suffers or they cause an incident because of it? Piss/blood test right? You would treat these cases the same.
Where I work, if you fuck up - its a write up no matter what caused it. The reason is usually secondary u less it's illegal.
I can't say what I would do since that situation has never presented itself. I can tell you this in the pre-employment screening if they show any drugs in their system then I make them show me a script if they want to be employed.