Texsox

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 05:24 PM) I honestly think that having an opinion on what is dangerous, what is pot-related danger, and what are the differences between pot and other drugs depends entirely upon first hand experience. Also if you can find some statistics on marijuana related deaths then there is your proof, its not exactly a debate. Does it impair your ability to drive? Sure, but about as much as having the flu, taking Day-Quil, or any other very simple parts of life. Regulation of use and a warning is the way to get around that. Talking on your cell phone is more dangerous these days. As far as the gateway part, there isnt a magic drug dealer store, each product comes from a different part of the world, different countries, different sources, its not exactly easy to find a wal-mart of illegal substances. And a financial benefit to the country, city, state, and county is a societal benefit. If a 10 year old gets to go to a school with better facilities and is taught by a teacher who has had a better education because of taxes collected on marijunana sales, then it DOES benefit society without being a user. Not sure about your "vitamin" comment. Marijuana has been proven to have medicinal purposes if that was your question. Also even though you cant smoke in a handful of cities or states across the country indoors, it wouldnt exactly harm the user base since walking down the street would be a huge boon for the industry anyway. I agree there is a financial benefit. I agree that is the single best reason to legalize it. The death question is fine. You believe if someone dies high in an accident, it is not pot related. I disagree. Just like a drunk driver fatality is alcohol related death, so to is a fatality from driving high. Now tell me no one has ever gotten in an accident when high. You believe pot is a miracle drug. You can't wake someone pretending to be asleep. So I am done. Rock's plan to fix schools and roads? We need more poeple drunk and stoned in this country! Dammit! Get high and support school kids!!

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 04:53 PM) The taxes on the pot would make millions for states and the government. The fast food industry will have more demand. Less people will abuse more addictive yet legal substances (pain relievers, alochol) in favor of a substance that gives better effects and can not be lethal directly. I honestly believe if pot was legal, there would be a good number of people who would stop drinking alcohol. A drug that physically destroys the body, causes the users to be aggressive leading to abusive behavior, and that in turn would reduce some violence and drunken driving. We've been over this before, and you try to spin the argument, but driving high is safer than driving drunk. I'm not saying I support driving high, but if we could replace all the drunk drivers in the world with stoned drivers, it'd be much safer. There would also be a lot less public urination/vomitting outside Wrigley Field, campus bar, and other places where binge drinking is part of the scene. I think society benefits from all of this. That is one of the best summaries I've read and some great material for thought. The financial benefits are obvious and I can not believe anyone would disagree. My first reaction would be, in a world where smoking cigarettes is getting harder and harder to do legally in public, wouldn't it be difficult to find places to smoke? Even some localities have banned smoking in bars and taverns. My only objection to the driving argument are those that claim they drive better high than sober. High or drunk is not safe. So whether it is safer drunk, stoned, on heroin, or acid doesn't matter. No one wants an impaired driver driving next to them and that argument would never be used to make pot legal. And I know people who agree with you, they agree to the point that they would never drive drunk, but will drive stoned. Again, not a good argument if you want pot legal. Again, everyone here seems to forget I favor legalizing, but I do so with an open mind. I do not see pot as this magical vitamin that has all these benefits and no costs.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) Truth is the market crash, GOP scandals, and GW Bush played a much larger role than Howard Dean. If things go badly during the Obama admin the GOP will likely make up ground, it's just how things work. All true, but as Dems remember, Bush was very vulnerable after his first term, and they did not win. Same as the GOP squandered a chance after Clinton's first term.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) False. Took Accounting and Finance Majors in a Business Degree, now I'm working for an Investment Bank, that is pretty much screwed ATM. The person below me will be seeing snow in their area tomorrow. False. Unless the world is ending The person below me enjoys a nice cigar

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) Come on Tex, we've been at odds on this subject for awhile. I couldnt find the thread from March where you constantly cited different viewpoints on the subject, most of them being of the "gateway" variety which is an old standard for arguing against marijunana useage. I have several PM's stored from other members discussing the subject on that date. Maybe you have changed your tune here in this thread, but I am under the opionion that alot of your viewpoint comes from less experience in the realm, and if I am wrong I apologize. My experience comes from watching society for almost 50 years and what is, and is not, allowed, and how those changes come about. If you think I also need to smoke pot to understand, I disagree. People still get high and die. No change in my opinion. If you are high, and get in an accident, that is a pot related death. The same as if your were drunk. You disagreed. No need to rehash that. I clearly stated my gateway argument again, I'm not going to disagree with you. You clearly have more experience with terrorist sponsored (something you added) pot dealers and their inventories. I assumed your local pot dealer would have more than just pot. My mistake. And I see you are agreeing with me, the only benefit is financial. So you are asking society to allow another substance that has no health benefits to individual in exchange for cash. I agree it makes financial sense. Plus, we have sold out our values for a lot less. But as long as we are on a swing where we are being more restrictive on cigarettes (higher and higher sin taxes and less places to smoke) and tougher on alcohol (again higher and higher taxes) I do not see pot being legal anytime soon. It seems that you consider pot a vitamin, I'm not ever going to change your mind.

The entire "gateway" debate is silly. What difference is there between Gate > coffee > cigarettes > alcohol > pot > cocaine or coffee > cigarettes > alcohol > gate > pot > cocaine Since people seem to use this path, where do you want to place the gate? Does it really make a difference? I do not think so. It's a silly term and ultimately means nothing. Now, those that keep thinking pot is illegal from bad science and stuff. That just is not as much of a factor today. Today it is factors like the alcohol lobby and the lack of non-financial benefits to society. Complete this Society will benefit from more people getting high because . . . All of the benefits to society, and it is society that has to change the laws are financial. So far we have been willing to spend the money, stupidly in my opinion, to keep pot illegal. We have seen the negative effects of cigarettes and alcohol and have been making it harder, not easier, to use those substances. Why would society then reverse that trend and make another drug legal? Those are the kinds of forces that keep pot illegal.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 12:43 PM) Tex, you still didnt answer my question about your experience. Where do many of your viewpoints on this issue come from? Because a large portion of your arguments are extremely dated and really allign with older governmental viewpoints on drugs as a whole. That it should be legal based on financial and eliminating a potential gateway to other illegal drugs? I didn't think that was old fashioned?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) Medical. And should be legal everywhere for that. With a 'script

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 12:02 PM) True. If the Bears aren't in it...who cares? /subtlety, obviously true. The person below me didn't miss the fact that Tex said "blow me" in his post above. False, FlaSoxxJim said blow me and I forgave him because he's old. The person below me wishes they had thought more before picking their screen name.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 12:15 PM) Whose society? Ours? Less funding of criminal and terrorist organizations for the gov, for users, more controlled distribution and higher potency. Are you suggesting your pot dealer or further up the chain has connections to terrorism? And how does higher potency help society?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 10:52 AM) What makes you think that all pot dealers have access to other drugs? That has to be one of the biggest stretches in this thread so far. Habitual marijuana users do not have an automatic desire to try cocaine, the drugs couldnt be more different. IN fact I would say 90 percent or more of the weed dealers I have known over the years had ZERO idea where to get other stuff. Well you just eliminated my biggest reason to legalize it. What benefit is their to society beyond financial?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 10:33 AM) Never stick around when Gage starts talking about his penis. It's a short story

We can split hairs and call marijuana legal because it is for a small population. You could call alcohol illegal because it is for some groups. But most people will consider alcohol legal because adults can buy it at a store. Most adults will consider marijuana illegal because most adults cannot but it at a legal store. OK, so cigarettes are the new gateway drug. What does that change? What keeps marijuana illegal is very complex and based on much more than image.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 10:27 AM) They are charging a sitting governor with this, amongst other things. If we say it is illegal in Rod Blago's case, why isn't it illegal when the future Secretary of State does it? Sorry, I wasn't clear. Clearly there is a point where it crosses the line. Perhaps they both crossed the line. Separate thought. Where should the line be drawn? I would be considered a pro immigration candidate. Wouldn't my campaign attract individuals and businesses that are also pro-immigration? If I then work to pass, or by executive decree, support pro-immigration policies, is it fair to look at my donor list and make a pay to play accusation?

Yep, we kill them early and often, well everyone except middle class or above white people with decent lawyers. Which is why Texas has such a low murder rate. The death penalty is such a deterrent.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) With Hillary, these types of allegations have been floating around for a very long time. They finally got their records released and there was a direct link with certian companies receiving favorable actions after giving money to Bill's fund. That is pretty much the definition of pay for play. Which has always troubled me. Wouldn't you want to do business with those people that share your ideals? The same people that would naturally support you? Basically we want the GOP to support Dem businesses and vice versa, Doesn't make sense. If you are an ag business, needing guest workers, would you donate to me, or one of our pro-border wall types? Now once I am elected, wouldn't I also support a guest worker program, as I have stated here forever? The someone looks back and sees someone donated and then received favorable actions and believes it was pay to play? I understand the dangers, but this area is always less cut and dried than first glance.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 09:52 AM) Alcohol consumption is illegal under the age of 21. Generally the first legal to illegal gate that children pass through is either cigarettes or alcohol. In my experience I have not met a marijuana user who did not attempt alcohol or cigarettes first. As to the black market for alcohol, look into moonshine and the like. The US govt just cracks down on it and stills are some what easier to find in the Appalachian Mountains than marijuana plants. The substance itself is legal. I find it amusing how many people are so concerned about pot's image.That if we somehow label it differently it will suddenly be available at the corner supermarket.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 07:06 PM) True, but I hated the dirt prices the bookstores wanted to give you for the used books when you tried to sell them back at the end of the semester. I ended up keeping 95% of my textbooks because I was absolutely insulted at the buyback prices. (Now, of course, when I want a college text I can request a complementary instructor review copy, so I goy that going for me). The person blow me doesn't give a rats arse about any of the remaining NFL postseason teams. True. (who pays campus crookstore prices?) The person below me has pretended not to see someone.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 09:03 AM) You say that like it's a universal thing though. There is no such requirement where I work. I verify my eligibility to work in the U.S. when I got hired (like everyone does). After that, that's it, they don't ask again. Sorry, I should have added more detail. It depends on the documents that you used to establish your right to work. If it was your Social Security card and Driver's license, that established your right to work for an indefinite time. If you present any documents that establish a temporary right to work, then the employer is required to follow up when your status is scheduled to change.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 09:00 PM) So, on both issues, it turns out it's actually quite a bit more complicated than presented here. On the immigrant housekeeper, when she started working for him, she was a legal immigrant. She had the appropriate immigration documents. Those documents expired for a period of 3 months, probably due to her simply not handling the documentation application request properly. She left after those 3 months to have a baby. In other words, the only way for him to know that she had an immigration issue would be to repeatedly conduct immigration sweeps of everyone he meets or to take down all of the details from her identification documents upon hiring her so that he knows whether or not her papers are expiring and constantly keep tabs on that (something that no business in the country wants to be doing - does your business know whether or not your drivers's license is expired after you've been officially hired?) Secondly, the mistake he made - failing to pay the Social Security and Medicare taxes, is a common mistake made by employees of some organizations like the IMF, because the IMF pays your federal taxes through standard withholding but does not withhold social security and medicare taxes, and as such, the employee is expected to calculate and pay them on his or her own. The "Immigrant" problem is bunk and shouldn't be a knock on him. He did his due diligence. The tax problem I could see being an issue...in the sense that I don't like my SecTreas making careless mistakes...but it's at least a complicated one. My employer asks for my insurance and driver's license every year. It is a condition of employment. If you are driving for the company, you can bet they check on a regular basis. Salespeople, delivery drivers, truckers, etc. It is routine. It is required of employers to track the legal status of their employees. They have to have a system in place to know when Visas and work permits expire. When you hire someone you are required to have copies of their employment documentation. Usually Social Security card and driver's license. It's the law and again routine. I am required to do it for the summer staff I hire for 4 weeks out of the year.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 04:55 PM) If Bearsox felt that way, that would mean his viewpoint on pot would completely change if it was legalized. I highly doubt many people who call pot a gateway drug would be willing to change their mind if it was legal. Do you honestly think they would just wake up the next morning and say "Coke is the gateway drug of choice!" The argument is: Pot shouldn't be made legal because it is a gateway drug. Subbing in your definition: Pot shouldn't be made legal because it is an illegal drug. Not everything that is illegal is completely harmful, and everything that is legal isn't safe. I think we as human adult should be able to decide for ourselves, with proper knowledge (school education, FDA, EPA, etc..) to decide what we want to do with ourselves provided we do not directly harm others with our decisions. Again, it depends on what "gate" we are passing through. My position is the gate is from legal to illegal behavior. Based on that definition, a legal drug would not be considered a "gateway" because the gate was removed. If we are discussing chemically altering our bodies, the gateway could be stretched all the way back to the first sugar buzz, etc. Would attitudes change overnight? I doubt it. Would they change over time? Absolutely. Think alcohol during and post prohibition. If I was to make any argument regarding keeping pot illegal is that there is no personal upsides to increasing marijuana usage. While I agree it is probably less harmful than alcohol, it has limited positive benefits, and those are in a very limited medical area. I do not see any value in having more stoned people around. The value becomes a financial one to society. The vast amount of resources we have placed to stop marijuana is silly. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 06:44 PM) Where's the black market for alcohol? All along the border. Cheaper prices and no taxes, but it is smuggling, you are suppose to declare and pay the taxes upon returning to the US.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 11:14 PM) I do think it would be funny if Henderson came back and played in the big leagues after getting inducted. If anyone would do it, it'd be him. That would be awesome.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 04:49 PM) Oh, I'm sure you do know some. But I am very open minded and listen to all sides, you are from a closed minded state like Texas and this may be a foreign concept to you. Remember, the 'Evil Bush Regime' is from Texas. I don't know anyone who believed Bush was worse than Hitler or who blindly supported Iran. Where do you meet people like that?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 04:38 PM) Unfortunately, it's not even much of an exaggeration (as a hyperbole would suggest). Literally, any entity that was against GW Bush was blindly supported by certain liberal groups. It was fairly sad. Really? So the Conservatives who lost faith in him and were agianst him, then supported certain liberal groups? Which ones? At one point his approval ratings were around 25%, does that mean people went from supporting Bush to blindly supporting liberal groups? Seems like you would jave to then blindly support Bush to stay on the right side.