HR 5843 Personal Use Marijuana

[Dr_Deathweed]

you like how that accidentally formed a smiley code.

Yeah, I was wondering what you ment with that until you fixed your original post. But i get it now..... : + D =

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

But were getting off topic here.
Grass is gooooood.

sorry, a little druck here so I know I am just post whoring at this point....


yes, legalize the weed so I wont ruin my career or lose my licence if I choose to partake.... I need another chemical to be dependent on in my life...

 

[BuffaloSabresBrewer]

+1
Well you allowed to whore some your closing in on 1K.

 

[thebully]

To clear things up...
I have been guilty of beigh "High" and I live in California... :cross:

Sry to cause an uproar lol

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

To clear things up...
I have been guilty of beigh "High" and I live in California... :cross:

Sry to cause an uproar lol

no uproar at all, just an excuse for some of us druck people who are avoiding doing what we are supposed to be doing to talk a little nonsence and get a thread off topic:cross:

 

[Chriso]

LOL, not a problem. Those of us in Central and Eastern time zones are already feeling quite pleasant for the evening, we're washing our Monday blues away.

"Those boys get that syrup in 'em, and they get all antsy in their pantsies." -Super Troopers

 

[MULE]

If legalized, stocks in junk food will shoot through the roof.

 

[shafferpilot]

Our schools are funded just fine, they just don't know how to use it properly. We throw more and more money on schools every year and kids continue to do poorly. The Unions answer is MORE MONEY.

It's BS. In Europe, the money follows the student, so schools need to be competitive or the money leaves as goes the students.

Schools don't need more money, they just need to get rid of the NEA so incompetent teachers can be sacked and boated administrations can be trimmed.

no direct offense intended, Ed... but you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

no direct offense intended, Ed... but you don't know what the heck you're talking about

You mean like the No kid left behind act that allows failures to graduate for fear of hurting their self esteem?

 

[kornkob]

You mean like the No kid left behind act that allows failures to graduate for fear of hurting their self esteem?

It's way of the topic at hand but I think he might be suggesting that Ed is grossly ovesimplifying the problem.

The state of US schools probably deserves it's own epic thread. It's a huge issue that ties in complex issues including the viability of unions in a non-competitive enviornment, funding basic services based on local land values, parental responsibility in the educational process, etc. In fact any one of these sub-issues could probably generate its own thread and none of them has anything to do with people toking up.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

It's way of the topic at hand but I think he might be suggesting that Ed is grossly ovesimplifying the problem.

You may be right- We have a few guys whose spouses are teachers here. They say the same thing, Their hands are tied and the kids do whatever they want. Learning is not a priority at schools. Funding, lawsuits and insurance rule.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

Dont get me wrong- 90% of teachers truly do try and I have no problems with paying them well. But the fact is there is no penalty for failure or non graduation.

 

[shafferpilot]

I think we're all missing a critical point to the House of Reps Bill:

They're NOT legalizing pot!!!!! The point of the bill is to remove the FEDERAL criminal code regarding pot and bring an end to the FEDERAL marijuana stamp act! Pot is illegal where I live, and would continue to be if the bill passes. The point of the bill is to leave it up to the States, Counties, Cities, etc. to decide how to handle pot for themselves. That's the same reasoning that repealed prohibition. There are still plenty of counties where alcohol cannot be sold. If the residents get caught bringing alcohol into the county, they could theoretically be prosecuted (though I've never heard of that happening). This bill is ONLY about getting the federal government to butt-out of legislation that should be left to the local governments.

This country was founded on the idea that different people in different places live their lives very differently.... AND therefore have NO right to tell each other how to live. Our Union of States exists ONLY for general defense and regulation of interstate-commerce. ALL of the federal legislation that goes beyond those two purposes is quite contrary to the fore-father's design.

BTW there's no need to tax legalized marijuana. The staggering amount of money being sunk in the "war on drugs", could actually be used on something useful!

 

[the_bird]

Well, for all intents and purposes, if the Federal criminal code is removed... I live in MA and a couple miles from Vermont, which I would wager would be among the first to de-criminalize on the state level as well (especially VT).

With that said, I haven't toked in what... fifteen years? No plans to resume that habit.

 

[shafferpilot]

sorry about pushing the school thing. kornkob is right, we'd have to start about a thousand new threads to handle that one.

I will say that I know several teachers who are EXTREMELY frustrated by politicians who think that throwing a couple million dollars at public schools makes any difference at all. Usually, the numbers thrown up on the nightly news looks impressive..... until you break it down per student and realize we're literally talking about pennies per year per student. What good does that do? none.

 

[jezter6]

It's a domino effect - once the feds do it, states will do it. Once states do it, counties and localities will do it.

Just like the smoking ban - once one tiny government makes a rule, everyone else clamors to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

shaffer

Not before Alaska does!

 

[kornkob]

BTW there's no need to tax legalized marijuana. The staggering amount of money being sunk in the "war on drugs", could actually be used on something useful!

Ah-- but you assume that the 'war on drugs' will cost less if pot is legal. That, unfortunately, is not going to be true. They'll spend the same money but they'll hammer the other drugs harder.

There is always, in government organizations, a compulsion to ensure that every dime you are given in the budget is spent (and then some if you can make up a good enough excuse) and still not quite succeed at your appointed mission so you can justify a request for an increase in the next budget.

Law Enforcement will just take all the money they would have spent on chasing pot dealers and chase the ecstacy peddlers, coke dealers or the acid importers instead. They'll target whoever is easiest for them to catch-- another organizational behavior: prioritize based on expected successes, not on effective action.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

There is always, in government organizations, a compulsion to ensure that every dime you are given in the budget is spent (and then some if you can make up a good enough excuse) and still not quite succeed at your appointed mission so you can justify a request for an increase in the next budget.

There is a reason for that- Bean counters. Dont spend the money then they cut it. Spend it wisely and you get screwed. Its horrible how the system works.

 

[jezter6]

It's horrible - and has nothing to do with government.

It works the same way in any business too.

 

[kornkob]

It works the same way in any business too.

Dunno what businesses you work in but that's not at how it has worked the last 3 places I've worked. Generating cost savings that reaches your budget has been recognized and rewarded in business. Ending the year with a surplus in your department and being able to explain how you accomplished that is a great way to show you are valuable and promotable.

I haven't heard anyone in business say 'go out and buy $10,000 in office supplies before the end of the quarter-- we have a surplus and if we don't spend it we'll never see it again'. But I did hear that at the state.

 

[MULE]

Dunno what businesses you work in but that's not at how it has worked the last 3 places I've worked. Generating cost savings that reaches your budget has been recognized and rewarded in business. Ending the year with a surplus in your department and being able to explain how you accomplished that is a great way to show you are valuable and promotable.

I haven't heard anyone in business say 'go out and buy $10,000 in office supplies before the end of the quarter-- we have a surplus and if we don't spend it we'll never see it again'. But I did hear that at the state.

If the government budgets my department X amount of dollars for the year and I only spend Y, I will only get Y amount of dollars the following year.

That's kind of how it works.

 

[kornkob]

If the government budgets my department X amount of dollars for the year and I only spend Y, I will only get Y amount of dollars the following year.

That's kind of how it works.

Exactly. But that's not how businesses I've worked in work. Government works differently: there's no incentive to reduce spending until they force budget cuts.

 

[RICLARK]

I don't think it should be legal, Thats all I need is a bunch of high people driving around making it even more dangerous for me.

 

[MULE]

In 12 pages of this thread I have learned
1. HR5843 will not legalize MJ
2. The American school system sucks
3. Americans celebrate less than par performances in their children
4. MJ fields will need tight security
5. The war on drugs will not be solved with HR5843

Did I miss anything

 

[jezter6]

Dunno what businesses you work in but that's not at how it has worked the last 3 places I've worked. Generating cost savings that reaches your budget has been recognized and rewarded in business. Ending the year with a surplus in your department and being able to explain how you accomplished that is a great way to show you are valuable and promotable.

I haven't heard anyone in business say 'go out and buy $10,000 in office supplies before the end of the quarter-- we have a surplus and if we don't spend it we'll never see it again'. But I did hear that at the state.

I've had to do budgeting before, and that's the way it worked for me. If you don't spend the money you have this year, they will slice your budget and force you to work for less next year. It's been so in every business I've worked at, or been an aquaintance of. Projects don't start in January, because people are holding back, ensuring they don't blow the wad early. Then in March, Q1 is almost over, and no money is spent, so projects go like nuts till about August. Then everyone realizes that there's still almost half a year left and they need to conserve money. So August-October is conservative spending. THen November and December are last minute hits to ensure the budget line is spent and doesn't come in either short OR over. Meeting the plan is key. That's why you budget for 15-25% over your expense knowing full well they will cut your budget, but if you can at least prove that you spent that much last year, you're not likely to get less money this year.

My company's customers seem to work the same way. We have slow months exactly as above, then sales gets a bunch of hits during the big customer spending pushes, and then it slumps off again when we're all conservative.

 

[Philip1993]

I don't think it should be legal, Thats all I need is a bunch of high people driving around making it even more dangerous for me.

Why is it that some people cannot separate the legality of an object from the legality of it's subsequent use? DUI is already illegal. Those who choose to endanger themselves and others do not elect to do so based on the legality of the chemical used to get one intoxicated.

Based on your logic, we should re-enact prohibition tomorrow to end all the DUI deaths....

 

[MikeFlynn74]

Originally Posted by RICLARK
I don't think it should be legal, Thats all I need is a bunch of high people driving around making it even more dangerous for me.

TRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLL

 

[kornkob]

I've had to do budgeting before, and that's the way it worked for me. If you don't spend the money you have this year, they will slice your budget and force you to work for less next year. It's been so in every business I've worked at, or been an aquaintance of.

Guess I haven't been in any businesses lately that operate in that way. Seems silly to try and build a budget based on past performance, instead of looking forward and figuring out how much money you need to cover expenses based on projected growth.

but budget process discussion could use its own thread --- nay-- its own section

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

Guess I haven't been in any businesses lately that operate in that way. Seems silly to try and build a budget based on past performance, instead of looking forward and figuring out how much money you need to cover expenses based on projected growth.

but budget process discussion could use its own thread --- nay-- its own section

Good point...reminds me of something I heard once: "It's hard to see where you're going when you keep looking backwards."