Drugs

[Nexxo]

It will be interesting to watch. I predict little increase in drug use and a reduction in drug related crime.

[mucgoo]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...#sort-comments

[theshadow2001]

Originally Posted by Sloth

State legal or not as long as federal law forbids it I'll be happily keeping my job and passing any and all drug tests.

I find the idea of workplace drug test quite invasive of ones privacy. If someone's drug taking is enough to affect their ability to work chances are a drug test won't be needed anyway. If someone working under me was a functioning alcoholic, a complete stoner in the evenings, a weekend cokehead etc. It would not be my place to question or criticsize their lifestyle choices or personal problems as long as they showed up and did their job their personal life is their own.

[Fishlock]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

It will be interesting to watch. I predict little increase in drug use and a reduction in drug related crime.

The crime of 'possessing' it will obviously go down, drug related crime will not. They're not giving it away for free are they? So people still need to fund their habit. The only way a lot of heavy users know how to fund it is to steal.

Legalising it will not change much at all. The only positive out of it will be safer production and therefore safer use of the drug.

Originally Posted by theshadow2001

I find the idea of workplace drug test quite invasive of ones privacy. If someone's drug taking is enough to affect their ability to work chances are a drug test won't be needed anyway. If someone working under me was a functioning alcoholic, a complete stoner in the evenings, a weekend cokehead etc. It would not be my place to question or criticsize their lifestyle choices or personal problems as long as they showed up and did their job their personal life is their own.

So, how about the following occupations:

Judge/Magistrate
Doctor/Nurse/Paramedic
Police/PSCO
Drug worker
Rehab worker
Etc...

If it was in the papers that any of the above tested positive for illegal drugs, whether at work or otherwise, the 'public' would go mad and insist that they are struck off immediately. There's a reason why drugs testing exists in certain jobs. You can't have a Magistrate sentence someone for drug possession when he/she himself uses it.

[theshadow2001]

Originally Posted by Fishlock

So, how about the following occupations:

Judge/Magistrate
Doctor/Nurse/Paramedic
Police/PSCO
Drug worker
Rehab worker
Etc...

If it was in the papers that any of the above tested positive for illegal drugs, whether at work or otherwise, the 'public' would go mad and insist that they are struck off immediately. There's a reason why drugs testing exists in certain jobs. You can't have a Magistrate sentence someone for drug possession when he/she himself uses it.

Should those people be tested for depression, should they be interviewed to assure that events in their personal ljfes such as marriage or relationship breakdowns are not effecting their ability to perform. Should their employers monitor their sleep pattern so that they have not been impaired from periods of poor sleep. There are plenty of things in life that are non drug related that could effect how someone works.

Is it inappropriate for an addictions councillor to go to the pub even though they may deal with alcoholics professionally?

There would be a certain irony in a magistrate snorting a line and handing out sentences to drug dealers. If you cannot trust that people in these positions are capable of carrying themselves with required integrity then what chance have they of actually carrying out their duties with equal integrity. A police officer on the take isn't much good to anyone, should the police have their bank accounts checked, have their personal possessions itemised just to make sure they are not engaged in bribery.

Drugs use is only one of many many ways a person could have their performance or required integrity compromised. You can't test for them all. All drug testing does is provide a barrier of mistrust between employer and employee and compromises their right to a private life outside of work.

[eddie543]

Originally Posted by Fishlock

The crime of 'possessing' it will obviously go down, drug related crime will not. They're not giving it away for free are they? So people still need to fund their habit. The only way a lot of heavy users know how to fund it is to steal.

Legalising it will not change much at all. The only positive out of it will be safer production and therefore safer use of the drug.

I think its more about the removal of funding for organised crime and Avioding new users getting into harder drugs relative to the softer cannabis.


The heavy users of cannabis are less likely to steal by comparison to users of heroin and crack. Also there are fewer heavy users (to the extent of stealing), its less addictive and less expensive a habit. Stealing for cannabis use is therefor likely to be a small proportion of the crime related to the habit.

[theshadow2001]

I can't imagine even heavy cannabis users need to steal. No more than a heavy smoker would need to steal. I would have thought that users of more expensive and addictive drugs like heroine and cocaine are likely lead to people who steal to directly support the acquisition of drugs.

[feedayeen]

A lot of video gamers are young and thus with less disposable income, our games cost a lot.... how many gamers steal their games?

*Actual theft, not piracy

[Cei]

They get their parents to buy them?

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by Fishlock

The crime of 'possessing' it will obviously go down, drug related crime will not. They're not giving it away for free are they? So people still need to fund their habit. The only way a lot of heavy users know how to fund it is to steal.

Legalising it will not change much at all. The only positive out of it will be safer production and therefore safer use of the drug.

I disagree. How many alcoholics resort to crime to fund their drug habit? They don't have to --it's a cheap drug. And decriminalisation in Holland and Portugal has shown that it does not increase use, but does decrease drug related crime. Moreover it cuts off a source of income for organised crime.

Originally Posted by Fishlock

So, how about the following occupations:

Judge/Magistrate
Doctor/Nurse/Paramedic
Police/PSCO
Drug worker
Rehab worker
Etc...

If it was in the papers that any of the above tested positive for illegal drugs, whether at work or otherwise, the 'public' would go mad and insist that they are struck off immediately. There's a reason why drugs testing exists in certain jobs. You can't have a Magistrate sentence someone for drug possession when he/she himself uses it.

It's a good thing that the public doesn't know how much these people drink... I do. So how is that different? The objection is that drugs are illegal, and those who uphold the law should not break it. It has nothing to do with ability to function at work.

theshadow2001 makes very good points. As long as it does not compromise their professional integrity and functioning, what they get up to in their peesonality life should be their own private business.

[Fishlock]

Originally Posted by theshadow2001

Should those people be tested for depression, should they be interviewed to assure that events in their personal ljfes such as marriage or relationship breakdowns are not effecting their ability to perform. Should their employers monitor their sleep pattern so that they have not been impaired from periods of poor sleep. There are plenty of things in life that are non drug related that could effect how someone works.

Is it inappropriate for an addictions councillor to go to the pub even though they may deal with alcoholics professionally?

There would be a certain irony in a magistrate snorting a line and handing out sentences to drug dealers. If you cannot trust that people in these positions are capable of carrying themselves with required integrity then what chance have they of actually carrying out their duties with equal integrity. A police officer on the take isn't much good to anyone, should the police have their bank accounts checked, have their personal possessions itemised just to make sure they are not engaged in bribery.

Drugs use is only one of many many ways a person could have their performance or required integrity compromised. You can't test for them all. All drug testing does is provide a barrier of mistrust between employer and employee and compromises their right to a private life outside of work.

This isn't really what I was arguing, and I agree with most of what you are saying, however there is a difference. Having depression isn't illegal, nor is poor sleep. However with good management these problems would be picked up on and dealt with appropriately. Just as a side note, Police do have their bank accounts checked.

Originally Posted by eddie543

The heavy users of cannabis are less likely to steal by comparison to users of heroin and crack. Also there are fewer heavy users (to the extent of stealing), its less addictive and less expensive a habit. Stealing for cannabis use is therefor likely to be a small proportion of the crime related to the habit.

I agree with the first half of what you say, however stealing for cannabis is just as common place as stealing to fund heroin.

Originally Posted by theshadow2001

I can't imagine even heavy cannabis users need to steal. No more than a heavy smoker would need to steal. I would have thought that users of more expensive and addictive drugs like heroine and cocaine are likely lead to people who steal to directly support the acquisition of drugs.

Absolutely wrong. People steal and burgle to fund a cannabis habit all the time. In fact, in my experience, the people who commit crime to fund a cannabis habit normally burgle, as they are young and agile and it nets them a better profit. Heroin addicts are lifeless, weak people, therefore just run into a shop and steal. I'd hope you agree that burglary is worse.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

It's a good thing that the public doesn't know how much these people drink... I do. So how is that different? The objection is that drugs are illegal, and those who uphold the law should not break it. It has nothing to do with ability to function at work.

You've answered your own question. The difference is that it is illegal. I'm not standing here saying I agree with all aspects of the law, however it is there and needs to be abided by. And I'm not sure where the 'functioning at work' thing has come from. Never mentioned that. I'd suggest some people function better when under the influence of certain drugs.

[eddie543]

Originally Posted by Fishlock

I agree with the first half of what you say, however stealing for cannabis is just as common place as stealing to fund heroin.

The problem is we are both making assumptions without evidence, I jjust can't think of where I'd find the statistics for people stealing for cannabis use vs other drugs.

Stealing for cannabis is a difficult statistic to accurately gather aswell vs heroin, crack atc.

For example heroin addiction occurs with pretty much everone using heroin, it causes life consuming addiction and you can pretty much guarantee its unaffodabole for them so they steal or prostitue.

The link is not likely as hard with cannabis (between stealing and drug use). A lot of people using cannabis who steal, would steal to fund something else if their life was without cannabis.
Ie phone contracts, more alcohol, gambling and a more lavish lifestyle than they deserve or can afford etc.

People who use cannabis who steal are not likely doing it directly for their habit.

The reason I can't see it is it's cheaper and less addictive than heroin, alcohol or crack.

If it is the case that people do steal to fund their habit it may not help criminalising them for their use of cannabis.

[Fishlock]

Originally Posted by eddie543

The problem is we are both making assumptions without evidence, I jjust can't think of where I'd find the statistics for people stealing for cannabis use vs other drugs.

Stealing for cannabis is a difficult statistic to accurately gather aswell vs heroin, crack atc.

For example heroin addiction occurs with pretty much everone using heroin, it causes life consuming addiction and you can pretty much guarantee its unaffodabole for them so they steal or prostitue.

The link is not likely as hard with cannabis (between stealing and drug use). A lot of people using cannabis who steal, would steal to fund something else if their life was without cannabis.
Ie phone contracts, more alcohol, gambling and a more lavish lifestyle than they deserve or can afford etc.

People who use cannabis who steal are not likely doing it directly for their habit.

The reason I can't see it is it's cheaper and less addictive than heroin, alcohol or crack.

If it is the case that people do steal to fund their habit it may not help criminalising them for their use of cannabis.

You raise good points. My only evidence is my job (Police) and that I speak to these people on a daily basis. Criminals tend to be a lot more honest about their motives than people think. Not everyone lies to Police all the time. They're not going to get into any more trouble for telling us why they done something and they know that there are systems in place to help them with addictions etc. Yes, I deal with more heroin addicted shoplifters, however they go in to the local Co-Op and steal a pack of bacon to sell on in a pub. These cannabis addicted teenagers break into elderly peoples homes in the middle of the night and steal their belongings. I see that as much, much worse. People can be so naive as to think it doesn't happen, but it does. Because most of you sit here on this forum coming from a reasonable background, and do your fair share of work. Therefore if you want to smoke some cannabis then you spend your own money and go and do it quietly. I have no problem with that, nor do the vast majority of Police Officers that I know. These lads have nothing. A lot of them also enjoy the thrill of burgling a house.

I have no problem with cannabis or the people who use it in an acceptable way. I wouldn't object to it being legalised. But it would still cost the same amount, and people still need to fund their habit. And it's the way some go about funding it that I have a problem with.

[Nexxo]

To be fair, I think the people you refer to would resort to the same income generation tactics to fund their alcohol or cigarette habits.

[theshadow2001]

Originally Posted by Fishlock

This isn't really what I was arguing, and I agree with most of what you are saying, however there is a difference. Having depression isn't illegal, nor is poor sleep.

True they aren't illegal. But its not an employers duty nor is it their business to check the legality of your actions outside of work.

Originally Posted by Fishlock

However with good management these problems would be picked up on and dealt with appropriately.

Which was my point originally when it comes to drugs. If someone's drug use is enough to affect work then you probably won't need a drug test.

Originally Posted by Fishlock

Just as a side note, Police do have their bank accounts checked.

This I find bizarre(unless its part of an investigation as opposed to just random checking), I would of thought being on the take was a cash only business.

Originally Posted by Fishlock

Absolutely wrong...

The previous two posts from nexo and eddie further my own line of thinking on that.

[eddie543]

Originally Posted by Fishlock

You raise good points. My only evidence is my job (Police) and that I speak to these people on a daily basis. Criminals tend to be a lot more honest about their motives than people think. Not everyone lies to Police all the time. They're not going to get into any more trouble for telling us why they done something and they know that there are systems in place to help them with addictions etc. Yes, I deal with more heroin addicted shoplifters, however they go in to the local Co-Op and steal a pack of bacon to sell on in a pub. These cannabis addicted teenagers break into elderly peoples homes in the middle of the night and steal their belongings. I see that as much, much worse. People can be so naive as to think it doesn't happen, but it does. Because most of you sit here on this forum coming from a reasonable background, and do your fair share of work. Therefore if you want to smoke some cannabis then you spend your own money and go and do it quietly. I have no problem with that, nor do the vast majority of Police Officers that I know. These lads have nothing. A lot of them also enjoy the thrill of burgling a house.

I have no problem with cannabis or the people who use it in an acceptable way. I wouldn't object to it being legalised. But it would still cost the same amount, and people still need to fund their habit. And it's the way some go about funding it that I have a problem with.

I agree, as you've said the severity of crime for each drug is different however I would argue that the majority of that crime isn't drug related as they'd likely just cite another habit as to why their doing the crime if cannabis was non existant. Ie Phone contracts, brighthouse, sky tv, netflix, gambling, consumer goods, pub money and the list could go on and on.

But I do agree that type of crime is not likely to drop no matter what you do with cannabis. Maybe the lack of pressure from dealers about lay ons may do a little bit .

However the point is still for discussion on organised crime, funding for which doesn't help in gun crime and people trafficing.

[patrickk84]

One aspect that I found really interesting was an article theorizing how the legality of marijuana in Colorado and Washington would effect the Drug Lords in Mexico. Think how much easier it'll be to traffic drugs from Colorado to the rest of the U.S. vs Mexico.

I can't find the article. But, it pretty much said that the drug lords could lose up to 2 billion dollars in revenue.

Something I haven't researched with the new laws though is whether or not it's legal to grow the Marijuana yourself. And if it is, how are they tracking what's done with what you grow?

[mucgoo]

I linked to it further up the page. Or at least its an article based on the same Spanish language report.

[Kovoet]

Still laugh at people trying to justify taking drugs in any form. Well if it rocks your boat so be it.

[mucgoo]

Most people here are for the motion due to civil liberties, the fall in drug related crime, increased safety for drug users and taxation revenue from what was previously a criminal activity.