Lake Havasu, Arizona is poised to become the richest town in the country. 
How concerned is the INCB about marijuana in particular, anyway? Not very much, I imagine. Have they displayed any urge to, say, hold the Dutch government’s feet to the fire for condoning pot use in their country?
Here in PA we still have rather odd liqueur laws, so I’m thinking we won’t be legalizing weed anytime soon. But I would vote in favor of it and I then I would try it.
You can always come visit us in CA when we pass it. Besides the direct economic benefit of the taxation, people should be thinking about how huge this will be to our state’s tourism industry.
The “Legalize Gay Pot” t-shirt needs an update on the back.
“…and help get California back in the black.”
I think (based on several visits to the Netherlands) that if legalized there WILL actually be a sizeable amount of cannabis tourism, at least in the first few years.
A lot of wealthy smokers will want to experience the novelty of legally herbing-up in the good ol’ USA for the first time in their lives, and I imagine that there will be various music festivals and plenty of smaller, club-based shows (think a triple bill with Phish, Snoop Dogg and Willie Nelson) touting a pro-reefer atmosphere, where smoking will be encouraged but beer and other alcohol will not be sold (seriously).
I don’t know if it will pass or not, but if so, I bet it will be a pretty good initial economic shot-in-the-arm for California…
Once you’ve been in the black you’ll never go back!
Yeah, that’s pretty damning – or would be, if it had occurred while she was at HP. Alas, the “investigation” appears to have happened in 2005 - 2006, and Carly left in February 2005.
…and as I’ve posted before, something the potheads don’t understand is that the steady Societal move towards a prohibition of cigarettes and smoking is going to converge hard on any pot legalization which might occur. my prediction is that about the time pot becomes as legal as cigarettes pot smokers will be relegated to smoking only in their homes, with all doors and windows shut, and with no children under 21, pets, or sensitive plants in the house.
And anyone who thinks legalization will end drug running of pot hasn’t thought the process through. Instead of police resources to catch and convict drug dealers and smugglers for the legality of the drugs, it will be the same damn thing on the basis of tax evasion. So we’ll have the same tunnels under the border, the same stabbings and shootings, the same people sitting in jail pissing away the tax dollars and laughing in our faces.
There may not even be less on an overall basis, only a proportional basis - more people who don’t smoke or don’t smoke much will probably get their pot from official, safe, tax-paid sources, but there will always be a significant group of people who want the cheapest pot possible and don’t want to grow it. And of course there will be the “joints laced with X, Y, or Z” sales as well. I can still remember three boys in 9th grade biology who stole formaldehyde from the class to dip their joints in it, claiming that it was “supercharging” the pot (I have no idea what this does, and don’t care enough to Google, the point is, people are always going to fuck with the system).
Don’t get me wrong; I’m pro-legalization. But I’m a realist who has a very poor opinion of basic human nature, based on all the fucked up people I’ve known IRL and online.
How does one get around keeping people that operate heavy machinery for a living from smoking dope on their lunch breaks if there’s no threat of random screens?
I understand that to the responsible smoker that this is an issue due to the duration which THC stays in your body.
To put it another way, If Joe and I worked in a warehouse together and smoked pot together after work and that was the only time we did it, I’d be fine with Joe operating the forklift the next day.
If I knew Joe was getting blitzed on his lunch break, I would no longer be OK with it.
The same way you deal with Joe pounding a 40 during his lunch break. Really, there will be little additional impact on things like that, I’d wager. If someone is going to get fucked up on the job, they’re doing it already.
I don’t doubt that there will be some smuggling and tax-cheatery; after all, there is with alcohol and tobacco. But stabbings and shootings? Maybe in robberies but in smuggling? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me unless the cost of legalized pot is truly unreasonable to the target market.
I mean, I know of lots of folks who go out of their way to buy cigarettes on reservations to avoid sales tax, and who run over the state line to buy fireworks, and who sneak in a few bottles of hooch under the noses of customs (I’ve done that myself, actually). But I’d expect to see a reduction or at least a retooling of crime - it’ll just make more sense to trade in actual illegal drugs than to try to undercut a legal market.
How do you know Joe isn’t shooting from his (completely legal, not randomly tested) whiskey flask?
This problem exists right now - in fact, my first real Engineering job was due to an out-of-control union which went on strike to protest that people operating heavy machinery should not be fired for drug and/or alcohol use while on the job. :smack: Amazingly, the local liberal newspaper backed them up 110%, even after a serious accident occurred when a forklift driver drove his truck off of a loading dock while high, a man fell off a skylift while high, and employees were arrested for dealing drugs on the assembly line itself. :rolleyes:
There is no legal right in the US to operate heavy machinery or dangerous/hazardous equipment while under the influence of intoxicating, narcotic, physically limiting, or coordination-limiting drugs or substances, even if they are legally prescribed by a whole clown car of doctors. I’ve been through a lot of OSHA training on this, as well as “safe workplace” legal training. Joe shouldn’t have ANY whiskey flask to be “shooting from”, period, unless he has Coca-Cola in it.
My understanding is that the proposed taxes would be quite dear and thus drive this. Obviously, if the equivalent cost to get high is about the same as buying a 12-pack of Keystone Lite, then I concur that the risks of illegal production will be tremendously reduced, if not pretty much eliminated. My understanding was in the California tax that the average “recreational” pot smoker would be paying $100 a month in tax, is that incorrect?
I realize that. I was merely pointing out that we aren’t testing for it randomly. It is generally assumed that Joe is being safe (unless there is an accident). We trust that part of Joe’s training and expertise as a heavy equipment operator would come into play and he wouldn’t drink. I believe the same would be true of smoking and people who imply otherwise bother me. The type of person who would smoke while operating heavy machinery is the same type of person who would drink. The type of person matters more then the substance.
The obvious difference in the two scenarios (at least, to me) is that alcohol use is more readily detectable (even if the person is an alcoholic and therefore has tolerance) due to its strong odor. Marijuana use is more easily masked (clear eyes, some body spray, etc) and doesn’t cause the same effects that alcohol use does.
This is of course given that both scenarios involve a user of each drug that has a capability of striving to appear “normal” whilst stoned amongst the populace at large.
Personally, I find the smell of marijuana to be much more potent and hard to hide then the smell of alcohol. Alcohol, at least to a point, can be covered with a breath mint and/or certainly kinds of food just as easily as marijuana can be covered with body spray. I find that some people are very adept at hiding the fact that they have been drinking.
You’re right. It was Dunn. Carly started the investigation, but it looks like Dunn did the illegal shit.
This does not mean Carly was a good CEO.
http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures-ownership/11674773-1.html