Sorry I didn’t explain myself very well. I certainly don’t object on that subject. My poorly written post was supposed to explain that that is the reason given by “them”. Those in charge of these things. That this is what studies have shown blah de blah. And the other doper (sorry, wish I could remember who to give credit to), had it all lined out and with much better information.
Funny you should mention that. If TLC (or maybe it was DISC) can be believed, there is still a lot of moonshinin’ going on “in them thar hills”.
catsix makes an interesting point. I’ve watched several of these shows, and from what I could see of those who own and operate the stills, there is no real danger to society.
But the cops who hunt them down all act as if they make Ted Bundy look like a candy store shoplifter. My thoughts were exactly what cat said. That is, “they’re mad cuz they’re not getting a piece of the action”.
Not, of course that I personally think that is the only reason to regulate them (there’s the problem of bad moonshine causing serious illness for instance), but I do wonder about their motivation.
There’s also the problem of stills blowing up if you don’t know what you’re doing (and distillation is a lot more complex an art than brewing).
An example of silly law I may have mentioned before: In Australia, prior to the early 1970s, it was illegal to manufacture any form of alcohol at home other than light beer (2% alc/vol). This meant homebrew was done in the bathtub using bakers’ ingredients, and the results were as you would expect. So one company put out the first of the homebrew kits with proper brewers’ ingredients - but of course, to satisfy the law, it was for low alcohol beer. The instruction manual said, "Add 200g sugar. DO NOT ADD MORE SUGAR AS THIS WILL RESULT IN A BEER THAT BREACHES THE LEGAL ALCOHOL LIMIT. The government knew when it was beaten, and legalised all home fermentation soon afterwards.
My ex worked with/for a moonshiner in “Dry County”, KY, and in addition to making it, they buy it elsewhere and sell it under the table. They also deal in pot and other drugs. It’s a whole little mini-syndicate that could be nearly eliminated if they’d just look at these things from a revenue standpoint rather than one of sin.
Here in Nevada, we just had a question on the November ballot involving the legalization of marijuana. If it had passed (it didn’t), possession of 1 ounce or less for private use would have become legal. There were also plans to establish “smoke shops” where limited quantities would be for sale. According to the voter’s booklet we were sent, $45 of the cost of each ounce would have been the state’s “cut”. Can you imagine how much money we would have realized had the voters approved the question?
This is the second time we’ve voted on this issue. The first time, 3 ounces would have been the legal limit. More people voted for legalization this time around, but still not enough. The thing is, the pro-legal forces spent more money and put forth some pretty persuasive arguments. Unfortunately, IMHO, their focus was misplaced. They concentrated on the money we’d save on enforcement when I think they should have focused on legalization’s revenue-generating potential.
I was a “head” for over 20 years. Truth is, I stopped because I was moving to another state and was about to be drug-tested for the first time for a new job. After that, when I tried it again, I just didn’t enjoy it as much.
That being said, I agree that if alcohol is legal and taxed, so should pot be. Pot has much less potential for aggressive, destructive behavior. I always use this example when discussing the merits of legalization:
Two guys work side-by-side in the same office. One goes home, drinks a six-pack, and beats on his wife and kids. The other goes home, smokes a half a J, sits in front of the TV and giggles. The next day, their employer does a ramdom drug test. Which one is going to lose his job? (A little simplistic, I admit, but you get my point).
I say legalize and I have never partaken. Why? Bet your ass employers are not going to stop drug testing with MJ legalization. The end result, more employment opportunities for those who do not.
Envisions revenues financing an air conditioned dome over Las Vegas Strip…
What makes you think those who test positive for marijuana usage would still be able to be fired/not hired because of that fact?
Excuse me? :dubious:
Ditto. If it’s legal and you’re not in a restricted field (like a pilot, for instance), it won’t matter. Those fields are already restricting substance use on the job. I’d like to see some fat cats do lunch over a doobie and a big steak! 
Yeah drachillix… you’re dumb…
shit… ive never heard of an alchohol test hindering your chances of being hired for a job… :smack: o yeah thats because its legal :eek: …
LaFuria :dubious:
Well, to be precise, because it clears in 24 hours. AFAIK most drug screens are also alcohol screens, but it never comes up because most people aren’t fool enough to show up drunk to a drug test.
Actually I did show up drunk to an Army physical once… they said they didn’t care for my urine’s specific gravity but they let it go at that…
yes, but the point i was trying to make isnt that people test for alchohol… i knew that… but the point is that i cant think of a job that would throw you our for drinking alchohol…
I have seen several people dumb enough to go drink a 40 at lunch and come back to driving a forklift.
I personally do not have any problem with those who partake, just with those who come to work impaired
Well, young sailor, let’s clear that up right now… pretty much all of them. Except maybe “stripper”.
For the record my brother is very good at his job. He would never drink or smoke at his job. He was given a chance for a big promotion to parts manager and of course had to take a urine test. When asked before the test if he used drugs, he wrote down that he did indeed smoke pot off hours. He of course failed the drug test and was given the job.
Apparently the GM had no problem with my brother’s smoking; as he already knew it did not interfere with his work and he very much appreciate the honesty. I believe, but I am not sure that the GM has since been to my brother’s to watch football and in all likelihood smoked some with my brother while there.
There are a vast number of pot smokers who are not burnouts and who have and are doing quite well in life. The continual ban on pot is a foolish effort on behalf of the governments that attempt to enforce it and have made criminals out of their citizens for no good reason.
Jim
I won’t attempt to speak for my son as he’s quite capable of doing that for himself. However it also appears clear to me that the point is that you can drink all the alcohol you want outside your working hours and as long as you don’t show up drunk and perform your job duties correctly, there’s nothing to fear. Thus pretty much the same situation would apply should pot become legal.
BTW, look to Holland if you want to see factual conclusions as to the aftereffects of legalization – it’s still a “misdemeanor” on the books but with no actual law-enforcement of same. They appear to be doing just fine.
Lastly, here’s a good site to difference some of the facts and myths that surround the whole pot hoopla:
Ding ding! Give the man a prize!
I’d only add that I also agree with catsix. I’ve long held that by keeping it illegal the profit margins are insane and those who benefit from same (conspiracies aside, I firmly believe that many a lawmaker/enforcer have their greasy little palms in the pot – pun intended) have more than enough power to keep it that way.
Go back to the prohibition days. How many “prominent” families made their fortunes by way of bootlegging? Obviously I’m not speaking of Al Capone here…
Thanks RedFury… i guess im spoken for… but let me elaborate just so that drachillix wont get confused…
Thats great…I am sorry however because that dosent mean shit… When you apply for a job and you have alchohol in your blood it dosent say anything. You cant infer from an alchohol test that the person is irresponsible. As long as the person dosent come in sluring his/her words and/or tripping over his/her own feet, there is no justifiable proof that the applicant is in any way shape or form an irresponsible drinker…
LaFuriaRoja
Let me clarify myself a bit. When you are given a pre-employment drug/alcohol screen, you’re given an appointed time and date to arrive at a lab, and you are told you will be tested for drugs and alcohol. The practice is unfair and unjust but for now it is what it is. Alcohol clears the body in 12-24 hours. Coke is 3-5 days, these are short clear times.
If you show up to a drug/alcohol screen with advanced notice, and you still have short clear-time substances in your system, you are either a person who cannot abstain from the substance for a short time (an addict) or too stupid to lay off the booze for 24 hours to get a job. So it’s not entirely out of left field.
Now you want to talk about the foolishness of testing for marijuana, I’ll talk to you about that. It takes 30 days to clear pot. No employer has any need to know what I was doing last month, unless I fly aircraft.
However, I’m with you on the testing thing. By and large, whether it’s a DUI stop or forklift driver application… hmm, maybe give me an aptitude/coordination test, then you might even weed out incompetent people who aren’t even on drugs. But that would be a lot more expensive… drug tests are cheap. So, things are what they are.