[lakeroadster]

Originally Posted by bob70

Why to you assume all "dope smokers" are "slackers"?

Well, since they do random drug tests where I work, and you get fired if you test positive, the only folks that smoke "dope" are the slackers... follow the logic trail here Bob?

[wretched ratchet]

just so I'm not misunderstood via my "devils advocate and semi-sarcastic comments" - - let it be known that I think there are certain drugs that MUST be controlled but some States laws on grass are ridiculous IMHO

[bob70]

He did use the word "all" but you're correct. He could have been referring only to those dope smokers who are slackers, as opposed to the high achievers. A few of our recent Presidents spring to mind! Actually, I think they would have made good candidates for relocation as well.

[bob70]

I have been drug tested on a regular basis for many years, also. However, there are many professions where drug testing is not a condition of employment. Also, drug testing has been in effect for only about 20 years in the trades with which I'm familiar. I'm sure many who made their living in those trades only gave up their dope smoking of necessity, not because they suddenly switched from being slackers to achievers. I don't believe one can make that correlation that drug users are slackers by definition. In fact, it seems to me that those who gave up their drugs of choice in order to maintain a livelihood prove the point that there is no correlation because they are obviously responsible citizens who made the decision to do what was necessary to meet the requirements of their trade.

[lakeroadster]

Justify it any way you want, but in the end we are a country built on laws. Federal law trumps state law, and federal law says possesion of weed and smoking weed is illegal. This applies to "All" of us. If you are smoking weed and you know it is illegal you are by default, by most definitions, a slacker.

[bob70]

The first definition of slacker in the Oxford College Dictionary is: a person who avoids work or effort.

That definition has nothing to do with obedience to laws. Sad to say, but in this day and age it's hard to get up, eat breakfast and go to work without breaking some law, so to equate illegal acts with being a slacker by the above dictionary definition is simply not accurate.

I do hope you're not trying to say that all laws are, by definition, just. We have, in this country, a rich history of overturning bad laws, alcohol prohibition being among the most well known and clearest parallels to drug prohibition.

[gearheadslife]

Originally Posted by lakeroadster

Justify it any way you want, but in the end we are a country built on laws. Federal law trumps state law, and federal law says possesion of weed and smoking weed is illegal. This applies to "All" of us. If you are smoking weed and you know it is illegal you are by default, by most definitions, a slacker.

thats where it's wrong, state law should trump feds law..
on every issue.. not just this one.

[bob70]

Thank you, Gearheads. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A long forgotten and ignored part of our highest law of the land, but one that has never been rescinded and one we'd do well to rediscover and reapply.

[deckofficer]

Finally a topic that my views are the ones of the majority. That gives me such a warm feeling.

Pot is considerably more benign than alcohol. The only reason it has a negative rep is because William Randolf Hearst, the owner of major newspapers and pulp mills didn't want to compete with the superior product that hemp was over pulp. He used his newspapers for yellow journalism to preach the evils of pot so that the government under pressure of the citizens would re-classify as a dangerous drug, and as most of you already know, is safer than asprin.

[wretched ratchet]

Originally Posted by gearheadslife

thats where it's wrong, state law should trump feds law..on every issue.. not just this one.

I'm with you on that one, Mego
I want to be governed and regulated by people who actually live here in our State. How in the world could a Senator from Massachusetts know what's best for us Texans?

[poncho62]

My opinion........Some of us are smart enough to not smoke cigarettes, drink to excess. ..Adding pot to that for recreational use is just another thing for the stupid people.....Seems that the old saying is true..."You cant fix stupid".......Another wrong doesnt make it right.

[lakeroadster]

Originally Posted by lakeroadster

Well, since they do random drug tests where I work, and you get fired if you test positive, the only folks that smoke "dope" are the slackers... follow the logic trail here Bob?

Originally Posted by bob70

The first definition of slacker in the Oxford College Dictionary is: a person who avoids work or effort.

By default I guess you did answer the question...

[gearheadslife]

Originally Posted by wretched ratchet

I'm with you on that one, Mego
I want to be governed and regulated by people who actually live here in our State. How in the world could a Senator from Massachusetts know what's best for us Texans?

hell the ones from massachusett, don't know whats best for massachusetts, never mind texacana's
but thats a whole other thread

[bob70]

My final thought: I'll opt for individual freedom so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of anyone else. I do not accept the common rationale that we have to bar this or that because some who misuse this or that may then do something which infringes on the rights or safety of others. Ban the specific behavior, not it's perceived precursors. Example: we don't ban drinking alcohol, although we rightfully ban drunk driving.

[gearheadslife]

I don't care what someone does on there time as long as come time to work your head better be clear..