27 total posts
Your post is muddled
The link is about menthol cigarettes and how they may encourage people to start smoking. That in itself is muddled because menthol cigarettes are no different from ordinary cigarettes except for the minty/menthol taste; but they all contain nicotine and they all cause cancer.
If a person smokes menthol cigarettes then they are smoking, period.
But back to your own muddled post. Not only have successive US Administrations back-tracked on banning smoking completely, but I think you will find that most other Western nations have done the same. The immediate tax revenue from cigarette sales is too large and no government that I know of has had the courage to go the whole way.
So, nothing unique to the US then.
Yeah, it would be hard put to remove legal status of cigarettes as the tax revenue greatly enhances any govt. entity. If they want to legalize the other smoking alternative, they'll tax the heck out of it. The big push to remove cigarettes in general is because the health cost associated with that in one way or another the govt. health system has to pay. So, if you get cancer or lung disease then the end result if you're poor you have the govt. paying in some way your health benefits. Which is why many states want to control that cost in any way they can. So, this is a back door policy of sorts. But, it's also a sin tax and far too many cities or states tax the dickens out of it that it costs more than its worth but when you're hooked, its hard top break. Geeezz. right now in some places the tax is as much at the base cost of the cigarettes alone. What a crock, let's die the way we want to. -----Willy
It's not just the tax revenue
Tobacco farming is a major industry in several states (including Toni's home state). Outlawing it would have a significant economic impact in those states. I don't know how that compares with the economic impact of all the sickness, death and loss of work productivity caused by smoking.
Since weed was mentioned, it's far less addictive and less physically destructive than tobacco, and if it was legalized it would be just as regulated as tobacco is now. And that "gateway drug" stuff is nonsense. Most people who smoke weed do not go on to other drugs.
I can't recall which major accident
it was recently where a number of people died (car, train, bus???) and they found out that the driver was high on weed at the time of the crash. I don't know about any accidents where someone was 'under the influence of a Marlboro" unless they dropped the cig and was distracted reaching for it and killed people, Josh. I do know for a fact that weed affects your reaction to things, as well as your reaction time. Can't say the same for a cig. And people fall asleep with a lit joint just as easily as a lit cig, Josh, so don't bring up fires since there are far fewer of those types of fires anymore. I'm talking reaction time in a vehicle or heavy equipment.....THAT'S the accident....the operator of the crane pulling down that building and it collapsed on a tSalvation Army store with people inside.
No different than DUI
And you know what I was talking about with regard to destructiveness.
So you are admitting that weed DOES affect your reactions and reflexes......???? Since it isn't legal in the state where the 'accident' happened, have you heard anything about whether he's been charged with 'vehicular homicide' for operating under the influence of an illegal substance? I haven't......and yet it's a Federal law that weed is against the law.......is this another case of BO giving the directive to not enforce laws he doesn't agree with? If weed isn't 'addictive' as you claim, why would that operator need to smoke so much of it that he wasn't 'clear of mind' on the job and couldn't wait until he was off duty for the day before toking?
I was kind of surprised
when I heard that crane operator was smoking pot. I ran tower cranes here in Chicago and had to pass drug tests.
Of course I "admit" it
I never tried to claim otherwise. That's the main reason people smoke it, Toni.
I would assume he was charged with operating under the influence. Just because you didn't hear about it on the news doesn't mean he wasn't charged.
Just because he was high doesn't mean he was "addicted." It just means he was high that day. Being drunk once doesn't make you an alcoholic either. And you don't have to smoke "so much of it...." etc. One joint is enough to get you high unless it's really bad quality weed. Why didn't he wait till the end of the day? I don't know, stupidity?
In essence you have two states already that have legalized MJ so far with no restrictions or laws to cover 'under the influence' while operating a vehicle or heavy equipment when a similar 'high' from drinking even once will get you charged in an accident or a death or even a routine stop. But a threat from the FDA to ban menthol cigarettes because they MIGHT tempt young people into smoking them? Cigarettes don't get you high and affect your reaction time or judgment whereas weed DOES.
Has this entire country gone insane and lost their common sense? How many making these decisions are 'under the influence' because that's the only answer I can come up anymore.
And you're only speculating that the operator of that crane got charged with homicide or anything else. Liberal media, who approve of legalizing this drug, certainly isn't going to tell you.
.....where those states have green-lighted driving under the influence of marijuana. It was illegal before, and I'm sure it still is.
You sure you're not smoking the stuff yourself?
Washington & Oregon
legalized MJ.....even though it is still illegal under Federal laws, BO has already indicated that he would not enforce the Federal law in those states. As far as I know, the use can be used the same as it is currently for cigarettes regarding driving or operating heavy equipment....no restrictions. Since there are laws against being able to smoke cigs in or on government property, restaurants, etc. I am assuming those laws also pertain to weed; however, there are also laws in some places where you cannot smoke cigs in an apartment you rent or even in some homes you rent or purchase, depending on local laws, I haven't seen anything that would prohibit someone from smoking weed in those same locations which makes no sense to me since that smoke could affect anyone in the building......forget second hand smoke giving you cancer in thirty years, I'm talking second hand smoke getting you or your kids high. I also haven't found any new laws written in those two states that makes driving under the influence of weed against the law because they didn't have any 'breathalizer' type tests that could be given like they have for drinking, and since the states have legalized the drug, you can't be considered to be 'illegal' for having it in your possession if you are stopped in a vehicle with it anymore, Josh.
What do you think is 'still illegal'?
Possessing and smoking it are legal now
Driving under its influence was not legalized. Geez.
Unless there is a test
cops can give a driver who they can smell MJ on, I think it will be pretty hard to bring a case of driving under that influence, Josh. You can smell liquor from a car, but that doesn't mean you can ticket the driver if all the passengers are sloshed without a breathalizer test because he/she could be the designated driver. So far, there's no test and they won't be able to prove that the driver is the only one NOT high.....especially since the passengers can legally smoke it now. And second hand smoke from MJ will get everyone around it high, don't you think? How does a driver convince a cop?
Then how do they do it now?
People get charged with driving under the influence of marijuana now, in every state. Doesn't matter whether pot is legal or not. So what would change, other than the number of people using it?
Show me the proof
or stats that OR and WA are issuing tickets for that since the law was passed legalizing MJ. I know that there were some in both of those states who were concerned over this very issue.
That's not how it works, Toni. You suggested that the legalization of pot also means that driving under its influence is no longer illegal. Show proof of THAT.
And how on earth would I pull up info on traffic tickets anyway?
Put them to work growing pot
I was just reading that the biggest opponent of legalizing all pot are the medical pot shops that are making money hand over fist now. They can see their profits going away.
The cartels are probably not too happy either
It will mean a substantial loss of revenue for them also.
I think there's still an important place for medical marijuana. It just might become an over-the-counter purchase vs. prescription. I'd think that with legalization would come some regulation and labeling requirements as to potency, so you're not just guessing/hoping like you would with a street purchase. A doctor would tell you what strength to buy. As with any over-the-counter drug the doctor would have to rely on the patient's good sense to not overdo it.
Doctors relying on a patient's good sense
has never been a problem, has it?
LOL, I acknowledge that's a tough one.....
....though there are currently plenty of OTC medications that can get you high and easily be abused.
I think Bloomberg
should outlaw bagels in NYC because they encourage the use of butter and heavy cream cheese which is heart unfriendly.
I sure hope
never outlaw cheese and Italian sausage pizza , I know it's no good for me and I am addicted to it but it sure would pi** off a lot of people and ruin the economy for sure
Hopefully only in NYC
do they consider such things.
At least they are still promoting Ice Cream.
I've been doing my part to celebrate so
August will need to be Lipitor month.