cannabisnews.com: Crime-Fighting Budget Gets Boost of $122-Million
Crime-Fighting Budget Gets Boost of $122-Million
Posted by CN Staff on January 25, 2005 at 08:52:01 PT
By Mark Hume
Source: Globe and Mail
Vancouver -- With an election just four months away, the Liberal government of British Columbia has approved a program that will invest an additional $122-million in policing, corrections and the courts.It is the biggest injection of new funding directed at fighting crime in the province in more than 20 years, Solicitor-General Rich Coleman said yesterday after Premier Gordon Campbell announced the initiative.
The money will be allocated over three years. Police and corrections are to receive $30-million this year, with $5-million allocated for the courts. Over the next two years, another $66-million has been designated for police, and $21-million is slotted for the courts. Mr. Coleman said the money will add 215 RCMP officers throughout the province, including 80 who will be stationed in rural communities and 32 who will be assigned to native communities. "It means rural communities will see an increase in policing for the first time in probably a decade," Mr. Coleman said.He added the explosive growth of marijuana-growing operations in British Columbia, which has earned the province the unenviable title of "Colombia North," was a big incentive for the government."This is the cash flow of organized crime," Mr. Coleman said of the marijuana trade, in which "B.C. bud" is shipped across the U.S. border for cocaine, other drugs, guns and money.A study released in 2002 showed the number of marijuana grow-ops in British Columbia had increased 222 per cent between 1997 and 2000 and had jumped by more than 1,000 per cent in some areas. Those figures are being updated in a study, now near completion, that is expected to confirm a continued rapid growth.Mr. Campbell said that in addition to putting more police on the streets, the initiative will allow the formation of special prosecutorial teams and there will be new legislation aimed at organized crime.Mr. Campbell said he could not discuss the legislation in detail before it is introduced, but Mr. Coleman said it will apply a "reverse onus" on assets believed to have been bought by proceeds of crime.For example, a convicted dealer could be required to prove that his house and other assets were not paid for with drug money, he said.Mr. Campbell rejected the proposition that the crime-fighting initiative is an early election promise. He said the action is not part of any campaign and was announced now "because we have a strong economy," which allows the government to fund programs that have long been on its agenda.NDP House Leader Joy MacPhail accused the Premier of attempting to boost the government's pre-election profile, after overseeing programs that reduced community funding and closed courthouses."They cut many programs for police . . . they cut our correctional services . . . and now all of a sudden, weeks before an election, he becomes a believer that more needs to be done," Ms. MacPhail said.She said the Liberals had done nothing to fight crime for years and are now just posturing for the election. "It's all smoke and mirrors." Note: Liberals accused of pre-election posturing.Complete Title: B.C. Crime-Fighting Budget Gets Boost of $122-MillionSource: Globe and Mail (Canada) Author: Mark HumePublished: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - Page A8 Copyright: 2005 The Globe and Mail CompanyContact: letters globeandmail.caWebsite: http://www.globeandmail.com/Related Articles:Grow-Ops Too Many To Raid, Police Sayhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20070.shtmlBeefed-Up Security Curtails Border Drug Tradehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20065.shtmlCannabisNews -- Canada Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/Canada.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #75 posted by gloovins on January 27, 2005 at 22:26:24 PT
yes, Mr. Kubby is really a hero to me
& thanks for the the thanks on re-posting w/o pemission I just feel, well, Steve and his wellness despite one of the rarest forms or cancer, that deadly disease thats claimed so many...So, well, this c-news community is very tight knit, by all means is what I want to write and want only for everyone here to understand we can learn soooo much if we all synergize our collective thoughts & sew the seeds of knowledge with previous comments and the c-news vast archive to future surfers in the 2006-7-8,up to twenty one hundred (2100) when our beloved plant will def be in need and safe legal and encouraged to better the planet - on medical-industrial-fuel levels all being utilized en mass around the globe! Them fossil fuels will be gone -- maybe parades and museams
We will tap nature, inevitably, to survive, the profiteering capitalist rapist-politicians will be transparent and natually wither out of elected office for the planet will become unhealthy because of the poison carbon monoxide -- the thing you never hear politicians (esp republicans) or big auto/oil speak of because their is no way around its A POISON, duhhhhhhh. What part of death = poison do't you understand there Mr./Ms Congressperson???We must harness the sun, bio-diesel and water(steam) all these can be intertwined to produce a car that can replicate a ff brning car of today. Fact.Ok, so -- I love all you guys... for reals. Do miss, the days of dddd & qqqq but it got kinda outta contrizzole, I know but that was quite a character - male or female - I forget!Peace and safety and prosperity in 2005 to all here and the ones you love...After all, the Beatles wrote..."all you need is love...?" -- no? ;)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #74 posted by FoM on January 27, 2005 at 19:22:30 PT
Hope
I believe that we can only change ourselves. When we understand that all people are equal and treat each person the same that's all we can do. That's a very important light to shine. That's how I think you see it. That's how I see it. No one is better then another is how I feel. Rich or poor or black or white it makes no difference to me. Everyone has something special about them and finding it is nice.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #73 posted by Hope on January 27, 2005 at 18:59:49 PT
Racism
It's really not that bad here. It's rare...but there are always troublemakers...everywhere.The only wierd hatred I notice these days is from a very few people, mostly law enforcement, for those dang "dopers".Aaarrggh.I don't want anyone to change...or grow in their thinking for me...but for themselves...and what we, as humanity, are as a whole.I hope for that.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #72 posted by FoM on January 27, 2005 at 18:33:14 PT
Hope
I'm really sorry. I hope people change for you. It can happen because it has happened in our little town.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #71 posted by Hope on January 27, 2005 at 18:20:25 PT
color
The color of a person's skin never meant anything to me. What matters to me is how an individual treats me.I've disliked people of varied shades of skin color and I've liked people of all shades of skin color. My like or dislike never started with the color of their skin or where they were from.Once talking with an older woman, I asked her why she seemed to be afraid of some people, just because they were darker. She said that she had been told when she was a child that they would beat her to death, because she was white...if they had a chance. That would be hard to overcome that kind of raising.There's strange things going on out there in people's minds.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #70 posted by FoM on January 27, 2005 at 18:06:44 PT
Hope
I haven't seen racism where we live. Blacks that would come into our video store had great jobs and felt very comfortable about themselves and everyone felt comfortable with each other. There were only a small number of blacks in our town but they did well in their lives. It's not been a problem. Our friend that is black ( I smiled when I said he was black ) because I don't think of him as being a different color. He's just our friend.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #69 posted by Hope on January 27, 2005 at 18:01:04 PT
Just recently
I had to be at the cemetary when a new headstone was brought for one of my grandfathers. He was a confederate soldier, and his new headstone was bought by either the government or the Daughter's of the Confederacy...I'm not sure. The man who brought and installed the headstone was black. It was a very uncomfortable feeling, but we began talking about the injustices against black people. He told me that black people, not very long ago, were considered by the government, I think he said, to be only three fifths of a person. That was an outrage...a common, accepted outrage that I didn't know about. It tears my heart apart. But that changed because of people like us and we'll change these unjust laws, too.I shuddered just now thinking of all the cruelty and injustice in the world. I fight it just making me so sick that I can't endure. We have to endure...and change things for the better.We have to.PS: My granddaughter took a huge liking to the kind, gentle man who was with us at the cemetary for quite some time that afternoon and took every step he did. He asked about her when my mother saw him again later and my little granddaughter was so happy that he had remembered her. I loved him. It's only right. Another positive experience with another human being, like the one's I had as a child, that will insure that racism won't dwell in her. I don't know who planted the first seeds of racism...but that guy, that day, was planting seeds that will be the end of racism.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #68 posted by Hope on January 27, 2005 at 17:40:00 PT
Hmmmm
"You and me, we sweat and strainBodies all achin' and wracked with painTote that barge and lift that baleYa get a little drunk and ya lands in ja-ail I gets weary and so sick of tryin'I'm tired of livin', but I'm feared of dyin'And Ol' Man River, he just keeps rollin' along"
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #67 posted by FoM on January 27, 2005 at 17:35:57 PT
Hope
I guess it's differenet for me because I haven't been around black people. We lived in white anglo saxton areas if that's ok to say. We have one friend who is black and he is successful in his job and we really like him. I know I'm not alone in not being around African Americans. I live in an area that is almost all white. That's why the word slave seems odd to me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #66 posted by Hope on January 27, 2005 at 17:21:53 PT
By the way
I know that Oscar Hammerstein wrote the song...and it's not an old spiritual, but a show tune. But the words I sing in my sleep and shudder over...are from that song.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #65 posted by Hope on January 27, 2005 at 17:10:06 PT
Slaves
Slavery still exists. It’s about coercion, power, and money. It's wrong and I have thought about it a lot.If there is anything to re-incarnation, I must have been a slave in a past life. My husband says he has heard me break out into a song while I'm asleep several times...in the middle of the night. It's always the same words, "Lift that bale...tote that barge", followed by a long, loud, deep brrrrr type shuddering sound. The words are from "Ole Man River", I think. I don't know the song. I've always, apparently, in comparison to a lot of people I meet, been deeply disturbed about racial wrongs and any wrongs of any kind. The Inquisition, the Holocaust, the suffering and mistreatment of the native American, white slavery, black slavery, brown slavery, yellow slavery or any kind of slavery, any kind of wrong and mistreatment of my fellow man...past, present, and future, bear heavily on me. They always have. I can't put them down and put them out of mind. I'm glad I'm that way. It seems right to me. I’m told I think too much. Maybe.That's why this wrong of persecuting people for drug use...especially marijuana...is something I can't put down.Yes, I do think about coercion and mistreatment a lot. Especially when it's coercion or mistreatment that seems to be accepted by society in general. Society needs watching. I watch. If I’m silent when I see a wrong…then I would feel guilty. I think too much. I worry too much and I talk too much. I also irritate a lot of people by talking about how I feel about it all. But…hey…that’s me and I learned to live with me a long time ago.My Dad called me his “little preacher” when I was little. I will say something about what I think is right or wrong if I think someone is being mistreated. And. yes…it’s gotten me into trouble before and might again. I’ll just duck when I have to, and roll with the punches I can’t avoid.The word slavery often jumps into my mind when I see mistreatment or injustice or even in avoiding being enslaved by money, possessions, desires, or needless rules.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #64 posted by FoM on January 27, 2005 at 13:24:35 PT
Hope
That's why we are different. The word slave isn't one I've ever heard where I live. It's just different cultures. It's no big thing to me. It's strange hearing that term though.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #63 posted by Hope on January 27, 2005 at 13:00:37 PT
Children
You're right, FoM. I could just as easily have said "child" as "slave". It is workers though... and they aren't children...so the word "slave" comes to mind very easily.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #62 posted by mayan on January 26, 2005 at 18:18:40 PT
Kickin' Butt
Yes - 63%No - 37%http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #61 posted by FoM on January 26, 2005 at 14:53:18 PT
Nuevo Mexican
It's now 61 Percent! Please Vote: http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #60 posted by FoM on January 26, 2005 at 14:11:38 PT
Hope
I agree with you. I would word it a little differently though. I'd say that employees aren't my children. We have a right to expect our children to do as we say. Employees aren't members of our family so what they do on their off time isn't my concern nor should it be.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #59 posted by Hope on January 26, 2005 at 13:26:34 PT
Employer's rights
In fact, as the owner of a small business, I have had several employees. The business was successful and is still successful. I don't think that there should be a law to protect workers from being fired in such circumstances and I believe that employers should be free to not employ someone, even if they just don't like them or they seem creepy. It never crossed my mind that there should be a law made. There are too many laws now.Employers should be free to hire and fire to suit themselves. I just think it's overstepping...way overstepping their rights as employers...to ask any more of an employee than what he pays him for. That's wrong and it bespeaks an arrogance not unlike the kind of arrogance that makes a person think he can literally own another person's life.It smacks of slavery or "owning" another person...having too much power over another person's life and liberty. And acting like it's their right to treat people in such a disrespectful manner, just makes it doubly infuriating, to me. You pay a human for an hour’s work…you deserve to get the hour’s work you paid for…nothing more.Telling someone, "You will not smoke...because it hurt's my bottom line."...is wrong. Little too much selfishness and arrogance there for me to think it's right.Smoking isn't a lovely choice...but it's lovely that a person can choose and not have his choices made for him. That's such a valuable thing...and unless an employer pays for it...he shouldn't take those rights like they are his to take.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #58 posted by JackBnimble on January 26, 2005 at 12:38:32 PT
Polls and polls
Here's another poll (Same Sex marriage debate related - Canada)http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/polls/pollResults?id=31053&pollid=31053&answerid=&poll=GAMFront&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResultInteresting to note that 83% of those polled want their representative (MP) to vote as thier constituants want (Not their own personal opinion)If only the same question were posed worldwide about cannabis. Politicians might just gain a spine.
ad infinitum
But alas, The children etc....ad infinitumNB. I am not affected by this debate, therefore I support the rights of others. They are not harming me IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, and I cannot fathom a way where they could.Live and let live.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #57 posted by nuevo mexican on January 26, 2005 at 12:31:18 PT
60 % now approve of legalizing! C-News Rocks!
I expect it to continue to skyrocket, thanks for posting the poll!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #56 posted by JoeCitizen on January 26, 2005 at 11:41:15 PT
dongenero- one last reply
I hadn't intended this to become a ongoing debate, but I will answer the questions you posed.>JoeCitizen Do you support testing for cannabis and other drugs by employers?Cannabis, certainly not. There is zero evidence that cannabis makes people sick, causes them to miss work, or leads to expensive medical treatments under the company health plan. For other drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, meth, or pharmaceuticals (oxycontin, phenobarb, demerol, codeine,etc.), I would leave it up to the employer's discretion. While there are documented examples of people using each of these drugs and still maintaining a relatively healthy and productive life, there are many counterexamples of people who could not control the use of these drugs, and spiraled down into addiction, illness, and crime. Hiring such a person is a risk. Whether it's too risky to be done should be left up to each employer.>Should they fire employees for cannabis use or opiate use?Cannabis use, no, for the reasons I point out above. No body of evidence saying it hurts a person or their productivity. Opiate use? It depends on whether it was under medical supervision. If not, then it might constitute a firing offense, although I would leave it up to the employer. Speaking personally, having an untreated heroin addict working for me would make me very uneasy.>Should they fire an employee that develops a chronic pain condition that leads to opiate painkillers? That could affect their work?Not if it is under medical supervision, that's simply a medical issue. People get sick, it affects the quality of their work. That's a given, and why most companies have health plans and sick days.>How about pharmaceuticals that indicate underlying health problems?People should not be fired for health problems, although if their health problem makes them unable to do the job then they can be relocated, retired early, or get a severance package.>Should they also mandate eating of only healthy foods as, statistically detriment to health can be concluded?Those statistics are MUCH less clear than the ones about smoking tobacco. Some people seem to be able to eat a lot of junk and processed foods, and not suffer too badly from it. Also, bad food habits can be somewhat made up for by good exercise habits, I don't think there's an equivalent in smoking.
Lastly, it would be very hard to enforce. Most people who smoke tobacco don't want to smoke, acknowledge that it would be better for them to stop. Many fewer people want to stop eating potato chips and cookies. And how would you test? Cholesterol, tryglicerides, and other bodily measures of health vary so widely between different individuals and populations. I don't think it would be enforceable.Serving healthy food in the company cafeteria and banning junk food at the place of business are as far as I could seem them going. >Do you think that they should mandate exercise programs based on the statistical health benefits?Yes. Many Japanese companies do mandatory morning calisthenics. I think it should be part of the job.>I'm just trying to determine if there is some continuity in the logic of your argument, which at this point I don't get. I'm trying but, then again I haven't figured most republicans out either.I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I don't like it when the Government tells me what to do, especially if they have no Constitutional authority to do so. I don't like it when they tell me I can't smoke cannabis, and I don't like being told who I can hire and fire. Those are my choices to make, not Uncle's.My basic logic is, if there's a WELL ESTABLISHED body of evidence showing that harm comes from a certain CHOICE, then it is fair for employers to fire people for making that choice. The first hard evidence for tobacco damage came in the Surgeon General's report in 1964. In the forty years since then, reams of data have been added to that report. Virtually everyone agrees that cigarette smoking is harmful and causes cancer, heart disease, and lung disease.There is less evidence, but still enough and convincing enough about the damage done by drugs other than cannabis. Studies may claim more or less harm from heroin, cocaine, meth, but I never see studies that say they may be good for you in some way.There is little consensus about food or a healthy diet. Studies contradict each other all the time about the positive or negative effects of caffeine, about how much good or bad cholesterol one should have, or what regime of foods is the most healthy for you. An employer might mandate against severe obesity by his/her workers, but even dieticians might disagree about what the best way is to fight that obesity. So an employer would be on pretty thin ice trying to tell their workers exactly what to eat and when to eat it.That's my logic, what's yours? When does an employer have a right to fire a worker? How much does an activity have to affect work performance before it becomes proper for an employer to address it? Put yourself in the shoes of an employer, don't just lump then all in together as "The Man." What's fair to both sides?JC
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #55 posted by runruff on January 26, 2005 at 09:25:11 PT:
GMO & hormones
Geneticly modified orginisms, [altered vegge's], meat grown with hormones.
gmo's are not recognized by our bodies as food therefore no nutrition is benefited by consuming them. Hormones in meat are designed to retain fat. These hormones are passed on to the consumer. The first step to maintaining a slim healthy body is to eat natural foods. Use meat as a condement [if you enjoy eating meat eat it the way the way orientals do] The people of the Okinawa region of Japan Live longer[often to 100 years] and are healthier than anyone on the planet. The Mediteranien diet is also among the healthiest. Give up all forms of sugar. You have a computer, research the harmful effects of sugar and it's ageing properties. There are many natural sugar substitutes, xylitol, stivia, are but two. Xylitol is great tasting, diebetic safe. Uncle who is a dentist says xylitol is good for you teeth and helps prevent tooth decay. It is reativly expensive but in the long term how much is ones health worth?Try to shop at alternitive food stores and stay away from the corperate crap that is designed for corperate profit without regard tho public health.Namaste
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #54 posted by siege on January 26, 2005 at 09:06:06 PT
obsolete
On our old dinosaurs and there Fossil oil fules every thing that could be done to the(( internal combustion engine)) was obsolete by (1933 ) all the technique, or technology of 2005 was there except metallurgy.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #53 posted by afterburner on January 26, 2005 at 07:31:27 PT
Insurance Companies vs. American Freedom
Are we going to let insurance companies dictate our way of life. I remember a few years back when many cities cancelled their public Fourth of July fireworks displays because of safety concerns of insurance companies. Can we not celebrate the birth of our country in the traditional bombastic American way? I even had an insurance company cancel my home insurance because my "house is too close to the house next door." I did not move my house: it's been that way for over 100 years!Putting individual responsibility on the individual is "fine and dandy" *if* we have a level playing field. When we have corporate polluters shielded by dishonest politicians, individual choice is a "drop in the bucket." If, as gloovins says, the non-polluting alternatives are suppressed by big business and big government, then the individual cannot choose a less polluting path until the PTB's allow it. And thank you, gloovins, for reposting Steve Kubby's hopeful prediction. It is soothing balm to the fires of conflict. Not escapist pie-in-the-sky Pollyanna optimism, but herb-fuelled mutual insight of the coming age and better society. It reminds me of the words of Jefferson Airplane: "You gotta let go, you know." Let go and flow. It's not giving up; it's just confident and cheerful living as if the goal has already been met. "Children get your culture (Natty Dreadlock)
"And don't stay there and gesture, a-ah, (Natty Dreadlock)
"Or the battle will be hotter (Natty Dreadlock)
"And you won't get no supper. (Natty Dreadlock)...
"Don't care what the world seh; (Natty Dread)
"I'n'I couldn't never go astray. (Natty Dread)
"Just like a bright and sunny day: (Natty Dread)
"Oh, we're gonna have things our way. (Natty Dread)"
--"Natty Dread" by Bob Marley http://www.alwaysontherun.net/bob.htm#n6
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #52 posted by kaptinemo on January 26, 2005 at 05:10:30 PT:
Kubby's 'fossil people' and the 'dinosaurs'
When I went back and read some of the comments, I saw the post from the Kubby's website. I was struck by the similarity of views we share.'Fossil people' indeed. An entire culture that is dying. But like a dinosaur in a tar pit, in its' death throes, it is wildly lashing out and trying to injure the the newborn culture that is growing up in its' midst. Or trying to inject it's viral matrix into the new culture in order to cause it to grow stunted and warped, just like the fossil culture it is supplanting.Things are coming to a head on this little blue ball. The forces of Dominator culture are seeking to wrap everything up nice and neat in their little corp-rat boxes, reducing everyone to industrial serfs to tend the machinery of their McWorld Global Plantation. Everywhere you see its' actions: national security laws that strip you of rights to make you 'safe'; anti-drug laws become increasingly punitive while their effectiveness is more publicly challenged; lies and sophistry used to justify invasions of foreign lands to acquire resources by murder and theft; worker's rights laws dismantled in favor of greater profits to the investor class...the list goes on.But that culture is running out of tissue paper thin lies to hang as fig leaves in front of it's shame. The lies have gotten too brazen and too thin. People are beginning to question what they always had been told was above questioning. And the answers they find don't jibe with what they've been told were the acceptable ones.The question is, will the old culture die out soon enough to prevent it from damaging the new one? We can only hope it does; civil wars are usually the result of what happens when the old culture doesn't.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #51 posted by kaptinemo on January 26, 2005 at 04:14:19 PT:
The latest results of the Norwich Poll
53.77 Yes46.23 NoBetter and better.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by siege on January 25, 2005 at 22:58:32 PT
Bush
yes 48.81% no 50.19 %
---------------------------------------could it have been Bushit that give Canada the money when he was there to creating a police-state I would NOT put it passed the Idiot, Just to gve US'S money it away
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by gloovins on January 25, 2005 at 22:54:39 PT
its movin up --- its
50 % to 50 % now, this UK Poll...VOTE people!....we are global community & all citizens of the world....
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 21:35:09 PT
O, Canada
Newshawks - January 14 2005,
Newshawks with Pot-TV
Running Time: 5 min,
Date Entered: 14 Jan 2005
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-3365.html"The Trailer Park Boys sell weed to Don Cherry to raise money for tsunami victims, George Carlin off drugs, Australian authorities blame BC for their growers' education, and Canada's medical pot.
Thanks to Francouver and Richard Rawlings of The Illinois Marijuana Party"
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 21:34:50 PT
Just a Comment
When we got into business for ourselves it was a time for us. It was exciting and was financially very good. We enjoyed nice things during those years and I'm glad we did. Now being self employed is different because it is a different job and I'm not involved in it anymore. The hardest part was trying to get employees to see your dream. We had to fire people and we were robbed by an employee's relative. I tried always to be fair. I had employees that stayed for years. I don't like telling people what to do and I much prefer doing CNews then having to be what I call bossie. I wasn't cut out to be a boss I guess. That's all nothing much just my thoughts right now.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 21:01:17 PT
They should ask Should med.cannabis be legalised?
{Your Verdict
{Home Secretary Charles Clarke has defended his decision to snub a national pro-cannabis conference in Norwich — because he had "no respect" for the organisation behind it.
{Should cannabis be legalised?
{Yes 46.53%{No 53.47%}
As we try to legalize cannabis for its medical, spiritual and social benefits, I hate to see tobacco become the new whipping boy for prohibitionists in their incremental attack on tobacco smokers. If employers expect to regulate every aspect of their employees lives even when they are not working, then those employees are being treated not as hired help, but as slaves. Nanny bosses are no less objectionable than the nanny state. When statistics are used to curtail individual freedom, they are being misused. Yes, tobacco causes health problems, but it is itself a health problem. It is highly addictive and hard to quit. I have had cigarette-smoking relatives who were unable to break the habit. Would it have been better for them to die of starvation instead of dying of emphysema, lupus, or cancer?As far as the BC Bud grow-op "threat" goes, the solution is decentralization.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by goneposthole on January 25, 2005 at 20:41:22 PT
civility
Sorry to be so brutally frank, Joe Citizen. I may have been somewhat uncivilized, but I wasn't unkind. I suppose the Weyco executives could tuck their employees into bed each night to make sure they aren't having a cigarette and can be certain that each and every one of their employees puts in a hard days work. Arbeit macht frei!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by ekim on January 25, 2005 at 19:49:29 PT
they should say which - they don't, be skeptical
Mr. Campbell said that in addition to putting more police on the streets, the initiative will allow the formation of special prosecutorial teams and there will be new legislation aimed at organized crime.Mr. Campbell said he could not discuss the legislation in detail before it is introduced, but Mr. Coleman said it will apply a "reverse onus" on assets believed to have been bought by proceeds of crime.For example, a convicted dealer could be required to prove that his house and other assets were not paid for with drug money, he said.http://www.mapinc.org/gardner.htm (Losing the War on Drugs)
And beware of a semantic shell game involving the definition of "organized crime." The public thinks the term means the Mafia, biker gangs and other major bad guys -- an impression the police play off by providing these as examples of "organized crime" to reporters. But the law defines organized crime as any group of five or more working together over time to commit crime. That means five ordinary guys who grow pot in a suburban basement and sell it to friends are "organized crime." Whenever the police issue scary warnings about organized crime, they should say which definition they are using. If they don't, be skeptical. What will not work, what cannot work, is yet another crackdown. The police and the criminal law are not the solution to the problem; they are the problem.
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 19:38:49 PT
Thanks Jose
I voted in the poll and 55 percent said it shouldn't be legalized. That surprises me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by Jose Melendez on January 25, 2005 at 19:31:50 PT
respect
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/ Poll: Should cannabis be legalised?Home Secretary Charles Clarke has defended his decision to snub a national pro-cannabis conference in Norwich — because he had "no respect" for the organisation behind it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 18:58:39 PT
I Agree mayan
I was reading the comments today and thinking how pleasant to read all these different views but with respect between each other. We have a great group of very smart and caring people here. I am very happy about it all too.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by mayan on January 25, 2005 at 18:25:42 PT
I Love This Site!
Everyone here may not always agree but one thing's for certain...you all know how to think for yourselves! If only the masses could think for themselves!!!Regarding the above article, Canada is creating a police-state, undoubtedly at the whim's of Uncle Sam. They are spending the taxpayer's money to eradicate a plant...and those who would grow or use that plant."This is the cash flow of organized crime," Mr. Coleman said of the marijuana trade, in which "B.C. bud" is shipped across the U.S. border for cocaine, other drugs, guns and money.Why are they more worried about cannabis than they are about the cocaine and guns? Because cannabis is opening the world's eyes to the truth. Truth is the enemy of those in power.THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...
Op-Ed: At the Crossroads: Facing the Reality of 9/11:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=440PTECH, 9/11, and USA-SAUDI TERROR - Part I:
http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=443&mode=thread&order=0&thold=09/11 Was an Inside Job - A Call to All True Patriots:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by siege on January 25, 2005 at 17:36:20 PT
off topic
it is deplorable or culture blaming youth. mothers and fathers should accept young people are under more stress these days, they have to have there own speace and then some times that is not enough
for them to cope, and they turn to cannabis just to chill out like other people.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 17:00:14 PT
gloovins
Thank you for posting Steve's words. He's a nice man. He's always been kind to me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by global_warming on January 25, 2005 at 16:39:55 PT
Checking in from Prison Planet
This might be the beggining of a flame, it is good that we have the chance to air out our different viewpoints.While we write our words, we must remember, the fallen, those that are in the modern dungeons of our civilized world.Like the Scarlet Badge, those dogs will sniff out every one who is without the correct faith.This current thought about workers and employers and their abilities to "work" productively seems to me that some people subscribe to the power that the "calf" offers, yes, we can all work more efficiantly, yes we can work to make more profits for our "employers", maybe the word "slave masters" might be injected into this picture.Regarding "health" matters, I believe, that many of the residents of this planet are commiting a slow form of suicide, either through tobacco, mind numbing drugs, and other more toxic and lethal substances.Escape, I believe, is a necessary biological, psychological function of this life.As we enter into a more regulated and material form of existence, this difference will become more evident.Most of what has been taught to us, is about some revered "work ethic", how our parents had the ability to get and work for that better life, that always illusive better life, and even though their bones are deeply buried, and they never achieved that illusive pinnacle, we pay honor to those that strove toward that "work ethic".That illusive pinnacle is just that, illusive, for like history has taught some of us, this grasp for power was underway a long time ago, as Europe was destroyed , and there was no place to live, away from the the eyes of the regulators, away from the tax collectors, there was no place to live, there was no land to buy, there was no money.We are all mortal creatures, no matter how smart we think we are, we are all going to die. All of the above is regarding our infinitely small place in the greater mysterious universe.This person called John said it very plainly,Rev 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. We are moving too fast into slavery and into a world that has no promise.gw
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by gloovins on January 25, 2005 at 16:21:44 PT
off-topic -- but topical
this is a great piece I am tranfering from Steve Kubby's site -- hope you don't mind Steve or FoM:NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS
by Steve Kubbyimage loading...How could George W. Bush, someone who is reviled by half of the country and most of the world, be re-elected on "moral issues"? The answer is that two very different cultures with very different ideas about morality have collided head-on.The world is a safer place now that G W Bush has been elected, but only because it will hasten the destruction of a obsolete fossil culture that is unsustainable and toxic to all life. Who better than Bush to lead the bloated corporate remains of oil-hungry industrial America into oblivion?Those of us whose fortunes and passions are with the emerging new civilization of computers, cannabis and individual freedom, will joyfully prevail over the fossil people with their obsolete, industrial age, one-size-fits-all, police state mentality.George W. Bush won his re-election because he used FEAR to sell and consolidate his following. We on the other hand, rely upon the Great Spirit each and every time it fills our lungs and dances through our neurons showing us a world based on hemp and truth and freedom and real justice for all. That is the future which is within our grasp. That is the civilization that is emerging from the muck of the fossil people with their fossil culture and their fossil wars.My good friend Valerie Corral,, the founder of WAMM, writes that she is ashamed to be an American. But are any of us, once we've been liberated by our own psychedelic visions, ever comfortable again with the idea of being so limited and myopic as to describe ourselves as belonging to a piece of dirt on this planet? No, we have been awakened and transformed by a spirit that is real an knowable to each of us. Each and every time that we spark up and inhale, we leave behind the fossil people and their fossil wars and we join a group that knows and recognizes each other by sight, regards of culture and regardless of language.My friends, the election of Bush is no cause for despair, because we know that karma doesn't allow you to get away with anything. Bush and those who follow him, will speed the destruction of a culture that is so lost, so morally corrupt, that they now blindly worship the very power that will be their undoing.What will we be doing in the meantime? Well, the first responsibility for all of us is to get over this election and start having some fun again. You know, you really can't do good unless you feel good. And right now would be a good time for those us who have fought so bravely for so long to take a moment and recognize that our victory has never been closer at hand.Those of you who know Michele and me know that we've been kicked around plenty by the rotting carcass we call our government and yet somehow we not only survive, we prosper. That is our job right now, all of us, to get over this election and get back to our mission and our commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.Sure you can dismiss our optimism, but consider this, no matter how many times the government has tried to harm us, we've always bounced back, because we've learned, it's not what they do, it's what we do that counts. Sure they control the police and the courts, but we provide the ideas upon which the rest of fossil society depends, from entertainment, to computers, to an new vision for the future, based upon renewable hemp and healing cannabis.Truly, if there is one thing that we've learned in all of these years struggling against ignorance and cruelty, it's that so long as you never give up, so long as you never surrender, you absolutely, positively cannot lose.The fossil people have selected G W Bush to lead them into oblivion. Our greatest victory and salvation still lies ahead in our future. Three cheers and pass the bowl!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by gloovins on January 25, 2005 at 16:00:02 PT
mmm..not so fast there JC
"We all stand on street corners and breathe polluted air. I doubt if the oil companies are going to pay the bill from the ill effects of exhaust pollutants. Do you ban cars then? Who pays for that? You do."We all choose whether or not to drive, and if we drive, how polluting a car to drive. I personally drive a Toyota Prius, which puts out 90% less emissions than a regular car. Am I mad that I have to breathe air polluted by f*****g Hummer drivers? Hell yes! But the solution lies with the consumers, not with the oil companies or the car manufacturers.Ahhh, no the "soultion" has been found there by THE CONSUMERS (see hempcar.org or veggievan.org) however have you seen the oil &/or car manufacturing companies jumping on an ALTERNATIVE FUEL bandwagon of late or investing research funds with this?? Nope.Because oil NEEDS car manufacturers, see? With the intro and mass conversions of exsisting & future built cars, bio-fuel (no toxic emmisions) creates jobs, really clean air and a healthier planet all-around -- who could argue with that?Just a thought...btw what would you rather smoke: a dead brown leaf or a fresh green herb? Think about it folks, now if you'll excuse me, I have to chat with mary...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by dongenero on January 25, 2005 at 15:41:26 PT
maybe this needn't continue but...
JoeCitizen
Do you support testing for cannabis and other drugs by employers?Should they fire employees for cannabis use or opiate use?Should they fire an employee that develops a chronic pain condition that leads to opiate painkillers? That could affect their work?How about pharmaceuticals that indicate underlying health problems?Should they also mandate eating of only healthy foods as, statistically detriment to health can be concluded?Do you think that they should mandate excercise programs based on the statistical health benefits? I'm just trying to determine if there is some continuity in the logic of your argument, which at this point I don't get. I'm trying but, then again I havn't figured most republicans out either.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by goneposthole on January 25, 2005 at 15:40:57 PT
I'm not looking for points
I work for myself, but the customer is always right. I do what is asked of me and get it done. Otherwise, no business.When people can't see eye-to-eye, all civility breaks down. periodEverybody is told what to do all of the time. You put your trash out on the street when you are told. You pay your bills when you are told, i.e. due date.It never stops. It's called 'civilization'. I wish the US gov would learn a little bit about 'civility'.My uncle was old and farm chemicals like arsenic were kept on the farm in old buildings without much regard for their dangerous side-effects and before the days of awareness of their dangers. The bull posed more danger than the chemicals, believe me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by JoeCitizen on January 25, 2005 at 15:22:45 PT
goneposthole - response
>Joe Citizen... you're firedUh, no. I have always made it a point to work for myself, even when I don't make too much by doing so. I believe that employers have some right to tell their employees what to do, and I don't like being told what to do. But I don't bellyache about it and clamor for laws to control the employers. I just set up a situation for myself where I could feel comfortable.>"I had an uncle that died of lung cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his entire life. Although, he handled farm chemicals like they were going out of style. If a correlation between farm chemicals and lung cancer exists, I doubt very much that herbicide manufacturers were going to foot his medical costs. That is why health insurance companies exist."The important question is, did you uncle know that the farm chemical posed a risk to his health? I he did, if there were clear warnings on the container, or if failed to use the proper protective gear specified, then he was CHOOSING to assume a risk. And the consequences of that choice would be his to bear.If he DIDN'T know, if there were no warnings, or if he took all precautions specified and still became ill, he should have the right to sue the herbicide manufacturer for damages plus punitive costs. If there were other farmers hurt the same way, enter into a class action suit. It all depends on what he knew and what choices he made based on that knowledge.>"We all stand on street corners and breathe polluted air. I doubt if the oil companies are going to pay the bill from the ill effects of exhaust pollutants. Do you ban cars then? Who pays for that? You do."We all choose whether or not to drive, and if we drive, how polluting a car to drive. I personally drive a Toyota Prius, which puts out 90% less emissions than a regular car. Am I mad that I have to breathe air polluted by f*****g Hummer drivers? Hell yes! But the solution lies with the consumers, not with the oil companies or the car manufacturers.We don't choose whether to breathe or not, the way we choose whether to inhale cigarette smoke. And even in breathing, you have some choice about where you live and breathe. I value clean air enough to not live in a smoggy city like Los Angeles.My point: Cigarette smoking is a choice with known bad consequences. Other situations where we either don't have choice or don't know the consequences of our choices are irrelevant.>"There is a danger of carbon monoxide poisoning from poorly ventilated flues, is the provider of methane, the gas company, responsible? No, it is the homeowner's responsibility to check his heating system."I'm not quite sure how this point supports your argument. Is the gas company or the homeowner supposed to represent the employer?>"Sounds like you want to be in control of something outside of your power to do so."Gee, I might say the same thing for all of you in terms of telling an employer who he can or can't fire. Having made a place of business with my own two hands and the sweat of my brow, I didn't take kindly to anyone telling me who I had to employee there or why. Why should I employ someone who not only engages in activities I very actively disagree with, but will actually be passing the costs on to ME for doing them? Explain that to me, please.>"How about if an employee at Weyco develops health problems from the smoke-free workplace and his smoke-free home? What then?"A smoke-free workplace by itself wouldn't cause any health problems, only if there was some other health hazard present - asbestos, off-gassing carpets, something. And the employee would have every right to sue for grievances based on those health risks. Especially if they didn't know about them or did not have free CHOICE in whether to expose themselves to them.No civility points for you, I think.JC
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by goneposthole on January 25, 2005 at 15:16:37 PT
yeah, right, JC
You mean 'civil' like the executives at Weyco? Right? Punishing people for something that they enjoy doing on their own time. that's what you consider 'civil'.tell me another one, I'd like to hear it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by siege on January 25, 2005 at 15:12:55 PT
Unemployment Insurance benefits
This sounds like he has stoped the health-care Insurance
and taken it on the company to provide the coverage of the worker.Unemployment benefits some one will have to CHANGE there laws becuase the way there set up the employer will bear this burden, if it gos to a hearing or court, and have to pay them from 12 to 18 months just to sit at home and do nothing or go play. what would be the ez way out of this pay the health-care costs or pay there wages. wages vs health-care costs. wages of 60,000+ or 90,000+ a year or pay the Insurance and keep his mouth shut.when I was working 1989 my health-care cost me a dollar an hour and cost the company one dollar an hour that is 2 dollars an hour Insurance. $ employee 2,080 + employer 2,080 = 4160 === employer 2,080 vs 90,000 someone is asleep at the wheel here.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by JoeCitizen on January 25, 2005 at 14:49:06 PT
afterburner-response
>"You almost missed the point. A person should not be fired for what they do when they are not at work."No, a person should only be fired for doing things during off-work hours if it affects their performance at work. I can't tell an employee not to stay up all night partying, I CAN fire them for chronically showing up sleepy, working slowly, and falling asleep at their desk repeatedly.>"As a reformed smoker, I agree that it is harmful to the health, at least store-bought tobacco. As far as I know, no studies have been done on organic tobacco to see if it contains the same risks. As a vasoconstrictor, tobacco probably presents some health risks, even without the questionable additives of the tobacco industry."I think that however it is grown, the tobacco plant is likely to have negative health effects. Yes, it is both a vaso and brochio-constrictor. In addition, as far as I understand it, the broad leaves of the tobacco plant tend to suck up any heavy metals in the soil, including radioactive particles from fertilizer decay, industrial processes, or leftover fallout from old bomb tests. So unless you grew the organic tobacco in specially decontaminated soil, I think it would still wind up being radioactive.>"But is that any reason to fire an employee, if you don't have to pay health care, if they don't abuse sick days, and if they don't smoke on company time?"Those are a lot of "ifs." I don't think any of them apply in the Weyco situation. As for whether you fire (or never hire) an employee who smokes but has good behavior, I'd leave it up to the employer. All statements about the collective health of a group, or what might affect that health, are statistical in nature. You can't say for sure who will get sick and who won't, so you go by the numbers. And the numbers say that smokers get sick more frequently and have higher health costs than non-smokers.I suppose we could address that statistical unfairness by individual genetic testing for EXACTLY who will and won't get sick, but that would be a solution far worse than the original problem.>"This "you can always quit and find another job' argument does not fly. With the economy being rapidly outsourced to the third world, good paying or even survival jobs are increasingly scarce."I had relatives who quit and found new jobs even during the Great Depression. It's always possible, it just may be hard. So then you ask yourself, "Do I care about having the right to smoke tobacco enough to fight for it? Do I search for an employer who understands, or help start a tobacco-tolerant business myself? Or would it be easier (and healthier) to just quit?" It stated in the article that Weyco offered help to all of its employees to quit smoking, so it's not like they just threw them all out in the street. They left the choice with the employee. Quit smoking or quit working here.>"You should know by now that the federal government bans all manner of 'drugs' and plants, at their own discretion without scientific justification. Then, they lean hard on businesses with government contracts, states, municipalities and other countries to follow suit."I've been actively fighting against the Drug War for 21 years now, you don't have to educate me on scientific deceptions by the government. But surely you are not claiming that there is "no scientific justification" for negative health claims about tobacco smoke? There's a ton of evidence, from both government and private sources. In fact, the only people who try to dispute these claims are tobacco companies and their paid lackeys. "Tobacco is addictive and should be treated as a medical condition, not another target for overzealous law enforcement officers, prosecutors, courts and prison guards."Who said anything about LEOs, prosecutors, or prison guards? We were talking about the rights of employer and employees here. I don't support the prohibition of tobacco (or any other drug), but that's a different argument entirely."The relevance of discussing tobacco is that the pattern of oppression used to prohibit cannabis is being applied increasingly to tobacco smokers. Perhaps, if they become aware of the source of the political opposition to tobacco, they may be more open-minded to the arguments against cannabis prohibition."Looking at the entire history of cannabis prohibition, I would strongly disagree. We have not seen the level of demonization, the race-baiting, the stifling of all scientific response, the massive (utterly fraudulent) propaganda campaign waged by one news source (Hearst.) These are how cannabis became illegal.You don't have to tell lies about tobacco. It IS more addictive than heroin. It DOES kill thousands of people, every day. The truth is more effective than propaganda. In fact, in direct contrast to cannabis, the government intervenes to KEEP the truth about tobacco from being disclosed. Food manufacturers are required to list their ingredients overtly, but the tobacco companies are not. And they put some heinous crap in those cigarettes, let me assure you."I agree that an employer should have the right to fire an employee, but they should have just cause, not hypothetical generalizations."Employers HAVE just cause, a large and statiscally significant body of data showing that smokers cost more. Statistics are by nature generalizations, but you can't hire and fire people strictly by trial-and-error, you have to have some guidelines, and statistics provide those.Thank you for your polite response, I always appreciate civility.JC
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by lombar on January 25, 2005 at 14:48:37 PT
I call BS...
"A study released in 2002 showed the number of marijuana grow-ops in British Columbia had increased 222 per cent between 1997 and 2000 and had jumped by more than 1,000 per cent in some areas. Those figures are being updated in a study, now near completion, that is expected to confirm a continued rapid growth."It may be that the number of grow-ops BUSTED increased 222%. It is not as if they know how many there were then nor how many there are now. "For example, a convicted dealer could be required to prove that his house and other assets were not paid for with drug money, he said."That may be an 'example' but I have seen Coleman say that a conviction is NOT NECESARY. The reverse onus part is true however. Anyone they choose to persecute can have their assets seized - guilty until proven innocent.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 13:54:08 PT
dongenero
I don't mind. I care about many issues. I am not fond of hard drug discussions because the antis tangle up cannabis issues with hard drug issues. Other then that I like to read other news items especially because of the way things are under this administration.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by lineman on January 25, 2005 at 13:50:38 PT
Dogs
> Do dogs detect oxycontin?no> Crystal Meth?yes> Special K?no> Ritalinno
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by dongenero on January 25, 2005 at 13:30:56 PT
on another note
This isn't really related in any way to cannabis but, I hope you won't mind FoM.Bush administration and the Bureau of Land Management (now known as the Bureau of Land Mismanagement) are opening the Otero Mesa in New Mexico to oil drilling. This is a sensitive desert ecosystem grassland and these moves are against the wishes of the New Mexico state Governor.So much for federal public servants as stewards of our great country. So much for federalism.Any activists? Nows the time.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by dongenero on January 25, 2005 at 13:24:01 PT
firing people
I guess we should start firig people for eating foods that contain trans fats and hydrogenated oils. These are documented poisons that change the structure of your cells walls and are carcinogenic agents. Corn syrup too...have you seen the correlation between the rise of use in corn syrup and the rise in morbid obesity in our country?Frankly, both of these are as dangerous to your health as smoking. It may not be considered as such in the mainstream yet but, nonetheless they are.I would suggest nobody smoke cigarettes and I don't wish to have cigarette smoke around me in a public place as that violates my freedom yet, what kind of a free country are we in when you tell someone they cannot smoke in their own home....cigarettes OR cannabis?Perhaps payments to ones health care at a business should be adjusted for ones choice in adopting a lifestyle of documented risk. That would be reflected as a greater percentage of their salary going towards health care.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 13:10:41 PT
Article by Dan Gardner
I'm told I must snip this source but Mapinc. has it posted so here it is.http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v04/n416/a05.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by goneposthole on January 25, 2005 at 13:07:21 PT
Joe Citizen... you're fired
I had an uncle that died of lung cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his entire life. Although, he handled farm chemicals like they were going out of style. If a correlation between farm chemicals and lung cancer exists, I doubt very much that herbicide manufacturers were going to foot his medical costs. That is why health insurance companies exist.We all stand on street corners and breathe polluted air. I doubt if the oil companies are going to pay the bill from the ill effects of exhaust pollutants. Do you ban cars then? Who pays for that? You do. There is a danger of carbon monoxide poisoning from poorly ventilated flues, is the provider of methane, the gas company, responsible? No, it is the homeowner's responsibility to check his heating system. Sounds like you want to be in control of something outside of your power to do so.How about if an employee at Weyco develops health problems from the smoke-free workplace and his smoke-free home? What then?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 12:58:52 PT
afterburner
What you said made sense to me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 12:50:04 PT
JoeCitizen
You almost missed the point. A person should not be fired for what they do when they are not at work. As a reformed smoker, I agree that it is harmful to the health, at least store-bought tobacco. As far as I know, no studies have been done on organic tobacco to see if it contains the same risks. As a vasoconstrictor, tobacco probably presents some health risks, even without the questionable additives of the tobacco industry. But is that any reason to fire an employee, if you don't have to pay health care, if they don't abuse sick days, and if they don't smoke on company time? This "you can always quit and find another job" argument does not fly. With the economy being rapidly outsourced to the third world, good paying or even survival jobs are increasingly scarce. You should know by now that the federal government bans all manner of "drugs" and plants, at their own discretion without scientific justification. Then, they lean hard on businesses with government contracts, states, municipalities and other countries to follow suit. Tobacco is addictive and should be treated as a medical condition, not another target for overzealous law enforcement officers, prosecutors, courts and prison guards.The relevance of discussing tobacco is that the pattern of oppression used to prohibit cannabis is being applied increasingly to tobacco smokers. Perhaps, if they become aware of the source of the political opposition to tobacco, they may be more open-minded to the arguments against cannabis prohibition.I agree that an employer should have the right to fire an employee, but they should have just cause, not hypothetical generalizations.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by ekim on January 25, 2005 at 12:34:39 PT
Kalamazoo Valley Community College
http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-12/110667362399290.xml
KVCC hiring rule: Smokers need not apply
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
pdavis kalamazoogazette.com 388-8583
If you smoke and want a full-time job at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, you can forget it. A new hiring policy that took effect on Jan. 1 tells job seekers that tobacco users will not be considered for full-time employment at KVCC. Part-timers looking to move up a rung to a full-time position can't if they smoke or use other tobacco products.
From Our Advertiser
Officials say the new policy is an effort to contain health-care costs, based on national research suggesting that tobacco use increases medical claims. About three dozen employees, or 10 percent of the college's full-time staff, use tobacco, according to an employee survey. The sanctions will not affect full-timers hired prior to the new regulation, however. "There is just a lot of national data and research, and it's not only costs in terms of health claims but it's also costs in terms of lost productivity," said Sandy Bohnet, KVCC's vice president for human resources. "People who use tobacco products tend to have more time off of work than those who don't," Bohnet said. "It's certainly a generalization, but there's research out there to support that." The medical costs associated with smoking amount to more than $75 billion a year, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And statistics show an estimated $80 billion annual cost in lost productivity, according to the CDC. Bohnet said that she suspects these kind of policies will crop up more and more. snipped
http://www.leap;cc/events
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 12:29:30 PT
JoeCitizen
I don't even like to talk about any drugs except the medicinal herb cannabis. That's the one that is important to me and most of us here.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 12:18:23 PT
JoeCitizen
I had employees and they weren't allowed to smoke when they were at work. I didn't pay for their health insurance so I didn't have a say in what they did when they weren't working. If you want to fire someone you should be able too. I don't disagree with you on that at all.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by JoeCitizen on January 25, 2005 at 12:11:30 PT
I disagree with most of you
There's a big difference in my mind between the Government outlawing an activity in all public and private spaces, and an employer setting the rules for their own business. If you don't like the way an employer treats you, you can always quit and find another job. Easier said than done, certainly, but people do it every day. Some even find better jobs than the one they left.If you don't like the way the Government treats you, then what? Fight a century long battle against entrenched and lying bureaucrats and their pawns in the media? Try to match the lobbying power and influence of multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical and alcohol distilling corporations? Or leave the only place you ever known, the only home you've ever loved? These are not good choices, and much different than simply quitting from a heavy-handed employer.There's no comparison in my mind between cannabis prohibition and an individual employer's rules about tobacco, and I think those of you trying to draw that connection are exaggerating the point.We, the cannabists and anti-prohibitionists, have the truth and the facts on our side. I think that we have the duty to adhere to those facts, and to be honest about them. We argue frequently here that cannabis and tobacco are very different drugs, with different effects on the body, and that cannabis should not be assumed to have tobacco's negative effects on health. But by the same token, we should not assume that tobacco smoking has any of the safety of cannabis. Tobacco/nicotine are deadly killers, putting hundreds of thousands of Americans in early graves every year. Tobacco smoke is radioactive, and a threat to everyone in the vicinity of the smoker.As a former small-business owner and employer, I would want the RIGHT to fire people for making a choice like cigarette smoking. This is not an arbitrary issue, like firing someone for having a private belief with which you disagree. Cigarette smokers have ongoing health problems, they take more sick days (even when young), and eventually many of them require extremely expensive medical treatments for lung disease, heart disease, and cancer. These are real costs to a business, not something made up by a prohibitionists bureaucrat.Now that fact of the matter is, one of the best employees I ever had was a smoker. But she was very polite and discreet about it, and our business was too small to pay her health benefits, so that was her own problem. In the couple of years I employed her, she didn't take many extra sick days. But single cases don't bely the statistics, any more than those lurid stories the prohibitionists are always telling about this or that cannabis-induced car crash make cannabis a major cause of car fatalities. Yes, those individual cases exist, but they don't disprove the larger statistic.Anyway, let's stick to the facts about cannabis and tobacco. One is relatively safe, the other will slowly kill you.JC
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 11:31:01 PT
goneposthole
Only perfect people in the eyes of the government are allowed to exist at least in public. Soon the food police will get people too. I'm not overweight so I'm safe on that one. I can hide by not smoking cigarettes in public but overweight people won't be able to hide. It's getting down right crazy anymore.Party On!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by goneposthole on January 25, 2005 at 11:22:42 PT
You've come a long way, baby
"Mamas, don't let your cowboys grow up to be babies."- Waylon Jennings (it went something like that)During WWII, cigarettes were handed out to grunts for free. "Might as well have a cigarette, it could very well be my last." "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."Now, you can't smoke anywhere except outside of the doors leading into the mall."In your own little house, someone's sure to find you out... what you eat and what you drink... if you smoke a cigarette, they'll be talkin' about your breath..."Next thing you know, you won't be able to have a drink, either. Just like the good old days. I say, "screw 'em, do what you want. You only live twice."Lots of room in British Colombia. The little islands all around Vancouver are riddled with pot. Just another way of confiscating what doesn't belong to the government thugs.Hey, you have a nice day and don't let it get you down.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 11:03:25 PT
JackBnimble
I don't know. That's a good question.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by jackBnimble on January 25, 2005 at 11:01:43 PT
FOM I think they still aren't
Do dogs detect oxycontin? Chrystal Meth? Special K? Ritalin?These are our new hard drugs.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 10:50:55 PT
One More Thought
Back in the 70s when they started using dogs they were only trained to find marijuana not any hard drugs.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 10:48:10 PT
kaptinemo
Back in the 70s this is what happened around where we lived. They came after pot smokers and if a person was caught with hard drugs they went for help. It was always the pot smoker that was the target. I don't know if that was every area but it was where we came from.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 10:41:33 PT
Herb is the healing of the nation
{Bob Marley summed up the influence of cannabis on emerging Rasta consciousness in an interview with Stephen Davis: "Rastaman sit down and smoke some herb, with good meditation, and a policeman come see him, stick him up, search him, beat him, and put him in prison. Now, what is this guy doing these things for? Herb grows like yams and cabbage. Just grow. Policemen do these things fe evil... System don't agree with herb because herb make ya too solid. Y'see, when ya smoke herb ya conscience come right in front of ya. Ya see it? So the devil see ya not guan fe do fool thing again. Yes, Rasta! Herb is the healing of the nation."} --The history of music and marijuana (part two)
by Russell Cronin (20 Jan, 2005) From funk to flower power, reggae to rock, stoners expand musical boundaries.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3512.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on January 25, 2005 at 10:39:50 PT:
I was going to link to that earlier
When I saw that the company had fired the tobacco smokers, I couldn't help but think of the earlier posts regarding this issue. This was going to be the next turn of the screw...and, now, here it is. As logically inexorable as sunrise. If it isn't obvious now, it never will be. Tobacco smokers will soon be wearing the same target on their backs that we have worn for decades. But even now, with the writing having been transferred from the wall and scrawled on their faces, many will STILL not ally with us. ("What did you say? I'm a 'drug user'? SHUT YER MOUTH! I'm no 'drug user'! Git outta here, you druggie! I support DARE! Call me a 'drug user' and I'll break yer face! You got me so upset I need a cigarette...") The only recourse many workers will have now to protect their rights are unions, and they are - thanks to the efforts of many Republicans and their deceptively named "Right-To-Work" laws - practically extinct.To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller:"First, they came for the heroin junkies and coke freaks, but I said nothing because I was neither (and besides they said it was to curb the n****rs).
Then they came for the drinkers, but that didn't work out...besides, I got mine, no matter what, law or no.
Then they came for the potheads, but I didn't care as I had by booze and cigs.
(Frantically) But now they want to take my CIGS!!!!!! Those dirty b*****ds!"
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by dongenero on January 25, 2005 at 10:31:39 PT
but...what next?
I'm a reformed cigarette smoker and I hate'em but....what's next? Do you ride a bike?...you could get hurt..health risk.Do you ski? Gee, that's dangerous. You could get hurt and require medical treatment.Many activities people engage in place them in varying degrees of risk. Where do you draw the line?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 10:16:48 PT
Thanks afterburner!
I voted!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 10:15:02 PT
Hope
My husband is self employed so I don't really think of him having a boss but I do think of Bush's government taking it all from us ( taxes ). He is wasting money and now he wants more! Billions more!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 10:13:18 PT
RE Hope's Demonization of Smokers Link
{SURVEY
{Do you think an employer who is trying to keep down health care costs should have the right to fire employees who smoke?{Yes{No http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html{Survey Results{Do you think an employer who is trying to keep down health care costs should have the right to fire employees who smoke? {Choice Votes Percentage of 53917 Votes {Yes 14583 27% {No 39334 73% }Smokers of the world unite before you end up in chains!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by Hope on January 25, 2005 at 10:07:54 PT
by slave, I mean
the man you work for taking more of your life than he pays for and making personal choices about what you consume or not.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 09:27:48 PT
Hope
I don't know what you mean by slaves but I read the article and it is how to protect Insurance Companies and that very often hurts society. Bush won't put controls on one of his supporters.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by Hope on January 25, 2005 at 09:22:11 PT
Interesting...Slave holders arise!
Interesting if you think we don't "belong" to "the man"...body, soul, and everything, as much as any slave.http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment