What's new
By:
Filters

Only 12 in Utah out of 4730

Nate505 said:
So it's a legality argument? So should they be able to pay for a speeding ticket with their money? I don't want them paying the consequences of their illegal activity with tax money. How about gambling? Should Utah residents be able to gamble with their money if they drive to Wendover? Gambling is illegal in Utah.
Click to expand...

Then it is a good thing they are not in Utah. Equating speeding and gambling to heroin and meth is foolish. But you already know that.

Truth be told. If they did away wtih drug testing on employment. The legality of it. I'd let this sleeping dog lie.
 
Stoked said:
Then it is a good thing they are not in Utah. Equating speeding and gambling to heroin and meth is foolish. But you already know that.

Truth be told. If they did away wtih drug testing on employment. The legality of it. I'd let this sleeping dog lie.
Click to expand...

I want pot to be legal but honestly, if they stopped drug testing at my job then I really wouldnt care as much about it being legal.
I just want to be able to puff a bit and relax in my home after a long work day
 
fishonjazz said:
I want pot to be legal but honestly, if they stopped drug testing at my job then I really wouldnt care as much about it being legal.
I just want to be able to puff a bit and relax in my home after a long work day
Click to expand...

Pot should be legal. LEgalize it and use it to create jobs and revenue for the country.
 
Stoked said:
Pot should be legal. LEgalize it and use it to create jobs and revenue for the country.
Click to expand...

Only problem with that is the licenses to produce would be given to big pharma. Either party, whether it be Dems or Reps, would cite the need to ensure quality and as much uniformity of product as possible. And whichever pharma companies make the biggest campaign contributions will win the contracts. It might be legalized on either a prescription basis or for recreational use, but the supply will be just as tightly controlled and enforced.
 
Core4 said:
Only problem with that is the licenses to produce would be given to big pharma. Either party, whether it be Dems or Reps, would cite the need to ensure quality and as much uniformity of product as possible. And whichever pharma companies make the biggest campaign contributions will win the contracts. It might be legalized on either a prescription basis or for recreational use, but the supply will be just as tightly controlled and enforced.
Click to expand...
Big pharma > Cartel

Legalize it
 
heyhey said:
Big pharma > Cartel

Legalize it
Click to expand...

Not to mention
Smokin pot and enjoying myself > going to jail, losing my job, paying lots of fines, losing my home, losing my family, going into a depression, doing much harder/worse drugs, turning to a life of crime
 
Core4 said:
Only problem with that is the licenses to produce would be given to big pharma. Either party, whether it be Dems or Reps, would cite the need to ensure quality and as much uniformity of product as possible. And whichever pharma companies make the biggest campaign contributions will win the contracts. It might be legalized on either a prescription basis or for recreational use, but the supply will be just as tightly controlled and enforced.
Click to expand...

How? This would be the wetdream of the controlling/"legal" interests, but what makes you think they would be able to effectively regulate non-legal flows of marijuana (or any other drug)? With marijuana in particular, we've dragged our heels so long that the many cottage industries are STRONG. They don't just fade to black the second the legal market decides to square the circle. They keep producing.... and guess what.... It'll be better weed than the **** Camel and Marlboro will make.

General rule of thumb: no statement about damming the flow of drugs is believable.
 
In other words... If someone wanted to "fight the good fight" against marijuana, then they'd need a a big army and a helluva lot of guns and jails.

Yes, Stoked, I realize you are for the legalization of marijuana, but there are others out there with the same "good fight" mentality who aren't. This message is for them... and for the chance that my point makes a spark jump across to your dogmatism on drugs.
 
I have a hard time believing that if marijuana were legalized it wouldn't also be legal to grow a certain amount of your own for personal consumption. In the states that have legalized and/or allowed medical marijuana they have also allowed this have they not?

It was funny, I needed a pH meter for homebrewing and turns out they are all over the place and fairly inexpensive because apparently it's an important piece of equipment for hydroponic farming.
 
Gameface said:
I have a hard time believing that if marijuana were legalized it wouldn't also be legal to grow a certain amount of your own for personal consumption. In the states that have legalized and/or allowed medical marijuana they have also allowed this have they not?

It was funny, I needed a pH meter for homebrewing and turns out they are all over the place and fairly inexpensive because apparently it's an important piece of equipment for hydroponic farming.
Click to expand...
I have one think it cost me $12-13. It also gives me nitrogen levels sunlight and water meter. pretty impressive little gizmo.
 
Hey One Brow, do the math. If these people were only going to get assistance for one short year then the average benefit is $208/month for this to break even.

There is no taxpayer waste in this scenario.
 
franklin,

For each successful test, you start with approximate 400 applicants, at a cost of $6,000 per applicant. About 40 move on to the second stage of testing, at $25,000 each. That makes $3,400,000 of invested cost per successful removal from the program. I'm confused why you think this is recouped by saving a few hundred a month on an applicant.
 
One Brow said:
franklin,

For each successful test, you start with approximate 400 applicants, at a cost of $6,000 per applicant. About 40 move on to the second stage of testing, at $25,000 each. That makes $3,400,000 of invested cost per successful removal from the program. I'm confused why you think this is recouped by saving a few hundred a month on an applicant.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say each or per anywhere:

Utah has spent more than $30,000 to screen welfare applicants for drug use since a new law went into effect a year ago, but only 12 people have tested positive, state figures show.

The data from August 2012 through July 2013 indicates the state spent almost $6,000to give 4,730 applicants a written test. After 466 showed a likelihood of drug use, they were given drug tests at atotal cost of more than $25,000, according to the Utah Department of Workforce Services, which administers welfare benefits and the tests.
Click to expand...
 
What I am seeing in this thread is not arguement against drug testing for public assitance based on policy. I am seeing opposition based on cost. Is that correct?
 
Stoked said:
What I am seeing in this thread is not arguement against drug testing for public assitance based on policy. I am seeing opposition based on cost. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

I am opposed it either way but the outrageous costs make it pretty clear cut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top