PonyFans.com

Please watch.

MV pony wrote:

mrydel wrote:Well let's spell it out for those who have trouble with reasoning. Partaking of an illegal drug is not littering, nor is it speeding, nor is it rape, nor is it murder. So out of those four would any of them be cause for firing. I would guess, and it is just a mere guess mind you, that 2 of them would and two of them would not. (You may pick whichever two you want.) So by logic one could say that some offenses warrant firing and some do not. Now the real question is not whether speeding or littering or murder or rape are firing offenses, but rather whether or not use of illegal drugs is. My humble opinion says yes it is. Why? Because they fired him.

I believe Pelini resigned.

You are right. He did resign. So apparently doing drugs did not make any more difference than littering. You win.

Probs convinced to resign on good terms instead of boot in rear end firing.

Ya think?

PoconoPony wrote: You are right in your comments; however, the statistics are huge that for many weed it is merely the introduction into addiction and the next step is hard drugs. From all perspectives of prevention of addiction the continued criminalization of weed is a means of signifying to users the dangers involved.

LOL

People can't honestly still believe this crap, can they? It's been disproven time and time again. Even if this ridiculous argument had any merit, surely it would apply to coffee, tobacco, and alcohol to an even greater extent.

Didn't intend it to be a win or loss discussion. Arkansas used to (and may still) produce the finest 100% hooch I've ever tasted. Hate to think someone would be fired for being at a party where it was served. And I attended many such parties.

should we really be putting black marks on the records of our youth when there is little doubt that our last 3 Presidents used "illegal drugs"

digetydog-

Regarding your fraternity bros: Anything can be addictive to certain people; that is usually a mental thing- but from a physiological standpoint, MJ is not addictive, whereas alcohol, nicotine and many harder drugs are.

My theory is "to each their own". Personally, i realized that i didn't like hangovers and the additional calories from drinking booze. I still drink, of course, but I've tried to smoke more often than drink. Again, to each their own.

Perhaps it comes from having a place at the beach and the lifestyle that comes with that. But I lived and worked in DC for over almost 10 years, and I've seen top staffers, lobbyists (as I was) and attorneys smoke their fair share of the DEVIL'S LETTUCE.

Perhaps it is a generational thing? I am in my mid 30's. To most folks of my age, weed is no different than tobacco or alcohol. Except for the legal ramifications, that is.

While in office??

Yes. I was a staffer for 2 years before I moved over to K St - and it was rampant. And I worked for a Republican to boot! There is no drug testing on the Hill (at least there wasn't when I worked there).

I worked for one of the top lobby shops in DC - and we had no testing procedures either. It wasn't until I entered the larger corporate world that I saw any testing.

ponyinNC wrote:mrydel -

Regarding your fraternity bros: Anything can be addictive to certain people; that is usually a mental thing- but from a physiological standpoint, MJ is not addictive, whereas alcohol, nicotine and many harder drugs are.

My theory is "to each their own". Personally, i realized that i didn't like hangovers and the additional calories from drinking booze. I still drink, of course, but I've tried to smoke more often than drink. Again, to each their own.

Perhaps it comes from having a place at the beach and the lifestyle that comes with that. But I lived and worked in DC for over almost 10 years, and I've seen top staffers, lobbyists (as I was) and attorneys smoke their fair share of the DEVIL'S LETTUCE.

Perhaps it is a generational thing? I am in my mid 30's. To most folks of my age, weed is no different than tobacco or alcohol. Except for the legal ramifications, that is.

I was not in a fraternity, I do not believe pot to be a gateway drug, and I favor decriminalization and taxation. I think you have mislabeled me as to whom you wished to respond.

But I do believe that if someone breaks the law they should be punished. It is not my position to determine the punishment.

that's what juries and ultimately elections are for-I think a recent poll found 58% of American's are in favor of decriminalization and that number is sky-rocketing.

I am sorry Mark - I meant to respond to Digetydog (you guys have the exact same avatar!).

My apologies.

Stallion wrote:that's what juries and ultimately elections are for-I think a recent poll found 58% of American's are in favor of decriminalization and that number is sky-rocketing.

If i was 10 years younger, I'd specialize in helping legit growers with the ins and outs of legal distribution in various states and I'd work with them on compliance with Federal laws. I do the same thing now, but for consumer finance companies.

I am sure there will be regulations that vary by state, by product, by price, etc. And these new "grow comapnies" or whatever you want to call them will need good attorneys to help guide them through the regulatory compliance maze.

I imagine, even if it was decriminalized, the rules in South Carolina or Texas would be vastly different than those in Cali or CO!

No problem. He does not realize I blame a lot of my bad posts on him because of that.