Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Marshal on February 29, 2008, 01:06:08 AM
-
I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB. SO I AGREE 100%
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay
my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order
to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which
I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my
taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to
pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their A**, doing drugs, while I work.
Can you imagine how much money the states would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ?!!
-
I recall, that while worked in food industry (dairy), this was mandatory for getting the job.
(Not because of drugs though, more like disease, - but it was 23 years ago...)
-
dunno how much they would save, but i'd make it a point to buy stock in the company with the most successful masking formula.
-
Masking formula is just that, it comes up in urine tests as a masking agent. That's as good as a positive on a whiz-quiz. Sort of defeats the purpose yes?
-
Originally posted by Marshal
I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB. SO I AGREE 100%
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay
my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order
to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which
I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my
taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to
pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their A**, doing drugs, while I work.
Can you imagine how much money the states would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ?!!
Good point!
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Masking formula is just that, it comes up in urine tests as a masking agent. That's as good as a positive on a whiz-quiz. Sort of defeats the purpose yes?
dunno. never done it...but i know people who swear by something or other.
-
When I worked at Office Depot whenever a urine test came pack indeterminate it meant a masking agent was involved and the person wasn't hired. Then again, I knew a couple of co-workers who did nothing to hide their recreational activities and their tests came back as being clear. So who knows.
-
I don't agree with random tests. I consider it an infringment of my rights. I'm innocent, prove me guilty.
Do you have cause to ask me for a pee in a bottle? No? Then don't.
The urine test looks for past use. Not present impairment. My smoking a joint over the weekend on my personal free time is none of your concern.
-
Originally posted by Marshal
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their A**, doing drugs, while I work.
What i heard "now im old enough to work and they are making me take a drug test, and now i cant do any of my favorite drugs, now im over worked and under apreciated, i think now ill voice my opinions on people because the government takes my money away just like everyone else. and furthermore them giving it away to other people real pisses me off."
Right, fully understandable..your not alone.
everyone grows up, and some of us take it like sugar, others..like lemons..very..very sour.
And on the subject, do i think someone collecting disability or food/cash aid from the government or local services should be drug tested? a b s o l u t e l y
Without a doubt.
-
yep, you'd think with the fascination the gov has shown for pro baseball and their use of "illegal" drugs, the least they could do is be consistent.
sounds like a great way to real in the hand outs .. of course JJ and the ACLU would be jumping up and down ...
-
Would most likely end up wasting far more money on the tests, than would be saved by the few who are stupid enough to get caught.
-
The only urine or blood test I will be taking willingly will be for my Dr.
Nothing to hide, but certainly nothing to gain.
I also will not be willingly give up a DNA sample.
I will not willingly be getting a tracking device implant or ID numbers tattooed on my forehead.
-
Jackal1, I'll save Eagler the time: If you don't want a tracker implant and barcode on your forehead for easy camera identification, then obviously you have something to hide.
;)
BTW, 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The only urine or blood test I will be taking willingly will be for my Dr.
Nothing to hide, but certainly nothing to gain.
You do realize that most employers require a pre-employment drug screening, right?
Of course I'm sure that if you refuse the test and point out the fact that it's an infringement of your civil liberties they'll hire you on the spot.
Welcome to the new world. Big Brother is watching.
-
Originally posted by sluggish
You do realize that most employers require a pre-employment drug screening, right?
Not my problem.
Of course I'm sure that if you refuse the test and point out the fact that it's an infringement of your civil liberties they'll hire you on the spot.
I think you just might be surprised how many employers will bypass this little part of the hiring process if you protest it in the right way.
Of course you have to have the nads to do it. Most don`t and that is what is depended on.
Welcome to the new world. Big Brother is watching.
Big Brother is near sighted. :)
-
Originally posted by sluggish
You do realize that most employers require a pre-employment drug screening, right?
Most? Quantify that, and provide a citation please. I've never had a job that requires a drug test, nor did I require them of my employees when I owned a small business.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Most? Quantify that, and provide a citation please. I've never had a job that requires a drug test, nor did I require them of my employees when I owned a small business.
Sorry to hear your Google's broke...
http://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+employers+who+require+drug+screening&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS/702060387/1039
http://www.employmentdrugtesting.com/screening.html
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2007/84-percent-of-employers.html
http://preemploymentscreeningarticles.infocubic.net/2007/12/03/more-employers-do-pre-employment-random-drug-testing/
http://www.esrcheck.com/articles/article18.php
*my google thingy didn't work.
-
I think you just might be surprised how many employers will bypass this little part of the hiring process if you protest it in the right way.
So just how do you protest it in the right way? Just wondering since I've always found the pre-employment drug screens an annoyance.
-
Sounds like a pretty good idea.
I believe that it should be expanded a bit though.
Any company that receives money from the government for any product or service should have all executives, employees and stockholders tested.
shamus
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Sorry to hear your Google's broke...
http://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+employers+who+require+drug+screening&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Im with Chair, I have never worked at a job that tested.
You spouted the bull****, back it up.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
So just how do you protest it in the right way? Just wondering since I've always found the pre-employment drug screens an annoyance.
Basically just refuse to test on the grounds that you believe it violates your privacy................do it in such a way that shows you are willing to back it up if needed.
My wife worked for a National....well now worldwide company for 12 years.
They required drug tests in their hiring process and also random employee tests.
She refused on all occasions. Not a problem. Many more followed suit.
If you show that you are not willing to have your privacy and rights invaded and they believe you will stand upon that, most will back down.
It`s as simple as don`t rock my boat, I won`t rock yours.
I have never taken a drug test for anyone, anywhere.
I know quite a few that have and have been terminated on false positives due to medication that tests positive for something it is not.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Im with Chair, I have never worked at a job that tested.
You spouted the bull****, back it up.
Why are you getting hostile? Did I kick your dog?
About 90% of all employers today require pre-employment drug screening.
You guys don't get out much, do you?
-
this is a tough one. I don't want to work alongside a druggie. I don't want him operating machinery around me.
If he is then I want to sue the company for having him on the job and them not doing enough to make sure he wasn't. I think it should be up to the company and it should be clear in the employment papers you sign..
If you work in a cubicle (cant imagine that) then maybe it doesn't matter how loaded you are... I don't want you on a forklift or backhoe around me tho.. every see what those things can do to fragile little human bodies? I have.
It should be up to the company.
I also agree that we shouldn't pay welfare but.. since I have no say in that.. then the least we can expect is that they are sober and ready for work. I see nothing wrong with random drug testing of welfare recipients.
With a class B license I can be randomly tested at any time. I drive to work and see the zombies all milling around their yards. they need to be tested.
If they are loaded.. they are not ready to work or capable of looking.
lazs
-
Makes you wonder why they don't test CEO's and CFO's huh?
-
If you suspect that an employee is on the job and under the influence....YES! Urine test time.
If it's a matter of a lottery, "hey, your number came up...go pee" NO!
If my duties are being completed in a satisfactory manner. Leave me alone.
Urine tests are indicators of PAST use. Not present impairment.
Urine tests Look for metabolites. Many legal prescription and over the counter medications can kick back a positive urine test for illegal drug use.
-
Originally posted by ridley1
I don't agree with random tests. I consider it an infringment of my rights. I'm innocent, prove me guilty.
Do you have cause to ask me for a pee in a bottle? No? Then don't.
The urine test looks for past use. Not present impairment. My smoking a joint over the weekend on my personal free time is none of your concern.
AMEN!!!!!!
:aok :aok :aok :aok
-
I've had several jobs that required a urine test before getting hired.
Mortage, customer service, pc technician... different fields.
I agree, those who collect welfare checks should undergo a urine test every other check that gets sent to them.
If my taxes go to welfare checks then I would like them to go towards those who use that money to get a job or better themselves not spend it on drugs.
While it will not clean out all the welfare parasites, it will flush out a good amount.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
this is a tough one. I don't want to work alongside a druggie. I don't want him operating machinery around me.
If he is then I want to sue the company for having him on the job and them not doing enough to make sure he wasn't. I think it should be up to the company and it should be clear in the employment papers you sign..
If you work in a cubicle (cant imagine that) then maybe it doesn't matter how loaded you are... I don't want you on a forklift or backhoe around me tho.. every see what those things can do to fragile little human bodies? I have.
It should be up to the company.
I also agree that we shouldn't pay welfare but.. since I have no say in that.. then the least we can expect is that they are sober and ready for work. I see nothing wrong with random drug testing of welfare recipients.
With a class B license I can be randomly tested at any time. I drive to work and see the zombies all milling around their yards. they need to be tested.
If they are loaded.. they are not ready to work or capable of looking.
lazs
As stated before by others, this proves prior or past use, not present level of impairment. So.......
What about the individuals who stop using long enough to pass a whiz-quiz, only to get ripped on a daily basis? ow do we stop these folks?
Also what about the recreational user who stays clean and sober throughout the work-week, and only partakes on his/her personal time? If they have an accident at work (while they are not impaired whatsoever) and drop a hot urine? Should they be treated or punished in the same fashion as someone who actually was high at the workplace?
Most (not all) employers that do require these tests, do so because they get better insurance rates. Some bean-counting actuary has decided that this lowers or limits the amount of drug abusing employees and therefore the accident rate.
So... chugging along in the same vein, why not have a pre-employment stupidity test? I know plenty of folks out there who have had their gene pool urinated in or, are just plain stupid, inattentive or careless that haven't consumed a single mind-altering substance in their life. What type of regulation do we have to single out these folks? Do we dole out the same punishment to these people? What if they are habitually stupid? Are there rehab clinics for stupidity? What if they are only stupid on the weekends? Does that make it OK, or less of an infringement?
Maybe I can elaborate later. Right now, I should get back to my job that didn't require a drug test.
-
Past use (like an over-the-weekend joint) also is a great indicator of the level of respect for the law/authority that someone has. If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.
That's the whole *nothing is more important than me* attitude which has enveloped us lately.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Past use (like an over-the-weekend joint) also is a great indicator of the level of respect for the law/authority that someone has. If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.
That's the whole *nothing is more important than me* attitude which has enveloped us lately.
It is a matter of perspective. What if the law(s) in question are useless or require an update. Lets continue to keep marijuana illegal because it's an evil weed!!!! (but in the meantime keep swilling the alcohol because it's MUCH MUCH safer for you mind, body and sense of judgment) Because alcohol is legal, it's OK?
Please, let us not get into a debate about respect for the law. No offense TM, but have you ever disobeyed the speed limit? Prove you haven't (un-deniable proof) and I will personally go to Geno's and hand deliver an authentic Philly cheesesteak to your doorstep. It's impossible to prove is what I am getting at.
But seriously, are there a certain amount of laws that we must break before it becomes a lack of respect? Or is it a certain number of times we break a particular law? Does it not include moving violations, because they are laws also, just like any other. Or is it when we find ourselves facing a misdemeanor violation or do we wait for it to be an actually felony before it is constituted as disrespect for the law.
You can absolutely NOT generalize about peoples level of morality or work ethic by what they do in their private homes, on their personal time. That would be like me making the assumption as follows: I am your neighbor and I see you sitting by the pool in a lawn chair all weekend long, every weekend. You don't do any housework, yard work, or home maintenance in general. I also happen to own the local widget company that you have applied for employment at. Knowing what I have observed of you as a neighbor, can I safely come to the conclusion that you are a layabout and lazy and will not have any work ethic as an employee of mine? Would it be fair of me to not hire you based on my observations?
Everyone, everywhere has broken SOME type of law at some point in their life. Even if they didn't know it at the time. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it, correct? Where do we draw the line?
We can also reverse this analogy. I may have an employee who is bar-none, the best I have ever had. They come to work 10 minutes early every day, not just getting their on time, but actually ready to work when the bell rings. He is well mannered, educated, and well spoken. He is the most productive guy I have on staff. He can turn out twice as many widgets as any other employee. He is never sick, never takes time off, never makes defective widgets, works overtime if needed, and is basically the epitome of a model employee.
But..........
When he goes home, he drinks himself into a stupor, beats his wife, kicks the dog, molests his children, and is having a torrid affair with the gardener.
Do we judge this guy bu the way he appears at work?
Maybe it is better to not assume at all and decide what kind of person someone is when we know all the facts about them, how they conduct themselves at work, home and play, and then make an educated decision based upon ALL observations.
Let's not say because someone smokes marijuana, double parks, speeds, or pull the tag off of mattresses has a blanket disregard or disrespect for all other laws, legal or moral.
Ich bin der schmutzige Hund und ich genehmige diese Anzeige!
-
Originally posted by texasmom
If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.
Does your example apply only to drugs or do you believe that it's a global truth?
If so, consider for a moment that 50 years ago, it was illegal for blacks to disobey an instruction to sit in the back of the bus. By this argument, Rosa Park's defiance would indicate that by asserting what she felt to be her rights, she proved that she's 'willing to disregard your work policies as well'.
-
They do that test on welfare applicants.... if you apply... yourin!! :noid
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
They do that test on welfare applicants.... if you apply... yourin!! :noid
Preach it, brother!!!
-
Sorry Messa, that just sounds like a lot of excuses why:
"...but... but... I wanna keep my weed."
I don't mind at all jumping to a conclusion without a thorough white glove inspection of someone's personal & private life; especially if I were an employer dishing out a paycheck. If you show blatant disregard for the law in order to satisfy your own desires to stay high ~ that's A-OK with me ~ no problem. I'd just move on to any of the next 10 in line who would be MORE than willing to take your job. *NEXT IN LINE PLEASE*
Chair, it's ridiculous to make the leap comparing a doper to Rosa Parks. Not in any way shape or form are dopers who willingly disobey the law so they can get high are anywhere near in comparison to Rosa Parks.
You're a vile dog & you approved the message? =)
-
I dont like urine tests. Ive always believed they violated the constitution. If there is no evidence that someone uses an illegal drug then it should be prohibited they should have to give up anything like urine, hair, DNA.
I believe that applicants for all this fancy new public housing, since we've torn down the highrises, DO! have to submit to urine testing to get their new housing. At least in my town.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Past use (like an over-the-weekend joint) also is a great indicator of the level of respect for the law/authority that someone has. If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.
That's the whole *nothing is more important than me* attitude which has enveloped us lately.
Congrats, you just beat out all the squeakers for the most retarded post ever award.
-
Originally posted by Geary420
Congrats, you just beat out all the squeakers for the most retarded post ever award.
Spoken like a true doper. :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Spoken like a true doper. :rofl :aok
Spoken like an idiot who saw Reefer Madness and thought it was a PBS documentary and not propaganda.
-
I smoked marijuana, but I never inhaled.
And I never had sex with that woman.
Sound familiar?
-
The problem is the disguise it tries to hide under.
Let`s see you invade someone`s privacy under a thinly veiled .well excuse. that`s all you can call it because that is what it is.
If it were doing what it claims to do it might be one thing.
What about the large percentage that show up at jobs everyday impaired due to legally prescribed drugs. Vailium, xanax, pain meds of all sorts and colors, the big crave for antidepressants.........all impair you. Today you wouldn`t have a work force if they were taken out of the picture. The CEOs, Administrators and bosses from ground level to top supervisors that put the scotch bottle or martini glass down around 3 or 4 A.M. All violating the law. Alcohol content above legal limits. That`s OK?
Most of these your are violating the law just by getting behind the wheel and driving to work.
It`s smoke and mirrors. It`s the precedence it sets and the doors it opens to step on your rights in the future.
I have never, don`t now, nor will ever buy into to such a blatant scam and the trampling of my privacy.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The problem is the disguise it tries to hide under.
Let`s see you invade someone`s privacy under a thinly veiled .well excuse. that`s all you can call it because that is what it is.
If it were doing what it claims to do it might be one thing.
What about the large percentage that show up at jobs everyday impaired due to legally prescribed drugs. Vailium, xanax, pain meds of all sorts and colors, the big crave for antidepressants.........all impair you. Today you wouldn`t have a work force if they were taken out of the picture. The CEOs, Administrators and bosses from ground level to top supervisors that put the scotch bottle or martini glass down around 3 or 4 A.M. All violating the law. Alcohol content above legal limits. That`s OK?
Most of these your are violating the law just by getting behind the wheel and driving to work.
It`s smoke and mirrors. It`s the precedence it sets and the doors it opens to step on your rights in the future.
I have never, don`t now, nor will ever buy into to such a blatant scam and the trampling of my privacy.
Thank you for saving me from the repetitive motion that would have otherwise accelerated my carpal tunnel.
:aok
-
Gawd. This is such a huge topic at the moment. SOME employers here are now requesting urine tests before hiring, I've never worked for one of them.
I fail to see the correlation between what someone does on their own time and their work ethic. I used to use drugs, hell I even used to MAKE them, but when I worked I was the epitome of a model employee.
I no longer use illegal drugs of any kind, I don't smoke and I only drink occasionally and I still get to work on average 20min early to prepare for the day. There may be employees at our company that party hard on the weekends, but they never indulge during the week and they never turn up to work under the influence. After being in the "business" for as long as I was, I can spot someone who is buzzed a mile away and I'll be the first person to escort them to the office IF I came across them on the workshop floor.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Sorry Messa, that just sounds like a lot of excuses why:
"...but... but... I wanna keep my weed."
I don't mind at all jumping to a conclusion without a thorough white glove inspection of someone's personal & private life; especially if I were an employer dishing out a paycheck. If you show blatant disregard for the law in order to satisfy your own desires to stay high ~ that's A-OK with me ~ no problem. I'd just move on to any of the next 10 in line who would be MORE than willing to take your job. *NEXT IN LINE PLEASE*
Chair, it's ridiculous to make the leap comparing a doper to Rosa Parks. Not in any way shape or form are dopers who willingly disobey the law so they can get high are anywhere near in comparison to Rosa Parks.
You're a vile dog & you approved the message? =)
First of all, I don't need excuses to keep my weed, it's very safe and thank you very much for you concern.:aok
Second, what exactly constitutes a "doper"? Is it only because a drug is illegal, or because one is a user of the drug, be it in a recreational context or habitually? In this line of thinking does it mean that someone who consumes alcohol is automatically an alcoholic? What keeps a social drinker from going to work intoxicated?
Third, I could still use some answers to my first round of general questions. I'm sorry, but the catch-all "you are just making excuses, now lets quit this silliness" might work for the "Texas Kids" when you want them to clean their room, but I must apologize, for it doesn't satisfy my inquisitive nature. Rather it's like covering you eyes when the boogieman comes and telling me that since you can't see him, he isn't there. Indeed, it does not even answer the questions I have posed. Do you not believe that an individual can casually drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, or take prescription medication (when actually necessary) without being an alcoholic, pothead, pill-popper or general "doper"?
Believe it or not, some people actually have willpower, morals, work ethics, etc. Some folks can actually distinguish the difference between "work time" and "play time" and when is the appropriate time for each. And absolutely YES, some people can not and get carried away with it. Just remember, the main reason that prohibition was repealed were the increase in crime that it caused due to its demand, and the fact that Uncle Sam realized how much of a cash cow it could be, if taxed. Because it's legal, does it abusing it make it more acceptable?
Bottom line is that you (meaning people in general) can't break certain laws that you are OK breaking (such as speed limits, parking ordinances, fudging your taxes and yet claim that you are in no way, shape or form breaking any important laws therefore can't be considered a lawbreaker. Furthermore, one can not decide when it's OK to point the finger and cry "criminal" because one is not breaking the same laws. On the other hand, though, it seems to be working for good ole George B. Maybe it's a Texas thing?
Lastly, it's "Dirty dog".
;)
-
Anyone who’s in control of things that can kill people (busses, air traffic, weapons, cranes, medicine, etc.) should be tested randomly for being under the influence while at work. Those who work with children probably should as well. Any test that can produce a false positive, however, should be re-administered in a way to confirm influence beyond doubt before someone is terminated.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Past use (like an over-the-weekend joint) also is a great indicator of the level of respect for the law/authority that someone has. If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.
That's the whole *nothing is more important than me* attitude which has enveloped us lately.
Your personal rights mean nothing compared to the good of the collective comrade.
Silence any who object to the word of authority.
You guys ever get the feeling you are becoming what you once hated the most?
-
Yeah, I've kinda noticed that I apply my mother/children attitude toward more than mother/children. Good thing I ain't running for Ms. Congeniality. :)
-
I agree with you eskimo....WHILE ON THE JOB .But If I smoke a joint with my friend the police commissioner, LAST WEEK, the time for clearance of the metablites is so long for THC, that I could get boned for something I did 7 days ago.
I AM subject to random drug tests. I drive transport cross border. I am a Canadian. Canadian law doesn't require me to pee. But to operate in the states, I have to pee. A U.S. regulation that crosses it's border and contravenes my countries supreme court decisions concerning the right to personal freedoms and freedom from unjustified persecution.
Texasmom. You are required to go to the local authorities, with your children, tomorrow, or face jail time. People abuse children. Therefore, we (the government) want to make sure you're not abusing yours.
The same damn thing.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Past use (like an over-the-weekend joint) also is a great indicator of the level of respect for the law/authority that someone has. If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.
That's the whole *nothing is more important than me* attitude which has enveloped us lately.
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
I'll accept your silence as an admission of being wrong.
-
*yawn*
waaaahhh~ I want my pot! :lol
-
:rofl
-
They ought to just legalize Pot and decriminalize everything else. Ive worked a city with free fire zones due to this war on drugs and the profits gangs can make on it. And for what? So a bunch of lawyers can make money in criminal cases?
The war on drugs was never worth 1 dead kid, 1 dead citizen, or 1 dead Policeman. And here it is 2008 after thousands have died and been crippled, after countless Billions have been spent.
Marijuana is far, far less destructive then alchohol. I dont use neither but this point is so obvious anyone who doesnt see it must be blind.
-
If "illegal" drugs were regulated they could be taxed and monitored.
The immense profits seen to the underworld would dry up, there would be no more drug labs in domestic environments, the power base of the majority of organised crime would disappear. There would be a huge reduction in street crime and job security and safety for law enforcement officers would improve remarkably. The government would save billions of dollars wasted on a losing battle and they would actually make more revenue from the taxes imposed on a regulated system.
The health and quality of life of addicts would be improved by regulation of a better standard of product, and help programs would be legitimised and the stigma attached to be a recovering addict would be largely reduced. The attraction to younger generations would also be much less since there is less perceived risk attached to drug use.
Yeah, the war against drugs is working just fine.
-
I'd have to agree with p-tests for people that have jobs where there mistakes can cause themselves, or others around them injury.
Pilots, bus drivers, machine operators, cops, firemen, ect.
If i were the employer, why should i chance that the guy smoked up 4 days ago, or 4 hours ago. Besides pot, the drug tests are looking for other things as well.
So what if you've got a school bus driver that is still blasted out of his mind from shooting up coke all weekend. He goes to work on monday and has a seizure while behind the wheel and wrecks, killing a bunch of kids?
I definitely am for any welfare, public housing, or unemployment recipients having to get p tested.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
*yawn*
waaaahhh~ I want my pot! :lol
Truly, I find myself disappointed by your lack of creativity. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make a valid argument. However, an educated, well thought out rebuttal with answers that have merit will still be well received from where I am sitting.
And just a little caveat for those too far away to have actually laid hands on the liberty bell, actually felt the crack in it from when it was rang, stared at it long enough, almost hearing it ring today, and contemplating the connotations of what the ringing of this bell meant :
Stand on your soapboxes and slam your shoe on the podium all you wish, until you are blue. In fact stand firmly behind the "letter of the law". Preach away. The cold, hard and undeniable truth is as follows: 232 years ago, just a few short miles from where I sit right now, in the cradle of liberty, Philadelphia, on the 4th day of the 7th month 1776 AD....... We collectively raised our middle fingers to the "Law"
If that event never happened, tell me if you would be flying that Lone Star of yours under the Union Jack or Old Glory?
-
Originally posted by Tac
I've had several jobs that required a urine test before getting hired.
Mortage, customer service, pc technician... different fields.
I agree, those who collect welfare checks should undergo a urine test every other check that gets sent to them.
If my taxes go to welfare checks then I would like them to go towards those who use that money to get a job or better themselves not spend it on drugs.
While it will not clean out all the welfare parasites, it will flush out a good amount.
My job used to require random urine tests for drugs, haven't seen one in
a very long time. I guess some genius upstairs finally figured out they didn't
pay us enough to buy drugs to begin with. :D
I do wonder what would have happened last year when I was on disability
for 6 months if I had had to take drug tests...I have no idea what they were
putting in my system with those IVs.
-
If you want some productive effort to change a law which you feel is completely useless ~ go for it. When enough people feel the same way, they'll elect officials who will help enact it. Will potheads ever rise to the level of raising arms to allow their recreational activities become law? Doubt they'd make it off the couch.
Until then, it's correct to obey the law, or work to get it changed...
-
You still awake? Good, because I'm still waiting...... (and humming the jeopardy theme)
Handled in the true style of your ex governor: 1 hand on bible, 1 foot on soapbox, and head planted firmly up rectum. :aok
-
What are you waiting for? I'm not gonna debate the thing with you. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.
It's either put up or shut up on the thing. If you don't like the law because it interferes with your lifestyle, work to get it changed. Until then, you have an obligation (just like everyone else) to adhere to it.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
Truly, I find myself disappointed by your lack of creativity. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make a valid argument. However, an educated, well thought out rebuttal with answers that have merit will still be well received from where I am sitting.
And just a little caveat for those too far away to have actually laid hands on the liberty bell, actually felt the crack in it from when it was rang, stared at it long enough, almost hearing it ring today, and contemplating the connotations of what the ringing of this bell meant :
Stand on your soapboxes and slam your shoe on the podium all you wish, until you are blue. In fact stand firmly behind the "letter of the law". Preach away. The cold, hard and undeniable truth is as follows: 232 years ago, just a few short miles from where I sit right now, in the cradle of liberty, Philadelphia, on the 4th day of the 7th month 1776 AD....... We collectively raised our middle fingers to the "Law"
If that event never happened, tell me if you would be flying that Lone Star of yours under the Union Jack or Old Glory?
Pffft a crackhead freezes to death on the steps of the Nations Capitol does that make him patriotic? A heroin addict dies in the shadows of the Washington Monument is he/she a Patriot?
Sit a lil closer to your cracked bell Von Messa I'm sure you feel as patriotic as any eskimo or hawaiian would. BTW while yer sitting there get up off your bellybutton and serve your Country... wait that would take you away from the Bell and that would be unpatriotic in your eyes.
So just sit there.
Mac
-
I don't think it's a lack of patriotism there ~ I think it's a lack of respect for the law. "I'm going to do whatever I want, whenever I want, regardless of what the law is..." instead of working toward changing a law which a community feels is inappropriate.
When enough folks think that pot should be legalized, I'm sure it will come to be passed.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
What are you waiting for? I'm not gonna debate the thing with you. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.
It's either put up or shut up on the thing. If you don't like the law because it interferes with your lifestyle, work to get it changed. Until then, you have an obligation (just like everyone else) to adhere to it.
Giving up so soon? I thought you would at least come up with some intelligent rebuttal of SOME kind.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Only looking for someone to add some credence to a point of view that has been stated besides repeating over and over "its the law, its the law" like some perverted mantra. I saw that in a movie once, I think it was "Judge Dredd" Ignorance must truly be bliss, but, I wouldn't know, I've never tried it.
In the meantime, since it IS now the weekend, maybe I'll fire up that proverbial joint you were talking about and go to bed. Don't worry, I'll still share with you.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/BigJ.jpg)
-
No, I'm not giving up. Just not going to rehash the same thing over & over. If you say what you mean the first time ~ why bother saying it again over & over? LOL
"Dude... quit bogarting the f'in joint & pass it this way" :lol
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by texasmom
No, I'm not giving up. Just not going to rehash the same thing over & over. If you say what you mean the first time ~ why bother saying it again over & over? LOL
You tell me why, because repeating yourself is all that you have been doing. Pardon me for taking advantage, I should not enter a battle of wits with an unarmed person. There no honor in it, only shame.
Good night to you, Madam.
-
Don't act like you hold the moral high ground by politely calling me Madam and apologizing for taking advantage of me because you think I'm a handsomehunk then
. Enjoy your joint, or shove it up your ass. I'm fine with either one. :)
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Don't act like you hold the moral high ground by politely calling me Madam and apologizing for taking advantage of me because you think I'm a handsomehunk then . Enjoy your joint, or shove it up your ass. I'm fine with either one. :)
Better edit that one quick, before Texas Father/Dad/Son sees it. :aok
Can't have them thinking "Oh man, I can't believe my (daughter/wife/mother) just said that." Or that arguing with some pothead at 3 AM has brought out the best in you.
But kudos to you. By the way I've seen you shoot down A/C in your Osti, I knew you had some fire in ya.
On another note, the whole concept of ingesting marijuana rectally is quite fascinating..........then again, maybe not.
-
No... this one I think I'll leave. I do hope you have a good weekend, you dirty dog. :)
-
Originally posted by texasmom
No... this one I think I'll leave. I do hope you have a good weekend, you dirty dog. :)
As well to you, mom. I have quite enjoyed the exchange of opinions. (with genuine sincerity)
And just so you know I DO belong to NORML and try to bend the ear of my political representatives. I have seen to many good and innocent people killed by someone under the influence of a "legal" drug while operating a motor vehicle to not voice my opinion and try to change things via due process.
Potheads tend to not cause as many fatal DUI's because it is too hard to drive with a glass of milk in one hand, and cookies in the other, so why bother. It's even more difficult to even START the car, as they've forgotten where they put the keys last.
-
Hello All,
First off this is not a post to get you to buy anything. I was banned because I was reported to be spamming people with info for a free product.
Anyway will see if this gets me banned.
Many people are seeing the truth about drug use and see that it is not the problem we have been told it is. Prohabition didnt work and now pothabition is not working either.
In the 1920's we had gangsters killing each other over their teritories and now we have the same. If something is against the law it only causes more criminals to beome involved.
There are many in the world today that see this war on drugs is useless.
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Izzy