I am a causality of the War on Drugs...

[BJ10]

I would love nothing more than to hit a little Lemon G with my friends tonight...but I can't. You see, I am subject to random drug screens at work. Therefore, I must drink beer to loosen up and have a good time. I don't drink liquor, because I believe it should be a Controlled Substance, that shit can kill you.

So, I drink beer and listen to The Grateful Dead knowing deep down it would be much more fun, not to mention safer,than smoking the Lemon G from Columbus Ohio with my friends...but I digress, I must keep Amheiser-Busch in business.

I just want to say; LEGALIZE WEED...WTFN???

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. yeah...cause the alcohol in liquor is different than the alcohol in beer

that shit can kill you. oh, and your place of work screening you is not part of the war on drugs. the war on drugs is being waged by the federal and states governments. your place of work has every RIGHT to test you for drugs...

sP

[Toucano]

4. Right on the "alcohol is alcohol". Wrong on the employer's rights.

I don't accept the granting of rights to employers to interfere in activities that I engage in when not working.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. if your toking up off the clock has ANY chance of impairing your performance

then they are right to test...all it takes is one impaired worker to do hideous damage in some jobs...

sP

[Toucano]

28. That's the conventional fascist thinking, alright.

"...ANY chance..."

"...impaired performance..."

"...impaired worker..."

"...hideous damage..."


Gimme a break.


The Wal-Mart greeter is not "mission critical", yet they're subject to random drug testing.

If an employee is impaired on duty, that's a concern.

Impaired off duty is not the employer's business.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. wal mart greeter? ok fine...i have no problem with that

unless there is serious damage to be done by running into someone with a shopping cart. fascist...yeah...wanting people to be clean in the workplace is fascist. right...

sP

[pipoman]

49. What about

presidents of the US, US senators, congressmen, supreme court justices, secretaries of state, etc, etc, etc

[Toucano]

174. You want people to be "clean" in the workplace.

Fine.

You want to achieve that by subjecting all workers to random drug testing.

Fascist.

Yes, your local Wal-Mart greeter is subject to random drug testing.

Dwugs are scarwy, aren't dey?

[Xicano]

62. Simple solution = Sobriety check of suspected intoxicated worker.

Does not violate a person's right to privacy. Does not violate a person's right to do with their own bodies what they wish when they're on their own time. Does not violate a person's fourth amendment rights.

As Malcolm X would say: "Any person who has a problem with this is a wolf who intends to make you his meal"

[Xicano]

60. "Internal Security" The age old cry of all oppressors

You do realize that don't you?

[Mike K]

88. In some jobs.

So why are you assuming this individual has one of those jobs?

And what if he does have one of those jobs but he only smokes pot occasionally and goes to work perfectly sober but is tested and found positive for something he ingested three or four weeks ago?

And workplace testing is indeed a component of the drug war.

[Flaneur]

154. Gee, here's a novel idea: Test for actual impairment--not metabolites.

Impairment on the job is dangerous and should not be tolerated.

Impairment on the job results from various things: being intoxicated, being hungover, being angry, lack of sleep, illness...

If employers care about impairment and not just war on drugs bullshit, test for impairment.

[Threedifferentones]

168. Yet your right to drink alcohol is legally protected

Or companies just never test for it? I think I have heard of some testing for nicotine...

Either way, the "it could impair your performance" argument is not applied to alcohol, and thus seems like a load of crap. Sobriety tests of suspicious workers make sense. Those focus on impairment and drug levels currently in the blood. Testing to see if a worker smoked a joint over the night or weekend does not make sense, but the justifications for those tests sure do chime in nicely with the rhetoric of our war on drugs and the prison industry that it feeds.

I can see why prohibition of drugs makes sense. Drugs are bad, they can consume and destroy lives. But those justifications apply to alcohol and tobacco as well as any drug other than new, cheap alternatives like crystal meth. The thing is, we know from history that prohibition of alcohol does not work, so we no longer consider it. Sooner or later, we must accept the same is true of all drugs. Prohibition makes good sense in theory, but terrible practice.

The fact that alcohol is not screened for more or less proves these DT policies are linked to the war on drugs and the cultural prejudices it is built on. Again, not regularly screening employees for alcohol abuse, a substance which impairs judgment and gives terrible hangovers, is not necessarily good practice. But it is the norm.

The norm does not make sense, and should change. To be consistent, you would need to ban alcohol as well, but we know that is foolish.

[krabigirl]

204. Wow...that is scary sorry.

[BJ10]

6. First of all...

I'm not blaming work, I DO place blame on the government. Second, you can't buy liquor here in Virginia in a grocery store, you have to go to a state-run facility.

The beer I drink is 5.0%, most liquor is around 40% alcohol.

Still think liquor and beer are the same???

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. yes...the alcohol is EXACTLY the same...

it is about quantity... you drink one mixed drink and you are getting about the same amount of alcohol in a beer (of course depending on the drink but the averages are about right). ask any bartender...

sP

[BJ10]

12. Okay, I agree...but...

liquor can get you in trouble much quicker. Say what you like, I've seen it with mine own eyes...and so have most others...

[eShirl]

24. most beer is flavored with hops, which is also used as a mild sedative herb

and if my memory is not mistaken, hops is a distant cousin of sorts to cannabis

[nemo137]

228. Infact, I have seen homwbrewers use cannabis instead of/in addition to hops

because that have similar profiles.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. sure...it can...but it won't kill you any more or less than beer

as a matter of fact...i would bet that many people think 'hey, it's just beer...i'm probably fine to drive...'

sP

[asdjrocky]

184. Wow.

So you believe your boss should be able to tell you what to do 24 hours a day? Really?

[Maru Kitteh]

223. Well. Yes.

I don't want heroin addicted sex offenders working at daycare centers.

I don't want my heart surgeon to wax rhapsodic about her favorite sticky, and I sure as hell DO want her tested for the kinds of things for which he has the key to the candy store.

I don't want my bus driver to hold his liquor really well at work every day until tomorrow.

I don't want the real estate agent with keys to my house to have a credit score of 350 and a brand new crystal habit.


If society in general found it objectionable for employers to decline to employ persons who engage in illegal activity and/or activity/history which reasonably demonstrates they may be a harm to others or the company - there would be a meaningful outcry against it.

There is not.

[asdjrocky]

230. Okay then,

Welcome to the world of total corporate control.

[aikoaiko]

2. I hear you. I stopped smoking weed after high school because jail or loss of job wasn't worth it.

I like Miller light and Laphroaig.

[Flaneur]

153. Funny, I just quit accepting jobs that demanded I piss in a cup.

[aikoaiko]

158. I don't piss in a cup, but I do enjoy my job enough not to want to lose it

and now a growing family requires that I maintain decent employment.

[Statistical]

180. and more importantly RELIABLE income.

My workplace has a "no tolerance policy" on illegal drugs. To my knowledge nobody has ever been tested and/or fired.
I don't want to be the first case though and then try to find a job in this economy with a letter of reference that says:

"Statistical is a great data analyst, too bad we had to fire him for violating our drug policy". :)

Even if weed was legalized I wonder how many decades before it is illegal to include it in drug screens?
How many decades after that before it is removed from security Clearance criteria?

[krabigirl]

206. Same here (well not just for that rule.)

But many employers, especially in software, still don't test. I still prefer to stay freelance or contract.

[jobwithout]

217. So hows the job at McD's working out

Every good paying job requires a drug test because of workers comp insurance policies.

[randr]

3. I recently heard of a new strain that has the THC removed

Apparently the other compounds that are beneficial for pain relief etal are still active.
Designed so people can take their meds without showing up as impaired at work.
Was not told how this affects the high.
Check in with your local dispensary if you are so lucky.

[The Old Creak]

161. THC removed?

:wtf: :hippie:

[Duer 157099]

5. I want to know how drug screens are not a complete invasion of privacy

That has gone way overboard, and I think it's time to rethink that.

WTF right does an employer have to know the contents of my piss for crissakes!!! :mad:

[BJ10]

7. It's FUCKING BULLSHIT!!!

It's a fucking plant...who do YOU KNOW who died from smoking weed???

[ProdigalJunkMail]

10. i know someone...well, KNEW someone

he drove a forklift into a rack of equipment...hit it hard enough for it to topple. of course, the idiot got OUT of the forklift (which had a cage on it that would have protected him). a piece of equipment weighing about 150 lbs fell from a height of about 20ft and pretty much crushed him...

he was stoned...but of course, he CLAIMED he never smoked at work...

sP

[BJ10]

14. Look, it's Saturday Night...

I go back to work on Monday...what's the issue???

[leftstreet]

17. +1

[ProdigalJunkMail]

29. yep...it's only saturday night...

[Maru Kitteh]

224. So really what you're advocating for is more accurate testing and treating pot more like alcohol is

now?

Some employers and industries rightly demand a .00 level of all intoxicating substances while on the job. It's my understanding we're not able to do that with pot right now?

I think the development of a reliable test for serum levels of THC is probably a keystone element to legalization.

If this were to occur, your Saturday night before working on Monday would in all likelihood be entirely your business.

[RainDog]

229. wrong. saliva tests indicate a one to two hour window of cannabis consumption

which correlates to the amount of time, on average, that someone would have any intoxicating effects from cannabis.

if the goal were to check for impairment on the job, this is the test that would be most efficient.

if the goal is to police employees on their own time, urine tests meet that goal.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. his name was thomas reede...does that help you?

no...i guess not. believe what you will...and thanks for calling me a liar...and guess that makes you an * since you know nothing of me at all. i now know plenty about you...

sP

[droidamus2]

21. Don't know but...

Given the choice I would rather work with somebody that toked up the night before than somebody that comes to work with a raging hangover. I know of where I speak because in my younger days I've been both. Idiots have accidents whether they were stoned or not. I don't think the studies that have been done show a big incidence of accidents due to being stoned (haven't read all the studies so could be wrong).

[Mariana]

113. If your have a raging hangover, you're probably still drunk.

I've never liked working with hungover people either. They are definitely impaired.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Sounds to me like 150 lbs of equipment and stupidity killed the forklift driver.

:shrug:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. so you don't believe the fact that he was impaired had anything to do with it?

fine if you don't but i do...i had watched the guy more than once whilst 'baked'...and he was a raging klutz...

sP

[Swamp Rat]

40. I think he was a klutz who won the Darwin Award.

That is all.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

54. Understood...carry on. n/t

[JNelson6563]

69. Apples and oranges

It's one thing to smoke a little weed on Saturday night and show up to work on Monday. It's quite another to get stoned at work and operate heavy machinery.

And of course the whole operating heavy machinery thing applies to any drug, including alcohol, right?

Julie

[GoneOffShore]

173. Or RobutussinDM or Tylenol3 or just plain hubris.

[asdjrocky]

185. Prove it.

It you can prove this, it may well be the only documented death in history due to cannabis use.

I think you are full of it.

[MilesColtrane]

11. I can see it if it's a safety issue.

I wouldn't want my pilot, air traffic controller, surgeon, day care worker, etc... to be baked on the job.

[Brickbat]

26. I wouldn't want my mortgage officer, lawyer, investment banker, or senator baked on the job, either.

Goose, gander, etc.

[Maru Kitteh]

225. Neither do I. I don't want any of those people impaired while making decions that affect my life.

[Truth2Tell]

226. I know a whole shitload

of mortgage officers, lawyers, investment bankers and particularly senators desperately in need of a good bong toke.

[krabigirl]

56. They are a complete invasion of privacy.

In addtion to "illegal" drugs, they also can tell employers if someone uses an anti-anxiety med (which they were prescribed), for example. Why should that be an employer's business?

[Abq_Sarah]

169. They don't have a right to force you

Just like you don't have a right to a job from them.

If I put an employee behind the wheel of a company vehicle and they cause an accident and test positive, I can lose my company and my other employees can lose their livelihood. Should I have to take that kind of risk because someone wants to smoke pot off the clock?

[RainDog]

177. the tests should be for impairment

a piss test is not.

if you have a company, don't use a test that doesn't indicate impairment.

and anyone who can, should choose not to work for companies that choose cheap-ass urine tests rather than honest saliva tests.

why should you lose your company with a test that doesn't even check for impairment?

[Abq_Sarah]

214. Tell it to a jury.

[Freddie Stubbs]

189. The employer has no right, but the employee has no right to the job

The employee and employer mutually agree to the terms of employment. If the employee doesn't like the terms of employment, he is free to seek employment elsewhere.

[RainDog]

13. it is rank hypocrisy

to "allow" employees to drink off hours but not smoke pot.

it's totalitarianism to think employers can tell employees what they can and cannot do in their free time.

if employers want to drug test, they need to use a test that will establish whether or not someone is under the influence AT WORK, not because of something they did a month before.

but big pharma gets its way here, as does big oil. neither want the competition from mj or hemp. this is simply one more way the American govt. continues to fail its people.

[darkstar3]

37. Employers are not interested in hiring people who break the law.

I work for an employer who reserves the right to drug test. They never use it, as far as I know, but they reserve the right, and it's simply because they feel they have an image to protect. I won't say where I work, but our image is VERY important to us, both nationally and in the community, and if it comes out that one of our employees is breaking the law, that could seriously hurt business.

If pot is legalized, I'm quite sure that most employers (not all, certainly, but most) will drop drug testing for pot.

[jimshoes]

45. They could always

change the law.

[darkstar3]

47. Tell me,

how much money do you think a national company would lose if they spearheaded a movement to legalize all substances?

Millions? Billions? Enough to cripple the company and lead to loss and employee downsizing?

If by "they" you mean Congress, I agree with you. If by "they" you mean companies who are vying for business, I think you're pissing in the wind.

[jimshoes]

52. I don't think I meant all substances

only the pot.

[darkstar3]

58. Substitute, and look at the question again.

The point stands, whether you're talking about pot only or all substances (which, BTW, I would have legalized, but I'm not in the business of committing political and societal suicide.)

[jimshoes]

61. U on the Supreme Court

or sumpin'?:)

[darkstar3]

63. If I were, you'd sure as hell have a lot better time in this country. n/t

[jimshoes]

64. Cool!

Party on!

[RainDog]

51. so why don't they install tracking devices in all employee's cars to see if they speed?

and fire them for breaking the speed limit?

the reason they don't is because they, and you, buy into the propaganda about cannabis. the law is wrong, racist and not supportable based upon scientific evidence.

of course, if you had lived in the south and had fallen in love and married a person from another race when miscegenation laws where in place, employees could fire you for that reason, too. so, would you side with the employer in that situation as well?

in other words, I'm just asking how much of a toady stance is acceptable to you.

just because something is law doesn't mean it's right. laws have been made for the wrong reason far too often in this nation.

the only reason to have drug tests is to check for job performance. anything else is a violation of someone's right to privacy.

and, someone could take a vacation to Portugal, for example, where it is legal to ingest cannabis. they could then return to the job and, a month after vacation, have to submit to a drug test that indicates metabolites in urine (which actually indicate that someone isn't high - metabolites are byproducts of cannabis that are stored in fatty tissue.)

so, an employer has a right to tell an employee how he or she may spend vacation time if that person is doing something legal in that other state or nation?

[darkstar3]

57. Let's get something clear here.

I said nothing about the merits of smoking pot. I personally would love to be able to take a vacation to a place where it's legal and smoke it while I'm there and not fear consequences upon my return to the states. Cannabis is not my problem.

My point is that employers have reasons aside from fascism or other stupidly simplistic excuses to test for drug usage. While there are many people who care nothing about what you do on your own private time, there are many more who will refuse to buy from you if they find out that you use drugs. That hurts the business. Now, if you can prove to me that there is an equal social backlash against speeding, I will consider your little speeding analogy something other than worthless.

The employer is in business to make money. One of the ways to succeed at that is to make your customer base as wide as possible, and piss off as few people as possible. The law may be wrong, but too many people feel strongly that it is right for any employer with sanity to attempt to change it.

[RainDog]

67. how many employee drug tests are publicized?

I know the forklift driver thing above will be cited, and, as I said, drug tests that indicate drug use on the job, or being drunk of the job, for that matter - I see the sensible reason for those.

urine tests for cannabis, however, fail to meet that responsibility. they invade employee privacy.

8 in 10 Americans support the legalization of medical marijuana.

I find it hard to believe that, of those 8 in 10 Americans, too many of them would be upset if someone got high on the weekend... and not for medical reasons.

I'm not talking about legalization or not in this case. I'm talking about attitudes toward what employees do in their private time.

So I find it hard to buy into the argument that it's good for business to randomly drug test because of public disapproval.

...and the thing is, those who support the end of prohibition see those corporations as undergirding that same prohibition by the way they treat employees.

that's negative publicity for corporations.

It also goes against the mythos of innovation in business and intellectual life... look at Carl Sagan, or those who were developing this current digital era - both are known for their usage of cannabis and both credit cannabis for spurring creativity.

more than 40% of the population supports legalization ...not simply decriminalization. Support for legalization is at even among democrats and indie. the ones who support such punitive actions are conservatives.

among those who i.d. as liberal, 78% support legalization. those who i.d. as liberal are the most well educated and rank evenly with the republican "entrepreneur" class in affluence in this nation. Among Republicans, those who are the most affluent are also the most likely to support legalization.

so, while I understand your argument, I think it's one that rests on the idea that those without money to buy a product, etc. are the ones who most support continued prohibition.

if I were a corporation, I would want to attract the best talent I could and wouldn't want to make people averse to my brand b/c I side with regressive politics and law.

[darkstar3]

71. Who cares? It's ARRESTS that matter.

Are you really going to sit there and tell me that if one of your employees responsible for managing customer relations got ARRESTED and had to stand trial for drug posession it wouldn't hurt your business? What if that employee goes to jail?

As for the whole idea of negative publicity due to drug testing policies, has any single company been mentioned in this thread? Drug testing policies are internal issues, and are generally not discussed with regard to single companies. When anyone goes off on a tear like this, it's against the entire idea of drug testing, not one companies policy. No negative publicity for the company I work for there.

80% of statistics are made up on the spot. ;)

[RainDog]

79. my stats are from gallup polls, ABC

but first: you are trying to change the subject by asking about someone getting arrested for possession of mj. first of all, in at least 8 states, and really more, if someone was arrested for smoking pot, they would have to pay a fine of a few hundred dollars. that's it.

racism is still endemic in the US, so some people get held to a different standard, but, honestly, people who get arrested for having a joint are not a top priority for law enforcement - esp. if they're employed, have a family, are not under age... this is the reality.

people who relax at home with the wife, have some friends over to barbeque, smoke a joint, watch a movie - that's really what you're looking at in most mj users, not the fear scenario you present.

yes, if an employee drank and drove and was arrested - that would also be a problem (and drinkers who drive are far more dangerous than mj imbibers on the road, btw.) this has been covered before here on du by others so you can go find this if you want to question this fact.

I think your reaction to this issue is really a bit over-the-top.

8 in 10 support medical mj as of Jan. 2010

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503

Eight in 10 Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use and nearly half favor decriminalizing the drug more generally, both far higher than a decade ago.

demographic breakdowns for support for mj legalization:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/U.S.-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana-Reaches-New-High.aspx#

there's more than one breakdown, democrats, republicans, independents, liberals.

wiki has links to the New York Times and CBS and the Pew National Poll that breaks down stats on liberals (including the comparison to the business-class republican, so I'll link to it and you can follow the links to those three.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States#Demographics_of_American_liberals

here's a quote to note:

According to recent surveys by the New York Times and CBS News, between 18% and 27% of American adults identify as liberal, versus moderate or conservative.<29> In the 2008 presidential election, exit polls showed that 22% of the electorate self-identified as "liberal."<30> According to a 2004 study by the Pew Research Center, liberals were the most educated ideological demographic and were tied with the conservative sub-group, the "Enterprisers", for the most affluent group. Of those who identified as liberal, 49% were college graduates and 41% had household incomes exceeding $75,000, compared to 27% and 28% as the national average, respectively.<31>

Liberalism also remains the dominant political ideology in academia, with 72% of full-time faculty identifying as liberal in a 2004 study.<32> The social sciences and humanities were most liberal, whereas business and engineering departments were the least liberal, though even in the business departments, liberals outnumbered conservatives 49% to 39%. Generally, the more educated a person is the more likely he or she is to hold liberal beliefs.<33>

---

I'd be interested in seeing a poll about consumer attitudes toward businesses that intrude upon their employee's private life. I know from hanging around liberals, however, that corporations don't attract business by upholding laws that are based upon racism, that sort of thing.

Richard Florida has written two books about the ways that the "creative class" - which comes down to liberals, for the most part (you can read his work for a full explication) creates communities that attract money, young people with job skills and things to contribute to a community - people that are tolerant of others and who value personal liberty.

Those are the places in this nation that are innovating and creating the future economy. Knowing the demographics of those that Florida talks about, combined with their support of legalization - that's where I say that corporate "brands" that don't identify with intrusive drug policies would be viewed more favorably by the most affluent.

And I also said, above, that corporations reinforce bad policy by their actions - one simple thing would be to use saliva tests rather than urine tests.

this doesn't change b/c casual users do not want to confront employees on this issue and, yes, corporations decide their own policies. instead, someone would choose to work for another place that doesn't have such a stick up its rear end, when they could.

[darkstar3]

84. Which of our reactions is over the top, now?

I'm simply trying to state that employers are not the evil bastards that many in this thread are trying to make them out to be, that they have a vested interest in protecting themselves from irresponsible employee behavior, and that many times when they do things it is for a very particular reason. You are making a habit out of throwing out attacks, insults, and tangentially related statistics.

I think I've made it quite clear that I agree with my liberal compatriots on the issue of drug policy reform. I am also a realist, and I am attempting to inject some much needed perspective into a thread with far too much anti-employer sentiment. The employers aren't the problem; drug policy is.

[RainDog]

89. Employers can set realistic policy

Urine tests are not indicative of mj use on the job.

people who get arrested for mj and end up on the news... when's the last time you saw someone on the news who got arrested for smoking a joint who was employed and of age?

not all employers drug test. they do not have to do this. the reason they do this is that they buy into the propaganda about pot and find it easier to violate someone's privacy than to admit their policies are intrusive.

both drug policy and employers are the problem, as CA and its medical mj program has shown. People who have medical mj cards are not protected from firing.

Corporations do not have to insist upon urine tests for people with medical conditions that are alleviated by medical mj.

However, yes, ultimately the problem is drug policy. Sadly, Obama is content with the draconian and full of lying bullshit policy that exist (scheduling esp., as already mentioned.)

it's too bad he has chosen, yet again, not to lead but to be led around by corporate interests - pharmaceutical cos and oil cos do not want legal mj or hemp.

that's also part of the problem.

[darkstar3]

92. To answer your one question:

Last week. You don't read the Police Beat?

I think we can agree on two things:
1. Drug policy is in dire need of overhaul.
2. Employers who discipline employees for prescribed mj use are being highly unfair, though I've never read a case of that. I have read a case of an airline barring a man with medical mj from boarding, but I haven't heard of an employer discipling someone who could prove that their mj use was prescribed by a medical doctor.

[Tsiyu]

95. There was a high profile case

with Wal Mart recently


you could find it easily here on the DU if you really cared about this issue as much as your heavy post count in this thread suggests

[darkstar3]

102. Oh come on.

The list of grievances against Wal-Mart is 15 miles long. Again, realism comes into play, did you fucking expect anything less from Wal-Mart? Chances are good that they were looking for any reason they could to fire that employee anyway, since they force turnover rather than give raises wherever possible.

I care not a whit for the stupidity of the Walton empire. Nothing they do will surprise me. I will rejoice on the day when the empire falls, and I may even make a trip to piss on their graves, but I will not be shocked or outraged by yet another stupid act on their part.

[RainDog]

96. do you live in a conservative part of the country?

(you can google about the issue of medical mj and corporate drug testing. it's already an issue.)

no - where I live the police do not spend a lot of time arresting people for simple possession of a small amount of mj.

you generally have to do something worthy of arrest anyway, from the things I've read. If someone is arrested for possession, they pay a fine and are forced to attend outpatient therapy.

so, yes, I'd love to see a link to police reports about all the middle-managers who are sent to jail for smoking a joint.

I read what you said about your company. They make the assumption you'd lose sales... what do you guys sell? bibles? :)

but your explanation prompted me to ask where you live because, as I said, that's not the view of small biz owners I know where I am.

I'm sure their are other opinions/actions here, but I don't know of one small biz where I live that drug tests - why would they waste the money on that sort of thing? I know of larger bizzes that drug test everyone - but they're not local, they're corporate entities with headqtrs elsewhere.

[darkstar3]

98. Missouri is annoying that way. n/t

[RainDog]

99. aahhhhh...

explains a lot.

take care.

[scorpiogirl]

149. My husband, a MMJ patient has lost two jobs for testing positive.

Actually, they were new jobs who both said they didn't have a problem with it initially. The first one laid him off after two months after asking him to use a different medicine for his pain (which he did not). The second job ignored him for two weeks after offering him the job, then had some secretary call him to say they wouldn't be hiring him after all due to "policy." There are NO protections for patients and corporations have no morals, so the result is a segment of people who cannot get jobs without compromising their own principles and finding out first hand that honesty does not pay, literally. It's a sad realization for people who pride themselves on being truthful.

[droidamus2]

175. Governments the same

I had the same problem with the Government. I was trying to get a clearance and was very upfront about my past (as in 15-20 years ago) drug use. Yes I did a lot of using and experimenting with different drugs but I had stopped all use as I said years ago. You guessed it no clearance due to stated drug use. It was a good job so I probably would have been better off just lying and taking the chance that their investigators wouldn't be able to dig up any information showing I was being less than truthful. I am not arguing whether the drug use should have eliminated my chance for a clearance just that 'being honest' sure didn't do me any good.

[Flaneur]

156. In California: Ross v. Raging Wire Communications

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/S138130.PDF

[Zhade]

104. A MAJORITY SUPPORT LEGALIZATION. Google that + Zogby.

I think the poll was released in mid-March.

[droidamus2]

133. Rejected

Personally I think your premise that there are large groups of people that would not buy a product or service because 'an employee' was caught smoking pot on their off hours is wrong to begin with. For example, if you are the best mechanic in town and do a great job of keeping peoples cars running do you think everybody is going to stop using your services if it is discovered you like to take a bong hit once in awhile. Hell no they won't as long as you supply a 'high' quality (pun intended) product or service most people aren't going to give a damn what you consume.

[darkstar3]

151. It must be nice to live in a place where that is true.

But down here in the buy-bull belt, it's a different world. People's opinions on what you do during your personal time carry a lot of weight when they decide whether to patronize your business down here.

[droidamus2]

171. Your right

I grew up in California and now live in Vermont both fairly reasonable social environments. If that's the way people act where you live I can guarantee you that I will not only never live there but given the choice I won't even visit there. I would be damned if I would let those kind of tight assed people rule the way I lead my life. I would rather go out of business and move to a reasonable social climate than deal with those kind of neanderthals.

[quakerboy]

150. Lets examine the speeding analogy in a slightly different light

I hear what you are saying, but without a drug test, how many potential clients will know that someone are using pot in their off time? Setting aside a few spectacularly obviously visible cases of stoners, most people are quite discrete about their use. This means that your "social backlash argument only comes into play if a drug test is done and the results made public. Don't do a test, and there is no backlash. That argument just does not hold any water.

The other issue is impaired ability, and actual effect on the company. And in this realm I think it could be strongly argued that the speeding analogy is a very reasonable one. Pot can impair judgment, no real question of that. Arguably speeding is impared judgment. Smoking pot can lead to choices that get you killed in dangerous situations. Speeding is a choice that can get you killed in the dangerous situation of driving. In fact, at my job, I have to send people out in company cars. It would be very handy to know who speeds. Plus speeding correlates to a higher death rate. I am in a somewhat critical position in my company. Why shouldn't my boss be able to check my off time speed at any time he wants, as it is in his interest to make sure the companies investment in me is safe?

Or take it a step further. Insurance companies surely have a Far greater need to know that info than I do. And they have devices to tell them, which you can plug in if you want a discount on your insurance. Surely it wouldn't be hard just to hardwire it in, and attach it to the on star or whatever equivalent you have, to get real time data, and just make that a condition of insurance. But they have not done that. I wonder why.

In short... If a company wants to check your current level of impairedness, whether you are at this moment showing up to work under the influence of a drug... that could be legit. But a test that speaks to weeks or months of your off time activities, with no way to differentiate, that strikes me as going too far.

[darkstar3]

152. Read #71.

As was already said in this thread, drug tests being made public is not the issue. Arrests being made public are the issue.

[npk]

165. And yet speeding kills more people annually then smoking pot

Just saying!

[RainDog]

166. because the law in this case is based upon racism

and religious stupidity, in these fundie-infected states of America.

speeding is nascar!!

(never mind that half the nascar fans are baked, too.)

[krabigirl]

118. I'm sure many people in our society would be fine with that. We live in bizarro world.

[krabigirl]

55. You aren't breaking state law if you use it medicinially in many countries.

The problem is when employers and others think they can enforce bs federal law like this.

This is why it NEEDS to be rescheduled at the federal level at the very least.

[darkstar3]

59. I agree with the fact that it needs to be rescheduled,

but you must understand that many employers care nothing about actually ENFORCING the law. If you fail a drug test, do they call the cops on you? No. They simply fire you, or put you up for disciplinary review. It's not about ENFORCEMENT, but instead about protecting the employer from any fallout that may occur by having a "drug user" on the payroll.

[Tsiyu]

77. No offense, but they've got you conned

if corporations gave a shit about their "reputations" they wouldn't do half the evil, but still legal, shit they do

the truth is that insurance companies cut corps a deal if they do regular testing

"drug-free workplace" programs exist to cut a deal between insurance companies and those who insure workers.

this isn't just a health insurance issue (since most corps do not offer health insurance any more,) regular drug testing also lowers liability insurance costs

it's all about the money, either way

i just hate to see someone so in love with their own comfort they don't care if others' privacy is invaded

that's really, really sad if you ask me

if everyone "just said no" to working for Big Corps - who fanagle these rules we little people must live by while they trash our planet, pay slave wages and try to sell us pure raw shit in pretty wrappers - we would be on the right path

defending your beloved company is just selfish, but as long as you've got yours, huh?....same old sad song.....

[RainDog]

81. you're preaching the gospel truth

it's amazing to see how so many people will defend bad policy simply b/c it exists.

[Tsiyu]

82. I really really hate to say it

but when you discuss these issues with these types, you can't help thinking they would make the best little Nazis

like I said, i hate to say it...but the damned jackboot fits in this instance

[darkstar3]

87. Godwin's Law has been officially invoked.

You lose.

[Tsiyu]

94. We obviously don't play by the same rules

in ANY avenue of life


Tsiyu's Law:

If somebody would go along with the trampling of someone else's civil rights just so they can be comfortable, they are analogous to Nazis and can be described as such.


See how easy that is to make up a law?



:rofl:

[darkstar3]

97. You're kidding, right?

You've never heard of Godwin's Law?

Wow...just wow...

[Tsiyu]

105. god you are funny

i have been a member of DU for a while


i have seen many "invocations" of said law, which is why i said I hated to say it, but that must have gone way over your head and i apologize for hitting that ball so high

but you really felt so superior there for a minute dintcha, huh? huh?

:rofl:

keep going with that...prolly helps you make lots of sales, huh?

[darkstar3]

107. Apparently,

even though you've seen the law invoked, you fail to understand it since you've broken it. Your preface doesn't matter.

I feel like I'm debating with Mr. Finklestein. I can't believe you actually used the word "jackboot."

[Tsiyu]

109. You must work in insurance

i feel like I'm debating with a lightweight in a fancy suit











and jackboots

[darkstar3]

111. Nope,

and only lightweights need Nazis to make a point, jackboot...

[krabigirl]

124. yep..very scary to see on DU, but to be expected..look at Obama's drug policy.

[darkstar3]

86. You are making a very common mistake.

There is a very large difference between an employer and a corporation.

When I say the word "corporation", what comes to mind? BP, certainly, given today's issues, but who else? GM? BOA? Anyone NOT a member of the Fortune 500 or considered "too big to fail"?

Now what about when I say the word "employer". Does your boss come to mind? What about the local hardware store, the restaraunts in the area, or the hundreds of local distributors whose job it is to make sure that those places are stocked so that they can serve YOU?

I am not in the business of defending corporations. That's NOT what I'm talking about here. I work for a franchise. Our policies are local, not global, and they are in place for a very specific reason: If one of our salespeople got arrested on drug charges, we would lose a very significant amount of our business. This issue is about employers protecting themselves from irresponsible employee behavior, not about corporations sticking it to us as usual.

A citation is needed for your "truth". And as for your baseless attack against my character, I will not respond except to say that it does absolutely nothing to help your argument.

[Tsiyu]

100. What the hell are you going on about now?

Like I don't know what an employer is for fuck's sake?

Thank the stars or somebody that everyone isn't you or your company

I got a list from one of my bosses to pass out to all the local kids who have been made felons by the war on drugs

you know what was on that list?

employers who will HIRE FELONS with DRUG CONVICTIONS - SOME OF THEM MAJOR CORPORATIONS HORRORS!!!!!!

woofuckinghoo :rofl:

that boss hires them

my other job hires them

many places gladly hire convicted drug felons and somehow retain lots and lots of business. AMAZING

the only place that would have a problem would be some Fundy place that probably wouldn't hire anyone not white christian and fundy too

i can't imagine what country YOU live in

[darkstar3]

106. Oh for cryin' out loud.

You DID know that there are state and federal programs that encourage JUST this kind of hiring behavior through tax breaks?

If you can spin the hiring of convicted felons into a positive rehabilitation light and significantly lower your tax burden at the same time, that's not altruistic or forward thinking, it's pragmatic. Pragmatism is the hallmark of employer decision-making, which is pretty much my entire point.

These drug testing employers aren't as evil as you want to make them out to be, but don't let my realism stand in the way of your two-minutes hate. Carry on.

[Tsiyu]

108. Nothing is ever bad

until you experience it

that's what I read from you

"it's not a problem for me, so everyone else can just suffer."

And what is your bottom line?

Not human decency, not civil rights, not someone else's life.

Just $$$$

But people on this thread want to discuss more than the $$$ aspect

we're pretty worn out with that rationalization for every goddamn thing we suffer



Edit to add: Neither of my employers is involved in any rehab program. they are small businesses and get no $$$ from hiring previously arrested people

A) they are decent people who realize the war on drugs has made so many felons we'll all be felons soon and

B) There is no actual fallout from having an arrested person work for you. But you claimed that was reason numero uno (that's spanish btw since we're being all superior and everything) for employers' choosing to test AND

C) Many people who pass pre-employment drug screens go on to have drug convictions. one does not rescue a company from the other

[darkstar3]

112. Could you be more hyperbolic? n/t

[Tsiyu]

115. Probably

could you be more arrogant?

[darkstar3]

121. Very easily, I should think.

I might take a page from some of the other posters who constantly throw insults at those who disagree with them as if they are making a point.

[krabigirl]

123. I'm freelance. not due to this issue but for many others.

[Tsiyu]

147. That's smart these days

if I could have one wish it would be that more people could arrange their lives so that they are not beholden to our Corporate Overlords

nice to meet you krabigirl

[krabigirl]

205. Thanks..it is not easy, though, but honestly there's no real job security anywhere today anyway.

I also find that my work is more appreciated that when i worked as an actual employees, where all that mattered was "the team" and face time and politics.

Nice to meet you too.

[krabigirl]

SO someone who smokes a joint 2 weeks prior to the test is a risk? lmao

sorry, that's funny.

[darkstar3]

126. Read the rest of my posts in this thread, you'll find your answer and the explanation behind it. n/t

[droidamus2]

132. Don't go for it

Maybe if the employee is an executive type that due to their positions is well known as an employee of business X then you could make the argument for preemptive checking for possible illegal activities due to the possible fallout from their discovery. The problem is that the people most often getting tested aren't the higher ups but the everyday laborers. How is anybody going to know that Barbara Jean the Walmart checker got busted for pot. Is the local media going to report it as 'Barbara Jean Dimwit, the well known Walmart checker, was busted for possession of marijuana on Tuesday'? Sure in a very small town people would probably know she works for Walmart but they also would probably already know that Barbara tokes up on occasion. The 'reputation' meme is just an excuse for employers to stick their noses where they don't belong (actually sounds like your employer is better than some). Besides the point that if an employee is taking part in illegal activities how do you test that an employee is burglarizing homes on their off hours or working in a chop shop. They test for drugs because it is a way to show their power over the lowly workers and keep them in fear of losing their jobs.

[darkstar3]

155. Not all places of employment

have such a disparity between high level executives and "the lowly workers." Many small businesses with fewer than 25 employees and a much more flattened organizational system drug test. It's not about lording power over someone else (at least, not always). It's about the fact that drug tests are a cheap and easy way to determine if someone is breaking the law and putting your business at risk. If there were any easy and cheap way to test if people robbed homes or were serial rapists or murderers, you can bet your ass that businesses would be using those tests as well.

Imagine this for a moment, if you will:
John sells widgets for XYZ company, a company which competes rather strongly with ABC company for the local widget market. John is "the face of the company" for the 25 clients that he manages. He is the single point of contact, he is the person who ensures all order fulfillment, and he is the one who continually maintains the close relationship with some of XYZ's top widget buyers. What happens if John gets arrested for possession? The short answer is that even if XYZ is quick to mitigate the problem, they lose at least part of their business to ABC company.

I've seen this happen firsthand in the judgmental hell-hole that is Missouri.

[droidamus2]

170. Well...

If John has been doing a top class job of serving his clients they will probably be pissed that he has been removed from his position for such a ridiculous thing as possessing some drugs, especially if all it is is pot. If the people you deal with are so shallow that they would reject somebody simply because they do 'drugs' but do a top notch job at their business I feel sorry for you.

[droidamus2]

131. How about this

I knew somebody that worked at a nuclear power plant back in the 1980's and what they did is the following. They had a computer program that put a X in the middle of the computer monitor, you would use a mouse and when an O (the symbols I'm using may be wrong but the idea is the same) appeared somewhere on the screen you had to drag and drop it on the X. When you first started working there they had you run through this enough times to get a baseline as to what your capabilities were. If you came to work or back from lunch and you couldn't preform the little test within the allowed limits you were told to go home. They didn't care whether the reason was drug use, alcohol use, lack of sleep or problems in your personal life if you couldn't show your reflexes and attention were up to par you didn't work. The tests should not be to find the residual presence of drugs but to test for current impairment.

[Silent3]

15. "I must drink beer to loosen up and have a good time"

I'm all for ending the ridiculous "war on drugs" and legalizing marijuana, but I still think it's kind of sad when someone thinks that chemically altering themselves is the only possible way to relax and have a good time.

[BJ10]

16. Sad...

Judge not...

[Silent3]

22. I'm not judging that you use any of that stuff...

...just the attitude that you MUST, or no good times are possible. Can't unbutton that top button and loosen the tie until some chemical let's you let go?

[Duer 157099]

25. All relaxation involves chemical alterations. Why is that sad?

The source is the only thing that varies from individual to individual. It's nice if you're one who has mastered meditation to induce this effect, but not everybody has your chemistry.

Consider that there are genetic components to addiction, which means that by definition, the chemistry is different.

Just sayin'

[Silent3]

27. It's not just about relaxation...

...but the idea that it's not just a optional form of entertainment, but an absolute requirement to be chemically altered in order to have "a good time with friends".

One shouldn't have to either to drugs or enter a meditative state to enjoy yourself with friends. If your friends are only enjoyable after meditation or medication, I'd suggest finding new friends. :)

[Duer 157099]

30. You may as well say that one doesn't need dopamine to feel good

Or adrenaline to feel energized.

Look, I know what you're trying to say, but it reveals a misunderstanding about how the brain works (and in many cases, does NOT work properly)

edit: I meant to say "serotonin" in the title, but the point remains the same

[darkstar3]

41. Your point, regardless of the chemical you're referring to, is worthless.

Brain chemistry is NOT the same as referring as voluntary usage of altering substances as necessary.

[Duer 157099]

42. Then explain to me the concept of "self medicating"

Why do people do this? What role does genetics play in this?

[darkstar3]

44. That's what's known as substance abuse,

and there's a reason for that. As for your genetics canard, I have several genetic predispositions, but they do not control my behavior.

[Duer 157099]

46. It's only called that until a doctor writes a prescription for it

then it's called necessary treatment

If your genetics don't control your behavior, what does?

[darkstar3]

48. Prescriptions aren't self-medication.

Not remotely.

As for your question, it is asinine. What controls YOUR behavior, or anyone else's for that matter? Genetics? No. Cognition? Yes.

[Duer 157099]

50. sigh n/t

[Silent3]

74. Are you saying that the majority of humanity...

...is naturally so keyed up, so tense, so uncomfortable with their fellow human beings, even good friends, that excepting a few people who have some special meditative calm, the rest are incapable of relaxation and fun without alcohol, marijuana, or some other drug?

[Tsiyu]

80. well, you could survive on rice and beans

and water

you don't HAVE to have cheeseburgers or sushi or any of that stuff

after all, look at the destruction caused by cattle production and overfishing

look at how you raise your risk of heart attack with all that beef

dammit, you could have a heart attack in your car driving down the same road as me, putting me at risk

can't you be happy with just rice and beans?

why do you hate our planet?

why do you have to get your fix from a beef patty instead of being happy with oatmeal?

oh, wait

I may not agree with someone else's food, car, TV or beverage choices, but I will fight for their right to make those personal choices and I won't be flabbergasted that they don't all make the same choices I do

same with cannabis and alcohol

maybe nobody NEEDs those things, but they like them.

if that is somehow disheartening to you, that says more about you, methinks

[Silent3]

110. I never argued against the OPTION of using those things

What I said was sad was the dependency on drugs to have a good time.

I may not agree with someone else's food, car, TV or beverage choices, but I will fight for their right to make those personal choices...

Please, spare me the ridiculous (and so predictable online) stupidity of confusing criticizing a choice with trying to take away the right to that choice.

You have every right to eat hamburgers at every meal. That would also be a very stupid choice, regardless of whether you have the right to make that choice.

maybe nobody NEEDs those things, but they like them.

The OP expressed dependency, not mere liking. There are lots of things in life I enjoy, and yes, if you took each and every one of them away life would get dull to the point it might be unbearable. But fixating on any one of those choices, especially mind-altering substances, as your only conceivable way to ever relax and have a good time, is a sign of troubling dependency.

[Tsiyu]

122. you've diagnosed this person

with an alcohol/drug deoendency because they want to relax on a Saturday night? and use alcohol/cannabis to do so?

Jesus Christ in a rolling paper.

i'm going to bed

[Silent3]

136. You really have a hard time processing the word MUST that's in the OP

I have no problem with someone wanting to relax on a Saturday night.

I have no problem with moderate use of alcohol or cannabis.

When you CAN NOT do one without the other, that's the sign of a problem.

[BJ10]

142. Well put...

Look, I like MJ, actually I fucking LOVE it. The reason??? Because I do.

[Tsiyu]

148. thank you

Lots of people love it, just like lots of people love beer, professional wrestling or Vienna sausages.

we all have our little "fixes."

Somehow the twelve-step patriarchs always bounce out if you mention cannabis or alcohol, but they say nary a word about addictions to fatty food and crap TV or about addictions like shopaholism. These are not "dependencies" but "behaviors."

"But i care about you! And if you have insurance I run a program that can cure you of your dependency!" is what I expect them to post any second now. it's ALWAYS about the money. ALWAYS - for these patriarchal authoritarian types.

I'm sorry the nannies came out to tell you how you're on the express lane to dissipation when you were just lodging a very common complaint these days

And for the record, i did not mean to indicate above that there is no one who "needs" cannabis.

if "need" is defined as "must have to relieve debilitating and painful maladies," there are many who "need" cannabis.

Now I don't know if beer helps with the symptoms of any diseases, but it's legal. And you didn't need a dozen lectures because you made the very correct statement that drug testing is infringing on your personal rights.

Hope you had a nice evening last night anyway, and that you find a better job soon :hi:

[SOS]

159. In the words of Otto on the Simpsons:

"I don't need drugs to enjoy this experience, just to enhance it.'

[RainDog]

68. how many valium are prescribed in the U.S.?

when you're all over them, too, let's talk.

[Silent3]

75. If someone told me they couldn't have fun without valium....

...I'd say that's pretty sad too.

[RainDog]

83. the op said "loosen up"

the point, really, is that I'm not judging this person. it's none of my fucking business if this person says they drink a beer or smoke a joint to loosen up.

(and the "have to" part, as far as the way I read it, meant "have to" drink beer instead of smoke a joint... the interpretation that you have allows you to criticize someone you know nothing about.)

the puritanical streak in this nation is still strong. wrong, but still strong.

since the op holds down a job and talks about only drinking with some buddies on the weekend, it doesn't really sound like your judgmental scenario is the most accurate one, to me. )

I just wondered if you were equally judgmental of those who take drugs for anxiety, things like that. that's also "loosening up."

And, apparently, if someone's doctor prescribes a medicine that you don't like, you think it's also okay to judge them.

'nough said for me.

[Silent3]

114. Yes, the OP said "loosen up" -- following the word "must"

Here it is again, emphasis mine: "Therefore, I must drink beer to loosen up and have a good time."

This isn't saying that pot or beer are merely optional means of loosening up and having a good time, but that one or the the other (pot preferred, beer the less favored fallback plan) are requirements for loosening up and having a good time.

If neither pot nor beer were available, and the suggested apparently necessary solution to this dire lack of chemical adjustment was squeezing sterno through an old sock, would you start to see a troublesome dependency issue then?

[RainDog]

128. read the sentence in its context

first the op mentions knowing of some pot that's out there that the op would like to imbibe but cannot. The "because" in the move between this initial explanation and the following sentences make sense to me in their context when the op then says...

You see, I am subject to random drug screens at work. Therefore, I must drink beer to loosen up and have a good time.

To me, this means "must drink beer rather than smoke a joint because CONTEXT ALERT the op is subject to random drug screens.

So, imo, your interpretation indicates your thinking is distorted by preconceptions.

If I said... I'm not allowed to listen to music without a headphone at work and my boss checks to see if I'm doing this or not. Therefore, I must use headphones to listen to music and have a good time.

Would you interpret that to mean that I cannot have a good time EVER unless I listen to music (with or without headphones?)

Part of the problem with your reaction is that you don't recognize the knee-jerk assumption that the remark indicates a problem that allows you to make a value judgment. It's an issue of perception on your part, not what the op wrote.

You go further now and try to claim the OP is one weekend away from becoming a huffer.

You're the one with the problem here, not the OP, at least not based upon the words in the first post. I don't know enough about the person to have the hubris to judge his life and his health.

but apparently you do.

[Silent3]

137. The OP goes on further to say...

...how much the OP doesn't really like alcohol and thinks it's bad enough that it's the substance that should be banned, not marijuana.

If alcohol is such a distasteful choice, why isn't the option of evading the random drug tests at work by neither smoking pot nor drinking beer considered?

If I said... I'm not allowed to listen to music without a headphone at work and my boss checks to see if I'm doing this or not. Therefore, I must use headphones to listen to music and have a good time.

If you'd added that you don't really like headphones, that you thought headphones were so bad for your health you thought they should be banned because they're killing people, that you hate financially supporting the headphone manufacturers, but you're going to go ahead and use headphones anyway... I'd say that sounds like having one's priorities or sense of necessity a bit out of whack when you could just wait until after work to listen to music.

[RainDog]

146. lol

the guy was complaining b/c of prohibition.

again, you choose to take all of his protestations as some sort of pathology when it's hyperbole.

again, I say you're the one with the problem, not him.

[krabigirl]

208. Some people can't manage their anxiety disorders without Xanax..i guess you judge them also.

[Silent3]

212. I don't think Xanax has much recreational value...

...but if it did, and someone "doctor shopped" until someone would give them their fix, regardless of whether they had a clear problem that needed Xanax as the solution, then yes, I'd consider that a sad situation.

[krabigirl]

125. I find it kind of sad when people can't mind their own business.

[Silent3]

139. How is your comment on my post...

...any more "minding your own business" than my comment on the OP?

When you post someone in a public forum, you open it up to public comment. I said nothing directly nor indirectly implying that I would try to impose any limitations on the OP's consumption of pot, beer, or any other substance for that matter. I merely state I think needing chemical alteration, as if it were a requirement, not a mere option, to have a good time with your friends is sad. Exactly how much interference in the OP's "business" is that?

[NNN0LHI]

141. Did you ever spin yourself around until you got dizzy when you were a kid?

I think getting buzzed is an inherent human trait. I think we are born with it.

Don

[Dr Morbius]

19. A causality or a casualty?

There's a difference.

[darkstar3]

43. Tough call, at this point. n/t

[jimshoes]

20. You have my sympathy friend

I do not see the harm in partaking on ones own time. The effect wears off in 3 or 4 hours. Alcohol on the other hand leaves you feeling like shit in the morning. I know this. I have been there. That said, I am going to toke on your behalf, (I wasn't going to tonight, but what the fuck, I have some, I'm not going anywhere tonight so who cares) I normally don't because I start thinking about stuff I should be doing but I'm not, but in this case, I'm going to do it for your sake. I'll check back later. Now where is that bong.

[BJ10]

143. Wow...

maybe when I retire in like 2033 we can toke together...

[Catshrink]

33. Don't drink Anheiser-Busch

It's crap anyway. Support local microbrews.

[dembotoz]

179. remember-bud is how Mccain afforded all those houses he couldn't remember

[darkstar3]

34. I can't believe I'm the first one to say this:

You're advocating for the legalization of one illicit substance while at the same time advocating a ban on another illicit substance?

I'd ask what you've been smoking, but I suspect I know.

Let's put it this way: mind-altering substances are dangerous in the wrong hands, and that is regardless of what kind of substance it is.

[msedano]

38. what is "Lemon G" ? NT

[jimshoes]

39. I was just wondering

the same thing.

[JNelson6563]

70. Anything like Blueberry Yum Yum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHCWgAXOLb4

:-)

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

72. "Lemon G" is a hybrid strain name

It's cannabis strain that is a cross between indica and sativa; this particular variety is treasured for its citrus aroma and potent, sleep-inducing action.

[msedano]

78. many thanx

i had no idea. sounds really medicinal. smoke and sleep instead of smoke and trip.

[krabigirl]

53. Yes, it's time to legalize it, at least decriminalize it, for the sake of sanity.

Also, I think drug testing is a gross violation of privacy. I only support it in cases of jobs like pilots, bus drivers, surgeons, basically anyone with someone else's life in their hands. I think it's horrific that we as a society are A-OK with cube dwellers, retail clerks and basically nearly everyone having to undergo a drug test. Especially since it mainly just catches cannabis, which could have been ingested weeks before.

[Codeine]

65. Sad and more than a bit pathetic

that you're incapable of have a good time without drugs. That you "must drink beer" because you can't smoke weed is very telling -- many manage to be perfectly happier without either.

[proteus_lives]

76. +1

I know people like this poster.

I always wonder why drugs/booze are needed by some for a good time.

[RainDog]

91. probably b/c they have to deal with people like you

who judge people for every remark they make as harshly as possible.

[proteus_lives]

93. It was more of a question then a judgement.

I don't understand why some people need booze or dope to have a good time.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

164. +1

[krabigirl]

117. Why do people care what other people want to do for fun, omg lighten up.

[proteus_lives]

127. I don't care.

But I agree with the other poster. It's kind of pathetic.

[Patriot 76]

85. Someone wants to drink a beer and you call them sad and pathetic?

Coming from a poster named Codeine, no less.

[Codeine]

101. "I want to" is fine.

"I must" is pathetic. His OP clearly stated the latter. He made it evidently that he was incapable of having a good time without either alcohol or weed. That is exceptionally lame.

[krabigirl]

119. You are very judgmental..why do you care and how does what he does harm you?

[Codeine]

135. He makes a post, people comment on it.

Kinda how a discussion forum works.

[Flaneur]

157. Why do you always post such tedious drivel?

[Codeine]

160. That's how I roll.

Why do you always read it?

[Romulox]

182. Seriously though. Does the concept of irony elude you?

A straight-edger named "Codeine" = a walking contradiction, at best. I tend to think that getting this attention is your entire point, as I myself have pointed out your mistake to you regarding the band Codeine at least a half a dozen times.

And, as I pointed out before, I've been following this band since about '92 ("some people seem/just like small hard peas"--ring a bell? You're the pea they were talking about! :rofl: ).

[Codeine]

190. And that, sir, is the irony.

I like the notion that my username is at odds with that aspect of my personality. We all contradict ourselves. That's the nature of the beast, and part of being human. To pretend that any of us is other than a walking contradiction is to lie to ourselves.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) - Walt Whitman

Do I take this straightedge stuff seriously? Nah -- it's the internet, and we post to argue (if we're honest with ourselves we'll all admit that.) In real life I spend much of my leisure time gaming with a group of dedicated oenophiles and beer connoisseurs; they do not expect me to drink, and I do not give them shit for drinking. Arguing in real life mostly sucks, arguing online is a blast. ;)

[Romulox]

194. That's not really irony. It's just inconsistency/hypocrisy.

PS Why are all straight-edgers so judgmental? I've never jumped anybody or put them in jail because they were sober, after all, and yet I'm the one with the pathological personality? :wtf:

[Codeine]

199. Jumped them?

Shit, dude -- that's hate-edge. Those fuckers are just borderline skinheads who are as hated by the sXe folks I know as they are by stoners.

[RainDog]

163. DU has a huff-puff-pass judgment crew

who don't seem to realize that the bullwhip up their butts that they try to use on others might be what's making them a little uncomfortable, not the idea that someone might smoke a joint, have a glass of wine, eat some orgasmic tiramisu, listen to some music that lets them transcend the mundane and sanctify it...

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

--- H.L. Mencken

Reminds me of Mark Twain doing a cover of God, American Puritan style:

For there is nothing about man that is not strange to an immortal. He looks at nothing as we look at it, his sense of proportion is quite different from ours, and his sense of values is so widely divergent from ours, that with all our large intellectual powers it is not likely that even the most gifted among us would ever be quite able to understand it.

For instance, take this sample: he has imagined a heaven, and has left entirely out of it the supremest of all his delights, the one ecstasy that stands first and foremost in the heart of every individual of his race -- and of ours -- sexual intercourse!

It is as if a lost and perishing person in a roasting desert should be told by a rescuer he might choose and have all longed-for things but one, and he should elect to leave out water!

His heaven is like himself: strange, interesting, astonishing, grotesque.

[Romulox]

197. We have the most people in jail in the history of humanity. Sorry your tea-totalling sensisbilities

have been rankled!

[RainDog]

201. I assume you're not talking to me

even tho your post is in reply to mine

[Romulox]

202. Absolutely I am. nt

[RainDog]

209. then you need to improve your reading comprehension

because, no where on this thread or on DU at any time have I indicated that I am opposed to anyone who wants to have a drink or smoke a joint.

in fact, a huge portion of this thread is dedicated to my posts which talk about the value of legalization, the wrongness of urine tests because they're not an indication of impairment, and the ways in which such actions are not indicative of a society that values a right to privacy.

the post to which you replied was a response to people who come onto threads like this and claim anyone who says they like to have a drink or smoke a joint have a problem.

you're funny. read the thread.

[Romulox]

213. I apologize. We appear to be on the same side here.

Sincere apologies. I can be a hot head. :hi:

[krabigirl]

116. Why do you care what the poster does? Live and let live..geez.

No wonder this society is so messed up. So what if he wants to enjoy himself on a weekend? Cannabis isn't very hardcore...it's not like he was saying he wanted to do meth or something..even then why is that my concern?

[Silent3]

138. What do you care what another poster thinks is pathetic?

Live and let live, you know. So what if someone wants to make a comment you don't agree with? Commenting isn't very hardcore... it's not like he was saying he wanted to pass laws taking away the anyone's choice to use pot or beer, so why is this your concern?

[krabigirl]

203. Because i am tired of holier than thou people.

[Silent3]

211. Apparently you think you're holier than...

...someone who would post the kind of comment I posted, in addition to being a carrier of the ridiculous meme that merely commenting on a thing is equivalent to interfering with a person doing that thing.

[Silent3]

210. delete

[Romulox]

181. Almost as sad as a "straight-edger" who's named after a band that made all it its music ON CODEINE!

The name of the band "Codeine" isn't ironic--if you consider yourself a "straightedge", then you're a hypocrite to like that band--they're DRUGGIES who used drugs to make the music you love.

The entire "slow-core" genre is based on Drug Use! What kind of "straightedge" moralist condones that while pointing his strung-out finger at everyone esle? :wtf:

[Codeine]

192. One can enjoy slow-core

without being on drugs just as one can enjoy The Doors without being a drunken poet with a penchant for indecent exposure. :evilgrin:

Besides, one of the greatest slow-core bands of all time are friggin' Mormons! I'm assuming they aren't continually under the influence of anything other than some very strange theology. :rofl:

[Romulox]

196. That's it. I'm naming my Stoner Rock band THE BILL BENNETT EXPERIENCE!

;rofl:

[Romulox]

200. I'm going to show up at the next straight-edgers convention in jack-boots and a Happy Mondays T!

Anybody want to hack?



Sorry, I'll let it go now... :evilgrin:

[SocialistLez]

66. What about those in prisons due to the "War on Drugs"?

Be grateful you have a job.
Be grateful you are not in prison.

[krabigirl]

120. they should be pardoned. addicts to hard drugs diverted to treatment programs

I'd rather pay taxes for that than keeping them in cages.

as for weed, meh, big deal it's less harmful than beer. Only thing harmful might be smoking it, but some people don't even do that.

[SocialistLez]

140. IF/WHEN we legalize weed

It should be like alcohol, if you drive while stoned, you'll face consequences.

I have heard of a study that said those that smoke weed are less likely to get behind the wheel compared to those who drink alcohol.

I too would rather pay taxes for treatment than locking people up in prison.

[krabigirl]

207. Agreed.

[wmbrew0206]

73. Honestly I think legalization is coming.

It is just a matter of time. The generation X and Y crowd want it and the WWII generation and some of their children are last big voting block that is against legalization. The medical marijuana program is nothing more than a nice name for a trial program that states can use to show that allowing marijuana use can be handled the same as alcohol.

Allow California's medical marijuana program to spread to other states and it is just a matter of time before big business is demanding the right to grow marijuana. The profits from it and the tax revenues it generates will be the driving factors that allow it to happen.

[rucky]

90. Lemon G, eh?

Damn!

[nashville_brook]

144. who's got the Strawberry Cough?

[kas125]

103. That truly sucks. But what's playing now? And does this

make you a Wharf Rat, but not by choice? I'm sorry and I really hope this all will change someday soon.

[fishbulb703]

129. Try "pep spice". Or getting a job that doesn't suck.

I get to toke the fuck up, break tiles with a hammer, and make murals for a living. Fucking sweet.

[Zix]

130. The spelling mistake in this thread's title is more than a little ironic. NT.

[Iggo]

162. That right there is why they invented the word.

Life is funny.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

134. Where I work there is a pre-hire drug screen

Once you are hired, there are ZERO random drug screens.

But if you get hurt on the job, you are automatically drug screened when taken to the doctor. Cause that joint you smoked a month ago caused your accident and we don't have to pay.

[BJ10]

145. OK, let me clear something up...

I'm not a drug addict, I don't HAVE to smoke weed or drink beer. I enjoy both, if I had my choice though, I would smoke. It makes me laugh, enjoy food more, enjoy sex more, and I have found no after effects.

I WANT TO SMOKE WEED, and I can't. Get it?

Edit to say: My friend has FREE Lemon G, and I have to WATCH! So yes, I am pissed. To all who judge me and think I'm sad and pathetic...no worries, everyone is entitled to an opinion, IMO.

[eridani]

167. Why they will never test for actual impairment on the job

Sleep deprivation is one of the most important causes of impairment. Trying to do something about that would impair corporate America's project of getting us to work more and more hours for less and less pay.

http://www.cameraguild.com/safety/sleep-deprivation.htm

b.) The National Transportation Safety Board has traced the 1989 Exxon Valdez Alaskan oil spill to the severe fatigue of the tanker's sleep-deprived third mate (he'd slept for only six hours of the previous 48). The first mate on the Valdez had been working 30 hours, according to Mark Rosekind.<5>

c.) After completing an exhaustive 19-hour workday on the film Pleasantville, assistant camera operator Brent Hershman fell asleep at the wheel while driving home, resulting in his immediate death on March 6, 1997. Since his death, his co-workers have drafted the petition, "Brent's Rule," asking for a 14-hour shooting limit on film and television sets.<6>

d.) On October 23,2001, the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that mistakes by a fatigued cockpit crew caused the 1999 crash of an American Airlines jetliner in Little Rock Ark, killing 11 and injuring 105 passengers. Studies by NASA and the Battelle Memorial Institute have concurred with pilot unions that a pilot should not be on duty more than 12 hours. Incidentally, by the time the ill-fated plane neared Little Rock, the crew had been on duty for about 13 1/2 hours.<7>

a.) A study sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety looked at 1,403 North Carolina drivers and found that among those who got into automobile accidents, half had slept less than 6 hours before the crash. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, roughly 100,000 crashes – 3 to 4 percent of accidents – occur each year as a result of drivers falling asleep, causing 76,000 injuries and approximately 1,500 deaths. <12>

b.) Furthermore, during the period 1989-1993, an estimated 56,000 crashes occurred annually on U.S. highways in which drowsiness/fatigue was cited on the Police Accident Report. During the same five-year period, drowsiness/fatigue was cited as a factor in an annual average of 1357 fatal crashes, resulting in 1544 fatalities. Based on these statistics, reducing the extent of the sleep-deprived driver problem is certainly crucial to improving the safety of U.S. highways.<13>

c.) In a test of reaction times, people who were tired because of disrupted sleep performed about as poorly as the legally drunk subjects, new Stanford research reports. While alcohol's well-documented slowing effects on reaction time has lead society to aggressively demand that airline pilots, truck drivers, train engineers – those responsible for others' safety – limit their alcohol consumption, the same vigilance can't be said about fatigue's harmful impacts.<14>

[Mojeoux]

172. Legalize It! and beer can sneak up on you,

try getting up and eating a good breakfast. When you feel like medicating, relax, sit quietly and do deep slow breathing.

Eat healthy, don't smoke cigarettes and take it easy on the beer.

[byrok]

176. Who needs drugs or alcohol...

when you've got the Dead? Sit back and listen to the sound of Brent singing "I will take you home". That gets me high enough.

[raccoon]

178. WTF? Beer, hard liquor...they're both alcohol.

"I don't drink liquor, because I believe it should be a Controlled Substance, that shit can kill you. "

[Romulox]

186. Pseudophed and methamphetamine have the same basic chemicals, too.

Alcohol intoxication is about how quickly one can introduce alcohol into one's bloodstream. So liquor and beer have a profoundly different effect in how quickly--and how profoundly--one becomes intoxicated.

A drug scold should know stuff like this! :hi:

[raccoon]

187. "If you drink a lot of beer, YOU DRINK A LOT."

I'm sick and tired of people who think a person can't be an alcoholic because they just drink beer.

I've known one person who just drank beer who died of alcoholism.

[Romulox]

188. I have no idea what you're talking about. Your post isn't responsive to anything in my post.

:hi:

[asdjrocky]

183. Move to Cali my friend.

We are leading the way. Hell, I think I just passed my record for registering voters, I'm at 22 now for the November election.

In California, weed will be legal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

191. Just because it is 'legal' doesn't mean that employers can't test for it

And even if CA were to legalize it, it will still be illegal under federal law.

[asdjrocky]

216. I would never in my life work somewhere that expected me to pee for them.

Not for me. As far as federal law, the next step is to change the schedule one status of Cannabis.

The we can grow hemp nation wide and save the world.

[Maru Kitteh]

227. "grow hemp nation wide and save the world"

Yeah.

That's the very brand of overblown nuttiness that serves to delay legalization.

[asdjrocky]

231. Okay, you're being rude now.

Do you know anything about hemp or what it can do? Fuel our vehicles, make our clothing, rope, canvas, plastics and so on. Hemp seed is far better for you and richer in essential oils than soybean, and you can grow it faster and better than corn for less.

You really should look into something before bashing it. Jumping the gun only serves to make you look foolish.

[xsquid]

195. What good would that do?

Just as many employers test for drugs in cali as anywhere else. Many test before starting the job, then test again if there's any kind of an accident. I would not move back to cali for anything.

[Romulox]

198. How 'bout this: don't take the kind of jobs that piss you?

I give my urine to my proctologist, not my manager (here's a hint: he's not a doctor!)

Sometimes we make things too complicated on ourselves. Just find a different job.

[xsquid]

215. I'm not the one whining about piss tests, I'm retired.

I was just setting the record straight about piss tests for jobs in CA, no different than anywhere else.

My reasons for never moving back are more because of drive by shootings (my daughter almost got hit), carjackings, home invasions and cost of living. But thats off topic.

[Flipper999]

193. Some of the worst after-effects I've ever had were after drinking beer.

It seems to get into the system faster, and the carbonation churns up and already uneasy stomach.

If you don't pound shot after shot of liquor, it'll be fine. And no matter what, don't drive and keep hydrated!

[lynne]

218. You're bitching about drug screening? Hey, you've got a JOB!

I got laid off in January. I'll gladly take your job and you can do all the drugs you want.

Quit your whining and be thankful you're employed. Sheesh . . .

[RainDog]

219. yeah, because the need for a job should force you to give up rights to privacy

if you can't see that current prohibition on cannabis is a bigger problem than whether or not this guy wants to smoke a joint... that's simply short-sightedness on your part.

I hope you find a job soon! best of luck.

[lynne]

220. Let's look at the reality of the situation -

- even if cannabis is legal, use of it can still potentially impact your employment. Alcohol is legal. If your driving record reflects a DUI received on private time, you'll not be getting any job that involves driving a company truck. Cigarettes are legal, yet some companies have begun not hiring smokers. I agree, let's make cannabis legal. And some employers will STILL require drug tests. No change - No gain.

I don't know what type work is involved but there is a possibility that he will still be required to pass a drug test even if cannabis is legal. The good news is that he has a job when many don't. Whining because you have to pass a drug test to keep that job is simply pathetic. No sympathy from me.

[RainDog]

222. okay- you expect sympathy from others

but cannot extend it to others.

the post, imo, was a rant about prohibition. prohibition is stupid. always has been, always will be.

but on DU, a rant about prohibition is the opportunity to bash someone. that's what's so great about DU - you get to see how little you have in common with so many who claim to be on the same side.

it's possible, you know, to acknowledge the inanity of prohibition and also acknowledge that it sucks to lose your job.

[Electric Monk]

221. or, maybe you're just a troll with a sense of humor

re: causality etc

[LanternWaste]

232. There are always choices...

There are always choices. That you may find the consequences of one or the other choice unpalatable is at best, merely an indirect tangent. When one uses the word 'must' rather than the more appropriate phrase "I choose", is a self-defined martyrdom be far behind?

Oh, the crosses you must bear in your life are truly mind-boggling to an extreme. I can almost hear the full symphony orchestra in the background playing a sweeping piece of incidental music to better underscore the personal holocaust you are 'forced' to go through. Poor, pitiable creatures. Poor, pitiable casualties of war. Victims of an apocalypse they cannot escape.