- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
hey now. controlling pot is very important, just like gun control keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and prohibition stopped people from drinking. What you suggest is madness.
kastein said:What you suggest is madness.
California wouldn't be so broke if they didn't have so many damn __________.
Pre-employment and random sampling by your employer is not unethical. If you're breaking the law outside of work, that's something your average employer would want to know. If you are willing to bend/break the law at home, maybe you're more likely to at work. Not to mention any possible after effects of the previous night's activities.Just because they CAN doesn't mean they SHOULD.
Legal and ethical are rather different things.
Here's an interesting thought: I live in Montana, and here we have legal use of medicinal marijuana. They have it pretty tightly regulated, there's only a few symptoms\ailments in their list that you have to have to get approved and I don't have anyso I don't get to legally smoke pot. But I also work in a public school (not a teacher, IT support) and in the employee handbook it says they can and will (but have not yet on me at least) do random urine tests. So lets say a teacher had one of the illnesses that qualifies for medical marijuana and gets tested at work. Of course the test will show that they have been smoking marijuana or using it in any other way, but they were doing it legally. So if your employer has a "no drug tolerance" policy where if you fail you are fired on the spot, and they found THC in your pee and fired you, would that be discrimination? You are using it legally to treat an illness, so as long as you are not getting stoned while on the clock, I don't think they technically could fire you.
Exactly, legalize it all and let Darwin's Law sort it out....
And for urine or blood testing - whatever testing I totally support it in all realms. I could care less if someone questions my sobriety. I'll EASILY be able to prove it and rub their nose in it afterwards. After the shooting I was involved in back in '99, the shoot investigation included an optional blood test. I told them that if they hadn't asked, I was gonna demand it. I held out my arm and told 'em to stick me and take as much as they needed and to be sure to make the results public.
Jeezus..... legalize marijuana.I think we have plenty of proof that even with it being illegal, it likely played a big part in getting Obama elected. How many stoned 20-somethings went to the polls to cast their vote hoping this guy's leadership would help legalize it? Yeah, let's have the masses all fawked up before the elections......
I'm guessing you're a current or former peace officer (nothing against that, personally, mind you - we need more, and better, officers on the streets) from the shoot investigation bit. What's your take on whether it would be better controlled if legalized? From what I've seen, the controlled substances that are the most effectively controlled are those which are taxed, so I tend to think legalizing and taxing pot would be a step in the right direction.
I have no interest in alcohol either, so if all that went away it wouldn't bother me a bit.
Pre-employment and random sampling by your employer is not unethical. If you're breaking the law outside of work, that's something your average employer would want to know. If you are willing to bend/break the law at home, maybe you're more likely to at work. Not to mention any possible after effects of the previous night's activities.
And just as an addon, if you ever work for a large company, they are indeed interested in what you do outside of work. Your actions reflect on their company, regardless of if you think it should or not. Just about everywhere I've worked since getting out of the Marine Corps has been concerned with how an employees actions, even off the clock, could reflect on them if it comes out that you work for them.If you are willing to bend/break the law at home, maybe you're more likely to at work.
You cant say "If you do X then you are more likely to do Y" and expect it to always work that way. That is why we legislated this.
I just clicked your link and that has nothing to do with it. The polygraph has been shown to be unreliable enough as to not be admissible in court quite frequently, and to sometimes actually cause people to show as being guilty on account of their fear/stress level from being on it. A piss test is pretty much foolproof except in a few very rare circumstances.You cant say "If you do X then you are more likely to do Y" and expect it to always work that way. That is why we legislated this.
And if you refer to my previous post you will see that I said as long as you can safely and responsibly do your job, then I dont see what business your employer has with what you do at home.
. A piss test is pretty much foolproof except in a few very rare circumstances.