Posted on 10/23/2006 5:03:34 PM PDT by JTN
Yeah. I hear if you smoke the stuff enough, you go out and listen to negro jazz music and rape white women.
Anyways, we can't have pot legal in Nevada. People might be too stoned to gamble and receive drinks after they just came back from the drive in marriage.......Nevada has morals, you know.
Why stop drinking? Nobody wants a drunk on the job either...
You don't think other people have rights in the workplace to be free of dangerous individuals that can cause them injury or death?
Like smuggling dope?
A requirement of employment does not constitute coercion. Your argument also conveniently ignores hundreds of thousands of employers that have no connection to any government work that also see fit to put substance use limits as a condition of employment. As a tax payer, I'm all for requiring people who get public money to be free of debilitating chemical influence at work. You can argue about what constitutes "debilitating influence", but your line of argument that anything that is otherwise legal cannot be restricted by a private or public employer is silly. Of course illegal substances are no different.
That's your types answer to everything, don't work for that company if you don;t like it. How about if they don't like your internet postings on your free time? Of if you own a gun? Or smoke cigarettes? This desire by people like you to turn companies in quasi-government enforcement agencies is absurd. BTW, 0.04 BAC is grounds for termination at my company. That's "a beer" for many people. Oh yeah, don't work for them if you don't like it....
Imagine that, my stock answer is free will. Grow up, stop whining that daddy won't let you smoke weed, and get another job. So one beer on the job can get you fired? Imagine that! Welcome to the real world, where employers can expect you to not drink for the eight hours you are on the clock. As for my turning companies into quasi-government enforcement agencies, you have a bad case of "the man's oppressing me". Let me repeat very simply. If you don't like your employer's rules find another job, or put your own capital at risk.
Companies that do not have stringent drug testing policies do not have any measurable increas in workplace accidents. You can do your research to prove that.
Wrong again. When the military started testing accidents dropped substantially. But again you're arguing that companies shouldn't do it. Good for you, argue all you want, but that argument is completely separate from stating that companies don't have the right to do it. You just don't seem capable of understanding that the employer has the right to set terms of employment, even if they are unwise or overly stringent. Its VOLUNTARY on your part. But you desire to swirl a stew of apples and oranges to try and force your employer to accept your pot smoking.
Government does tell you what you can't ingest, does tell you what you can ingest, and does tell you what you must ingest.
Please tell us what the government tells you that you must ingest? Was there a black helicopter involved? I think your hysteria just flew you out the window.
Morphine and opium dens were a problem, but restricted to certain segments and areas of society.
Restricted how? It wasn't at all restricted except by terms of employment, making it hard to continue the habit without a job (which you are against by the way).
Creating black markets always is worse than the previous paradigm.
So in your view, it would be a safer world if C4, small pox virus, and plutonium sales were over the counter, because we are just creating a lucritive black market with restrictions. Or does your logic only apply to things that you like to do?
I don't need to read drug literature to know my mind. As an employer, I'll set the expectations. As a worker bee, you can go somewhere else if you don't like it. I hear High Times is hiring.
I don't know where you live, but wherever you live, they are already there.
There are several good arguments for legalization. Unfortunately, they are seldom brought out on these threads.
Pot should be legal for American teenagers because illegals get away with too much? Seriously, what kind of argument is that? Its certainly not a rational connection of related issues, nor is leveling the playing field to the lowest common denominator a good model for the justice system.
Think of a coherent argument, and then stick to it. It would also help if you think about the valid concerns of the opposition. E.g. If its unconstitutional for any government to regulate food and drugs, how do you keep all antibiotics from becoming worthless within ten years (due to overuse), or are the return of deadly epidemics simply the price that needs to be paid for getting good pot?
Here we go again. Please educate us on the dangers of pot. People keep saying pot is dangerous, but when I ask them just how so, they cannot tell me. Hopefully you will be able to shed some light on this subject.
What a rude and irrelevant response to what was, in fact, a direct response to the question you posted (if not the one you meant). I guess I shouldn't have taken you seriously when you asked what I thought was a legitimate question.
Next time, if you want to start a flame war, at least start it with something inflammatory and hostile so that those of us willing to have actual conversations can ignore it, instead of pretending to ask an honest question in a manner indicating you were interested in other perspectives.
I said you dodged the question, which you did. You instead went off on a tangent argument that made it clear only by my inference that you are willing to accept any outcome, as long as the WOD is put to an end. Duly noted.
What part of that was irrelevant? And what was rude?
That is your post. Those are your words. If, in response to the question "what outcome of legalization would constitute a failure", you receive a list of outcomes that the poster believes would constitute a failure, you have received a direct response, not a dodge. I do not know how that fact could be any more clear.
If you're still unsure how, exactly, my list of undesired outcomes is the direct response to your question of a failure of legalization on practical grounds, think about the question in reverse: what are the practical problems caused by having marijuana illegal? Those are the problems that one who advocates legalization from a purely practical perspective would hope to solve. Therefore, if those problems were not solved by legalization, that legalization would have been a failure from a practical perspective. And that is the exact answer I presented to you, which you rejected out of hand, presumably because you did not in fact want an answer, but merely wanted to bait someone into arguing over your anti-marijuana views.
That sounds bad...but I don't believe it. Most THC addicts get busted and rightfully so.
One step at a time.
Rest assured someone knew you were using THC. I'm glad you stopped. And welcome to Freerepublic.
To use your specific example, I guess I have to say that such an outcome just wouldn't worry me. That's largely because I know how remote and foolish it is, and I'm not willing to accept the real and concrete problems with an overly big and powerful government to protect me from some infinitesimal chance that the entire country loses its collective mind and the vast majority of people act with no heed to their own self-interest.
In any case, I guess my answer to your final questions would be "no" - no, it's not an "acceptable" outcome (nor one that really has much to do with legalizing marijuana), and no, it's not a concern that has merit.
I asked "...what outcome of legalization...". Your answer did not address outcomes of legalization, but rather failures to legalize.
I get your point, but it didn't address my question. If I asked, "What outcome of overeating would you consider to be a failure?" It doesn't answer the question to say, "Not getting to eat as much as you want."
When I qualify that it would be "legal", then that is the premise of the question. You can move on from that point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.