Who here supports marijuana legalization, but doesn't want to use it?

[MadMike]

some of them already yet for legal products, like tobacco.

Sadly, I saw this coming years ago, when these companies started testing for illegal drugs. Most people were all for it, with the reasoning that "people shouldn't be doing drugs anyway, so why should we care?" I pointed out that eventually this would lead to them testing for other things that were also bad for you but perfectly legal. People thought I was crazy. I know the term "slippery slope" gets thrown around a lot, but sometimes it's perfectly valid.

What do you mean I can't just murder someone who annoys me? How come that's considered 'freedom'?

Apples and oranges. If I have a beer, smoke a cigarette, or get stoned, I'm not hurting anyone else. Murdering someone is a different story, no matter how much it may seem like they deserve it.

[Nekojin]

I know the term "slippery slope" gets thrown around a lot, but sometimes it's perfectly valid.

This is true. Not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies.

If I have a beer, smoke a cigarette, or get stoned, I'm not hurting anyone else. Murdering someone is a different story, no matter how much it may seem like they deserve it.

That depends on if it's on the clock or not. Our workplace has a written policy of random drug/alcohol tests, but the only time they ever "randomly" send someone is when they actually think they're under the influence while at work. AFAIK, it hasn't actually happened since they put the policy in place, though.

[Rageaholic]

Thank you madmike. I think it's pretty obvious that doing drugs and murder and completly different things.

And just because other countries have it worse does not mean that we should stop complaining about injustice on our own soil. We're freer than third world countries, but we could be a lot more free.

[Greenday]

And just because other countries have it worse does not mean that we should stop complaining about injustice on our own soil. We're freer than third world countries, but we could be a lot more free.

I'm just getting sick of people lately whining about how we aren't free or about how oppressive the government is.

[Andara Bledin]

And just because other countries have it worse does not mean that we should stop complaining about injustice on our own soil. We're freer than third world countries, but we could be a lot more free.

No, and yes, but even though we could be free-er, that doesn't mean that we aren't free to begin with.

^-.-^

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I don't mind employers being allowed to give piss tests. Why? Because they have a right to not employ someone who might come to work mentally altered. If the law was changed that they were required to have legitimate cause prior to the test - for both potentials and already employed - (like a manager suspected the person was currently high or drunk due to various exhibited behaviors) I would be fine with that because it still suits the spirit of allowing employers to be able to minimize liability.

Obviously a drunk person would take a breathalyzer or blood test rather than a piss test.

Yes, an employee coming to work under the influence (of anything, drugs or booze) is a huge liability (in some cases it could even cause fatalities depending on what work the inebriated employee was doing.)

Also, throwing out the "LAWL FREE COUNTRY HAHAHAHAHA" really only hurts an argument made. Yes, we could be more free, but when one makes a blatant proclamation that out right claims that we aren't free at all (which is what the caps locked comment implies, heavily) it really just makes one looks ridiculous.

[Rageaholic]

Whatever, it's only semantics.

The point still stands, this war on drugs is stupid, irrational, and is a violation of privacy. I echo what madmike said about the slippery slope. I hate that fallacy with a passion, but the same arguements for continuing this ban on marajuana could be used to control other areas of our private lives.

[crashhelmet]

This is true. Not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies.


That depends on if it's on the clock or not. Our workplace has a written policy of random drug/alcohol tests, but the only time they ever "randomly" send someone is when they actually think they're under the influence while at work. AFAIK, it hasn't actually happened since they put the policy in place, though.

When I was bartending at the casino, they'd give you a piss test any time you got "hurt" on the job. Slip and fall? Piss test. Accidentally cut yourself with a knife? Piss test. Angry patron throws a bottle at you? Piss test. Seriously.

They were so afraid of paying out insurance claims, unlawful termination cases, and what not that they drug screened for everything.

***EDIT***
Forgot to add, when the slow season would hit and they'd lay off the live game dealers, they'd call them all in to an "emergency meeting" just to piss test them. Anyone that refused was terminated for refusing to test. Anyone that didn't show up without a valid excuse, was terminated for no call, no show. Anyone that failed their tests was obviously let go.

Management believed that these were ways to get around paying out unemployment and again the risks of unlawful termination charges.

[Andara Bledin]

The testing after an accident is actually an OSHA requirement; the workplace has no choice about the matter. I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure about it.

I don't have time for a full search, but the quick one I did had a rule about requiring post-accident drug testing for contract labor, so that does support my statement.

It's also worth noting that I also found a case where Walmart was found guilty of invading an employee's privacy for waiting most of a week before doing the test, and thus finding things that were not present at the time of the accident, and thus, were none of their business.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

I can understand if it is an accident, like a slip and fall situation. But if a gambler got pissed off from losing on the blackjack table and threw a beer bottle that ended up hitting my cocktail server, her ability to get her treatment covered shouldn't hang on the results of a drug test. It's something that she wasn't at fault for, but yet that's what they'd do.

[HYHYBT]

I don't mind employers being allowed to give piss tests. Why? Because they have a right to not employ someone who might come to work mentally altered.

Their *legitimate* interest begins and ends with your punching the clock. If something has worn off by the time you come to work, whether its byproducts still show up in your bladder is none of their business.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Their *legitimate* interest begins and ends with your punching the clock. If something has worn off by the time you come to work, whether its byproducts still show up in your bladder is none of their business.

Thank you for quoting one part of my post and ignoring the rest of it, which specifically states the employee being on the clock while mentally altered. Good job.

[HYHYBT]

I was emphasizing a point, not disagreeing with one.

As things stand, they can test for anything and fire for any positive, whether you're under thr influence or not. For legal substances, at the least, that's not right.

[kaycivine]

I'm actually against the use of marijuana outside of medical reasons, and even then, I want to avoid it.

So I wouldn't vote to legalize it for recreational use, personally.

(Yes, I realize I just made enemies lol)

[Rapscallion]

(Yes, I realize I just made enemies lol)

Hardly. Back up your stuff and generally speaking people on here will respect you.

I'm actually against the use of marijuana outside of medical reasons, and even then, I want to avoid it.

So I wouldn't vote to legalize it for recreational use, personally.

Would you be against it for medical use for others, if you weren't willing to use it? Why wouldn't you want it legal for others to use recreationally?

I wouldn't want to see anyone stoned out of their heads using a car on the roads, or using heavy machinery etc. However, we treat it on a detected offence system for alcohol in those circumstances and make sure people know there's a price to pay for doing it. Are you also against alcohol in general? I don't drink alcoholic beverages, but I'll not deny others the ability to do so unless it interferes with me and mine.

Rapscallion