Do a lot of people in CO smoke pot? Should MJ be legal? (rental, homes)

[DurangoJoe]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

I believe that those who illegally use recreational drugs are losers, yes, based on a fairly large sample of observed behavior over the years,

Oh, you mean like going in and out of the clinic next to your electronics store & hardware store? Like I said Bob, your tiny world. You obviously equate violent criminals with pot smokers. That in itself shows your lack of knowledge on this issue. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Obviously, the hundreds of thousands of dead users of prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco every year are not losers in your mind because their drug of choice was legal? Somehow Bob, I submit that they lost a lot more than I ever did or will with my cannabis use.

Who's the real loser here?

[CosmicWizard]

Well, if something is LEGAL it must be good for ya! It wouldn't be legal if it wasn't, right? right? Those politicians ALWAYS do what is best for we-the-people. They are NEVER influenced by the special interests that fund their election campaigns. The law makers are ALL good guys. ALWAYS!

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by livecontent

I agree with other posters, as I would never hire anyone using MJ. I would have less assurance in any worker using MJ, where attention to detail is important. It may make some of you feel good, feel important, love yourself, relax but when work has to be done, jobs have to be accomplished and where lives and welfare of others are vitally important--you are not the ones I would select to be my employee, physician, accountant, policeman, fireman, bus driver or any one that I need to rely on for any services and help. I do not even seek to be your friend or make your acquaintance. You are just another irritant of life, that I seek to ignore and avoid.

Livecontent

Many employers are getting even more strict about hiring people with substance abuse problems, legal or otherwise. They have correctly determined that such abuse can negatively affect productivity, safety, and--increasingly--health care costs borne by the employment group that the employer pays all or part of in health insurance premiums. As one example, one of the major US railroads will not even consider for employment people who smoke. The company also drug tests all prospective applicants, and any who test positive for illicit drugs, including marijuana, are automatically rejected for hire. Anyone who answers "yes" to the question "Do you smoke?" is also automatically rejected. An individual I know who is involved in their hiring process told me that approximately 50%-80% of their applicants are rejected for reasons of testing positive for illicit drugs. By the way, the rules apply not only to persons applying for jobs actually operating trains or equipment, but also apply to people applying for ANY job in the company--operating, clerical, or otherwise. With the economy in the US (and Colorado) increasingly glutted with job seekers, I think companies, government, etc. are going to get increasingly picky about who they hire, and I suspect that screening out substance abusers will be a priority in the future. Oh, by the way, it's perfectly legal for employers to implement such hiring policies as long as they are evenly applied and clearly disclosed in the application process.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by SoButCounty

Oh, you mean like going in and out of the clinic next to your electronics store & hardware store? Like I said Bob, your tiny world.

No, after three decades in jobs that involved supervising, hiring and firing large numbers (that'd be thousands) of employees. After seeing their failures. After interviewing them and their coworkers in the aftermath of incidents. My work experience, not my observations of the people coming and going from a number of Colorado Springs "medical" marijuana dispensaries, is what my conclusions on drug users are based upon.

Originally Posted by SoButCounty

You obviously equate violent criminals with pot smokers. That in itself shows your lack of knowledge on this issue. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

It would seem possible that your drug use has affected your reading comprehension. Nowhere do I equate violent criminals with pot smokers.

Originally Posted by SoButCounty

Obviously, the hundreds of thousands of dead users of prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco every year are not losers in your mind because their drug of choice was legal? Somehow Bob, I submit that they lost a lot more than I ever did or will with my cannabis use.

I never said that, either. Drunks and prescription drug abusers fit squarely into my definition of a loser, too. Smokers are a somewhat different category, but as Jazz pointed out above, their behavior does make them less desirable as employees as a result of higher health care costs (for the record I have never smoked, either).

Originally Posted by SoButCounty

Who's the real loser here?

Got a mirror?

[McGowdog]

Originally Posted by SoButCounty

Who's the real loser here?

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

Got a mirror?

Really? So this thread has resulted in name-calling. Once the name-calling begins, the argument is over.

I had a bad feeling about this thread from the start. But calling each other loser is disappointing.

Anybody who can take care of themselves and maybe even help out another when they get the chance, is not a loser. If you're not harming people just for the sake of watching them react and if you're not being an ahole every chance you get, then in my book, you might even be considered a winner.

If folks say they can control their substance and/or they are enjoying it, I say let them be. If they get to where they are no longer having much fun and they want to put it down but find they cannot, DM me. Let me talk to you for a minute. Come to my blog. Click on my username and come to my homepage and we'll discuss it.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

Bob from down south wrote:

I know the military treats a positive drug test for unprescribed prescription drugs (opiates, synthetic opiates, etc) the same as pot, cocaine, and meth.

My introduction to MJ took place while in the Air Force. Apparently the military has made some BIG changes since the early 70s when I was an Air Force Sargeant. During my days in the military, MJ use was rampant and e-a-s-y to obtain, and this was on a base far away from combat. From the stories I've heard, it was far more rampant in Viet Nam. Not even in Boulder after my discharge, was MJ so noticable or available. In the 70s, Boulder was pretty tame compared to the Air Force with regard to the use of MJ.

BIG BIG difference. They actually started cleaning up the military in the mid 80's. I joined the Army right as they started clamping down. You could have fought a war with all of the soldiers being busted. Nothing like that now. By the time I left the Army I knew very few people getting busted for comping up positive. It happened, but rather uncommon. The military typically tests for anything and everything. I'm sure there is still drug use, but I'm also sure it is WAY less than outside of the military. Nobody with half a brain will risk being demoted, losing pay, and even being kicked out of the military just to smoke a joint.

[DOUBLE H]

The timeline that CarawayDJ is listing here is about right. I worked for different construction subcontractors at the Rocky Flats plant starting around 1974, all were pretty much short term assignments. The first time I was handed a cup was when I worked out there in the Spring of 1984. By that time all employees were required to turn in urine samples, be it laborers, supervision, clerical workers, pipefitters, what have you, no matter whether you were in construction, security, or were a DOE employee. If memory serves an individual turned in samples every three months or so.

[blacksmith76]

Ancient loser:

World's oldest marijuana stash totally busted - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com

Regarding Colorado and pot ... does a bear go #2 in the woods?

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by blacksmith76

....
Regarding Colorado and pot ... does a bear go #2 in the woods?

I can help with that last inquiry...

[Bob from down south]

Now that made me spurt coffee, Mike.