U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:26 AM
 
Location: NYC
7,371 posts, read 12,436,349 times
Reputation: 10307

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shroombeanie View Post
My point is... (politely) You read what you want. So here it is for you again. Bold and in red. Also... You aren't at risk for O.D. with weed. Also... read the bold underline. I'll just read from here-on-out. I'm tired of repeating myself.

In todays society we all know that drug screening (when jobs return) is an important part of the hiring process. With all the serious drugs such as heroine, crack, meth, etc. I would pre-screen too. Now alcohol is much more harmful than marijuana. Nobody tests for that. With the recent decriminalization of marijuana (not in all states) it should be removed from the list of drug test failures. Same rules would apply as with alcohol... 21 and older, not at work, etc. What do you think?
Yes some do.

This is a growing movement, tests are getting better at distinguishing between the "wine with dinner" drinker and the "fifth of Jack" drinker, and all those in between. A test won't tell you whether the person is an alcoholic, but it will tell you it is a possibility and worth further examination (such as interviews, written questionnaires, etc). Companies have been hesitant because a one-time bachelor-party bender may make a person look like a hardcore alcoholic, when he only drinks heavily like that once every couple of years.

We are going to see this type of testing more and more going forward, fear not, you will get your wish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 33,601,813 times
Reputation: 7050
Quote:
Originally Posted by shroombeanie View Post
In todays society we all know that drug screening (when jobs return) is an important part of the hiring process. With all the serious drugs such as heroine, crack, meth, etc. I would pre-screen too. Now alcohol is much more harmful than marijuana. Nobody tests for that. With the recent decriminalization of marijuana (not in all states) it should be removed from the list of drug test failures. Same rules would apply as with alcohol... 21 and older, not at work, etc. What do you think?

This link explains everything I already know. I'm a long time marijuana consumer... now age 40.

Reliable information about marijuana and its effects based on research and science, not disinformation and propaganda.

Myths and Facts About Marijuana
Actually, if a pre-employment urinalysis turned up significant alcohol you probably wouldn't get hired.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:45 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,908 posts, read 9,771,311 times
Reputation: 7451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onglet39 View Post
A private employer should be able to weed out potential employees in any way s/he sees fit so long as it isn't discriminatory against sex, race, sexual orientation, etc etc. So long as the employer is up front about the requirements, I don't have a problem with it. If an employment ad says, "we screen for drugs" I am not going to answer it. I believe it is well within the employer's rights to use this as a requirement.

The only way DNA testing would come to fruition is if people submitted to it (and it became a lot cheaper of course). If a company needs to hire people and writes "we will screen your DNA" - people should not apply. If they don't, said company will have to revise the policy in order to stay in business.

But when is enough, enough?? Now they check peoples credit, screen for people who smoke, and who knows what else they want to test for next? Nobody is perfect. Why not evaluate people on their performance on the job, or their employment history, and work experience, rather than worry about if someone drinks a few beers after work, smokes a joint on the weekends, or is struggling with their finances? There are too many restrictions with these companies nowadays! Yet, these corporations will outsource to someone overseas to countries where human rights aren't a top priority in some places! Sorry for getting off topic, but it all ties in! No wonder this country is in the shape that it's in!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:51 AM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,405,912 times
Reputation: 1321
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
Actually, if a pre-employment urinalysis turned up significant alcohol you probably wouldn't get hired.
Yet alcohol leaves your system even faster than cocaine or heroin! But marijuana, what should be the least of an employer's worries out of all drugs, lasts 30 days..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Up in the air
19,126 posts, read 26,030,511 times
Reputation: 16228
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan View Post
But when is enough, enough?? Now they check peoples credit, screen for people who smoke, and who knows what else they want to test for next? Nobody is perfect. Why not evaluate people on their performance on the job, or their employment history, and work experience, rather than worry about if someone drinks a few beers after work, smokes a joint on the weekends, or is struggling with their finances? There are too many restrictions with these companies nowadays! Yet, these corporations will outsource to someone overseas to countries where human rights aren't a top priority in some places! Sorry for getting off topic, but it all ties in! No wonder this country is in the shape that it's in!
Have YOU ever worked with someone who smokes pot regularly? I have, and it's MISERABLE. The occasional smoker is fine. But the people who light up every night after work? No thank you. Yes, it does affect the way most people work and as a manager I could always tell immediately which employees smoked pot in their spare time. I know not all employees are like that ( I myself know a doctor and lawyer who smoke every once in a while) but given the chance I will choose not to work with smokers every time.

Currently, I work at a place that is FAA regulated and NOBODY smokes. Yes, they drink sometimes but that has never impaired anyones job thus far. There is a HUUUUUUGE difference between this place and the last place I worked where drug testing wasn't used.

I am still for legalization, but if a company doesn't want pot smokers (or alcoholics, or heroin users or whatever) working for them, that's their right to drug test.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:51 PM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,908 posts, read 9,771,311 times
Reputation: 7451
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey View Post
Have YOU ever worked with someone who smokes pot regularly? I have, and it's MISERABLE. The occasional smoker is fine. But the people who light up every night after work? No thank you. Yes, it does affect the way most people work and as a manager I could always tell immediately which employees smoked pot in their spare time. I know not all employees are like that ( I myself know a doctor and lawyer who smoke every once in a while) but given the chance I will choose not to work with smokers every time.

Currently, I work at a place that is FAA regulated and NOBODY smokes. Yes, they drink sometimes but that has never impaired anyones job thus far. There is a HUUUUUUGE difference between this place and the last place I worked where drug testing wasn't used.

I am still for legalization, but if a company doesn't want pot smokers (or alcoholics, or heroin users or whatever) working for them, that's their right to drug test.

Yes I have. And you're right, it effects some, but not all. Some people are just lazy idiots no matter what! Besides, more people are prone to miss work due to a hangover from drinking too much the night before, than from someone who smoked a little weed the night before. Again, I understand companies having issues with someone coming in to work and being under the influence of any recreational drug, and I certainly do not condone it. Then they become a danger to others, as well as themselves. But if someone is a hard worker, and always on time, what they do on their own time is none of my business. If it effects their job, then we have issues. It's all about priorities, common sense, and moderation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
20,400 posts, read 20,813,951 times
Reputation: 20632
Quote:
Again, I understand companies having issues with someone coming in to work and being under the influence of any recreational drug, and I certainly do not condone it. Then they become a danger to others, as well as themselves. But if someone is a hard worker, and always on time, what they do on their own time is none of my business. If it effects their job, then we have issues.
Exactly. And that is the point I would agree with drug testing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Suffolk County, NY
874 posts, read 2,437,263 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by shroombeanie View Post
If you read the body of my header you would have seen that I am for pre-screening. The tests that are administered these days it can be judged if you're stoned at the time of testing or if you smoked yesterday at noon. And furthermore one CANNOT OVERDOSE on marijuana. One can even die from alcohol poisoning. In other words... alcohol overdose. PLEASE people read the body of the headers before you comment. You don't head into a debate with preconceived notions and half the facts.
And if you read my post you will see it was not directed towards you but rather to the person whom I quoted in my post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Plattsburgh NY
1,791 posts, read 1,526,870 times
Reputation: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egobop View Post
And if you read my post you will see it was not directed towards you but rather to the person whom I quoted in my post.
OOPS!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 03:50 PM
 
770 posts, read 717,290 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egobop View Post
I find it amusing that people find that laughing at things that simply are not funny and then becoming hungry and tired when the "idiot" effect wears off is actually "expanding one's consciousness".
Your carte blanche description of the effects of marijuana are patently false. I won't elaborate as I'm semi-busy, but I'll leave it to Dr. Carl Sagan: " "I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, un-available to us without such drugs." Your error is not uncommon: you happen to know losers who smoke pot and are open about it. That's the silver lining with illegal drug use: the winners who smoke have to remain anonymous for social and political reasons. Thus your perception of users is inherently skewed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egobop View Post
I am sure a good number of people that use heroine, cocaine, acid, meth, pain killers and a plethora of other drugs will tell you that these drugs are harmlessly expanding their conscience as well.
And in some cases, they are right. I know a millionaire who was such by 25. He does heroin once a month or so. Writes stories while high. Most are terrible, but some are good. He enjoys it. You'd be surprised what people with an interesting, intelligent perspective and a little self-discipline can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egobop View Post
I also enjoy the comparison to alcohol and tobacco when discussing legalizing other drugs. The major difference is that alcohol has been accepted in nearly every society long before this country was in existence so to just up and make it illegal is not an easy thing to do. If alcohol was something that just came out in the past few years and never existed before you can bet that it would be illegal.
That's perhaps the single worst rational one can have for disregarding some substances and justifying others. "Well it's always been this way, like it or lump it." Moreover, marijuana is a plant. It's literally making nature illegal. I think it's been around a bit before alcohol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egobop View Post
As far as cigarettes go, although they are not good for you, they do not cloud your judgement or interfere with a person's normal thought process. Just as with alcohol, if tobacco had only been around for a few years it would be illegal as well.
That's incorrect. Cigarettes contain a plethora of chemicals, from tar to rat poison, that have been shown with utter consistency to effect everything from immediate mood to sexual capacities. Also, don't know if this is important to you, but it also kills you. Pot doesn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Egobop View Post
I am actually of the opinion that both tobacco and alcohol should be fazed out and made illegal. How? If the legal age to drink is now 21, change it to 22, the next year to 23, the following year to 24, etc. This way you are not taking it away from people who can legally drink one day and telling them they can't the next. You are simply stopping those who are currently not legally allowed to drink alcohol from being able to legally. The same can be done regarding cigarettes. Why will this not happen? I believe this does not happen due to the amount of money these substances generate for the economy as well as for the government in the form of taxes. .
This is the classic contextual argument given for totalitarianism throughout the ages. Eventually, somebody might do something bad if they do XYZ, so best to just eradicate freedoms for everyone. If you're in favor of totalitarianism, good for you. If not, rework this stance. Freedom is not just a political cliche; it means something vivid. It means allowing people to partake in activities that do not directly effect you and your safety, even if you don't like them. I think people with guns are generally paranoid and creep me out, but it's none of my business whether or not they carry. So, I tend to get along with gun users, as we both believe in freedom. See? Just because someone down the road might get addicted and might do bad things to the community does not give just cause for illegality in a free society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egobop View Post
I do not know if anyone posting here knows any hardcore drug abusers that use the "bad" drugs such as heroine, cocaine, etc. that they have known since an early age. I actually know people that I grew up with that became hardcore drug abusers and all of the ones I know did in fact start off smoking marijuana. The majority of the ones I know started using the other drugs while smoking marijuana-take a hit of a joint, then do a line of cocaine, etc. Is marijuana always the stepping stone to harder drugs? Of course not; although sometimes it is. The "sometimes" is enough to keep it illegal in my opinion.
The gateway theory has been debunked thoroughly. It is not even thrown around in anti-cannabis circles anymore. Saying marijuana has a causation with heroin is like saying Cheeseburgers have a causation with heroin; they both may be actions taken by the burnout, but neither are the causation, or even relevant to the discussion. If you've smoked pot you'd know intuitively how absurd the theory is; pot is a mild "downer," giving you a very mild feeling one way or another. Heroin will stop you in tracks and change your life. There is no linear progression between the drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top