should "weed" be legal

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#101 Oct 8, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should they?
Holy Crapola, Bluntrolla - have you ever even had a job?
William

Birmingham, AL

#102 Oct 9, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly why professional positions generally require drug tests - they know you have that attitude and they don't want to hire potheads. I guess it's a win/win - they don't hire drug users and you don't have to answer to pesky boss or cash that bothersome paycheck.
It's not just professional positions but practically any job nowadays that involves skilled labor now.

I deal with construction, and it is critical to have the labor force not smoking weed, snorting coke, and drinking when they are operating heavy machinery. Throw in insurance requirements and the mandates by state, county, and OSHA for not having impaired workers, and it is made clear that impairment has become a serious matter for just one segment of the economy.

Just stay away from the damn stuff, and you'll be just fine. An easy rule to follow, but a lot of people just can't abide by it.
William

Birmingham, AL

#103 Oct 9, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy Crapola, Bluntrolla - have you ever even had a job?
Probably selling weed, if I had to guess. You always want your marketing people out there touting product.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#104 Oct 10, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
WhAt?!?
Laws against drugs causes people to cut off people's heads??
Are you playing dumb, or not playing?
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
Are you sure that's not laws against MURDER?
You are silly - of course there would be no crime if there were no laws! Anarchy would be so cool, huh?[/
This does not support your argument of legalizing marijuana in any way. Criminals will commit crime and one less law will not change that at all.
Now, put the bong down before a drug cartel decapitates your family because that weed ain't legal yet.
Seems like it's to late for you, your head doesn't seem to be functioning.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#105 Oct 10, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly why professional positions generally require drug tests - they know you have that attitude and they don't want to hire potheads. I guess it's a win/win - they don't hire drug users and you don't have to answer to pesky boss or cash that bothersome paycheck.
Actually, people in professional, well paying positions that require rare skills that are in demand are less likely to be asked to pee in a cup. Because those people are in a position to tell employers to buzz off. I'd refuse to pee in a cup. What about you?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#106 Oct 10, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Harmful to who?? The person committing crime?
Well, go ahead and learn that lesson before you are given the death penalty for smoking that joint.
Yeah, stupid, a life sentence for possessing pot is more harmful to the person committing that "crime" than possessing it is.

Don't tread on weed.
William

Birmingham, AL

#107 Oct 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, people in professional, well paying positions that require rare skills that are in demand are less likely to be asked to pee in a cup.
Is that what you are taught in Weed School? If it is, then you should demand a refund.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#108 Oct 11, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what you are taught in Weed School? If it is, then you should demand a refund.
She didn't graduate - she couldn't pass her drug "test".
Getterman

Pittsburgh, PA

#109 Oct 11, 2013
youtube.com/watch... … Its Friday Again
William

Birmingham, AL

#110 Oct 11, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't graduate - she couldn't pass her drug "test".
Not being able to pass a drug test is actually a badge of honor. It gives you street cred, but also a lifetime reputation as a drug user.

Which is a little known side effect of drug use.
pearl

West Jordan, UT

#111 Oct 11, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Not being able to pass a drug test is actually a badge of honor. It gives you street cred, but also a lifetime reputation as a drug user.
Which is a little known side effect of drug use.
Yeah, I see that reputation as a drug addict has really had an affect on Rush Limbaugh and his ability to earn a living or have a following. Or is it okay to be a drug addict if your drug dealer is a doctor? You just don't hear Rush being referred to as a drug addict, guess lifetime reputations only last so long. And ya know the drinking problem George Bush, the fortunate son, has admitted to sure didn't limit his rise to the top. Or is it just "street drug" that lead to this terrible lifetime reputation? I don't see anyone headlines about Obama or Clinton being drug addicts, do you think maybe they really didn't inhale?
pearl

West Jordan, UT

#112 Oct 11, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't graduate - she couldn't pass her drug "test".
Come on Awesome, you know I love you but, God made weed, man made beer, in God we will trust, this time.
William

Birmingham, AL

#113 Oct 11, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I see that reputation as a drug addict has really had an affect on Rush Limbaugh and his ability to earn a living or have a following. Or is it okay to be a drug addict if your drug dealer is a doctor? You just don't hear Rush being referred to as a drug addict, guess lifetime reputations only last so long. And ya know the drinking problem George Bush, the fortunate son, has admitted to sure didn't limit his rise to the top. Or is it just "street drug" that lead to this terrible lifetime reputation? I don't see anyone headlines about Obama or Clinton being drug addicts, do you think maybe they really didn't inhale?
Oh, I see you are referring to media celebrities. Not actual working professionals like pilots, air crews, air traffic controllers, heavy equipment operators, train and rail personnel, military personnel, law enforcement personnel, fire and emergency personnel, and a host of other people who have to not be baked on booze or weed in order to function.

What type of "professional" education and career do you have?
pearl

West Jordan, UT

#114 Oct 11, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I see you are referring to media celebrities. Not actual working professionals like pilots, air crews, air traffic controllers, heavy equipment operators, train and rail personnel, military personnel, law enforcement personnel, fire and emergency personnel, and a host of other people who have to not be baked on booze or weed in order to function.
What type of "professional" education and career do you have?
Well really I was talking about people in general, but if you want to refer to presidents of the U.S. as media celebrities, I guess that's one perspective. Perhaps you are unaware but, in general, nobody parties more intense than law enforcement and airline pilots. The more stressful the job, the more likely one is to be a user. Have you ever smoked weed or are you just going by what you are told to believe?

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#115 Oct 11, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Come on Awesome, you know I love you but, God made weed, man made beer, in God we will trust, this time.
Aw, it was implied but it's nice to hear someone say it. I love you too, pearl. Let me just wipe away this lil' tear.. Love for everyone, pass it on.

However, I will argue that you are playing on my emotions and confusing the issue - should weed be LEGAL? Obviously, many people use weed even though it it illegal - some responsibly, some ridiculously - I genuinely believe that a law that allows everyone to smoke weed will only harm our society.

I know the legitimate arguments of the benefits of weed use - I was a little amused that they hadn't been clearly listed on this thread - but my thoughts are: I think that increased drug use is NOT good advice to send to our society right here and right now - our people need to be alert and aware of what is happening so that they can control their circumstances and save themselves from our very scary future.

Some would argue (drs even) that our individuals are correct to feel like they need to be sedated - our current events are making us all so angry and upset, out-of-control, worried, fearful. You know that the calming effects of marijuana can be prescribed and legally consumed with anti-depressants, mood stabilizers, nerve pills - not as good! you might say, but legal at least. My argument is: don't sedate yourself! Don't smoke the weed OR take the drugs (but do not stop taking your prescribed drugs without dr permission). Embrace the idea that you do not need to be sedated.

My actual question was: how can you reprimand an employee for marijuana use if it is a legal substance? I'm not saying that employers SHOULD, I just wonder if they COULD.
William

Conyers, GA

#116 Oct 11, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Well really I was talking about people in general, but if you want to refer to presidents of the U.S. as media celebrities, I guess that's one perspective. Perhaps you are unaware but, in general, nobody parties more intense than law enforcement and airline pilots. The more stressful the job, the more likely one is to be a user. Have you ever smoked weed or are you just going by what you are told to believe?
Never smoked it, but have been around plenty of people who have.

Call it an Observational Bias.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#117 Oct 11, 2013
This may be off topic, but here is a personal story with an indirect relation to marijuana use.

I have recently trained for a new job position - this week was my first week working without a trainer. All has gone well until yesterday, when I had a very stressful evening. Some would suggest that after work, I could handle my stress with weed - weed combats stress, right?

I chose a different path - my ideas to combat stress are more time consuming, but achieve better results. The first thing I did was to sleep 8 hours - I arrived home at 10 pm and I was physically exhausted - it wasn't a hard decision. But today is my day off, so I have time to relax and reflect on what was wrong yesterday that made my situation so stressful. I wonder what I could have done differently to save time or to be better organized. I'll do some stretches and take a walk - I'll have time to study my strong emotions and neutralize them, so that I am in control of my actions and not at the mercy of my emotions. I'll do some yard work in the sunshine and be thoughtful of what was causing me stress and in essence, I will eliminate (not ignore or store) the stress and the negativity that it had on me. The next time I am faced with a stressful situation at work, I will be better prepared to take control of it - I will not build on the stress of the last time, I will be able to build on what I learned from the last time.

Suppose I spent 2 hours smoking weed before my 8 hour unconsciousness (bc that was happening regardless)- my attitude would be completely different. I could zone out of my problems and forget about my stress. I could submit my mind to Cartoon Network and laugh and laugh and laugh, eat like a pig, then pass out. This morning, when I woke, would my stress be gone? Quite likely. I know a secret though, it's still there. If I spend my day in bliss, ignoring it - it will return in full force as soon as I am encountered with a new stressful situation at work. The next time will be as bad as the last time, maybe worse - I will not have gained any control over my actions.

SO - the results of the two actions, smoking weed or not, appears to be the same - I am spending today stress free. But the real difference is that I want to handle my stress and weed would have me avoid my stress. If I allow weed to replace my natural ability to be motivated rather than crushed by stress, then I am training my body to be MORE susceptible to stress, not less. I'll NEED weed so I won't be so stressed - when in actuality, I can teach myself not to be so stressed. I would rather avoid stress than to constantly treat it.

This is just an example of how weed use seems like such an insignificant decision, but has real results and effects on the user that often are not recognized or related to the drug use. Weed adjusts your attitude - for some, it could be a good thing - for most, it works against you. Weed steals your time - weed demotivates you - weed keeps you from caring too much about anything - weed encourages you to forget. Weed is not what you need, it only makes you feel that way.

So, is my point more clear now? If I do not even advise people I know to use weed, how could I support weed being made legal so that even MORE people will choose to use weed? It would be supporting an effort to make us all passive and agreeable, gullible even - so that we will allow ourselves to be dominated and discarded. Do not let this happen to you - forget the weed - participate in reality.
killedjoe

White Plains, NY

#118 Oct 11, 2013
William wrote:
"If weed were legal, how would the company have the right to reprimand him for doing something legal?"
If the impairment is against company policy, like "showing up for work drunk" is against company policy, then they have every right to reprimand an employee.
It would be handle the same way of drinking on the job. You have only one change. Go to a rehap or get fired.
killedjoe

White Plains, NY

#119 Oct 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, people in professional, well paying positions that require rare skills that are in demand are less likely to be asked to pee in a cup. Because those people are in a position to tell employers to buzz off. I'd refuse to pee in a cup. What about you?
Think about what you just said. If the company allows a person who is under the influence and he causes an accident in which some one gets hurt, this company will be sued to kingdom come for knowing and allowing a person to stay on the job. It is cheaper to tell the person to piss in the cup and replace him then going to court and lose the company.
William

Pell City, AL

#120 Oct 11, 2013
killedjoe wrote:
<quoted text> Think about what you just said. If the company allows a person who is under the influence and he causes an accident in which some one gets hurt, this company will be sued to kingdom come for knowing and allowing a person to stay on the job. It is cheaper to tell the person to piss in the cup and replace him then going to court and lose the company.
See, the adults get it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Caleb Robertson lied on TV (Nov '11) Sep 22 Cantrip 35
Victory Baptist Church: The BIG cross (Apr '12) Sep 10 William 22
Is Martinsville Church Of Christ a big lie? (Nov '09) Sep 10 historian65616 74
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) Sep 9 historian65616 41
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Aug 30 William 34
Catholics (Feb '14) Aug '16 mpetershat 3,369
i gotta doo doo!!! Jul '16 Captain peckerlips 1

Bassett Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages