(10-24-2010 09:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-24-2010 09:02 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  We do not want the same thing. I want the rule of law upheld. Your grand experiment is doomed. It cannot work. Washington and our so-called "leader's" immigration enforcement and grand social experiment has FAILED. I'm to the point that if you abused, disregarded or broke our laws, you did so at your own peril. It is time for you to go home and take your underage children with you. I'm sick of this idea that you can pick and choose which laws are enforced and which are not. You cannot call them laws. A law is a law. There is no gray area, it's black and white and applies to everyone. Lawyers could argue that the laws are unjust. That they needed breaking. That their was no choice but to break them, or a hundred other different arguments. Those arguments will rightly fail, but there is money in making them. H1-b's can take a hike for GP as well.

Alcohol was once also banned. Smoking SOME leaves is perfectly legal. These are not, and while we can discuss the pros/cons... it is merely a choice made by politicians and NOT a scientific one that says that alcohol is "ok" while pot is not. Legal Beer and cigarettes don't generally lead to other drugs because they aren't sold by the same people and consumed in the same ways. If you take THAT aspect away, you have to ask why smoking and drinking sedatives is okay, but smoking a sedative isn't.

(10-24-2010 09:21 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-24-2010 09:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  You guys can talk all you want about legalizing pot, but because it stays in our systems so long most users will never get jobs or be fired during a random or for-cause drug test.

This also. Will our gov't force business to hire and maintain drug users as a protected group? Don't think so. So the only group benifiting are those who are wealthy and don't need a job, or those who won't work.

If it were legal, I'm certain that SOME places wouldn't care if you smoked. They might ban it on the job or coming to work "stoned" just like drinking... but there may also be SOME (admittedly very few) places where, like smoking cigarettes, you can do it.

Do they currently force you to hire smokers or drunk people?? This line of concern just seems silly.

It is silly...and shows a lack of thought in regard to what occurs in the marketplace in regard to the employer/employee contract.

(10-24-2010 09:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  You guys can talk all you want about legalizing pot, but because it stays in our systems so long most users will never get jobs or be fired during a random or for-cause drug test.

That is their problem. There are consequences for ones actions when it come to the employer/employee contract.

(10-24-2010 09:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we legalized marijuana, I predict that the illegal marijuana business would amount to about as much as the bootleg liquor market today. I think we could handle that pretty easily.

And with the guy you buy your marijuana shifting from a drug dealer who'd like to move you on to harder drugs, to a convenience store which is totally separated from the illegal drug channels, I further predict that marijuana would lose most of whatever "gateway drug" potential that it has now.

Not to mention that we could tax it pretty heavily and still have a product cheaper than street drugs are today.

Decriminalization and control is a slam dunk.:ncaabbs: Our failed policies are a missed layup.

Foolish, what contract. If they employ you, they do whatever, and your option is to quit. You must be talking some union bs. Here Is the down low for ya. You get a paycheck, you are their whore. You do what they tell you to do or you leave. Where did you come from? A kebutz?

(10-26-2010 08:00 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Foolish, what contract. If they employ you, they do whatever, and your option is to quit. You must be talking some union bs. Here Is the down low for ya. You get a paycheck, you are their whore. You do what they tell you to do or you leave. Where did you come from? A kebutz?

You know exactly what I am referring to in regard to rules set forth by the employer to maintain ones job. Man..You are one Silly Old Argumentative Fool.

but Fo...
Cannibus staying in your system isn't the same thing as "being under the influence". If Cannibus is legal, then one would be hard-pressed to enforce a contract that required avoidance of legal acts on a person's private time. Certainly, there are certain jobs where that rule can be pressed... but in general, you cannot require people to refrain from doing legal things on their own time. I can drink on my own time, but I can't come to work drunk.

Yes, under current contracts, you would be doing something illegal and thus could be terminated.... but if the LAW changes, it is probably that a large number of the contracts would change as well.

Here's one for ya: When I was with AT&T I had a Flip who always spent his 3 week vacation in the Philipines (and he left his family home every time. I had a Cambodian guy who did the same thing) Besides being a pervert who liked his women so young it was disturbing, he also liked his pot. Anyway, I guess in the Philipines pot is legal. So while he's there he does a few bones without having to worry about anything. On his first day back to work, through no fault of his own, he has a car accident and I send him off for the required drug test which he fails and he's fired. He tried to argue how could he get fired for doing something that is legal in another country? If he wasn't such a scum sucking pervert I might have had some pity for him and ultimately our HR dept didn't.

(10-28-2010 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  but Fo...
Cannibus staying in your system isn't the same thing as "being under the influence". If Cannibus is legal, then one would be hard-pressed to enforce a contract that required avoidance of legal acts on a person's private time. Certainly, there are certain jobs where that rule can be pressed... but in general, you cannot require people to refrain from doing legal things on their own time. I can drink on my own time, but I can't come to work drunk.
Yes, under current contracts, you would be doing something illegal and thus could be terminated.... but if the LAW changes, it is probably that a large number of the contracts would change as well.

I think it would be very difficult in most situations to sustain the argument that firing someone for doing something legal on their own time did not constitute wrongful termination. So I would expect changes to those employment contracts.

(10-28-2010 08:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Here's one for ya: When I was with AT&T I had a Flip who always spent his 3 week vacation in the Philipines (and he left his family home every time. I had a Cambodian guy who did the same thing) Besides being a pervert who liked his women so young it was disturbing, he also liked his pot. Anyway, I guess in the Philipines pot is legal. So while he's there he does a few bones without having to worry about anything. On his first day back to work, through no fault of his own, he has a car accident and I send him off for the required drug test which he fails and he's fired. He tried to argue how could he get fired for doing something that is legal in another country? If he wasn't such a scum sucking pervert I might have had some pity for him and ultimately our HR dept didn't.

Because it isn't legal here. He was required by the contract to pass drug screens for drugs that are illegal here... REGARDLESS of whether or not they are illegal where you ingested them.

(10-28-2010 09:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2010 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  but Fo...
Cannibus staying in your system isn't the same thing as "being under the influence". If Cannibus is legal, then one would be hard-pressed to enforce a contract that required avoidance of legal acts on a person's private time. Certainly, there are certain jobs where that rule can be pressed... but in general, you cannot require people to refrain from doing legal things on their own time. I can drink on my own time, but I can't come to work drunk.
Yes, under current contracts, you would be doing something illegal and thus could be terminated.... but if the LAW changes, it is probably that a large number of the contracts would change as well.

I think it would be very difficult in most situations to sustain the argument that firing someone for doing something legal on their own time did not constitute wrongful termination. So I would expect changes to those employment contracts.

Yes...I think the contract would change to fit the new law also. As long as one was not intoxicated on the job, smoking cannabis would not be grounds for termination. I imagine that a free market response to this problem would pop up in regard to "testing" for intoxication in the work place. If an employer suspected a problem they could require such testing to find out the "level" of THC in ones system. I believe that such testing could be done to determine intoxication from most any substance if the marketplace signals such a need.

(10-28-2010 09:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-28-2010 08:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Here's one for ya: When I was with AT&T I had a Flip who always spent his 3 week vacation in the Philipines (and he left his family home every time. I had a Cambodian guy who did the same thing) Besides being a pervert who liked his women so young it was disturbing, he also liked his pot. Anyway, I guess in the Philipines pot is legal. So while he's there he does a few bones without having to worry about anything. On his first day back to work, through no fault of his own, he has a car accident and I send him off for the required drug test which he fails and he's fired. He tried to argue how could he get fired for doing something that is legal in another country? If he wasn't such a scum sucking pervert I might have had some pity for him and ultimately our HR dept didn't.

Because it isn't legal here. He was required by the contract to pass drug screens for drugs that are illegal here... REGARDLESS of whether or not they are illegal where you ingested them.

As a person against pot and all the other drugs you won't get an argument from me.