Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot

I understand what I read quite fine thanks.. It is you that do not understand what you wrote. Then you completely ignored my post explaining exactly why I said what I said. That libertarians agree laws are there for a good reason has zero to do with what was explained to you.

So get some reading comprehension.

 

Of course its relevant. It is relevant the the question of privacy.

 

LOL. You are trying to tell me what I meant by my own post........ Perhaps you should let the pipe cool down for a minute....

 

No, it is 100% irrelevant. You are fired for testing positive, not for being stoned at the time of testing. It is not complicated.

 

Who is hot - not me- that's for sure, nor is me that has reading comprehension issue

 

Firing someone for testing positive for using a legal drug should be illegal except in all but the most extreme circumstances.

 

Well, it is not illegal. Employers can fire people for drug, or alcohol use. Common sense. Actually, they should not need any reason whatsoever to fire anyone.

 

MJ use can be detected for 30 days or more after being imbibed. Some say this is unfair because they may be detecting secondary smoke inhalation. You could be at a party where legal MJ is being used but not by you. However due to secondary inhalation you still could lose your job.

I expect testing criteria will change if MJ is legalized. I expect they will test for levels like they do alcohol now.

 

Nice attempt to move the goal posts. An employer should not be able to drug test people unless they are suspected to be impaired on the Job.

I get that you may hate the right to privacy - I just to not share this sympathy.

 

You ran cry unfairness all day long, but if your drug use does not agree with your employers policies, then you're better off looking for an employer who tolerate drug use.

 

They should be allowed to fire you for any reason. Its common sense companies don't want drug users on their payrolls.

 

What does the above have to do with my post ? - That an employer should not be able to drug test employees (sans the example given).

 

It has everything to do with it. You are whining about employers being able to fire people for testing positive for drugs, and I am stating the fact that the employers should be able to fire them for any reason, and drug use is one of the more obvious reasons.

What other restrictions would you place on employers to protect the "rights" of drug users?

 

They said the same thing about alcohol at one time. Just like with MJ it didn't stop it's use. It only funnels money to organized crime and leads to violence. It just took a politician with enough balls to tell the old bittys like you to get off their high horse and ignore their irrational demands. That will happen and you can scream the sky is falling all you want.

 

There are many things that employers should not be able to do but, we happen to be discussing drug testing. I get that you hate the right to privacy and that you think an employer should be able to violate that right.

What else do you hate about the principles on which this nation was founded ?

 

I love the principles, like not being forced to employ drug users.

Why do have a problem with me firing people I don't want working for me? Why do you want the government to force me to employ people I do not want working for me?

What else do you hate about the principles on which this nation was founded ?

I get it that you hate people having such freedoms, and I get it that you want the government involved in forcing employers to employ people they don't want around.

 

I am not forcing anyone to employ drug users. Just because you talk nonsense does not make that nonsense true.

What you do not have the right to do is invade someone's privacy for no legitimate reason such as random testing. In addition to hating the founding principles - right to privacy and essential liberty in general ... you also hate the rule of law "innocent until proven guilty".

 

Employers have every right to create their own corporate rules and policies. You want bus drivers and airline pilots to have "right to privacy" and do drugs and booze under such silly argument? That is pure liberal BS.

 

Both airline pilots and bus drivers have the right to use drugs such as alcohol just not while on the Job. I already stated that if someone was suspected of being impaired at work this would justify a drug test. The question is whether or not random testing - especially in the case of a job where someone is not doing a high risk job - is an invasion of privacy.

The only one trumpeting Utilitarian (Liberal BS) is you. What's worse is that you do not even realize that you are trumpeting liberal ideology.

You are trying to do an end run around the safeguards that protect individual liberty but using Utilitarian justification for law "Harm Reduction" (what will increase happiness for the collective) - with no regard for individual liberty.

Such disregard for essential liberty is extremist left wing ideology. Quit projecting your ideological perspective on to me.

 

Marijuana and cocaine wear off much faster than alcohol.
With blow the high lasts up to 30 minutes. With MJ it lasts 2-3 hours after which you suddenly become sober. With alcohol it takes many hours to wear it off, and when it does you still have headaches and feel like excrement all day long.
If I was a king I would ban tobacco and alcohol and would make MJ, cocaine, LSD and ecstasy legal. Nicotine is pure evil and alcohol is the only drug whose withdrawal can literally kill you! The drugs I listed above don’t cause physical withdrawal whatsoever - I tried those myself in fairly large quantities when I was younger.

As for your claim about employers being able to fire anyone - well, you can’t fire based on ethnicity, race or sexual orientation. Firing based on a drug preference is kind of stupid, especially if the employees don’t use those drugs during work hours. Many lawyers, doctors, politicians, accountants and others use adderral (amphetamine) daily and it’s legal.

 

IMO, you should not need any justification to fire someone.

 

if you don't like the policies your employer has, then get the heck out and find another job. Your idea that employees are some kind of victims if they get tested is very liberal indeed. No one should be forced to keep drug users on their pay-rolls. What's worse is that you do not even realize that you are trumpeting liberal ideology.

 

The idea that companies should be able to fire people willy nilly on the basis of what they do in their private lives (smoking a cigarette at a party or having a drink) is absurd... and totally left wing ideology.

This however is not what I have been talking about. What I have been talking about is the ability of a company to legally invade the privacy of its workers. You keep trying to avoid this topic.

 

You can refuse the test. No one is forcing you to stay with a company you have such great disagreements with. You and your liberal mindset demands the government force employers keep drug users on their payrolls.

Employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason (at-will), or no reason at all.