The Drug War (Split from Drug Testing Policies)

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-06 08:53pm

Um, dumbasses? Last time I check, SMOKING POT IS AGAINST THE LAW. Whether it should be or not is debateable, but as it stands IT IS ILLEGAL. So you want to get all pissy at companies because they won't hire you when you're performing illegal activities? That's frecking retarded.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-07 10:23pm

The Kernel wrote:Mike, is it your position that coporations should be allowed to discriminate so long as the thing they are discriminating against is a personal choice?

It's not a personal choice you fucking idiot, it's an illegal activity.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-07 10:48pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Mike, is it your position that coporations should be allowed to discriminate so long as the thing they are discriminating against is a personal choice?
It's not a personal choice you fucking idiot, it's an illegal activity.

Great, then you won't mind if your employer attaches a device to your car which automatically registers your speed and fires you if you go over the limit.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-07 10:50pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Mike, is it your position that coporations should be allowed to discriminate so long as the thing they are discriminating against is a personal choice?
It's not a personal choice you fucking idiot, it's an illegal activity.

Simple possession will land you a citation and fine. It's illegal like speeding or jay-walking is illegal. So if your manager wants to fire you because you jay-walked ...

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-07 10:50pm

The Kernel wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:It's not a personal choice you fucking idiot, it's an illegal activity.
Great, then you won't mind if your employer attaches a device to your car which automatically registers your speed and fires you if you go over the limit.

They're welcome to. Just as I am welcome to find a different job.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-07 10:53pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote: They're welcome to. Just as I am welcome to find a different job.

Be that as it may, not everyone is willing to voluntarily surrender their personal freedoms in order to feed their family.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-07 10:54pm

Their personal freedoms to VIOLATE THE LAW. What part of this do you not understand? Smoking pot is an illegal activity. Don't do it if you can't handle the consequences.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-07 10:55pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Their personal freedoms to VIOLATE THE LAW.

By definition, personal freedoms do not violate the law unless exercised in a manner which infringes on others' rights. That's why their freedoms.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-07 10:58pm

Durandal wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Their personal freedoms to VIOLATE THE LAW.
By definition, personal freedoms do not violate the law unless exercised in a manner which infringes on others' rights. That's why their freedoms.

So you wouldn't mind if i kept a pound of enriched weapons-grade plutonium my house? As long as I didn't hurt anyone with it?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-07 11:03pm

I'll note your failure to recognize the distinction between possession of weapons-grade plutonium and smoking marijuana.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-07 11:03pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote: So you wouldn't mind if i kept a pound of enriched weapons-grade plutonium my house? As long as I didn't hurt anyone with it?

The fact that you think possessing the potential to make a WMD is a victimless crime speaks volumes about your status as a lunatic.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-07 11:05pm

It's now just a matter of degrees. Smoking pot and going out and trying to drive is a dangerous activity as well. So is drinking, but the United States governemnt has determined that alcohol is less dangerous than pot. Pot and plutonium are both illegal to own, use, or sell. One's just more deadly than the other.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-07 11:07pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:It's now just a matter of degrees. Smoking pot and going out and trying to drive is a dangerous activity as well.

Sure it is. That's why driving under the influence of drugs is illegal.

So is drinking, but the United States governemnt has determined that alcohol is less dangerous than pot.

When every statistic in existence tells them otherwise.

Pot and plutonium are both illegal to own, use, or sell. One's just more deadly than the other.

Alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, yet perfectly legal for people over 21.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-07 11:08pm

Say it with me now dumbass:

V-I-C-T-I-M-L-E-S-S C-R-I-M-E

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-07 11:10pm

Yes, alcohol is so much more dangerous than pot

. That's why my 20 year old uncle, who is now living at my house, doesn't have any problem admitting that if he never smoked pot, he probably never would have gone on to coke and frecking heroin. And that none of his friends that never went past drinking don't have any problems with drugs, but the one's that he got with to go get high are mostly dead or junkies now.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-08-07 11:10pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Their personal freedoms to VIOLATE THE LAW. What part of this do you not understand? Smoking pot is an illegal activity. Don't do it if you can't handle the consequences.

Drug Law is wrong and blatantly and unabashedly racist. Also it's been demonstrated hundreds of times to be ineffective at suppressing drug use, manufacture, or sale and has also been demonstrated dozens of times to actually CAUSE the gang warfare and violent crime associated with the drug blackmarket.

Just like Prohibition in the 1920s...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-07 11:11pm

Allow me to inform you as to why possession of weapons-grade plutonium is illegal, while possession of marijuana should be legal.

Marijuana cannot be synthesized into a weapon capable of killing millions of people.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-08-07 11:13pm

Durandal wrote:Allow me to inform you as to why possession of weapons-grade plutonium is illegal, while possession of marijuana should be legal.

Marijuana cannot be synthesized into a weapon capable of killing millions of people.

If anything, Marijuana can be synthesized into a weapon capable of making millions of people see the Truth.

That is why it's so dangerous...

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-07 11:13pm

Oh no, the people who use and sell crack (one of the most addictive and cheap drugs) shouldn't get tougher penalties. No, not at all. And yes, I totally believe their unsupported claim that drugs are as prevelant among whites and minorities. Yep, couldn't ever be wrong there.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-07 11:14pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Yes, alcohol is so much more dangerous than pot . That's why my 20 year old uncle, who is now living at my house, doesn't have any problem admitting that if he never smoked pot, he probably never would have gone on to coke and frecking heroin. And that none of his friends that never went past drinking don't have any problems with drugs, but the one's that he got with to go get high are mostly dead or junkies now.

Wow, cause your personal experience/opinion is totally nonbiased and has direct relevence on US drug policy.

Tell me something, do they breed people like you in a lab or do you come off an assembly line?

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-07 11:15pm

Yes, but we're not talking about shold-be's. We're talking about laws on the books. Those laws state that possession of either is illegal. While atomic material is inherently more dangerous, that stupid phrase "gateway drug" holds much truer than you want to admit.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-08-07 11:21pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Yes, but we're not talking about shold-be's. We're talking about laws on the books. Those laws state that possession of either is illegal. While atomic material is inherently more dangerous, that stupid phrase "gateway drug" holds much truer than you want to admit.

The 'gateway drug' effect is a consequence of the blackmarket and therefore a consequence of Drug Law.

Also, our duty as American citizens is to make sure bad laws either A) don't get passed, or B) get revoked. American drug policy is good ONLY at creating criminals out of peaceful, otherwise-law-abiding citizens as well as giving police and the government an easy way to arrest someone and deprive them of their rights; a power which they like to use to attack minorities with disproportionately.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-07 11:22pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Yes, alcohol is so much more dangerous than pot . That's why my 20 year old uncle, who is now living at my house, doesn't have any problem admitting that if he never smoked pot, he probably never would have gone on to coke and frecking heroin. And that none of his friends that never went past drinking don't have any problems with drugs, but the one's that he got with to go get high are mostly dead or junkies now.

There is no statistical correlation between use of marijuana in those who would not normally use harder drugs and their eventual use and harder drugs. Everyone who smokes crack or shoots heroin probably did start off on pot, but not everyone who smokes pot goes on to crack and heroin. In fact, very few do. Also, those who actually do move on to harder drugs were most like headed in that direction anyway.

There are far better explanations for this phenomenon than "marijuana is a gateway drug." Marijuana is a cheaper substance that is more readily available, so of course it shows up as the first drug a future addict will use. This is not evidence for leaping to the conclusion that marijuana use must doom users to harder drug use later on.

United Press wrote:"It's clear that for the overwhelming majority of Americans marijuana is actually a terminus rather than a gateway," Armentano said. "The overwhelming majority never go on to use any drug harder than marijuana and most of those no longer use marijuana after the age of 25."

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-08-07 11:26pm

And as I would like to point out, this thread is to identify who drug-tests employees and who doesn't, NOT to debate/flamewar over whether or not drug policy sucks. Therefore I would like to request it be split starting from Alyeska's post. Thank you

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-07 11:27pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Oh no, the people who use and sell crack (one of the most addictive and cheap drugs) shouldn't get tougher penalties. No, not at all. And yes, I totally believe their unsupported claim that drugs are as prevelant among whites and minorities. Yep, couldn't ever be wrong there.

The Department of Totally Unsupported Claims wrote:Despite these factors, African-American youths are generally less likely than White youths to use tobacco, alcohol, or other illicit drugs. A study by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) found that the proportions of alcohol use among African-American respondents of all age groups were about 10 to 20 percent lower than the proportions for White respondents of all age groups. Similar results were found during the 2002 University of Florida Alcohol and Drug Survey. White students reported binge drinking at more than twice the rate of African-American students. Additionally, a higher percentage of White students than AfricanAmerican students experienced each of the 22 alcohol-related consequences listed in the survey (http:// www.health.ufl.edu/shcc/eth02.pdf). Considering these results, the question then becomes, why, with so many disproportionate risk factors against them, are African-American students using these substances at lower rates than their White counterparts? The research seems to show that there are several other factors influencing substance use that may work in favor of African-American students.