All I know is race relations were at an all time high before Obama. Now they aren’t and I can point to many things he did to cause that.
OT: It's a start
- Thread starter horshack.sixpack
- Start date
- Status
Ok so you are agreeing with me. I realize you probably have a hard time seeing that.
But wtf do you think morons are gonna do an think when it is legal? They are gonna think the same thing they do with alcohol.
I can drink on Friday and be fine on Monday.
You seemed to think it was a big problem if it was legal because someone would sue a company over a failed drug test when they may or may not have been high while at work. That it wouldn't be fair to the companies.
I said, “No, that’s actually not a problem at all, because companies are free to determine their drug policy based on whatever they want….regardless of laws. That’s already a thing.”
You say “we agree!”
Okay?
They may think that, and they may be right. Maybe not. If they are morons as you suggest, they probably aren’t actually that well versed on their company policy handbook.
So, it would depend on the company policy, and they are simply leaving themselves to the mercy of it while not even knowing it. That isn’t smart, but also isn’t really anyone else’s problem but their own.
My entire point is it’s gonna cause a problem in the work force to some extent.
Why? Bc most people are incredibly 17ing dumb.
Stop trying to force more government power and enforcement on others!
Let the free market operate how it wants!
Allow businesses to make their own decisions on employment matters. How dare you think legislation and government enforcement is the best route!
The government is both corrupt and inept.
...or is that only applicable to situations where you don't like hat the government is doing?
So all the anti-black speech, anti-muslim speech, and birtherism hate that was spewed before and during his presidency didn't hurt race relations?...it's just things he did as president to hurt race relations?
His election win helped surface a lot of tension that had been bubbling for a long time. That tension displayed itself on both sides of the political spectrum.
Hey speaking of Obama, remember when him wearing a tan suit was a scandal worth covering for a week on the 'news'? Ha, I wish for simpler times.
You are too stupid to realize this is what i'm saying.
But i can guarantee you'll be defending people who get fired for failing drug tests once weed is illegal.
Fact: Lot of polls showed race relations at an all time high when he was elected.
Fact: We elected a black president. 69.5 million to 60 million. 365 electoral votes to 173.
Fact: Obama said Trayvon Martin could have been his son.
Opinion: Obama stating that regarding Trayvon Martin had no chance of doing anything positive for the situation.
Fact: It did some negative for the situation.
Fact: Obama made comments about Ferguson people not making up stories.
Fact: Ferguson people actually did make up stories about Mike Brown.
Fact: Obama said all of these. There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.
None of those things needed to be said. None of them were helpful. All of them caused problems.
Fact: Barack Obama had a chance to do more for race relations than anyone in the history of the USA even considering the already positive race relations we were seeing but instead he used identity politics to get re-elected in 2012 and played them on through today.
A lot easier to pop a gummy or take a hit off an odorless vape pen without somebody noticing or noticing your breath than it is to carry a flask around. Even vodka is not odorless and leaves a smell on the breath also.
Plus, it seems like I run into a lot more people who could be mistaken for high than mistaken for drunk and regular users are less likely to have the obviously bloodshot eyes even if they still look a little off.
I'm not getting what I want so we'll end run around the political process and issue an executive order isn't all we have. We could just let the process work and recognize that inaction when there isn't political consensus is the process also working. That's somewhat problematic because we have basically set a doomsday machine in motion with all our entitlement programs, but even there, inertia won't cause a sovereign debt crisis. If we just don't address it, we'll end up with a painful adjustment when social security shortfalls stop being automatically funded by the "trust fund", and we'll end up with painful adjustments when the medicare "trust funds" run out, but that will be less bad than if we insist on barreling towards a sovereign debt crisis.
- You have been repeatedly saying that drug testing cant determine if someone got high right before work or days before work.
- You have also said(post 43 for example) that you want it to be illegal for recreational use. You cited potential societal issues as defense for it to be recreationally illegal- too high to work, too lazy, tax dollars 'wasted' on users, etc.
- Additionally, you cited drug testing should till be allowed for liability purposes(I dont think anyone has argued drug testing should be banned though).
- You then said in post 84 that your entire point is legal recreational weed will cause a problem in the workforce.
Based on your comments, I mockingly said you should stop trying to force government power and enforcement on others and instead let the free market operate how it wants...because you clearly said you support the government being involved in whether it is legal or not for recreational use.
I mockingly said this because you cite the 'free market' trope when it fits your viewpoint, but dont push it when it conflicts with your viewpoint(as in right now).
If you want to be consistent with what you have said and complained about in the past, your position on this issue should be that the government needs to get out of the way and allow businesses to decide how they want to handle drug use issues. But instead, you want the government to be involved and keep recreational marijuana use illegal.
Do you seriously not see how your comments conflict with your staunch position of 'government bad free market good'?
Just chuckle to yourself and say 'yeah, its an inconsistent position' and move on.
Separate the issues and then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation
issue 1 - work force
I don’t know what you do for a living but I work in manufacturing. Every time someone has an accident, they are drug tested. Standard operating procedure.
Currently if you fail for alcohol or drugs you are terminated.
QUESTION - YES OR NO?
If someone failed a drug test today or after it’s legal, are you ok with termination if that’s the company policy? YES OR NO.
If there is a drug use policy that says an employee is fired for failing a drug test, and an employee fails a drug test that applies to that drug use policy, then sure- fire them.
That makes sense to me and it seems pretty straight forward.
I didnt respond to your earlier claim that I would defend people for failing, if weed were legal, because it was such a baseless claim for you to make, I figured it wasnt worth responding to. But here we are with you asking again, so sure- I answered.
I said 'sure- fire them.'
Are you really unable to accept that as equal to 'YES'? I straight up say 'fire them'.
17 man, you have lost the plot big time.
Nah you lose the plot every time you wake up.
Will you defend people who get fired for failing drug tests in the future after marijuana is illegal? Yes or no?
You baselessly accused me of supporting something I dont support. You then asked me to state my position and I did. You then said I didnt, and I did again. Now here we are with you asking once more.
It is unfortunate that you cant move past me not answering it in the exact format you requested. My answer is quite clear.
Its been 5 hours, so its getting close to time for another unhinged Obama rant. Maybe its best to end this insane conversation so you can focus on Obama for a bit.
To be clear you would or wouldn't support the scumbags filing lawsuits for wrongful termination?
I know its hard for you to answer directly!!
Oh I get it, you missed my initial response in post 93. Allow me to paste it here for you to easily see...
To be clear you would or wouldn't support the scumbags filing lawsuits for wrongful termination?
I know its hard for you to answer directly!!
YES OR NO?
This is what is called a goal post shift. You are acting like I have not answered the first question and are now asking a different question than what you originally asked while acting like it is the same question.
You originally asked if I would support firing employees who violated the drug use clause in their employment contract.
You are now asking if I would or would not support the same people filing wrongful termination lawsuits.
You are unhinged.
I do not think people who are fired for violating the drug use policy in their employment contract should receive unemployment benefits.
What it the total 17 does this have to do with anything?
Yes or no dip $h1t!!
I didn't read your post, but what i originally posted regarding a concern on testing and safety at the work place is gonna come up. Not saying it should or should not stop legal marijuana. It is a legit concern though whether you are smart enough to realize that or not.
But you jumped in this thread spouting off like a lunatic like usual.
Simple question you can't answer like usual!!
What’s hilarious is you can completely dance around any question without answering it!
- Status