Pot laws are the next great Civil Rights issue

Thorn said:
I was hoping that someone would eventually bring this up. I don't use recreational drugs, simply a personal choice, but I feel a tremendous outrage over the fact that some employers feel they have the right to force staff to undergo random drug testing, without any cause for doing so. It seems to me that this unlikely to be resolved until someone successfully challenges this idiocy in court, and the question there is, of course, who will undertake the expense and exposure to do so? The practice is invasive, and to my limited legal view, seems to represent at least search, if not seizure, without cause, which is unconstitutional.

The only reason I can fathom that someone hasn't challenged this to date is that whoever does it will probably be vulnerable and may not be willing to risk the publicity and/or possible exposure as a recreational drug user. I'm strongly against it and I don't even use.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter for me. But that's because of my career choice. I"m a hazmat manager. I have no problems with my being drug tested because it involves public safety. Those whose job does not involve public safety should be free from this invasion of their privacy. I'm like Topper, smoking herb will have to wait till I'm either retired or enter a differant phase of my career.
 
what's hillarious to me is that your not satisfied with a hand gun or a rifle but you need a machine gun. How many people are you planning on killing?
 
Mottleydude said:
Are you a moron? Tobacco is the most dangerous drug in the world and it's been engineered by the Kings of Tobacco road to be the most addictive. Cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, they aint healthy but they aint killing half a million people a year. Ciggarettes have been designed as a drug delivery system that addicts and kills half a million people year and that's the difference you moron.

Besides, how many people you know that's been pulled over by the cops and popped into jail for a year for having a pack of Marlboro? Apparently it's ok to be addicted to the deadliest drug in the world but having some bud, which aint even remotely as dangerous as cigarettes you go to jail. So what your telling me is cigarette smokers have rights but pot smokers don't?

Ya'll see what I mean about these wing nuts like Bravo not understanding what freedom is?

CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME?!
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I was hoping to make...you tout fancy words like civil rights, freedom, and other crap concerning SMOKING grass, and at the same time pass judgement on others that demand the same freedoms, and civil rights to smoke whatever the hell else they fine pleasure in or drink for that matter....
You left wing morons are the fascists and oppressors of freedom and are too mindless to even realize it....thats an amazing feat.... it should be considered a mental illness ...to be that removed from reality...

You don't even find it odd that there are MANY people world wide that have used tobacco for...50, 60, 80 years .....astounding, it being "the most dangerous drug in the world"....
you probably even buy the shit that second hand smoke kills millions, right....
utter left-wing nonsense...
 
You aren't gonna to anything but talk shit with your racist hillbilly buddies.
Bravo you sound like you don't believe tabbaco companies lied about cancer. Lofl
 
Topspin said:
You aren't gonna to anything but talk shit with your racist hillbilly buddies.
Bravo you sound like you don't believe tabbaco companies lied about cancer. Lofl
Click to expand...

Tobacco and lung cancer?
Coffee and stomach cancer?
Sunshine and skin cancer?
etc....

Irrelevant....

The point is you want to smoke weed and at the same time prevent others from smoking tobacco.....typical liberal hypocrite fascism...

You want your drug of choice accepted while preaching to others they aren't allowed to use their drug of choice.....
 
Thorn said:
I was hoping that someone would eventually bring this up. I don't use recreational drugs, simply a personal choice, but I feel a tremendous outrage over the fact that some employers feel they have the right to force staff to undergo random drug testing, without any cause for doing so. It seems to me that this unlikely to be resolved until someone successfully challenges this idiocy in court, and the question there is, of course, who will undertake the expense and exposure to do so? The practice is invasive, and to my limited legal view, seems to represent at least search, if not seizure, without cause, which is unconstitutional.

The only reason I can fathom that someone hasn't challenged this to date is that whoever does it will probably be vulnerable and may not be willing to risk the publicity and/or possible exposure as a recreational drug user. I'm strongly against it and I don't even use.
Click to expand...

There is no illegal search because employers cannot force you to take a drug test. There have been challenges, and with a much better basis.

Drug testing is fading. It would vanish without the hysteria and propaganda produced by the drug war. The data is too soundly establishing the fact that drug testing is ineffective. Market entities will reform much quicker, even with the government trying to prevent it, than a government who would use failure of the program to just spend more on it.
 
Mottleydude said:
Are you a moron? Tobacco is the most dangerous drug in the world and it's been engineered by the Kings of Tobacco road to be the most addictive. Cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, they aint healthy but they aint killing half a million people a year. Ciggarettes have been designed as a drug delivery system that addicts and kills half a million people year and that's the difference you moron.

Besides, how many people you know that's been pulled over by the cops and popped into jail for a year for having a pack of Marlboro? Apparently it's ok to be addicted to the deadliest drug in the world but having some bud, which aint even remotely as dangerous as cigarettes you go to jail. So what your telling me is cigarette smokers have rights but pot smokers don't?

Ya'll see what I mean about these wing nuts like Bravo not understanding what freedom is?

CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME?!
Click to expand...

So you don't care about the civil rights of cigarette smokers?

Also, do you have anything to back up this stuff about how cigarettes have been engineered to be more addictive. I've known people who smoked those "natural" cigarettes. They seemed just as addicted and I would wager they are just as likely to die from the activity.
 
RStringfield said:
There is no illegal search because employers cannot force you to take a drug test. There have been challenges, and with a much better basis.

Drug testing is fading. It would vanish without the hysteria and propaganda produced by the drug war. The data are too soundly establishing the fact that drug testing is ineffective. Market entities will reform much quicker, even with the government trying to prevent it, than a government who would use failure of the program to just spend more on it.
Click to expand...

That's good to know. I work at a State-owned/operated university. It seemed that they were all set to institute a drug testing policy but for some reason (probably the outrage from the MDs) they modified it to an after-the-fact "justification". I suspected that they were afraid of lawsuits, as they seem to be in every other venue. The gist is that if someone has an accident in a lab, or even driving on campus, that person may be subjected to drug testing. I swore that if that ever happened to me, I'd also get an independent test conducted and pay for it myself. I haven't heard of anyone actually being required to be tested.

I do some fine art (and other) photography on the side, and was asked at one point if I'd teach a photography course at a local city-run Arts center. They require drug-testing before a hire, and I was prepared to refuse, simply on that basis, not for any concern that anything might be found but just on principle. The policy apparently didn't apply to occasional seminar teachers, though, but the course idea never reached fruition, to my relief. I did have to provide blood samples when applying for permanent residency and have no doubt that drug testing was part of it, along with tests for STDs, etc., which made me laugh.

It's just the principle of the thing, and the fact that so very many people have been so passive about it; I couldn't believe it! I'm glad that it's fading;; wish it a speedy demise.
 
RStringfield said:
So you don't care about the civil rights of cigarette smokers?

Also, do you have anything to back up this stuff about how cigarettes have been engineered to be more addictive. I've known people who smoked those "natural" cigarettes. They seemed just as addicted and I would wager they are just as likely to die from the activity.
Click to expand...

Yea, they treat the tobacco with ammonia. This substitutes the sodium nucleophile on the nicotine molecule with the result that the nicotine molecule can diffuse more quickly through the alveoli of the lungs and into the blood stream thus increasing it's addictiveness over untreated tobacco. It's really the same rational as crack cocaine. In addition it's the method of delivery that makes it more addictive. By smoking an inhaling deep into the lungs the active ingredient, nicotene, is delivered pretty much directly to the blood stream making the physiological impact almost immeadiate.
 
bravo said:
Exactly the point I was hoping to make...you tout fancy words like civil rights, freedom, and other crap concerning SMOKING grass, and at the same time pass judgement on others that demand the same freedoms, and civil rights to smoke whatever the hell else they fine pleasure in or drink for that matter....
You left wing morons are the fascists and oppressors of freedom and are too mindless to even realize it....thats an amazing feat.... it should be considered a mental illness ...to be that removed from reality...

You don't even find it odd that there are MANY people world wide that have used tobacco for...50, 60, 80 years .....astounding, it being "the most dangerous drug in the world"....
you probably even buy the shit that second hand smoke kills millions, right....
utter left-wing nonsense...
Click to expand...
But I'm not a left winger. Well ok, compared to a brown shirted, jack-booted, swastika waving Nazi like you by comaprison anything to the left of Attila the Hun is a liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top