Posted on 03/26/2014 9:58:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The FReepers on this thread are TERRIFIED of being called on their support of the bastardization of the interstate commerce clause.
They don't need any reason whatsoever if the state is an at-will employment state. Unless, perhaps, they cite federal law because they are bound by union contracts (and "violations of federal law" or some such language provides them with some CYA material).
Preventing the discrimination suits, so far. They are bound to come, though.
There will be no (successful) anti-discrimination lawsuits. If so, they would have already happened with the employers that test for tobacco and/or alcohol.
So the state is keeping its hands off of all of the additional money (which is pure profit then) for pot at the price fixed retail establishments?
The states screwed up in the 30's, when they whined and cried to the Fed to do something about marijuana and gave up their 10th amendment power. And we all know, once you give the Fed power, they're not giving it back.
” It’s NOT a “gateway” drug. “
If the only way you could buy Aspirin was from a drug dealer, then Aspirin would be a gateway drug.
Don't kid yourself. Many of those who think or say they are for less government have no problem contradicting themselves on a daily basis.
Especially when it's "for the children".
They are every bit as eager as liberals to have Govt telling everyone what to do - so long as it's their preferred party in power.
Several examples on this thread alone.
You will have to do better than that to avoid the point, while doing just what I pointed out you guys do, promote liberalism by avoiding the issues and letting the left just win by never facing opposition from you.
Immigration is federal, the military is federal, federal employment is federal, and the federal government has to make laws for how it decides on those issues, for instance, abortion on federal lands and in military medicine, gay marriage in the military and in immigration, and in federal employment.
We need candidates who oppose those at all levels, state, federal, in city contracts, in County government, at every level.
Well, yeah, before 1934 you had an American populace buoyed by strong family/social institutions, and guided by strong moral/religious principles. I’d put up a lot of faith and trust in “that” populace to handle scourges.
I would not accord the same to America-2014, with its government-dependent serfs, moral deviants, feral underclass, and self-absorbed dope-craving scum.
Another so-called conservative I have lost all respect for
We're in the last days of America.
Agree. I have lost all respect for so-called conservative pundits
You are absolutely right, and I absolutely agree with you.
I believe that legalizing pot will dramatically increase the number of people who use it, and I think it will follow that many of those people will drive under the influence of the drug.
They should be punished for their misdeeds, of course - but in the meanwhile someone in my family or any one of us here may be killed or maimed by one of them.
Face it - those who are predisposed to smoke weed are not in the highest percentile of those exercising good judgement.
To voluntarily (i.e. by legalizing) expand the number of impaired drivers on the road is not a good thing.
I don't think I'm being inconsistent here...
You’re just being difficult because you disagree with me. That postmodernists are also egalitarian is easy to see. Egalitarians need postmodernism to strip away the metanarratives that keep groups unequal.
I am telling you, I have not heard of a company in CO testing for tobacco, just illicit drugs.
If only there was some pre-existing punishment system for dealing with impaired drivers on other drugs. Then we could develop a model for marijuana based on that.
Oh, well.
People who drive impaired on the road do not respect those laws to begin with; so those same people would obtain marijuana illegally if they really wanted it and drive impaired.
Says who?
Why does everyone have to stop and change directions because you yell "Squirrel!"?
Well, we both learn something new today.
Back in 1990, Colorado enacted a law that prohibits employers from testing for legal activities. Over half the states have similar/the same laws. I know mine does not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.