Posted on 06/02/2005 4:40:30 AM PDT by Wolfie
So you'd let employers fire boozers?
But now in consideration of your post: You've made a superb point. Further since the majority of the big bucks in the Axis of evil is made off "harder" stuff, would the Axis of evil network be begging for the business? And would these newer industries allow them in? Probably not. But indeed the Coalition of the Willing would need to be there to brace against a bloody coup from the "usual" suspects quite adept at very hostile "takeover" was kept at bay, if not simply directly dealt with.
Quite possibly, also, our US "local" growers of pot will wish to go to Afghanistan, and help build their economy. Could probably teach them a great deal about various seed crops.
Is that some kind of insult?
" Will you and the other drug warriors MYOB?"
We will when you stop shoving your druggie agenda into our faces!
Not at all.
Joke.
Ain't government wonderful?
I dig---that was shorthand for me laughing.
I know that marijuana legalization does not seem high up on the list for some people. I don't smoke it, and personally I am against it. But, everyone should think about this:
If it wasn't for the violence surrounding the illegal drug trade, would there be any large movement for taking away your guns?
If it wasn't for all the cash surrounding the drug trade, would cops be pullng people over randomly on the highway looking to take the money without due process of anyone who has too much cash?
If it wasn't for the drug war, would cops be executing so many no-knock warrants and occasionaly breaking down the wrong door?
If it wasn't for the drug war, would federalism have been done so much damage in the courts in the last 20 years?
The fact is that I am against the drug war not because it affects my "right" to smoke pot, but because it affects my right to own a gun, and it affects my right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, and because it threatens the very concept of federalism that underpins our republic.
Well said, Rodney.
Would legalization of pot mean more money, or less money for terrorists and criminals?
Not with Tort Reform. :)
Oh, I'm not so sure about that actually. Some people don't want the hassle and some people have a particularly good 'green thumb' (no pun intended) and make stuff has way more punch than anything I might have smoked in my younger days, say 10 or 12 years ago.
"JJust an idle question: When "Pot Luck" stores spring up all over the land.. can they be sued for "false advertising" of its wares?"
Since my wife just bought a hairnet claiming to "make hair grow faster and stronger", I'm guessing not. ;-)
As H. G. Wells said, "Advertising is legalized lying".
"Drug use affects workplace performance and performance should always be a firing offense, but the law seems to also indicate that drug use affecting workplace perofrmance isn't a legitimate offense."
First of all, I question your assertion that "Drug use affects workplace performance", assuming you're referring to off-hours drug use.
Secondly, would you include alcohol and tobacco in the same category? Hangovers affecting employees are a well documented workplace problem.
Know anyone that was fired for being hungover at work?
"We will when you stop shoving your druggie agenda into our faces!"
No one is "shoving an agenda in your face". We just want to live in a free country, where an individual is solely responsible (and liable) for his actions, as long as they don't harm others. Plus, the War on Drugs is clearly a waste of money, time, and human potential (on both sides).
"So you'd let employers fire boozers?"
Not because they are boozers, but because a boozer will always be caught drunk or under the influence at work, or their performance will suffer due to the stupid nature of their drinking. I don't care if a person is drunk every night, but the second it affects their work performance, from missing work to having an inability to pay attention, they are gone.
"Know anyone that was fired for being hungover at work?"
Yeah. I fired a guy for it. He drank every night. So long as it didn't affect his performance there was no problem. I canned the guy the day he showed up and was unable to pay attention due to his boozing it the night before.
"Yeah. I fired a guy for it. He drank every night. So long as it didn't affect his performance there was no problem. I canned the guy the day he showed up and was unable to pay attention due to his boozing it the night before."
Fine job, I have no problem with that at all. I'd apply the same standards of "ability to perform your job" to any such situation.
Tort reform had to do with "frivolous lawsuits".
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.