Posted on 08/01/2002 5:16:08 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
Edited on 05/07/2004 8:00:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
As we endeavor toward a more lucid and informed discussion of substance abuse, let's deconstruct the mystique of marijuana and recognize it for the dangerous drug that it is.
Marijuana is a substance that's worthy of our concern. It is the most prevalent of all illicit drugs used in the country. The 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that 34 percent of Americans have used marijuana in their lifetime and 5 percent are current users.
(Excerpt) Read more at theithacajournal.com ...
I guess this explains your reactions to the topic of ENDING the war on Americans, commonly called the war on drugs. Get to a treatment program immediately!
You know, I think that's the first thing I've ever read of yours that I totally agree with. Simply heartwarming.
I assume you agree with more than just that one sentence among my four years of posting on FR otherwise you would have long ago stopped reading them. I've read several of your posts and I can understand why out wouldn't totally agree with me. Most people don't. I'm not in search of people to agree with me.
As you will see the subject of "4:20" was brought up by pro-potter vin-one on reply 186,
Telling someone that jumping off of the Empire State building without a parachute IS knowing what's best for the fool who believes otherwise.
you are so right, I give in to your overwhelming inteligence. I will never partake of the evil weed again.
ROTFLMAO, is it 4:20 yet?????
Loren we need you here.....
186 posted on 8/1/02 8:04 AM Pacific by vin-one [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Sheesh all I was doing was reminding the pro-pot people on this thread that it was 4:20 PM on the east coast so that they could have their collective orgasm.
Oh well, I have should have remembered, "that no good deed goes unpunished".
LOLOLOL!!
I doff my hat to the Supreme Ironist of Free Republic!
Seriously. Huzzah!
A2J would be a veritable powerhouse on the WOD Squad
LMAO!!!
That , my friend is what the interview cycle is for. You interview a person technically and personally and check references. If this person is technically strong enough and is personable enough to get along with fellow workers ... that should be the extent of the exam and that potential employee is NOT a total stranger. If that employee is a screw up, the employer will know soon enough. BUT Peeing in a bottle to prove drug cleanliness IMHO is a violation of MY 4th amendment rights.
As far as companies being honest and ethical in todays environment ... ever hear of Enron or Worldcom
An other example of business discrimination excesses would be say the teaching profession. What if those who did the hiring for all schools would only hire socialists ... oh ... wait a minute.....
That's a problem of government funded public schools. I was fortunate and attended a private school that was owned and headmastered by ran x-CIA employee that was, in regards to education, anti-socialist.
Dane, you are the king of the Wodders. Don't ever change, man.
There's that disorientation again. I would suggest you go back and read a few of your own posts.
Uh, then I think what you should be worrying about is dismantling the socialistic system that will FORCE you to take care of them, rather than jumping on the totalitarian badwagon that says the government should be able to tell you what to do.
I don't want to take care of people who are too stupid, too lazy, too undisciplined, or too whatever, to take care of themselves, either. But I'm not here railing against fatty foods, cigarettes, alcohol, people who don't try to save for their own retirement, or anything else.
See, I believe that everyone is responsible for themselves, and particularly for their own behavior and choices. It spreads the work around. Otherwise, over time you end up with a bunch of people who do whatever they please without consequence, while a handful of responsible, self-controlled individuals pick up their slack. Hmmm, sounds a lot like this country today, doesn't it?
Besides, just because some people can't handle pot, should everyone be prohibited from using it? How does that fit with the laws concerning alcohol? Just because some guy can't have a drink without being a raging drunk alcoholic, should I be prohibited from having a beer or two while I watch a baseball game? And if I drink twenty beers a day for my whole life, should you be forced to "take care of me"? Hardly. Its no different with pot.
Sorry, but don't make other people's weaknesses my problem, or use them to tell me what I can and cannot do. By saying that you don't want to be forced to take care of those weak people, you are trying to make their weakness MY problem, OUR problem, instead of making sure that their weakness, their choices, are THEIR problem, with direct consequences to THEM, not you and me.
Would that be the same wing that thinks Harry Anslinger was a stand-up guy, and FDR was the first president to correctly interpret the Commerce Clause?
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.