What does ca.com think?

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/ohsnap.gif.17c4c91be09a7a4a3995fb7145adac39.gif

Yall provide the lulz, major time.

Legit arguments going on though //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

It was legit, til lazy completely misrepresented his link, and applied his logic to a topic we aren't even discussing. Too bad, I was hoping for a better opponent on this particular debate.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

If marijuana was legal, and you don't smoke it now, would you?

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

This entire discussion is IF POT WERE LEGALIZED! Jesus God, are you really this stupid? Lets sound it out for you... if pot were legalized (again, the topic we are discussing), what does you providing info on how ILLEGAL DRUGS are handled pertinent?
*laughing at you, not with you*

Fool, I posted the laws of what is illegal. If there is no law saying that something is illegal, then obviously it is legal to do it. If there is no law that says it's illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs, then it's not illegal duh. What in the world do you think laws are for? If it was illegal there would be a law stating so. Do you seriously not understand the concept of laws and rules? You're a new type of stupid lol

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Fool, I posted the laws of what is illegal. If there is no law saying that something is illegal, then obviously it is legal to do it. If there is no law that says it's illegal not to hire someone because they do drugs, then it's not illegal duh. What in the world do you think laws are for? If it was illegal there would be a law stating so. Do you seriously not understand the concept of laws and rules? You're a new type of stupid lol

*face palm*

Maybe if you cant grasp how Id not understand your point, its because you dont understand mine? Naw!

And again, 16 states have laws stating it is illegal to refuse hiring someone who is 'addicted' to nicotine. And you've yet to address the fact that nobody, NOBODY, refuses to hire based on drug use (the word drug referring to all/any drugs, including politically correct drugs like caffeine). So you keep on with your 'if there is no law saying its illegal, its legal' rhetoric all you want. The point of this this discussion wasn't even if it was illegal, but if its fair.

Lets boil this down, because your attempts to confuse the issue are tiresome. Do you think its fair to assume that if someone tests positive for marijuana, it should be assumed it will affect their ability to do their job?

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

*face palm*
Maybe if you cant grasp how Id not understand your point, its because you dont understand mine? Naw!

And again, 16 states have laws stating it is illegal to refuse hiring someone who is 'addicted' to nicotine. And you've yet to address the fact that nobody, NOBODY, refuses to hire based on drug use (the word drug referring to all/any drugs, including politically correct drugs like caffeine). So you keep on with your 'if there is no law saying its illegal, its legal' rhetoric all you want. The point of this this discussion wasn't even if it was illegal, but if its fair.

Lets boil this down, because your attempts to confuse the issue are tiresome. Do you think its fair to assume that if someone tests positive for marijuana, it should be assumed it will affect their ability to do their job?

Let me address this bold part first. When in the world did this become a fact //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Now on to the red part:

Ummm?

This entire discussion is IF POT WERE LEGALIZED! Jesus God, are you really this stupid? Lets sound it out for you... if pot were legalized (again, the topic we are discussing), what does you providing info on how ILLEGAL DRUGS are handled pertinent?
*laughing at you, not with you*

You are either really dense, or dodging like a mother fucker. The whole point of this debate was if pot was LEGALIZED, and you post a link talking about ILLEGAL DRUG use. Are you related to Proximity?
Fucking lawl.

And for the sake of it let's go to where this whole debate with you even started. All I said was:

It's illegal not to hire someone solely based on their race, gender, or age. If someone chooses not to hire someone because they do drugs they are free to do so. They are trying to get the best people for the job. They have to invest money into their employees so if they are looking for people who don't do drugs they are free to do so. You seriously think a company is obligated to hire drug addicts? You should look up employment laws //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif. If you seriously think you're entitled to any job you want then you are ignorant and I can't help you. And no job I've ever had has drug tested. It is very possible to find a job that doesn't do drug testing.

You chose to argue this fact //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif I've posted the employment laws already that prove what I said was true. I responded to a comment about weed testing at jobs. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Let me address this bold part first. When in the world did this become a fact //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
Now on to the red part:

Ummm?

And for the sake of it let's go to where this whole debate with you even started. All I said was:

You chose to argue this fact //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif I've posted the employment laws already that prove what I said was true. I responded to a comment about weed testing at jobs. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

You just dont get it. Ive been trying to be subtle, but I see you dont grasp subtle hints very well. You keep saying "drugs" and only meaning marijuana, cocaine, etc. But caffeine is a drug. I keep trying to get you to differentiate what you consider 'drugs' and 'addicts', and what you simply consider Pepsi drinkers, but it continues to fly right over your head. Im addicted to caffeine, show me a law that allows a company to refuse to hire me based on being 'addicted' to that 'drug'. And yes, that makes my comment FACT. The term drug is not just the illicit drugs you refer to, it refers to ALL drugs. You cant name a single law that states a business can refuse to hire someone based on "drug" addiction. You can only name laws that allow companies to refuse a hiring based on the politically incorrect 'illicit' drugs. Point being, we let the govt pick and chose what drugs are 'good', and what are 'bad', because clearly we an individuals are just too darn stupid to make those distinctions, and decisions, for ourselves.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

Lets boil this down, because your attempts to confuse the issue are tiresome. Do you think its fair to assume that if someone tests positive for marijuana, it should be assumed it will affect their ability to do their job?

Are you talking about if marijuana is legal or illegal now? You keep flip flopping so I can't even tell anymore. Drug tests are used to spot illegal drugs, so they would not be looking for marijuana use if it was legal. You need to be more clear.

If we're talking marijuana being illegal then:

If someone tests positive for marijuana it would definitely effect my decision to hire them. Especially depending on the type job. If they are going to be operating machinery, or have responsibility over kids or something there's no way I would hire someone who tested positive for marijuana. I believe it's an unnecessary risk to hire them when I have a pool of applicants to choose from who are clean.

And if marijuana was legal:

Unless I saw them smoking it or had knowledge of them smoking it I would have no way of knowing because it's illegal to ask applicants about their use of legal drugs unless it's related to their job duties somehow. And ***** test would only test for illegal drugs so I wouldn't be looking for it there.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

You just dont get it. Ive been trying to be subtle, but I see you dont grasp subtle hints very well. You keep saying "drugs" and only meaning marijuana, cocaine, etc. But caffeine is a drug. I keep trying to get you to differentiate what you consider 'drugs' and 'addicts', and what you simply consider Pepsi drinkers, but it continues to fly right over your head. Im addicted to caffeine, show me a law that allows a company to refuse to hire me based on being 'addicted' to that 'drug'. And yes, that makes my comment FACT. The term drug is not just the illicit drugs you refer to, it refers to ALL drugs. You cant name a single law that states a business can refuse to hire someone based on "drug" addiction. You can only name laws that allow companies to refuse a hiring based on the politically incorrect 'illicit' drugs. Point being, we let the govt pick and chose what drugs are 'good', and what are 'bad', because clearly we an individuals are just too darn stupid to make those distinctions, and decisions, for ourselves.

Here we go again. Back to my previous statement that if something is not against the law then obviously it's legal. If a law says you you can't do a,b,c, and d, but doesn't say you can't do e. Then you can do e. Why is that theory so hard for you to understand?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Are you talking about if marijuana is legal or illegal now? You keep flip flopping so I can't even tell anymore. Drug tests are used to spot illegal drugs, so they would not be looking for marijuana use if it was legal. You need to be more clear.
If we're talking marijuana being illegal then:

If someone tests positive for marijuana it would definitely effect my decision to hire them. Especially depending on the type job. If they are going to be operating machinery, or have responsibility over kids or something there's no way I would hire someone who tested positive for marijuana. I believe it's an unnecessary risk to hire them when I have a pool of applicants to choose from who are clean.

And if marijuana was legal:

Unless I saw them smoking it or had knowledge of them smoking it I would have no way of knowing because it's illegal to ask applicants about their use of legal drugs unless it's related to their job duties somehow. And ***** test would only test for illegal drugs so I wouldn't be looking for it there.

I haven't flip flopped once. lol Your inability to decipher my meaning has simply made it seem that way to you.

"Drug tests are used to spot illegal drugs, so they would not be looking for marijuana use if it was legal. You need to be more clear."

Seriously? This \/ wasn't clear enough for you?

I bolded the important parts. So tell me, is caffeine an illegal drug? How about legally prescribed drugs, are they illegal drugs?

Or this \/ ?

This entire discussion is IF POT WERE LEGALIZED! ... if pot were legalized (again, the topic we are discussing), what does you providing info on how ILLEGAL DRUGS are handled pertinent?

Ive been 100% clear. The topic is if pot were legalized. Not illegalized. Its already illegal, and we all already know what a world with illegalized pot would look like. We live in it every day.

And, you never answered my question. I'll post it again.

Do you think its fair to assume that if someone tests positive for marijuana, it should be assumed it will affect their ability to do their job?

And before you say it, this does not answer the question:

I believe it's an unnecessary risk to hire them when I have a pool of applicants to choose from who are clean.

You said 'unnecessary, I asked if its fair. So again I'll ask, is it fair to assume that someone who tests positive for marijuana means it will affect their ability to perform their job? The test simply tells if the substance has been used, not abused, and completely ignores one's actual job performance. If you say its fair, would it also then be fair to assume people who drink Pepsi will operate the machinery at your work place while on a caffeine stimulated buzz? Is it also fair to assume that someone with medically diagnosed (and treated) migraines will operate that machinery while under the influence of their doctor prescribed 'medicine'? My point is, again if you say its fair, why is it fair to assume a person will operate that machinery while under the influence of marijuana, but not fair to assume they would operate it under the influence of their headache medicine or cola drink?

 

[chunky cumz 10+ year member]

if its taken as a sopository its absolutely legal

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Here we go again. Back to my previous statement that if something is not against the law then obviously it's legal. If a law says you you can't do a,b,c, and d, but doesn't say you can't do e. Then you can do e. Why is that theory so hard for you to understand?

Just when I thought we were getting somewhere. You completely miss my point, assume I mean some obvious point that is so obvious you cant comprehend why Im asking it, and post a rebuttal to that already obvious answer. Yes Lazy, if something is not illegal, its legal. I get that. Duh? Maybe you need to read my posts twice before responding (not being sarcastic when I say that, Im genuinely trying to get you to actually comprehend what Im saying).

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

I haven't flip flopped once. lol Your inability to decipher my meaning has simply made it seem that way to you.
Ive been 100% clear. The topic is if pot were legalized. Not illegalized. Its already illegal, and we all already know what a world with illegalized pot would look like. We live in it every day.

If marijuana was legal companies wouldn't test for it. Drug tests are for illegal substances.

You said 'unnecessary, I asked if its fair. So again I'll ask, is it fair to assume that someone who tests positive for marijuana means it will affect their ability to perform their job? The test simply tells if the substance has been used, not abused, and completely ignores one's actual job performance. If you say its fair, would it also then be fair to assume people who drink Pepsi will operate the machinery at your work place while on a caffeine stimulated buzz? Is it also fair to assume that someone with medically diagnosed (and treated) migraines will operate that machinery while under the influence of their doctor prescribed 'medicine'? My point is, again if you say its fair, why is it fair to assume a person will operate that machinery while under the influence of marijuana, but not fair to assume they would operate it under the influence of their headache medicine or cola drink?

My previous statement applies again. They're testing for illegal substances, not the legal ones //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

If marijuana was legal companies wouldn't test for it. Drug tests are for illegal substances.


My previous statement applies again. They're testing for illegal substances, not the legal ones //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

You simply refuse to answer if you think its FAIR, dont you? If you are going to refuse, at least say so, instead of falling back on 'they test because its illegal'. We already know they dont/cant/wont test for legal drugs, that is not the point of this thread, our discussion, nor is it even interesting or informational.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

You just dont get it. Ive been trying to be subtle, but I see you dont grasp subtle hints very well. You keep saying "drugs" and only meaning marijuana, cocaine, etc. But caffeine is a drug. I keep trying to get you to differentiate what you consider 'drugs' and 'addicts', and what you simply consider Pepsi drinkers, but it continues to fly right over your head. Im addicted to caffeine, show me a law that allows a company to refuse to hire me based on being 'addicted' to that 'drug'. And yes, that makes my comment FACT. The term drug is not just the illicit drugs you refer to, it refers to ALL drugs. You cant name a single law that states a business can refuse to hire someone based on "drug" addiction. You can only name laws that allow companies to refuse a hiring based on the politically incorrect 'illicit' drugs. Point being, we let the govt pick and chose what drugs are 'good', and what are 'bad', because clearly we an individuals are just too darn stupid to make those distinctions, and decisions, for ourselves.

Just when I thought we were getting somewhere. You completely miss my point, assume I mean some obvious point that is so obvious you cant comprehend why Im asking it, and post a rebuttal to that already obvious answer. Yes Lazy, if something is not illegal, its legal. I get that. Duh? Maybe you need to read my posts twice before responding (not being sarcastic when I say that, Im genuinely trying to get you to actually comprehend what Im saying).

Are you retarded? I posted what is illegal. Did you see anything in there that said it's illegal to refuse to hire someone based on their use of legal drugs?