What does ca.com think?

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Bump //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

What you don't understand is that your question implies that marijuana is illegal, but yet you said we're talking about it being legal.

lol

So when you were in school, and the teacher told you that sharing the crayons with little Jimmy was the fair thing to do, she was implying that not sharing would be illegal?

^ I have to use similar reasoning with my g/f's 7 year old. Yurr smart!

Its funny you keep calling me stupid, yet I keep finding myself having to explain myself in more and more simplified ways, just to get you to act like Im not speaking Japanese.

Moron.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Yes. It's fair to assume that their drug use could effect their work performance.

So if you see a a Pepsi can in an employees car, its also fair to assume they are on a caffeine rush while operating the machinery at work? Or, in your view of morality, does legal status tell you what's fair to assume and what isn't?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/idea.gif.5acb6a39a9b92425414c316dda202bad.gif

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Bahahaha

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

lol
So when you were in school, and the teacher told you that sharing the crayons with little Jimmy was the fair thing to do, she was implying that not sharing would be illegal?

^ I have to use similar reasoning with my g/f's 7 year old. Yurr smart!

Its funny you keep calling me stupid, yet I keep finding myself having to explain myself in more and more simplified ways, just to get you to act like Im not speaking Japanese.

Moron.

Look at your question genius:

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's break this down for you:

1)Now you have been saying time and time again that we're assuming that marijuana is legal. Do you agree?

2) Drug companies do drug tests to look for illegal drugs, not legal ones. Do you agree?

3) Your question says that someone tests positive for marijuana. How could you test positive for a legal drug if they are only looking for the illegal ones?

Is that simple enough for you?

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

So if you see a a Pepsi can in an employees car, its also fair to assume they are on a caffeine rush while operating the machinery at work? Or, in your view of morality, does legal status tell you what's fair to assume and what isn't?
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/idea.gif.5acb6a39a9b92425414c316dda202bad.gif

Sigh, now you're comparing caffeine to marijuana.

Medical News: Caffeine May Aid Shift Work - in Psychiatry, Sleep Disorders from MedPage Today

Caffeine reduces mistakes made by shift workers, study finds

Caffeine for the prevention of injuries and errors in shift workers

Caffeine for the prevention of injuries and errors... [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010] - PubMed result

Now would you be more worried about an employee that drinks coffee or one that does marijuana?

 

[chunky cumz 10+ year member]

potheads

 

[Low 10+ year member]

No ones ever gotten blazed then went home and beat the **** out of their wife.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Look at your question genius:


Let's break this down for you:

1)Now you have been saying time and time again that we're assuming that marijuana is legal. Do you agree?

2) Drug companies do drug tests to look for illegal drugs, not legal ones. Do you agree?

3) Your question says that someone tests positive for marijuana. How could you test positive for a legal drug if they are only looking for the illegal ones?

Is that simple enough for you?

If you were any more dense, you'd collapse in on yourself and form a black hole.
Ive asked you, numerous times, if its fair to assume that testing positive for marijuana means it will affect their job performance. In other words, proving they use it means its fair to assume they'll use it at work. But you just cant get your brain off of the circular logic that if its legal, they wont test for it. Ive tried to explain to you that my question isn't about if its legal or not, but if its fair to make this assumption. But you just keep coming back to 'if its legal, they wouldn't test for it'. The only reason Ive said 'assume its legal' was not to interject it into my question on fairness, but to try and get you to stop telling us about its legal status (ie: its illegal, so its 'fair' to test for it)

Lets review your questions.

1) Only in the sense of, you wont get off the 'its an illegal drug so they have a right to test you for it' logic. Not in the sense of 'is it fair to test for pot if its legal'. Am I getting through to you, at all, yet?

2) Not relevant to 'is it fair to assume use means use at/during work', or if the residual affects of smoking last Friday, or even the night before, will somehow make you inherently less capable of doing your job than someone else who does not or never has smoked it.

3) Again, my question of fairness, posed to you, has NEVER been 'is it fair to test for marijuana if its legalized'.

And my own #4: 4) You are a perfect example of a drug free mind does not imply a clear thinker.

Fucking duh. lol

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Sigh, now you're comparing caffeine to marijuana.
Medical News: Caffeine May Aid Shift Work - in Psychiatry, Sleep Disorders from MedPage Today

Caffeine reduces mistakes made by shift workers, study finds

Caffeine for the prevention of injuries and errors in shift workers

Caffeine for the prevention of injuries and errors... [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010] - PubMed result

Now would you be more worried about an employee that drinks coffee or one that does marijuana?

Of course Im comparing it to caffeine, if I try comparing it to virtually any other drug you simply fall back into your same circular reasoning based around legal status. Even cigarettes.

Furthermore, Ive used the caffeine example to demonstrate that when you (you, meaning you, LazyRider) talk about 'drugs' you only seem to be talking about the politically incorrect 'illicit' drugs. Reality is humans, even good honest God fearing humans, use 'drugs' every day. There are 'drugs' in our soft drinks, our cigarettes, our medical prescriptions, even in our toothpaste.

So lets compare it to a stronger drug than caffeine. Alcohol. If an employee says "I went out to the bar and got drunk last friday", is it fair for his employer to send him to the local clinic to test him for alcohol in his system because he then assumes if the guy drinks, he is a risk to be drunk at work? And if you start in again with your nonsense about 'its legal to test for alcohol', Im gonna e-slap you stupid(er).

Lets try 5 year old child logic on you, since even 7 year old child logic went right over your head. If Bobby in kintergarten told the teacher he ate a crayon at home yesterday, is it fair for the teacher to assume the child is eating the school supplied crayons that disappear from the classroom?

So what is my question about? Is it about the legal status of eating Crayolas? Do we need to delve into the debate on if its legal to eat Crayolas? Or is the question asking, if someone does something in a responsible/private manner, ie: doing it at home, while not driving, while not working, while not in front of their children, is it also fair to assume they WILL do it at work? I hope you understand this paragraph, cause I went back to using grown-up logic and terms. Lets see how well you comprehend.

On a side note, this forum needs more "Im laughing at you" emotes, cause Im getting bored using the same ones on your over and over.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Prove it.

I trust you will be brutally honest with me. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif Am I really being so hard to understand, or is LazyRider just being evasive and/or dense as fuck?

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

If you were any more dense, you'd collapse in on yourself and form a black hole.
Ive asked you, numerous times, if its fair to assume that testing positive for marijuana means it will affect their job performance. In other words, proving they use it means its fair to assume they'll use it at work. But you just cant get your brain off of the circular logic that if its legal, they wont test for it. Ive tried to explain to you that my question isn't about if its legal or not, but if its fair to make this assumption. But you just keep coming back to 'if its legal, they wouldn't test for it'. The only reason Ive said 'assume its legal' was not to interject it into my question on fairness, but to try and get you to stop telling us about its legal status.

Lets review your questions.

1) Only in the sense of, you wont get off the 'its an illegal drug so they have a right to test you for it. Not in the sense of 'is it fair to test for pot if its legal'. Am I getting through to you, at all, yet?

2) Not relevant to 'is it fair to assume use means use at/during work, or if the residual affects of smoking last Friday, or even the night before, will somehow make you inherently less capable of doing your job than someone else who does not or never has smoked it.

3) Again, my question of fairness, posed to you, has NEVER been 'is it fair to test for marijuana if its legalized'.

And my own #4: 4) You are a perfect example of a drug free mind does not imply a clear thinker.

Fucking duh. lol

Your inability to ask a question means I don't think clear?

Your first question was:

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?

Now you're switching it to:

In other words, proving they use it means its fair to assume they'll use it at work

Those are two different questions, if you don't understand that you're dumber than I thought.

 

[LazyRider 10+ year member]

Of course Im comparing it to caffeine, if I try comparing it to virtually any other drug you simply fall back into your same circular reasoning based around legal status. Even cigarettes.
Furthermore, Ive used the caffeine example to demonstrate that when you (you, meaning you, LazyRider) talk about 'drugs' you only seem to be talking about the politically incorrect 'illicit' drugs. Reality is humans, even good honest God fearing humans, use 'drugs' every day. There are 'drugs' in our soft drinks, our cigarettes, our medical prescriptions, even in our toothpaste.

So lets compare it to a stronger drug than caffeine. Alcohol. If an employee says "I went out to the bar and got drunk last friday", is it fair for his employer to send him to the local clinic to test him for alcohol in his system because he then assumes if the guy drinks, he is a risk to be drunk at work? And if you start in again with your nonsense about 'its legal to test for alcohol', Im gonna e-slap you stupid(er).

Lets try 5 year old child logic on you, since even 7 year old child logic went right over your head. If Bobby in kintergarten told the teacher he ate a crayon at home yesterday, is it fair for the teacher to assume the child is eating the school supplied crayons that disappear from the classroom?

So what is my question about? Is it about the legal status of eating Crayolas? Do we need to delve into the debate on if its legal to eat Crayolas? Or is the question asking, if someone does something in a responsible/private manner, ie: doing it at home, while not driving, while not working, while not in front of their children, is it also fair to assume they WILL do it at work? I hope you understand this paragraph, cause I went back to using grown-up logic and terms. Lets see how well you comprehend.

On a side note, this forum needs more "Im laughing at you" emotes, cause Im getting bored using the same ones on your over and over.

LOL you realized your caffeine comparison was retarded now you're moving on to alcohol. Yea if I find out an applicant is a drunk it would be safe to assume that it could affect their work performance.