[Rammstein]

And just so there is no confusion...this is what I am talking about:

If you're buring that plant, you need to share.

BTW, burning that plant at home, on my day off of work, should be legal., but that's for another thread.

I feel an odd compulsion to associate with people who make the second statement.

I feel an odd revulsion from associating with people who would make the first statement.

And, while I believe that it "should be legal," I think the employer should still be able to fire you upon discovering such conduct, even when at home, on day off work . . .

How's THAT for another thread? :lol:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

So now that we have a new thread...lets talk about it.

I agree with MP and Adam in that I think it should be legal but I take it step further and say legal to have/consume/manufacture cannabis.

I disagree with MP in that I don't think it should be legal to fire people because they use it in their off time. Now, if employers were also going to fire for using alcohol/tobacco/legal narcotics the I would be fine with that. But singling out pot and saying that it is worse than say...oxycontin or morphine is just childish.

 

[Macktee]

POT?

When I saw that I thought, finally a cooking question.....

Bummer dude!

I think the stuff should be legal and as available as alcohol.

It's better in manys, I think our cops and ex-cops would all agree arresting tokers is far easier than trying to lock up boisterous and/or mean drunks!

I've been around a lot of pot smokers and have never, ever seen one of them get mean! It should be required smoking material for the UN and all national and world conferences of any matter!

 

[Adam5]

If I were to choose to break the law and have a few tokes, who am I hurting? It's a victimless crime. Can you even call something a crime if there is no victim? If it were legalized and controlled like alcohol the country would save hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent arresting and jailing people for pot. If it was taxed like alcohol or cigarettes, think of the things that the taxes collected could be used for. I know, I know, it's a "gateway" drug. Look at what happened to crime rates durring prohibition in the 30's and then what happened when alcohol was legalized and regulated. Is it possible that the same would happen?

 

[Rammstein]

I categorically reject the idea that cannabis is a gateway drug.

 

[Adam5]

I categorically reject the idea that cannabis is a gateway drug.

That's why it's in quotes. It's not my term. I don't believe in it either.

 

[Rammstein]

Ah.

 

[asbrand]

I've never smoked the stuff. Not even once. And, I'm almost 40.

Never had the desire.

However, I've never understood why it is illegal.

Think of all the things that can be made with it... Paper, cardboard, clothing, etc. It is fast growing, and something like 90% or so is used up in manufacturing said items. Unlike trees.

*shrug*

Just more of our stupid insane laws.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I disagree with MP in that I don't think it should be legal to fire people because they use it in their off time.

So, the libertarian side of you just screams out for another law regulating with whom I contract and under what conditions?

How do you enforce this law? Fines, jails, guns, soldiers and killing fields?

If I, as an employer, must keep potheads on board once I discover it, then I would be turned from my libertarian sympathy on the issue of marijuana legalization. Burdened with this additional baggage you impose upon it, I would fight such a measure.

My only sympathy for the cause lies in not jailing people for doing something that does not directly harm somebody else. I don't want to be forced to interact with such people at the point of a government gun once I discover their continuing immoral conduct. If such are the conditions, then I resolve to fight.

 

[Tinkerhell]

MP, would you fire someone if you found out that they were going home on the weekend and drinking a couple cases of beer?

I agree that if they give you cause to fire them on the job - poor performance or dependability or even if you just don't like em then you should be able to fire them. But if your employee is a great person on the job, you get along well with them in an employer/employee relationship, and the perform outstandingly then one day you find they smoke on the weekends. Would you fire them?

I personally think that a business owner should be able to hire/fire anyone they want for any reason. It's their business they can do what they want with it. But I am curious as to anyone that would say they would not fire someone for drinkning but they would for smoking pot? I honestly don't see too much difference between the two (given that pot were legalized of course).

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

MP, would you fire someone if you found out that they were going home on the weekend and drinking a couple cases of beer?

With disturbing alacrity.

 

[Rammstein]

MP, I believe you missed my qualifier.

If people are going to get fired across the board for using and mind altering substances (alcohol and tobacco included) then I would have no problem. But I do have a problem with selective enforcement.

immoral conduct.

Can you explain exactly what is immoral about using cannabis?

 

[Tinkerhell]

Interesting.
Just curious - why?
Again we are talking about an exemplary employee. But one that occasionally drinks beer on the weekend at his home responsibly.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Tinkerhell, you said two cases, not an occasional beer.

Rammstein, immoral conduct = lack of sobriety.

The issue for me as an employer is both lack of sobriety and lack of self control.

I would also fire people who tell me this time of year that they are not paying taxes, they get $x back. I don't need people like that responsible for money.

 

[Rammstein]

Rammstein, immoral conduct = lack of sobriety.

Lol...you are gonna have to do a little better than that.

The issue for me as an employer is both lack of sobriety and lack of self control.

On their own time when it does not impact job performance?

 

[Adam5]

I would also fire people who tell me this time of year that they are not paying taxes, they get $x back. I don't need people like that responsible for money.

That falls more under the category of stupidity. I was in our warehouse this morning, and one the guys back there told me that wasn't paying any taxes this year, thathe was getting money back. I asked him about the deductions from his check every two weeks, and if those weren't taxes. He gave me a blind look and said that those don't count. :shock:

 

[rajl]

On their own time when it does not impact job performance?

Not that I normally jump in to most forum conversations, but there are a number of jobs where I would consider firing somebody for off the job conduct. For example, I would fire CIA officers who drink heavily after hours. If I was in a law-firm, I might consider doing the same thing to a lawyer who had a few too many after hours on a regular basis. Loose lips sink ships, and in both cases the employee in question has knowledge of confidential information. All that someone with nefarious purposes needs to do is meet them at a bar, liquor them up, and talk em to death.

Note that I talk of this on a regular basis. Everyone has a misjudgment once in awhile, and just because someone got unexpectedly drunk on the weekend because they were a little more tired than normal and didn't have much to eat for dinner does not make them a liability.

However, for most jobs for which I really don't care what people do after hours, as long as they show up on time, and do good work while on the clock, they can do whatever they want in their off time. This pretty much means any job except for those where people have access to sensitive information on a regular basis, or jobs where people are "on-call" (think doctor) even when they are off duty.

 

[rajl]

Oh, and personally, I think that if tobacco and alcohol are legal drugs for the proles to use, I personally believe pot should be too. Pot, which used to be legal 70 years ago, is a lot safer and healthier than the other two in my opinion. It also does not have near the negative consequences to society at large that alcohol and tobacco do.

 

[mzmtg]

Rammstein, immoral conduct = lack of sobriety.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Rammstein, immoral conduct = lack of sobriety.

Care to elaborate?

Not really. Rammstein asked what I thought was immoral about smoking pot. I believe it immoral to fail to maintain sobriety. One can drink a beer or glass of wine with dinner and maintain complete sobriety. One cannot down "two cases of beer" and do the same.

Likewise, the whole idea of "smoking pot" is to gain a state of mind that is not sober.

So, no, Rammstein, I do not "have to do better than that." You asked me what is immoral about it, and I told you. I do not really wish to turn your pot thread into a religious discussion, but I am sure you can guess the origin of my belief on this topic. And I will leave it at that if nobody is curious about it since I really do not care to address more of the red herrings and strawmen that I see posted sometimes on religious issues. As a prophylactic measure, please note that I am not advocating using state power to force any religious issue.

The topic of this thread is about legalization generally, and whether one might wish to fire workers or otherwise not knowingly associate on a regular or consistent basis with people who are habitual users (and, in my experience, there are not really any other kind).

I detect a large discrepancy between those who were advocating libertarian values on this drug issue, but on the other hand advocate the state stepping in with force on the employment issue. Interesting.

 

[Rammstein]

I've actually had the reasoning behind this explained to me by a religious person. It fails my rational thought test. But I supposed that is a whole new argument and a whole new thread.

I detect a large discrepancy between those who were advocating libertarian values on this drug issue, but on the other hand advocate the state stepping in with force on the employment issue. Interesting.

Like I said...if it is across the board illegal for mind altering substances my objections wouldn't have as much force (which I am still very much against). But since it is the selective enforcement I have to call bull shit on.