yes. if he/she smoked saturday they are OK to teach on monday.
if he/she smoked a joint monday morning should he/she be able to teach monday morning? how will you prove he/she didn't smoke on the way to work?
do i really have to explain this to you?
Actual Value of Marijuana?
- Thread starter gupp
- Start date
if he/she smoked a joint monday morning should he/she be able to teach monday morning? how will you prove he/she didn't smoke on the way to work?
do i really have to explain this to you?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
How will you prove he/she didn't rob a bank on the way to work, jack off in the back seat, or have impure thoughts?
Obviously, medical types need to develop a blood/pee test that shows actual THC content in the blood stream. That seems fair to me, actually having to prove current intoxication before you punish an employee. A pee test that shows that the teacher smoked pot sometime in the last month is not enough to discipline if you are interested in a fair society. If you are not interested in a fair society, well then you are left with our current system.
No, I don't think any employer should be forced to allow anybody to work while intoxicated. It seems to me that an employer should have to prove intoxication to fire somebody, though. That leaves the school administrators in the uncomfortable position of having to actually have a valid reason to fire/discipline a teacher, you know like impaired abilities or obvious signs of intoxication. Oh my God, they are actually going to have to have more than accusations, the world will end!
desert dude
Well-Known Member
No, of course not. Just showing the absurdity of your position: "all the teachers, and doctors, and fork lift operators are going to come to work stoned if P19 passes".are you trying to mock me in an insulting manner?
why?
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if you're serious with this statement. If you are, I feel bad for you. If you aren't lol, good one.
do you deny the statement?
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
It's really sad that you do...
desert dude
Well-Known Member
By your reasoning the teacher is obviously NOT OK to teach on Monday, or Tuesday, or most likely any day in the next month after smoking on Saturday because she will have MJ metabolites in her system, i.e. she is "stoned" according to your definition.
FDD, I know you oppose P19, but you have gone off the deep end with this "grade school teachers will be stoned because they can't prove they are not" crap. This is the lowest form of drug war non-sense, and I hope it is beneath you.
Can you pass a drug test? I would guess not, judging by your posts. Should you be denied a right to make a living because you smoke pot in your free time?
abudsmoker
Well-Known Member
sounds like cali
abudsmoker
Well-Known Member
many people in these positions right now work under the influence a new bill likely will not change this
i never reasoned or defined anything. it is you who keeps making up your own arguments.
right now it is illegal.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Anything to make a buck I guess. You got yours, fuck everybody else.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
I had a long talk over breakfast with a friend who employs 200 people in his factory.
He is VERY unhappy about Prop 19 because it creates a situation he isn't prepared to address.
His workplace is a dangerous place. A lot of heat and chemicals. He has spent millions making it as safe as possible for his employees.
His insurance companies won't be happy if he retains an employee who has had an accident, and shows positive for THC metabolites. He spends a lot of money training these people, and doesn't want to lose even one.
If 19 passes, he'll be forced to include random testing to his current pre employment, and post accident testing to keep his workforce free of the damning metabolite.
He's an old stoner, and hates the idea of having to INCREASE his control over employees' personal lives. Yet, who wants to pay millions more in premiums?
You slap happy pro P19 folks might find yourselves less employed in a year if you think "legalization" won't affect your livelihoods.
Honestly, I think I've found a possible solution, but need to talk to some experts(biochemists) before I can go forward.
You "legal" smokers will hate it, but it will save your jobs, if my idea proves viable.
Anyway, I've voted NO, because too many issues are left unresolved.
Had even one person been able to show me language explicitly protecting medical grows from the 25 square foot limit, I'd have voted yes. You can't because you refuse to do the necessary reading.
You P19 cheerleaders kept ignoring my points in favor of just promising that it would get "fixed" by the state legislators. The same guys that can't get a budget passed on time.
I hope you work for my old friend.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I agree. You never reasoned anything. Anything to make a buck, fuck everybody else.
beardo
Well-Known Member
this is true. It is a statement of fact. And is as or more valid of a point than when the pro 19 croud tries to say 19 will hurt cartels or that when you vote no your voting with the mormonsif prop 19 passes school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED. there is no way to prove otherwise. pot stays in your system for up to a month. how will they know joe pilot didn't blaze one on the way to the airport?
can't see past the ounce in YOUR pocket, can you?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, you are cool with the "metabolites means you are stoned" thinking?
and now this?
your bring a lot of good points to the table.
if you can't debate them, insult them.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So passing P19 will cause, "school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED." All of them stoned on the job because P19 passes.
During these days of discussion on this and other threads I thought you no-on-prop-19 guys were just self-interested and wanted to keep your sleep-till-noon drug dealer lifestyles, but I see you are really much worse than that.