What kind of complete and utter bullshit is this? Fucking lol. You got me, a bunch of like-minded clowns got together and made a word up. Cool
Lol, a one page âcase-studyâ with 3 citations. D- for lack of effort. Ridiculous.
One of the links doesnât even work, shockingâŠ
So are you saying there is no hope and we ought to continue with the same? Are there not differences between governments? Who does this government represent?
And what of the measurements of particular strains?
Can dealers be trusted with this?
Do you have to be registered with the government for recreational use?
Way to completely miss his point.
Jobs can still sack you for smoking weed off the clock. Only an idiot risks their job when a much lower risk (street) avenue exists.
Is this not a problem?
Jobs can still sack you for smoking weed off the clock. Only an idiot risks their job when a much lower risk (street) avenue exists.
Is this not a problem?
Well, I didnât write thatâŠ
That would depend on whether or not the drugs are still in your system when you clock in. If they are, sorry not sorry pack your shit. In a warehouse environment, you canât have people that are impaired.
Then keep embarrassing yourself with your severely retarded posts.
Now those are some marching orders I can get behind![quote=âZeppelin795, post:585, topic:241023â]
And what of the measurements of particular strains?
Can dealers be trusted with this?
[/quote]
Particular strains serve very little importance to the vast majority of users. Strain specific needs are very rare, usually revolving around a rare condition.
Also, my sister (who deals) and ex brother in law (who deals) both buy their goods straight from dispensaries. The strains arenât hard to google.
Do you have to be registered with the government for recreational use?
I donât believe so, but that doesnât really impact peopleâs worries that the govt is tracking it anyways
If they are, sorry not sorry pack your shit. In a warehouse environment, you canât have people that are impaired.
Imo the distinction that needs to be drawn (but really canât be, I acknowledge that) is the activity level based on the half life of the substance.
It would take me 6 weeks to pee clean, over a year for a hair test, but you donât wake up high just because itâs still in your system
I donât want to see anyone lose their job because they smoke when theyâre off. I also donât want to see someone die because theyâre not sober and they crash a several thousand pound fork truck.
I donât know what the solution is, though.
Certainly better than what we have now.
Works great for Putin.
I donât know what the solution is, though.
I donât know if there is one tbh. Iâve met people that can get high off their ass and 4 hours later they could run a 5k. Opposite to that I know a girl who took one hit of my bong and she was essentially useless for 6 hours.
I think the grey area is going to have to lean in favor of the employer. Plus weâve already made it legal to not allow your employees to smoke cigs off the clock. Not sure why weed needs to be different
Plus weâve already made it legal to not allow your employees to smoke cigs off the clock.
True, but (imo) thatâs wrong.
True, but (imo) thatâs wrong.
I would agree. Moreso commenting on the line that already exists and the parallels.
Fwiw I have no problem with any employer firing any employee for something they do in their free time, assuming they can prove it had an impact on work performance.
Certainly better than what we have now.
Perhaps. It may just be that I have no idea what âpublicallyâ means.
So are you saying there is no hope and we ought to continue with the same?
No. Thatâs what youâre saying. You want continued regulation and intervention. You want it to be done differently(âWe should just do it my way!â There are millions of other people out there who also believe they have the answer, by the way.), but you want to continue with the same.
I have no problem with any employer firing any employee for something they do in their free time, assuming they can prove it had an impact on work performance.
If youâre paying someone to work, then his coming to work with hair thatâs not purple and pink impacts his work performance if thatâs what you demand he do.
If youâre paying someone to work, then his coming to work with hair thatâs not purple and pink impacts his work performance if thatâs what you demand he do.
Iâd say purple hair impacting work performance would need to be quanitifed. In a sales or customer facing job that wouldnât be all that hard, all other scenarios best of luck.
Otoh, If thereâs a prior agreement with the employee (many companies have acceptable dress policies for this reason) nothing would stop the employer from the hair color firing regardless of performance.
Iâd say purple hair impacting work performance would need to be quanitifed.
How would that be done? Heâs working for you. Purple hair pleases you; brown hair does not. What more needs said? When youâre an employee, you work for your employer. Your employer works for his customers.
How would that be done? Heâs working for you. Purple hair pleases you; brown hair does not.
Strawberries are in season. Horrah! Random statements that donât pertain to one another.
What more needs said? When youâre an employee, you work for your employer. Your employer works for his customers.
One of the many reasons I donât subscribe to Libertarian philosophies is stuff like this. The logical extension of their views lead them to draw the line far differently than I do.