Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot

We already covered this. If you test positive, you are likely going to get fired, since no one will listen to you say "sure I have drugs in my system, but I am not stoned right now". Do you realize how silly that sounds?

 

I already responded to this gibberish ... and you had no coherent reply. You are running around in circles like a dog chasing its tail.

 

Nah - we can finish up. Whatever Civics teacher told you that private citizens are required to follow the constitution wrt fellow citizens, lied. You have no constitutional rights at work. You are protected by laws at work and any other non-government engagement you encounter in your life.

 

Doesn't sound silly to anyone who has any knowledge. Are you drunk if you have a trace of alcohol in your system?

 

I'm strongly pro-pot but private companies have the right to set the expectation of employee behavior. Some companies test people for cigarettes and frankly it's their right. You have jobs out there that people are subject to credit checks. Life isn't fair. The only thing to do at this point is to slowly prove the worker who smokes pot can be equally if not more effective than any other employee. You don't see the majority of companies doing alcohol or cigarettes tests because it's legal and doesn't directly interfere with the job. Those companies that are bias towards certain behavior limits their selection of employees and they could very well strike out on a very production employee all because they smoke pot. In time, it'll be the same with marijuana as more states legalize it and society becomes more accepting of pot smokers when the residue of reefer madness and stereotypes of half-baked dissipates.

 

Knowledge? Yes, I have knowledge. I know for fact that most employees will fire you if you test positive for drugs, and they won't listen to your excuses about you not being high at the moment. It is perfectly legal, and it is also common sense.

What knowledge do you have? All you have is a personal opinion about how unfair it is that employers get rid of people who they don't want on their payrolls.

 

Building a straw man is not an argument for much. I never said what you are implying.

 

The status quo does not make it right. The status quo used to be that women and blacks could not vote. Guys like you stuck up for that too.

That is my opinion. You have yours and all you can say is that is the way it is so it is right. Did you support those Jim Crow laws this vigorously too. My knowledge comes from life experience. You on the other hand think that smoking pot causes seizures in babies. Your knowledge apparently comes from the files of crack pots.

 

Oh, good. Not sure why you were arguing that they are violating constitutional rights, then, but it's not important.

 

Gibberish once again. Employers do not "willy nilly" get to condition employment on violating employees right to privacy - and civil liberties in general - outside of Job hours.

And of course private citizens are to respect civil liberties of others - by law. You are very lost.

 

Nope. Voting rights are defined in the constitution, but the mandate for employers to hire drug users is not.

 

Glad to see you are for strict constitutional compliance. I am glad you support our right to bare arms. I am not a constitutional scholar. You will need to point out the section where weed is outlawed.

 

Yes, I fully support the right to bear arms. The Constitution authorized Congress to create laws and regulations, which they did in regards to weed.

 

Not quite. They had to create tax laws in order to regulate marijuana. Harrison tax act and marihuana tax act. They didn't issue any stamps hence making it illegal. So if you were a strict constitionalist you would be against this on principle. But something tells me you are not.

If you apply a EtG test to alcohol users, it can allow employers to detect alcohol in your system for up to 5 days of use. If employers started using this test on people, a lot of people would be fired. But it'll never happen. But once big pharma start getting a grasp on the marijuana industry, you'll see drug testing mandates start to change.

 

Good grief this completely lacks any understanding of the founding principles and Republicanism. Your Blue colors are shining today.

The founding principles put essential liberty "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. In a Republic the Gov't is not allowed to mess with essential liberty - of its own volition. That is the point of having a Constitution = to protect citizens from Gov't making laws that mess with individual liberty.

I understand that being a hardcore liberal extremist you hate the Constitution and the founding principles. That much you have made clear.

 

You fail again. The Constitution does authorize Congress to create laws. They have other duties, but that's pretty much their primary duty. You and you liberal gestapo want deprive employers of their freedoms, which proves you lack any understanding of the founding principles and Republicanism. It also shows you hate the Constitution and the founding principles.

You do this over and over, and don't even realize it. Or maybe you realize it, but are hopelessly too proud to admit it.

 

Maybe lot of people would get fired, but there is nothing to stop employers from doing it.

If work place drug testing violated your Constitutional rights, don't you think the Supreme Court would have made a ruling on it?

 

Where did you learn that employers aren't allowed to make a rule about employees not using drugs?

 

So true. Both parties have been disgusting. I was around in the late 1940s and 1950s. Top rates were over 90% and the economy thrived.

 

Nobody ever paid 90%. It was really much closer to 40%, and only on amounts over a certain threshold.

The tax law back then was filled to overflowing with deductions and loopholes. Those in the "90%" bracket paid their tax attorneys & accountants a lot of money to find all those loopholes. Almost all of the loopholes/deductions are gone, now.

Reality is % revenue to GDP has been relatively consistent for many decades.

 

It was 90% for the amount exceeding a large amount of money, so not many paid it, which would be true today too. It is moot to have rates which are paid by no one.

 

It doesn't matter. We are at least two years away from the passage of any partisan laws.

 

I feel like I'm writing in English, but everyone is reading my posts as Greek this week. I've had at least six people "correct" me by repeating exactly what I had already said.

Thanks for the "clarification," but I had already said, " It was really much closer to 40%, and only on amounts over a certain threshold."

 

Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot
America has long accepted alcoholic beverages as a legal form of recreation. Why not pot? It's far less dangerous.

 

Again you are hopelessly lacking in your understanding of the founding principles .. which you desperately hate.

Of course the Constitution authorizes Congress to create laws. This however does not give Congress absolute power to make any law they wish.

You clearly have no idea about the concept of legitimacy of authority = what are the legitimate powers of Govt. You seem to think the power of Gov't is unlimited and that there are no constraints.

You also have no idea in relation to essential liberty - namely "Essential liberty ends where the nose of another begins". You want to allow employers to cross that bridge and mess with the essential liberty of another human by violating their right to privacy.

Your understanding of essential liberty is completely backward. What part of "essential liberty ends where the nose of another begins" do you not understand ?