Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot

You would deny them the freedom/liberty to run their business as they see fit. You would insert the government to dictate how is should be ran.

Who told you "essential liberty" means privacy?

Do you know what Benjamin Franklin was talking about when he mentioned "essential liberty". Privacy? No. He was talking about taxes in relation to French and Indian War. Some citizens told him to veto bills to fund the war, and he told them they were trading away their own safety which is an essential liberty. Drug use, and ability to hide drug use from those who pay your bills is NOT essential liberty.

As for search and seizure. First of all, it is NOT referring to employers, it is referring to the authorities. Secondly, it says "unreasonable search". As we know, the Supreme Court has ruled DUI checks as reasonable, and they have also ruled in favor of workplace drug testing. Suck it up!

 

You are correct. I missread the 90%. That said your revenue to GDP is irrelevent to who is paying what share of the tax revenues. It does however demonstrate that the government isn't spending disproportionate to the economy unless of course you factor in the Republican tax cuts and the deficit spending that results.

 

That is true. But they were to busy saving America ica from the Bush disaster and trying to save the healthcare system And the last six it was the Republicans.

 

Of course essential liberty includes the right not to be forced to give up private details of your personal life on the basis of the whim of your employer.

Your understanding of "search and seizure" and essential liberty in general is woefully flawed. An individual does not have the right to arbitrarily detain someone, nor engage in a search, nor seize their property. This applies to both the Gov't and individuals - you on the other hand think this should not apply to employers - which is patent absurdity.

An individual does not have the ability to forcefully coerce someone into giving up privacy .. nor should the employer.

The Supreme court recognized that arbitrary detainment with respect to DUI was a violation of essential liberty. Obviously you do not. They justified this violation of essential liberty (and it there was not unanimous agreement) on the basis of significant risk of harm to society.

You have argued in favor of not requiring any justification to violate essential liberty. You want an employer to have the ability to hire and fire on the basis any personal preference such as gender, race.

You want the employer to have the ability to be able to fire someone for refusing to have sex with the boss. That the employer should be able to fire someone for "any reason".

Then you fire off on all logical fallacy cylinders by suggesting that because something is Law - it does not violate essential liberty. If this is not extreme left wing (or extreme right wing fascist totalitarian) gibberish - I don't know what is.

 

No one is forced. You are free to refuse, and the employer is free to act as they see best.

I am tired of repeating things to you. Feel free to believe anything you want.

The Supreme Court agrees with me, but feel free to disagree.

Keep your liberal gestapo off my back.

 

The Supreme Court does not agree with you. This is complete nonsense. The Supreme court recognized that infringement of essential liberty respect to DUI was an infringement on essential liberty. It is only you who does no recognize this.

Of course one is forced. It is abject foolishness to not realize that "do this or lose your job" is force. Every court in the land recognizes this as force/coercion. Threatening someones job is use of force. You are talking complete gibberish.

You are the gestapo here. You want the employer to have the power to make the employee do anything the employer wants or lose their job.

You want the employer to be able to "force" the employee to comply with any demand - including risking their own personal safety or engaging in sex acts - under the threat of losing their job.

 

Yep, and if you one day run a business you will want the same, as opposed to having the liberal gestapo making it impossible to get rid of people you do not want around.

Supreme Court agrees with me, and you disagree.

You will have to BYOU (bring your own urine) until the liberal gestapo has their way and a law is passed where you can do anything you want, and no one can fire you.

Have a nice day.

 

The war on drugs is big money and at this point big money is who employs what once was "our" government.

On top of that its and an even bigger distraction to get people to waste their time on wile ceo's pay politicians to hand them subsides out of our pockets etc.

Its like handing child something shinny wile you steal his stuff.

 

And in some industries drug testing or firing someone for smoking weed, even on the job, is next to impossible.

 

That sounds like way off topic rubbish to me.

 

That's why I said "top rates." The top bracket was above 90%.

 

The SC does not agree with you. The SC knows what essential liberty is - you don't. Your claim that the right to privacy is not an essential liberty is simply false. Just because the courts have allowed violations of liberty - based on some greater societal good or national security - does not mean the court does not know that essential liberty is being violated - and they have said as much - such as in relation to arbitrary detainment for DUI.

Not allowing an employer to violate the civil liberties of its employees is not a violation of the employers civil liberties. Your claim to the contrary is abject nonsense. This is like saying that when the Police prevent person A from harming Person B - the Police have violated Person A's liberty.

You seriously do not understand what essential liberty is - and is not. Essential liberty ends where the nose of another begins.

Essential liberty is not the freedom to do things to others. Your claim that essential liberty includes this freedom is a complete discombobulation of the meaning of essential liberty, the founding principles and the principles of Republicanism - along with being a violation of rational thought.

 

Don't blame me for your lack of understanding

 

Except you telling others who they can and cannot keep on their payrolls.

 

I am not telling the employer any such thing - only to keep his nose out of private business of his employees. You are the one that wants to give the employer power to mess with the civil liberties of his employees.

Since you have no legitimate justification you just keep repeating falsehoods over and over .. hoping that repetition will make these falsehoods less false.

 

Thank you for proving my point. People who work for me are my business. The Supreme Court agrees with me, so suck it up.

 

You can no longer post without engaging in fallacy or stating a falsehood On what does SC agree with you ?

You have this crazy idea in your head that barring person A from violating the essential liberty of person B is a violation of the essential liberty of Person A.

This is complete nonsense and SC does not agree with you on this nonsense.

 

Hate to break your heart but in some industries drug testing is mandatory and smoking weed even if legal in the state is grounds for dismissal.

"Aside from any state law pertaining to the use of marijuana within a state, it is important to be aware that the FAA's regulation [14 CFR § 120.33(b)], expressly prohibits you from performing a safety-sensitive function for a certificate holder while having a prohibited drug, which includes marijuana and marijuana metabolites, in your system. If you are a pilot, a verified positive drug test result for marijuana on a required DOT/FAA test will make you unqualified to hold an FAA-issued medical certificate."

 

I am well aware that Drug testing is legal - and even agree with it for specific situations.

This is what happens when you jump into a threat on the basis of one or two comments ... you end up addressing issues which are not in play.

 

Just making a point, no rule against that.

 

Pot has been linked to higher rates of Schizophrenia, violence and murder.

https://www.hoaxandchange.com/2019/01/imprimis-marijuana-mental-illness-and-violence/

Just like the cigarette, asbestos and drug industries, they lied to make their product seem okay.

 

Did you actually read the study you posted?

While it appears that people with Schizophrenia become more violent when they smoke pot, smoking it doesn't induce Schizophrenia and while states that have legalized pot have seen increases in violent crime the author of the article admits there is no hard data linking pot to the increase in violent crime.

Now personally, which is anecdotally, I know two people, whom I met back in high school, who have smoked pot since their teens and are now over fifty years old and neither has any tendencies toward violence or criminal activity, one, who him and I have gone through a few life changes together, has admitted to me he self medicates by smoking and it helps him to control his temper.

Now back in my twenties he got me to try it, the first few times it had no effect on me at all, the forth time I smoked it I became so wired it was like I had taken some kind of amphetamine, a very nasty feeling and that was the end of it for me.

I have never smoked it since, and due to the short amount of time I smoked it, I consider myself as having never smoked it.

That stated both of these guys have told me what is being sold today is different than what was being sold just a few years ago, it is more expensive, gives one a different type of high, appears to be commercially grown versus imported and to me smells real funny.

I do know based on research a lot of what is being sold today is genetically modified, the goal being depending on the use, medical or recreational, with medical having low levels of THC and higher levels of CBD and recreational with higher levels of THC, and lower levels of CBD and another goal is to produce feminized plants.

It could very well be these modified strains don't have the same old school effects on the users and produce unknown risks.

Another problem I have with the article it is published by Imprimis, which is part of Hillsdale a very right leaning college, as such I give the article about as much credibility as anti-gun articles published by very left leaning organizations.

None the less legal pot growing is becoming a serious business with a lot of money involved, much like tobacco or alcohol.

Another thing I find interesting is the age group who smokes the most pot are boomers and they roll their own while Millennials prefer their pot pre-rolled, I guess they never learned how to roll their own.

 

You didn't bother to read the studies cited in the article I see. Basically you are in denial and using antidotal experiences to make a false claim.

 

Not at all, most of what I posted can be backed by just doing some basic research, not an article from a right leaning publication.

The pot business in the U.S. is huge and getting larger with each passing day, the days of flying under the RADAR bring bales of pot up from Columbia or across the border from Mexico are quickly disappearing in the rear view mirror.

Is pot safe to smoke?

There is not enough information out there to make that determination hard and fast, but compared to cigs, it's more than likely just as safe.

Is pot safer than booze, I would say yes.

None the less I believe it is going to become legalized on the federal level in a few years, the domestic legal growing of it and the diversion of it out of that market is making smuggling very unprofitable and that will dry up the under the table kickbacks for certain agencies to look the other way.

The only reason it remains illegal are those under the table "bribes."

 

Just ignored the national study cited huh?

No it is not safe, but possibly less dangerous as per your own statements above.

It has little medical value as well. See they can't even be honest and compare pain relief to Ibuprofen.