[split] First time drug experience
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 09:03 AM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 01:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 12:37 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Yes, they are "free" to get into the unemployment lines in the middle of this Great Depression that the Republican Rape of America has left us with, to lose their houses and their belongings and their families, and to live in cardboard boxes. Let them eat fucking cake, say you.

Your arrogance is fucking disgusting.

Taq. Picture owning your own business. Picture slaving away at it for years, getting those first big contracts, growing it slowly, slowly adding more employees. That's hard work. There are lean months. Times when you don't know if you'll manage to pay everyone at the end of the month. As the boss, the buck stops with you. Anything that goes wrong with whatever work your company is involved with, *you* are ultimately the one responsible.

Now the scenario presented is one in which
a. an employee fails a drug test
b. the employee is allowed to continue working their heavy machinery with the boss's full knowledge
c. a serious accident happens

It doesn't matter that the employee would have been in full possession of their cognitive faculties or whatever else, the employee failed the test. Any court would convict Cathy of negligence. If this strikes you as unfair, the place to challenge it would be to challenge the law, not the business owner who strives to be in compliance with the law.

Cathy has explained that she is legally required to do drug testing. If an employee is taking drugs for some reason, if I was boss, I would expect them to disclose that reason to me, not to wait until they failed a drug test, and then hopefully we can make a plan for what to do together. If the employee failed to disclose, then even if the (s)he had a legitimate reason for taking the drugs, I would consider firing them. Sounds harsh, but they just risked my entire business without even having the courtesy to tell me. Fuck them.

It's not just if an accident happens that you're risking a lawsuit. If someone found out that you'd failed a drug test and were still allowed to operate the machinery, the company would still take a massive hit. And worse, the company would then have a reputation within the industry. People remember these things. If it came down to a choice between contracting Cathy's company and a different one, they'll take the one with the squeaky clean safety record.

Except her entire argument is based on an untruth.

Quote:A comprehensive drug-free workforce approach includes five components—a policy, supervisor training, employee education, employee assistance, and drug testing. Such programs, especially when drug testing is included, must be reasonable and take into consideration employee rights to privacy.

OSHA understands that many workers with substance abuse problems can be returned safely to the workplace provided they have access to appropriate treatment, continuing care and supportive services.

Although not required by OSHA, drug-free workplace programs are natural compliments to other initiatives that help ensure safe and healthy workplaces and add value to America’s businesses and communities.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:07 AM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 07:37 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 08:07 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 06:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I think it's incredibly stupid to "try" heroin, crack, meth or any other highly addictive illegal substances.

If they were legal there would be no legal risk and you would know what you were using.

irrelevant. Its legality has nothing to do with whether or not its stupid to put yourself into a position of becoming addicted to one of these substances.


Quote:Some of the most successful people in the entertainment industry in the USA and the UK do " drugs on a regular basis".

I know someone that works in finance in London, he makes a killing, owns a flat in London, is responsible for literally hundreds of millions in foreign exchange (and consistently meets his KPIs) and fucks a different woman roughly every 3 weeks. He also injects mephedrone several times a week. He has pretty much tried it all and decided on mephedrone--it is his drug of choice. I've known this person for about 25 years (we went to the same university). Most people would say that he is "winning".

I can give you other examples from my social circle and my siblings' social circle of successful professionals that regularly use drugs.

Good for him. an argument can also be made based on the populous of people going to methadone clinics that these people are not - in fact - "winning."

Margaret Trudau once said (at the Canadian Mental Health Association's March 2007 Bottom Line Conference) that quitting marijuana helped her mental health. And that she had been “recently diagnosed with bipolar disorder” and announced, "I loved marijuana. I was a hippie in the '60s. I started smoking at a young age. I took to it like a duck to water. Strawberry Fields Forever and all that."

Trudeau said it is not uncommon for mental health sufferers to self-medicate with alcohol or marijuana, claiming, "Marijuana can trigger psychosis," and adding, "Every time I was hospitalized it was preceded by heavy use of marijuana." Trudeau was hospitalized three times for mental illness.

One drug addicts success story does not a representative sample make. Same way that my experience are not a representative sample. The only difference is, you are hypocritical of *your* own generalizations that drugs are just fine for an individual to engage in.

Quote:There really isn't an argument that excessive use of drugs is good for you or provides benefits.
Quote:"Excessive use of drugs" doesn't really mean anything. Drugs obviously provide benefits else nobody would use them. Drugs aren't advertised, they sell themselves because they have actual benefits.

It does to a reasonable person. There is no blanket quantity that would meet the subjective definition of excessive. You might not consider a bottle of wine a night is excessive, but I would. Either way - the point here is not the word excessive.


Further, if the "benefits" you are referring to are a person's individual utility, I take no issue there, and agree. However, I'm taking about Health benefits. It might give a person utility to smoke cigarettes, however, there are zero health benefits in doing so. In fact, there are immediate health consequences (increased blood pressure, decreased oxygen to the brain).

Further, while there are *some* drugs that have benefits, such as alcohol, the benefits vary from person to person, and certainly, there are zero benefits from excessive use of alcohol. Again, subjective. If you are going to claim there are benefits to drugs, such as methedrone, I'll need citations for this.

Further, I never once said to myself after a night of heavy drinking, "man, that was a great idea. I benefited so much from that night." Nope. I spent the next day with a hangover, wishing that I had not in fact imbibed that much, which is why I do not drink often, and I do not drink to the point of intoxication.


Quote:Overdoses are in a large part due to the criminilisation of drugs and the consequent inability to determine the actual dose of drug. If drugs such as heroin were decriminalised you would be able to determine your dose by reading the label rather than trusting the word of a dealer.

Tell that to Heath Ledger, who died from an overdose of prescription medication, which includes the doses right there on the label. Mr. Heath Ledger died as the result of acute intoxication by the combined effects of oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam and doxylamine."[7][9] It states definitively: "We have concluded that the manner of death is accident, resulting from the abuse of prescription medications."[7][9]

Or the other 38,325 people per year in the US as a result of accidental prescription overdose according to the CDC.

Further, there is a reason I carry a sidearm when searching for suspected drug overdoses. superhuman strength and paranoia is good for no one.


Quote:And what specifically is the significance of prescription by a doctor. Opioids and opiates don't alter their properties when they are prescribed by a doctor. Many people are addicted to opioid analgesics and benzodiazepines that are prescribed to them.

When did I ever say that a prescription from a doctor altered their properties?

Quote:The key word is also habitual. I don't hang out with people who drink too much either because I don't drink all the time myself.
Quote:That's fine but ethanol is a drug and many people use it habitually (and it is legal and the dose is clearly stated on the packaging) and you haven't expressed revulsion because alcohol use is normative for the West.

actually I have. I don't hang out with alcoholics. Hence my revulsion to abuse of alcohol.

Quote:You have a prejudice against drugs that the state has told you are "bad" and you have a corollary prejudice against people that use these "bad" drugs, i.e. they are "bad" people, they are "losers". You've essentially sought out "evidence" that confirms your prejudice and ignored all counter-examples that would upset your cherished prejudice.

Persons own their own bodies. If it is permissible for a woman to abort a fetus because she has sovereignty over her body then it is analogously also permissible for a person to use whatever drugs they want to. Bodily sovereignty is indivisible and were it to be taken seriously would not only protect a woman's right to abortion it would also allow for self-medication, self-deliverance and euthanasia.

The current logic is absurd and perverse: "we don't want you to use drugs because they are harmful and can ruin your life, so to deter you from using them, if we catch you using them we will give you a criminal record, fine you and even imprison you; we are doing that to prevent you from ruining your life".

That would be fine if drug use existed in a vacuum. But it doesn't. There is a correlation to the areas with more drug culture to crime rates. Not a causation, but a correlation that should be ignored either. Increased drug presence increases the crime statistics. And not because the drug itself is a crime, but other crimes (theft, murder, rape, neglect, etc.)

"sentenced jail and prison inmates were asked whether they were under the influence of drugs or drugs and alcohol at the time they committed the offense that resulted in their incarceration. The percentage of jail and prison inmates who reported they were under the influ- ence of drugs at the time of the offense varied across the major offense categories. The 1991 BJS Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities found that drug offenders, burglars, and robbers were the most likely to report having been under the influence of drugs. Prison inmates convicted of homicide, assault, and public order offenses were among those least likely to report being under the influence of drugs. The 1989 BJS Survey of Inmates in Local Jails shows a similar pattern (figure␣1)."Fhttp://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

Quote:So the state ruins your life to prevent you from ruining your life. Doesn't the literal absurdity of this regime signal to you that something is wrong? Is this the system you are giving your support to?

Yes. I give my support to this because I believe there is a social cost to drug use. The statistics don't support your conclusion that no one else gets hurt when a person uses drugs.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:07 AM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 06:31 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 10:37 PM)Chippy Wrote:  So it is mandatory that employers drug test their employees in the USA?

Yes. Since my business receives federal grants, I am required to comply with the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act.

Thank you for playing.

And the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act does not require drug testing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 08:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 09:28 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Chas, I do see your point as testing does not evaluate a persons "state of mind" at the time of testing. But I have to ask out of curiosity, how would an accurate determination be made that is void of subjectivity and guesswork, when it comes to a persons chance of being "under the influence"? Current testing is all there is to go on and is explained to employees, so it does unfortunately mean stay away from drugs altogether to work here. Might be a bit unfair, but it does assess risk, which is enough for employers to make a call.

Testing for impairment requires a blood test to detect the actual presence of a drug - not its past presence.

It is not acceptable to deny or terminate employment for actions outside of work that do not affect performance on the job.

Fine Chas. I'll take it up in the next meeting with my employees. I've give them the option. They can pay more money out of the paycheck to help me cover the cost of liability insurance going up when I don't have this policy in place, or they can leave it as is.

Since I profit share with my employees as an incentive for them to work harder, any increased expenses I have is less money they get. Much like a discount for having a security alarm on the premises, you get discounts from insurance companies based on the employment policies you have. This includes drug use.

That way, those employees who don't do drugs on their off hours can have a say as to what is "fair" regarding this issue.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:20 AM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 09:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 06:31 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Yes. Since my business receives federal grants, I am required to comply with the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act.

Thank you for playing.

And the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act does not require drug testing.

"The Department of Defense requires drug testing of certain employees and some defense contractors. If such a defense contractor also receives a grant from the Department of Defense or another Federal agency, the contractor would have to comply with both the Department of Defense requirements and these drug-free workplace rules. The Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission require drug testing for certain employees of employers in the industries they regulate. If one of these employers were also a grantee of a Federal agency, the employer would have to comply with both the Department of Transportation or Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements and these drug-free workplace rules. Finally, various Federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Treasury and Transportation, require some of their own Federal employees (e.g., air traffic controllers) to be tested for drug use. These requirements are unrelated to any requirements for grantees under the Drug-Free Workplace Act."

try again.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:28 AM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 08:35 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 08:03 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I never said that. Not once. I repeatedly stated habitual use. Every day. Stoned all the time.

You only said that after you got called out for casting everyone who uses anything at all as a loser.

nope. It was very early in the thread that I said that. Not after I was "called out" further. I never said anything about using "anything at all" as a loser. Strawman much?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 09:16 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 08:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  Testing for impairment requires a blood test to detect the actual presence of a drug - not its past presence.

It is not acceptable to deny or terminate employment for actions outside of work that do not affect performance on the job.

Fine Chas. I'll take it up in the next meeting with my employees. I've give them the option. They can pay more money out of the paycheck to help me cover the cost of liability insurance going up when I don't have this policy in place, or they can leave it as is.

Since I profit share with my employees as an incentive for them to work harder, any increased expenses I have is less money they get. Much like a discount for having a security alarm on the premises, you get discounts from insurance companies based on the employment policies you have. This includes drug use.

That way, those employees who don't do drugs on their off hours can have a say as to what is "fair" regarding this issue.

What is this, your 3rd or 4th justification? You can do whatever you like with your company.

In my company, we have no drug policy. That is 'my company' as in I'm one of the founders.

If we do institute a drug policy, it will go no further than actual impairment on the job, because I'm not a fascist.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 09:20 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 09:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  And the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act does not require drug testing.

"The Department of Defense requires drug testing of certain employees and some defense contractors. If such a defense contractor also receives a grant from the Department of Defense or another Federal agency, the contractor would have to comply with both the Department of Defense requirements and these drug-free workplace rules. The Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission require drug testing for certain employees of employers in the industries they regulate. If one of these employers were also a grantee of a Federal agency, the employer would have to comply with both the Department of Transportation or Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements and these drug-free workplace rules. Finally, various Federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Treasury and Transportation, require some of their own Federal employees (e.g., air traffic controllers) to be tested for drug use. These requirements are unrelated to any requirements for grantees under the Drug-Free Workplace Act."

try again.

Try reading the rules again. They do not require drug testing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 09:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 09:16 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Fine Chas. I'll take it up in the next meeting with my employees. I've give them the option. They can pay more money out of the paycheck to help me cover the cost of liability insurance going up when I don't have this policy in place, or they can leave it as is.

Since I profit share with my employees as an incentive for them to work harder, any increased expenses I have is less money they get. Much like a discount for having a security alarm on the premises, you get discounts from insurance companies based on the employment policies you have. This includes drug use.

That way, those employees who don't do drugs on their off hours can have a say as to what is "fair" regarding this issue.

What is this, your 3rd or 4th justification? You can do whatever you like with your company.

In my company, we have no drug policy. That is 'my company' as in I'm one of the founders.

If we do institute a drug policy, it will go no further than actual impairment on the job, because I'm not a fascist.


a fascist? neither am i

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:44 AM
RE: [split] First time drug experience
(26-02-2014 08:31 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 07:43 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Don't be fooled, MD. Taq only supports pot use because he smokes it. If he smoked meth, he would support a person's right to smoke it too.

You are out of your fucking mind. You just make whatever shit up you want and it becomes fucking reality for you, don't you. That's called "pathological lying". And again, here you go with your disingenuous bullshit, moving the goalposts all over the place. You say you say one thing, and then when you get called out on it, you say you say another.


Quote:I don't hear him saying crack, heroin or bath salts are a person's personal right...

That's right. And I don't hear you bleating on about people who use oxycontin legally being losers and dopers.



(26-02-2014 08:02 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Witchy,

It's rhetorical since he is prone to dramatics and accusing me of hysteria while simultaneously exaggerating my disapproval of habitual drug use as a "reefer crusade."

I was pointing out the ridiculous of his claim that I am "prejudice" because I don't hang with chronic drug users.

Strawman much? Move the goalposts much? You didn't come up with this "habitual" shit until long after you were called on your hysterical "potheads" shit.


No one called me out on anything before I qualfied myself to the word habitual. Try again, asshole.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: