Hair Drug Testing, anyone have to do it?

[EuroTrash]

Well I got a fatty job lined up on condition I pass a hair drug test. So I've never taken one but I've heard different rumours about them. I'm reading up on facts about it now but want to hear from people that had to take them. I don't do any hard drugs but I smoke cronic like it was air. So did you have to take one? Did you pass? Is there any tricks of the trade around it? Would cutting hair short or bleaching it help? Enquiring minds would like to know. ;)

[Nimble*Syd]

I think hair drug tests only test for stuff like cocaine, meth, etc.

But I may be wrong.

[EV]

I do drug testing for my company and believe me, anything they can find in a Urine sample will definitely be noted in a hair sample; hair is more effective and accurate from the perspective of a company, and as far as I know - there is no 'easy' way out of this one...Good luck.


EV
ps - maybe check Erowid?

[balloon kitten]

You will fail. :D

[fIygirl]

i heard if you hand them a pube hair you will come out clean!

[Skwerl]

hairfolicle will show meth weed opiates and basicly everything cept shrooms and acid however if your hair is completely bleached (or shave your head} you could have a chance however the bleaching doesnt always work and if they just get folicle thats still good for bout the past 2 weeks

[Nimble*Syd]

Bobby is a fag who drives a limo, he's too classy to bleach his hair.

[EuroTrash]

hehehe You know it. ;)

There are several shampoos that are supposed to do the trick. I might give one of them a try and also cut my hair really short (I just can't do bald, no job is worth that). Know of any that work better than others?

[Enkidu Kind]

Off the subject......but.....

With a name like EuroTrash, please tell me you have at least 15 English Premiere League soccer jerseys. :D

[Yode]

If you try shaving your head, they will just take hair from somewhere else. Whether it be pubes, ass hair, or leg hair. Afaik, any hair will do.

You're fux0rd.

[Elroy]

I have passed a hair test before!

Yes, one year ago I was forced to take a hair test before I was able to have a stupid summer job at Castle Megastore of all places (for those who don't know, its basically the Wal-mart of porn).

Anyhow, I got a kit at a smoke-shop type place, which included both shampoo and some finishing gel to put in your hair. See, you cannot simply rinse it off, you have to put a fake coating on as well. So MAKE SURE YOU GET THE RIGHT KIT! It even has a DOUBLE YOUR MONEY BACK GUARANTEE! (I sound like an infomercial, but the shit works wonders).

Anyhow, like I said, I passed... and I had done every single drug besides herion and tweek within the last year (well... and some of those weird ones like 2cb and such).

[Elroy]

But btw...

My hair was pretty short when I had the test, and the fucking bitch just cut it as close to the scalp as she could get it... leaving me with a fucked up patch missing from the back of my head. It sucked quite a lot of ass.... I had to buy a hat that day (no joke).

eww... and add that to the fact that I also had a urine test that day, in which I had to drink the most disgusting, syprupy bile on the planet, followed by two whole bottles of water, and then hold my pee for a few hours... :mad: good god it SO wasn't worth that crappy job! :mad:

[balloon kitten]

Here's an idea: If you must keep doing drugs, go work somewhere where they don't ask. I hear Quizno's hires crackies. :D

[supamisty]

a friend of mine had to do one one of those hair drug tests. it was around halloween so what he did was bleached his hair, dyed it some crazy color, then dyed it back to his natural black. it worked cuz he got the job i guess.

[EuroTrash]

Originally posted by Enkidu Kind
With a name like EuroTrash, please tell me you have at least 15 English Premiere League soccer jerseys. :D

Soccer? Whats that? You mean Football. ;) Go Hertha Berlin! Too bad they have so many injuries this year, its definately going to set them back.

Elroy; thanks that gives me hope. I also wont be cutting my hair short now. Do you remember the name of the stuff you used?

And Kitten, I'm sure they do but this crackie would rather keep making medical software, it pays just a little more money. :D *puff puff* Now whats the correct ICD9 code for a consultation visit again?

[Elroy]

No... I don't remember... But it was over fifty dollars, and it had the double your money back deal.

Balloon Kitten

Way to work the system, genius.

[meghin Gj]

your hair is a composition of your waste; everything you consume, from the drugs you took to the air you breathe can be detected in your hair. dying or bleaching your hair -could- work because it changes the chemical composition of your hair, but it isn't sure to work because it doesn't change your hair all the way through.
if all you've been doing is smoking weed then don't bother trying to cover it up. they may decide not to hire you if they think you have something to hide and couldn't get an accurate test because of it.

[HexRei]

as far as I know hair tests are only effective for 90 days after doing the drug...

[Kaaaty]

Originally posted by EuroTrash


Soccer? Whats that? You mean Football. ;) Go Hertha Berlin! Too bad they have so many injuries this year, its definately going to set them back.

Elroy; thanks that gives me hope. I also wont be cutting my hair short now. Do you remember the name of the stuff you used?

And Kitten, I'm sure they do but this crackie would rather keep making medical software, it pays just a little more money. :D *puff puff* Now whats the correct ICD9 code for a consultation visit again?

Bobby Rules! ICD9 Codes do not!

[EuroTrash]

Katy, I'm still awaiting a fun filled drunken night. Am I gonna have to drive Urcela up there and pick yo ass up?

Werd ICD9 codes sucks ass and the book just keeps getting bigger every year. Hopefully I'll pass so I only have to deal with EKGs, Heart Monitors, and other such patient monitoring equipment and get away from the software side.

P.S. You should talk your Dad into getting Logician, it would probally save you a ton of work (and it handles ICD9 codes :))

[meghin Gj]

no, hair tests last more than 90 days. thats the whole point of doing them; they go back as far as your hair is long. my hairs pretty long, so somebody could tell what i'd been doing for over two years. i'd be in trouble even if i hadn't touched a drug for a year.

[skloot]

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing.shtml

Could probably get some good info off of erowid.

[EuroTrash]

LOL

Thanks for the site, I'll check it out when I get home cause its blocked here. How very smart of them. hehe

[skloot]

Lol, thats hilarious. Where are you trying to access it from?
"We need to keep accurate information from these people! It's dangerous, dammit!"

[HexRei]

Originally posted by meghin Gj
no, hair tests last more than 90 days. thats the whole point of doing them; they go back as far as your hair is long. my hairs pretty long, so somebody could tell what i'd been doing for over two years. i'd be in trouble even if i hadn't touched a drug for a year.

All sources I can find list only about a 90-day period after the last drug use in which it is detectable.

http://www.craigmedical.com/Hair_Drug_Test.htm
http://www.drugtestwithhair.com/hairtesting.htm
http://www.hair-testing.com/
http://www.preemploymentdrugtests.com/cdtsuper.htm

There may be a hair test out there that does more, but it looks like the most widely used ones are only guaranteed for 90 days.
I imagine shampooing and environmental factors contamine and damage the core of the hair pretty quickly.

[EuroTrash]

Trying to access it at work. We now have to go through GE's firewalls which are WAY strict. It was their way of saying 'Welcome to the corporate world'. (We're another little fish that gotten eaten by a bigger one).

[meghin Gj]

it could be that testing farther back than 90 days isn't done because of ethical reasons and/or economic reasons too.
i thought i heard a few years back that hair testing was never done because its cost was way too extreme. it also really wouldn't be fair if you were being judged by something you did two years ago and had cleaned up your act since. 90 days would be a good amount of time.

[EV]

This is from our Hair Testing protocol at work. And yes, I'm responsible for certain drug testing, ironically:

Hair analysis is performed by submitting a lock of the donor's hair to the laboratory. Drugs take about five to seven days to emerge in the hair follicles, preventing immediate detection of drug use. Hair tests have long been thought to be the best source for long-term historical drug use, but it is now being speculated that the analysis may not procide the appropriate records of drug use, as it had once been perceived. Studies using cocaine indicate only limited dose and time relationships. Drugs can enter the hair follicle from sweat and the environment, making the origin of a drug's entry into the donor's system undeterminable, unless properly washed. Also, it is unclear whether certain consmetic treatments to the hair and exposure to ultraviolet lights can alter the authenticity of the results. Currently, there are no instant testing options available for this procedure.


EV

[~*Angel~Masha*~]

they take some hair from about 3 different parts of your head and they send it to the lab and they melt it with an acid and turn it into a liquid and do a test of what is in the liquid. i had my results mailed to me when i failed and it tells you what they do with your hair. they found e in my hair 2.75 months after i took it, but what isn't fair is they test for up to 6 months back depending on how fast your hair grows. black people's hair grows slower than white people's hair. i felt jipped even though i had done e almost 3 months before. they test for opiates, amphets, prescription shit, everything but acid and shrooms and they test each sample seperately to make sure a positive isn't a negative. you have to have a double positive to fail. anywho...if you apply at expedia then you'll get hair cut. they suck goat nuts for that too. costs about 50 bucks a person to be tested.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by EuroTrash
Well I got a fatty job lined up on condition I pass a hair drug test. So I've never taken one but I've heard different rumours about them. I'm reading up on facts about it now but want to hear from people that had to take them. I don't do any hard drugs but I smoke cronic like it was air. So did you have to take one? Did you pass? Is there any tricks of the trade around it? Would cutting hair short or bleaching it help? Enquiring minds would like to know. ;)

Euro, has it ever accured to you that maybe perhaps they don't want drug users employeed at their workplace? I'd say find an employeer who doesn't care or doesn't test. A hair test I'd say your chances of beating it are very slim.

Good luck though bro!

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by SkwerlVamp
hairfolicle will show meth weed opiates and basicly everything cept shrooms and acid however if your hair is completely bleached (or shave your head} you could have a chance however the bleaching doesnt always work and if they just get folicle thats still good for bout the past 2 weeks

haha that was funny. You were joking right?

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by EuroTrash
hehehe You know it. ;)

There are several shampoos that are supposed to do the trick. I might give one of them a try and also cut my hair really short (I just can't do bald, no job is worth that). Know of any that work better than others?

Wow you were sent off for a hair test and came back bald. Hmm.. I hope your employeers are incredabely stupid. <G>

-Jason

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Euro, has it ever accured to you that maybe perhaps they don't want drug users employeed at their workplace? I'd say find an employeer who doesn't care or doesn't test. A hair test I'd say your chances of beating it are very slim.

Good luck though bro!

-Jason

:rolleyes:
has it occurred to you that you're a corporate cocksucker?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


:rolleyes:
has it occurred to you that you're a corporate cocksucker?

Why? Becuase I have ethics?

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Why? Becuase I have ethics?

if you had ethics, you'd believe in employers judging employees by their JOB PERFORMANCE, not what they choose to do on their PERSONAL TIME.
But you don't, so you're just a corporate cocksucker.

[AthenA]

Yes, HexRei dear.....But companies have to think of liabilities. A guy in my shop pinched a finger off in the crimp machine just last week. After going to the hospital it was determined that he was high (weed) when he did it. Lucky for the company that they have drug testing policies, or it might have cost us thousands at a time when we cannot afford those types of incidences. The bottom line is that people who smoke on their free time are more likely to have drug-related accidents. Companies have to look out for themselves, and their employees. So either be drug-free, or smart enough to beat the tests. Otherwise, McDonald's is always hiring...

By the way, didn't we all go over this already? :D

P.S. Ethics....everybody's got a different set of those....

While working for Safeco I read several claims that involved one person being injured due to another person's intoxication. It happens all the time.

Isn't it ethical to take steps preventing innocent people from being harmed by those who lack the ability to stay sober while on the job?

[EuroTrash]

Originally posted by HexRei
employers judging employees by their JOB PERFORMANCE, not what they choose to do on their PERSONAL TIME.

This is how I view it as well. The only drug I'd be guilty of would be Marijuana and as long as I am not high while on the job, they should have no ruling in the matter. I'm responsible enough to let it not interfere with my productivity and that should be what matters.

[EuroTrash]

Nicely put AthenA. That is understandable. Lucky for me its not a position where I would operate heavy machinery. I could hurt a finger by typing too much though. :)

[HexRei]

Originally posted by AthenA
Yes, HexRei dear.....But companies have to think of liabilities. A guy in my shop pinched a finger off in the crimp machine just last week. After going to the hospital it was determined that he was high (weed) when he did it. Lucky for the company that they have drug testing policies, or it might have cost us thousands at a time when we cannot afford those types of incidences. The bottom line is that people who smoke on their free time are more likely to have drug-related accidents. Companies have to look out for themselves, and their employees. So either be drug-free, or smart enough to beat the tests. Otherwise, McDonald's is always hiring...

By the way, didn't we all go over this already? :D

*shrug* so put a clause into the employment contract that the employee will be fired immediately and will not recieve worker's comp. if he is found to be be intoxicated at work. I agree that an employer has the right to ask an employee not to be intoxicated at work.
A corporation can easily limit their liability via a few key additions to the contract. But the bottom line is that no company has a right to tell me what I do before and after work.

[mchll888]

They can not hire you for having a felony conviction can't they???
Drugs are illegal...........so it's not a matter of drinking or smoking cigarettes. It's you doing something against the law. Now if weed were legal, hell no they couldn't say a thing. Until it is though.........you are S.O.L.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by mchll888
They can not hire you for having a felony conviction can't they???
Drugs are illegal...........so it's not a matter of drinking or smoking cigarettes. It's you doing something against the law. Now if weed were legal, hell no they couldn't say a thing. Until it is though.........you are S.O.L.

Wrong. You can be fired for smoking weed, in your home, under a legal prescription from your own doctor.

[mchll888]

Originally posted by HexRei


Wrong. You can be fired for smoking weed, in your home, under a legal prescription from your own doctor.
Honestly now...........most of us agree with what you are saying. That's just not the way it is though. You go ahead and take the jobs that you want that don't drug test. If I can make more money by not smoking for a bit to pass a test..........by golly I'll just have to suffer. I love the almighty $$$$$$.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by EuroTrash


This is how I view it as well. The only drug I'd be guilty of would be Marijuana and as long as I am not high while on the job, they should have no ruling in the matter. I'm responsible enough to let it not interfere with my productivity and that should be what matters.

Exactly. IMHO it is discriminatory. As Michelle said, the only reason it's even tolerated in our society is because most of the drugs they test for are illegal in most situations.

A corporation does not have the right to enforce their morality or political views on me, which is exactly what drug testing is all about.
I mean, once you let a corp. begin dictating your personal life to you in the name of "productivity" and "liability", where does it stop?

In fact, it's already gone beyond this- there are companies out there that test employees for genetic predisposition to things like carpal tunnel syndrome, and fire/hire on that basis. After all, which would you rather have- an employee that is going to develop CT in ten years and end up on indefinite workers comp and, or a nice healthy employee?
Gattaca, here we come.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


if you had ethics, you'd believe in employers judging employees by their JOB PERFORMANCE, not what they choose to do on their PERSONAL TIME.
But you don't, so you're just a corporate cocksucker.

Hex my brother you have your head up your ass again like always. Drug users in the workplace are more likely to have more accidents, more injuries, a greater amount of not showing up on time, calling in sick, and the etc, etc, etc when compared to those who are not drug users. Why would any smart business take the extra amount of risk and extra amount of cost, when they can control at least to some degree if these type of people get hired or not. I'm sure "some" people who do drugs on their own time might be a good worker, but any smart business knows that it’s a risk not worth taking. Let’s say you have 1,000 employees and (let’s use a low number even for you sake Hex) 15% of them are drug users. So that’s 150 people who use drugs in your workplace. Now, let’s say for your case Hex that they all make low salaries just so I can make it fair for your shallow line of thinking. Let’s say each of them make $15,000 a year. Now since drug users are more likely to be fuck ups, let’s just give another fair number for your sake and say only half of those drug users (75) actually fucked up on the job because their drug use. Let’s see now.. at $15,000 x 75 people, Wow!!! These drug using employees just cost you over 1.1 million dollars. Wow Hex that was worth it wasn’t it? Maybe if I drug tested I could have had a greater chance of weeding out those who were going cost the business in the end, I hate to be the one not getting a raise from $15,000 because extra costs going to pay for these low life’s. But after all it’s all on their personal time, who cares right? Hex you seem to understand absolutely zilch about business and economics.

-Jason

[HexRei]

Originally posted by mchll888

Honestly now...........most of us agree with what you are saying. That's just not the way it is though. You go ahead and take the jobs that you want that don't drug test. If I can make more money by not smoking for a bit to pass a test..........by golly I'll just have to suffer. I love the almighty $$$$$$.

Well congratulations. Fortunately, my principles and freedom are important enough to me that I have only once in my life taken a piss test, and never will again. I don't work for the gestapo.

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by HexRei
if you had ethics, you'd believe in employers judging employees by their JOB PERFORMANCE, not what they choose to do on their PERSONAL TIME.
But you don't, so you're just a corporate cocksucker.
eth·ic Pronunciation Key (thk)
n.
A set of principles of right conduct.

So it's of right conduct for someone to smoke pot at night, come in to work and be a risk for everyone they work with? Be that forgetting a small detail important to the day's work, driving a forklift into someone's head, or locking a completely wonderful thread about balloon animals.

For more thoughts on this topic, read my sig. :D

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Hex my brother you have your head up your ass again like always. Drug users in the workplace are more likely to have more accidents, more injuries, a greater amount of not showing up on time, calling in sick, and the etc, etc, etc when compared to those who are not drug users. Why would any smart business take the extra amount of risk and extra amount of cost, when they can control at least to some degree if these type of people get hired or not. I'm sure "some" people who do drugs on their own time might be a good worker, but any smart business knows that it’s a risk not worth taking. Let’s say you have 1,000 employees and (let’s use a low number even for you sake Hex) 15% of them are drug users. So that’s 150 people who use drugs in your workplace. Now, let’s say for your case Hex that they all make low salaries just so I can make it fair for your shallow line of thinking. Let’s say each of them make $15,000 a year. Now since drug users are more likely to be fuck ups, let’s just give another fair number for your sake and say only half of those drug users (75) actually fucked up on the job because their drug use. Let’s see now.. at $15,000 x 75 people, Wow!!! These drug using employees just cost you over 1.1 million dollars. Wow Hex that was worth it wasn’t it? Maybe if I drug tested I could have had a greater chance of weeding out those who were going cost the business in the end, I hate to be the one not getting a raise from $15,000 because extra costs going to pay for these low life’s. But after all it’s all on their personal time, who cares right? Hex you seem to understand absolutely zilch about business and economics.

-Jason

Horseshit. If a company produced statistics showing that Jewish people "on average" were less productive than whites or mexicans (and I'm sure they could, anyone who looks hard enough can find statistics tyo support ANYTHING), would you allow them to test for Jew genes?

For a libertarian, you sure like Nazi-eqsue rationalizations.

Oh, and that math was about the most ridiculous pile of tripe I've ever seen. Any and every drug user's salary should be written off as a complete loss?
Well gee Jason, I guess every client who ever paid you was basically paying for nothing, because you occasionally use drugs, eh?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


Exactly. IMHO it is discriminatory. As Michelle said, the only reason it's even tolerated in our society is because most of the drugs they test for are illegal in most situations.

A corporation does not have the right to enforce their morality or political views on me, which is exactly what drug testing is all about.
I mean, once you let a corp. begin dictating your personal life to you in the name of "productivity" and "liability", where does it stop?

In fact, it's already gone beyond this- there are companies out there that test employees for genetic predisposition to things like carpal tunnel syndrome, and fire/hire on that basis. After all, which would you rather have- an employee that is going to develop CT in ten years and end up on indefinite workers comp and, or a nice healthy employee?
Gattaca, here we come.

Weeding out the losers isn't discriminatory, and it's not forcing political or moral views. at all.. you don't have to work their remember. Forcing is what the governemnt does.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Weeding out the losers isn't discriminatory, and it's not forcing political or moral views. at all.. you don't have to work their remember. Forcing is what the governemnt does.


So having a greater genetic likelihood of developing CT makes you a "loser"? Fuck you, asshat.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


Horseshit. If a company produced statistics showing that Jewish people "on average" were less productive than whites or mexicans, would you allow them to test for Jew genes?

For a libertarian, you sure like Nazi-eqsue rationalizations.

What?!?! That's just plain stupid!!?!? Please tell me your just making that up or do you have actual scientific proof that there is such thing as a "poor productivity" gene.

Drug use is a choice. Hex did you choose your race?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


So having a greater genetic likelihood of developing CT makes you a "loser"? Fuck you, asshat.

I said weeding out drugies.. haha.. your pathetic.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


What?!?! That's just plain stupid!!?!? Please tell me your just making that up or do you have actual scientific proof that there is such thing as a "poor productivity" gene.

Drug use is a choice. Hex did you choose your race?

You can be Jewish by religion as well as ethnicity- would you allow an employer to search your home for holy texts, if they felt that being Buddhist would make you as less productive employee?

As usual, you are attacking the details of the example and ignoring the point (so much easier!). The point is that once I go home an employer has no right to tell me what to do. It's preposterous.
What's next? Testing to make sure you don't eat too many fatty foods? Drink too much caffeine? I'm sure some moron somewhere can whip up some statistics that show "average" declines in performance as a result of basically anything.

I on the other hand have DEFINITIVE PROOF that at least some people can function just fucking dandy on the job and do all the drugs they want to on their own time. Do you have proof to the contrary?

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by HexRei
If a company produced statistics showing that Jewish people "on average" were less productive than whites or mexicans (and I'm sure they could, anyone who looks hard enough can find statistics tyo support ANYTHING), would you allow them to test for Jew genes?

People make the choice to do illegal drugs. People do not make the choice to be born a specific race. Try again, pothead.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


You can be Jewish by religion as well as ethnicity- would you allow an employer to search your home for holy texts, if they felt that being Buddhist would make you as less productive employee?

As usual, you are attacking the details of the example and ignoring the point (so much easier!). The point is that once I go home an employer has no right to tell me what to do. It's preposterous.
What's next? Testing to make sure you don't eat too many fatty foods? Drink too much caffeine? I'm sure some moron somewhere can whip up some statistics that show "average" declines in performance as a result of basically anything.

I on the other hand have DEFINITIVE PROOF that at least some people can function just fucking dandy on the job and do all the drugs they want to on their own time. Do you have proof to the contrary?

Now your equivicating illegal drugs to that of fatty foods and caffeine? Now your saying an employer has no right to hire people who have a risk? Air Force Jet pilots have to endure a level of intense physical performance to maintain the job. Should the air force abandoned that and allow people to fly who could cannot endure this type of physical ability now?

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


I said weeding out drugies.. haha.. your pathetic.

:( Ouch. However, you might consider retaking English 101...

Weeding out the losers isn't discriminatory, and it's not forcing political or moral views. at all..

Looks to me like you said "losers". The final paragraph you quoted from me was about carpal tunnel sufferers. Oops, silly me... I doubt you even read that far down. It's just kinda click and type for you, isn't it? Do you even read before you reply?

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Now your equivicating illegal drugs to that of fatty foods and caffeine?

:rolleyes: sorry, I forgot you're not exactly a "chemistry expert". Yes, believe it or not, caffeine is a drug and it does "affect" you in much the same way that many illegal drugs do.
And believe it or not, there indeed many other foods that do the same thing, such as nutmeg, certain varieties of mint leaf, chocolate, etc.
But my guess would be that you're one of the brainwashed masses that thinks that if it's illegal, it's "bad" and can hurt job performance, but if it's legal, then it must be happy and peachy and can't possibly affect job performance.
Right?

btw, nice edit to add all that crap about jet pilots.
Actually, I think jet pilots (and any other job, for that matter) should be subjected to rigorous PERFORMANCE and JOB-RELATED tests.
And hell, if someone can develop a test that will give a perfectly accurate readout of what (if any) drugs a person is under the influence of AT THAT MOMENT, then more power to 'em. I don't think pilots should be flying high (pun intended).
But if our pilot wants to go home and smoke a bowl after a 16 hour flight, why the fuck shouldn't he?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


:( Ouch. However, you might consider retaking English 101...



Looks to me like you said "losers". The final paragraph you quoted from me was about carpal tunnel sufferers. Oops, silly me... I doubt you even read that far down. It's just kinda click and type for you, isn't it? Do you even read before you reply?

Lemme ask yout this. If your have a problem with your hearing should you be given a job which requires you to have good hearing? If your not able to lift 50lbs should you be given a job that requires you to lift 80lbs? If you can only speak spanish should you be given a job that requires that you speak english?

-J

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Lemme ask yout this. If your have a problem with your hearing should you be given a job which requires you to have good hearing? If your not able to lift 50lbs should you be given a job that requires you to lift 80lbs? If you can only speak spanish should you be given a job that requires that you speak english?

-J

would you care to explain the relevance first?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


:rolleyes: sorry, I forgot you're not exactly a "chemistry expert". Yes, believe it or not, caffeine is a drug and it does "affect" you in much the same way that many illegal drugs do.
And believe it or not, there indeed many other foods that do the same thing, such as nutmeg, certain varieties of mint leaf, chocolate, etc.
But my guess would be that you're one of the brainwashed masses that thinks that if it's illegal, it's "bad" and can hurt job performance, but if it's legal, then it must be happy and peachy and can't possibly affect job performance.
Right?

I'm all for legalizing, but that wouldn't change the fact that drug users a more likely to be fuckups.

btw, nice edit to add all that crap about jet pilots.
Actually, I think jet pilots (and any other job, for that matter) should be subjected to rigorous PERFORMANCE and JOB-RELATED tests.
And hell, if someone can develop a test that will give a perfectly accurate readout of what (if any) drugs a person is under the influence of AT THAT MOMENT, then more power to 'em. I don't think pilots should be flying high (pun intended).
But if our pilot wants to go home and smoke a bowl after a 16 hour flight, why the fuck shouldn't he?

So to accomidate drug users, you want businesses to go way out of their way to test every person that walks in the door for a job to measure whether their drug use is going to cause a problem or not?

-Jason

[AthenA]

That brings up another interesting point, HexRei. I do agree that companies should have clauses like you mention. However, I believe in being proactive. It's not always and exclusively about liability. Why wait until something horrible happens to get rid of the person? You know the claim I mentioned where one man was injured because of another’s intoxication? Well, the injured man (26 yrs old) lost an arm. Now think about that for a second………an arm…….we’re talkin’ serious shit here. Put yourself in his shoes for just a moment. He will never be the same. Every aspect of his life affected. All because some addict and or party kid decided it would be fun to do some <insert drug of choice here> at work. And it’s not just him. It’s approximately 14,000 people in this country that sustain serious (serious meaning permanently debilitating) injury due to a co-worker’s inebriated state (SMACNA’s Drugs and Safety Worksheet published in 1996).

Well, like many of you, I too am a recreational drug user. Before working at my current location (an seeing first-hand the damage that one's drug use can do to themselves or another) I thought, “Why do I have to be tested. I sit at a desk all day!” Well, the answer is simple. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Who are the few? Men and women that use drugs often enough to be detected by tests. Who are the many? Non drug users (and those who use drugs sparingly enough to go undetected). Unfortunately, a few of “the few” cannot keep their use outside the workplace, and ruin it for the rest of us responsible users. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen it…Back on the elementary school bus, one kid spits gum out on a seat, another sits in it, and gum is banned from the bus eternally. It's not because no child can chew gum responsibly. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles. Testing everyone is the most effective, efficient way to curb drug use at work for the time being. Analizing each employee's risk factors and environment to determine whether or not they should be tested is just not feasible. Everyone can be a liability at one point or another. And hey, I don’t want to be that guy that looses an arm…so as long as I can dodge the tests, the tests are cool with me. I just hope that they catch the idiots, ya know what I mean? And if that makes me a corporate cocksucker...well bring on the cock then, I suppose.
;)

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


would you care to explain the relevance first?

People with carpal tunnel should be given a right to the job?

If the employeer doesn't drug test and wants to take the risk in hiring drug users more power to them.

If an employeer drug tests to try to have some control by weeding out potential problems more power to them.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by balloon kitten

eth·ic Pronunciation Key (thk)
n.
A set of principles of right conduct.

So it's of right conduct for someone to smoke pot at night, come in to work and be a risk for everyone they work with? Be that forgetting a small detail important to the day's work, driving a forklift into someone's head, or locking a completely wonderful thread about balloon animals.

For more thoughts on this topic, read my sig. :D

I would even take that further and add if drug users are costing a boat load of money to the business doesn't that mean a boat load of money isn't being put towards raises, promotions, training and development programs, etc? And not only that, extra costs always find there way into causing the price of their goods and services to go up. Insurance is higher if they don't drug test too. If your not drug testing and shit gets fucked up, the Insurance companies has to pay more to repair the damage, but if they weeded out these losers in the first place the cost wouldn't be there.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


I'm all for legalizing, but that wouldn't change the fact that drug users a more likely to be fuckups.


Stastically, perhaps. But once again, statistics like this are not applicable in the same way when you are talking about groups of humans.
Individual humans make choices, and yes, I believe every company needs to deal equally with every person and give them a chance to prove themselves as employees. Judging an employee by how they spend their free time is very poor business.



So to accomidate drug users, you want businesses to go way out of their way to test every person that walks in the door for a job to measure whether their drug use is going to cause a problem or not?

-Jason

Not at all. I think every person should be given equal testing performance testing in every regard. If a person's drug use is really a problem, shouldn't that show up in the performance tests?
The only hole is of course someone who takes the tests sober and then shows up high for work at a later point, in which case a quick pinprick blood test that could show whether someone had active levels of the drug in their system at the moment would be necessary. Could be administered randomly, like they often do with current drug tests.
A setup like this would reward those responsible users who do not get high at work while still dragnetting for those irresponsible fuckers who ruin it for everyone.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


I would even take that further and add if drug users are costing a boat load of money to the business doesn't that mean a boat load of money isn't being put towards raises, promotions, training and development programs, etc? And not only that, extra costs always find there way into causing the price of their goods and services to go up. Insurance is higher if they don't drug test too. If your not drug testing and shit gets fucked up, the Insurance companies has to pay more to repair the damage, but if they weeded out these losers in the first place the cost wouldn't be there.

And what about company time lost to stupid balloon kitten bitches who troll the boards all day instead of working? What about those lost wages? Shouldn't a corporation be testing you to find out if you visit nwtekno? After all, nwtekno users are stastically shown to be less productive :rolleyes:

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by HexRei
And what about company time lost to stupid balloon kitten bitches who troll the boards all day instead of working? What about those lost wages? Shouldn't a corporation be testing you to find out if you visit nwtekno? After all, nwtekno users are stastically shown to be less productive :rolleyes:
Who says I'm at work today?

As usual, you are attacking me and ignoring the point (so much easier!).

:)

[AthenA]

Damn...I missed a lot (I tend to leave my posts during their construction inorder to work, so I don't tend to see new posts).

But, if I may say so WITHOUT OFFENDING ANYONE....

You guys are both outta line here.

HexRei, dude....they're not out to get YOU. "They" are not anti-drug users, they are anti-accident. If the two happen to coincide, so be it. But please don't take it so damn personally. I mean, the gestapo (sp?)??? Relax, homie.;)

Zupan...Buddy...Have you ever worked for a company that tends to sustain drug-related accidents (i.e. construction companies)? Your hypothetical situation of 75 out of 150 drug users screwing up on the job is absolutely ridiculous.

I work for a union sheet metal shop. This union in particular does not drug-test, but does have drug-related accident policies. We have roughly (give or take a few depending on the season) 150 workers on the day shift crew. I know for a FACT that every one of the shop personnel smokes pot, about 3/4 of those do other drugs, and maybe 10% are straight up addicts ( I go to a lot of shop parties). You know how many drug related accidents we have a year? On average, two. And that's going through the last 10 years of safety records.

I know that being extreme is what make arguments between the two of you so damn enjoyable. But believe it or not, one can be extreme and realistic at the same time. Thus far, I have seen neither of you do so. So let's chill here, be calm...because you are both decent humans. I would hate to see this get too out of line. :D

[HexRei]

Originally posted by AthenA
That brings up another interesting point, HexRei. I do agree that companies should have clauses like you mention. However, I believe in being proactive. It's not always and exclusively about liability. Why wait until something horrible happens to get rid of the person? You know the claim I mentioned where one man was injured because of another’s intoxication? Well, the injured man (26 yrs old) lost an arm. Now think about that for a second………an arm…….we’re talkin’ serious shit here. Put yourself in his shoes for just a moment. He will never be the same. Every aspect of his life affected. All because some addict and or party kid decided it would be fun to do some <insert drug of choice here> at work. And it’s not just him. It’s approximately 14,000 people in this country that sustain serious (serious meaning permanently debilitating) injury due to a co-worker’s inebriated state (SMACNA’s Drugs and Safety Worksheet published in 1996).


Two words: personal responsibility. This employee should be held responsible for what he did. period. End of story. Of course our hugely litigious society will try to blame anyone and everyone, because said employee is probably not very rich and it's much easier to extract compensation from a corporation. But hey, I didn't design the system.


Well, like many of you, I too am a recreational drug user. Before working at my current location (an seeing first-hand the damage that one's drug use can do to themselves or another) I thought, “Why do I have to be tested. I sit at a desk all day!” Well, the answer is simple. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Who are the few? Men and women that use drugs often enough to be detected by tests. Who are the many? Non drug users (and those who use drugs sparingly enough to go undetected). Unfortunately, a few of “the few” cannot keep their use outside the workplace, and ruin it for the rest of us responsible users. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen it…Back on the elementary school bus, one kid spits gum out on a seat, another sits in it, and gum is banned from the bus eternally. It's not because no child can chew gum responsibly. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles. Testing everyone is the most effective, efficient way to curb drug use at work for the time being. Analizing each employee's risk factors and environment to determine whether or not they should be tested is just not feasible. Everyone can be a liability at one point or another. And hey, I don’t want to be that guy that looses an arm…so as long as I can dodge the tests, the tests are cool with me. I just hope that they catch the idiots, ya know what I mean? And if that makes me a corporate cocksucker...well bring on the cock then, I suppose.
;)

And I wonder how many HUNDREDS of people on this board alone have just worked around the drug tests? Stopped smoking for a month to pass the piss test? Used a system cleaner?
Clearly they don't really work, and only catch those who are honest enough to not use a system cleaner.

Once again: if our corporations were really interested in safety and productivity, they'd simply promote development of a cheaper version of the intoxication tests used by hospitals and police stations right now, and catch the people who actually come to work intoxicated.
Instead, we've got a bunch of corps who are really just interested in dictating morality and earning brownie points with the gov't, so they dragnet for anyone who uses drugs, even those who do it without harming others.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


Not at all. I think every person should be given equal testing performance testing in every regard. If a person's drug use is really a problem, shouldn't that show up in the performance tests?

If performance on the part of the employee is expected by the employeer, why test for it?

The only hole is of course someone who takes the tests sober and then shows up high for work at a later point, in which case a quick pinprick blood test that could show whether someone had active levels of the drug in their system at the moment would be necessary. Could be administered randomly, like they often do with current drug tests.
A setup like this would reward those responsible users who do not get high at work while still dragnetting for those irresponsible fuckers who ruin it for everyone.

Hex, exactly!! These majority of low lifes ruin it for those of us in the small minority who may use drugs but are top teer workers. But regardless, if you seek a very good job and they expect drug free workers what's so hard about not picking up the bong? If it's to your benefit to enjoy a great living from such an opportunity why ruin it by not throwing the bong in the fuckin trash can?

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by HexRei
Two words: personal responsibility. This employee should be held responsible for what he did. period. End of story.
Ok, HexRei. It's personal responsibility.

Let's say, for example.. that you're in Lowe's, Fred Meyer, or some locksmith shop. The guy who's copying your key just got back from lunch, where he smoked the pot. His hand slips, and the key goes flying right into your eye. You are now blind in your left eye. Would you consider it his fault and go after him, or the company? :)

[AthenA]

So you are suggesting that companies construct a way to test people immediately to see if they come to work intoxicated or not? Dude, everyone would still have to be tested, and many people would be out of luck due to the muffin they ate for breakfast, the cough medicine they took before work, or the prescription medicine they need. No matter how you do it, someone will be left in the lurch.

But, it's looking like rational situations don't apply on NWTekno. Anyone who debates here refers to the situations of La-La Land.

And just for the record, I never said that drug testing works. I am merely explaining the logic behind it. It is not morally dictating...it is an attempt (feeble as it may be) to cut costs.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by AthenA
Zupan...Buddy...Have you ever worked for a company that tends to sustain drug-related accidents (i.e. construction companies)? Your hypothetical situation of 75 out of 150 drug users screwing up on the job is absolutely ridiculous.

I wasn't stating that they were screwed up on the job.

Sorry I thought I was clear about that.

Take care Athena,
Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by AthenA
So you are suggesting that companies construct a way to test people immediately to see if they come to work intoxicated or not? Dude, everyone would still have to be tested, and many people would be out of luck due to the muffin they ate for breakfast, the cough medicine they took before work, or the prescription medicine they need. No matter how you do it, someone will be left in the lurch.

False positives usually equal to that of 1-2% than these false positives are taken to a next phase of testing (some states mandidate this by law) that is usually 99% effective in determining if the test is a really a positive or not.

But, it's looking like rational situations don't apply on NWTekno. Anyone who debates here refers to the situations of La-La Land.

Yea I agree, I could give examples from my personal experience as well that show how people I know that use drugs are great workers, and high achievers in the workplace, and I can show people I know that have been failures as well. But my persoanl experience cannot apply to the real world completley. The same applies to an employeer. They have no idea if the drug user they may hire will be the hardest worker, or the biggest loser. But if they drug test these people who come in the door they can greatly reduce the risk of hiring employees that are bums.

And just for the record, I never said that drug testing works. I am merely explaining the logic behind it. It is not morally dictating...it is an attempt (feeble as it may be) to cut costs.

I agree, of course drug testing isn't going to work in all cases, I know plenty of people who have passed them with some kind of urine cleanser, which allot of people do. Employeers drug test becuase it's a very effective way of weeding out potential risks, poor performers and low achievers

-Jason

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


I wasn't stating that they were screwed up on the job.

Sorry I thought I was clear about that.

Take care Athena,
Jason


So now a corporation should be testing for drugs in case the employee screws up while they're NOT on the job? Fascist much?

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


If performance on the part of the employee is expected by the employeer, why test for it?

[b]

Hex, exactly!! These majority of low lifes ruin it for those of us in the small minority who may use drugs but are top teer workers. But regardless, if you seek a very good job and they expect drug free workers what's so hard about not picking up the bong? If it's to your benefit to enjoy a great living from such an opportunity why ruin it by not throwing the bong in the fuckin trash can?

I prefer to simply find an employer who appreciates the work I do for them, not what I do when I get home.

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by HexRei
I prefer to simply find an employer who appreciates the work I do for them, not what I do when I get home.
So if they drug test, they don't appreciate what you do at work? Contradict yourself much?

[Cedwyn]

ballon - draw irrelevant comparisons much?

drug testing an employee is not relevant to his/her supervisor's approval, as the testing is en masse, but the appreciation is specific for one person.

hexrei's point is exactly that the two have nothing to do with each other (off-hours drug use and performance).

if a person is not using while at work and does their job effectively, what does it matter what their nightcap of choice is?

[HexRei]

Ok, I'm done with this thread. I've had this argument about 68 billion times on nwtekno and they all boil down to the same crap from the same people:

HexRei: Keep your hands off my urine!

ZupanGOD: Idf hard do dalk wid dif copowate cok down muh froat!

AthenA: Safety first!

balloon kitten: This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post, click here.


In any case, I don't think we'll ever all agree. But hey, I get paid a ridiculously large wage to do relatively simple things with computers and they don't give a damn what's in my urine, so I guess it's all moot to me anyway :)

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei



So now a corporation should be testing for drugs in case the employee screws up while they're NOT on the job? Fascist much?

Fascist?!?!!?!?! How many times are you gonna sound like a young kid that is talking out of his ass? Man your fucking pathetic Bro.. suriously. Anytime someone doesn't a agree with you and they degrade your points into a pile of shit they are Fascist or there ideas are that of the fascist, Adolf Hitler the Nazi?!?!!? Grow the fuck up. I'm been very respectfull to you in the past but I've about had it for dumb asses that when there arguments can't hold water they resort to, "nah nah nah your racist, your a facist".

I'm out!
-Z

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


I prefer to simply find an employer who appreciates the work I do for them, not what I do when I get home.

Same here but If being fucking pot head is more important than finding the best opportunity for yourself than fine!! Give up those opportunities in favor of being a fucking pot head when you go home. That just means there is more opportunity for the rest of us.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
ballon - draw irrelevant comparisons much?

drug testing an employee is not relevant to his/her supervisor's approval, as the testing is en masse, but the appreciation is specific for one person.

hexrei's point is exactly that the two have nothing to do with each other (off-hours drug use and performance).

if a person is not using while at work and does their job effectively, what does it matter what their nightcap of choice is?

Becuase these druggies night caps could cost to much to even risk hiring them.

[Cedwyn]

how, zupe?

and while we're here, drug testing across the board ain't exactly cheap....

[ebluboi]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Becuase these druggies night caps could cost to much to even risk hiring them.

Bullshit. Go talk to an actuary, there are huge numbers of factors that can statisticly be shown to be significant risks in hiring someone. Why don't employers test for all of them? Because they'd instantly be slapped with accusations of discrimination which, justified or not, are enough of a hinderance to make it not worth it.
Instead, what do they do? They evaluate individuals based on their performance or ability to perform, rather than other factors that may have statistical correlations to those.
The only reason mass drug testing is tolerated is that drug use being illegal gives them enough of a legal leg to stand on. In my eyes, a company that exploits this and does testing is giving their implicit support to drug prohibition. Fascist? Thats probably a little bit of an exaggeration. But indicative of typcial corporate cockshafting? Definately. The attitude seems to be, "There's a legal loophole that lets us get around the laws designed to grant our employees fair treatment, so we're gonna exploit it."
And for the same reason, employees who consent to testing are also essentially consenting to the government's prohbiting drugs. I wouldn't go so far to say that people shouldn't take a job just because a drug test is required, that's just as foolish as not hiring someone just because they've used drugs. But I do think its something you should think about. While we're making gross generalizations based on behaviors, why not think about what it says about a company's culture and attitude when they can't trust their employees to not come to work impaired? Why not think about what statement you make to the government when you agree to having the protections afforded to you by nondiscrimination laws waived because lawmakers want to protect you from making the 'wrong' decision about drugs?

[Cedwyn]

yay ebluboy!

[AthenA]

"Go talk to an actuary, there are huge numbers of factors that can statisticly be shown to be significant risks in hiring someone. Why don't employers test for all of them? Because they'd instantly be slapped with accusations of discrimination which, justified or not, are enough of a hinderance to make it not worth it."

Exactly. There are many factors that make employees a risk to hire. We cannot test for all of them. But if we can minimize just one risk, it's one less to worry about.

"In my eyes, a company that exploits this and does testing is giving their implicit support to drug prohibition."

As well they should. I'm not middle age white christian male....I'm even a drug user, and I fear what would happen if drugs were legal across the board at this point in the evolution of our society.

"The attitude seems to be, "There's a legal loophole that lets us get around the laws designed to grant our employees fair treatment, so we're gonna exploit it."

Fair treatment??? Many (notice I said "many". Not most, not all....Many.)drug users are criminals. Criminals do not deserve "fair treatment". Certainly not when they could be endangering others with their drug use.

"While we're making gross generalizations based on behaviors, why not think about what it says about a company's culture and attitude when they can't trust their employees to not come to work impaired?"

What does it say about an employer's attitude? That they're rational and realistic. Why trust all employees to come in sober when they don't??? Trust is to be earned, not given. How many people do you trust that you don't even know? And if I can't trust strangers, why the hell should I expect my company to?

"Why not think about what statement you make to the government when you agree to having the protections afforded to you by nondiscrimination laws waived because lawmakers want to protect you from making the 'wrong' decision about drugs?"

Somebody's got to! Parent's can't protect their kid from drugs, kids can't protect themselves, families cannot protect members from drugs, adults cannot protect themselves, etc. If this country raised children to be aware and responsible and drug abuse was not a problem, I'd say take the laws off the books. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Drug abuse is one of the biggest killers in this country. Has been, and will continue to be. It will not change until there are some significant changes in how our society addresses drug use and the drugs themselves. Until we, as a whole, are willing to make those changes, something needs to be in place to protect us (not that those laws are doing that...but legalizing drugs at this point is not the answer either).

I have plenty of qualms with how our government currently handles drugs and drug use. But I also have qualms with the way society treats them. Anyone who thinks that legalizing drugs across the board will fix problems as opposed to making them worse is kidding themselves. Believe me, I do wish that our society was mature enough to handle drugs, but it's not. If we were to legalize drugs at this point, I believe the consequences would be heinous. I mean, look at alcohol. It was illegal once, it became legal...and here we are, decades and decades later, and we still can't handle it. Alcohol-related deaths are in the hundreds of thousands every year. I will support the legalization of drugs once someone proves to me that the same thing won't happen again. America will have to grow up and look at drugs through a whole new set of eyes before total legalization is even an option.

Just my opinion, though.;)

[EuroTrash]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD
But regardless, if you seek a very good job and they expect drug free workers what's so hard about not picking up the bong?

Because the harder I work the more stressed I become, the more stressed I become the more I want to blow a hole in that idiot the screwed up my script or the f*ckin whore that took down the network by opening attachments. Were most people go home and have a couple drinks, I go home and smoke a bowl. I can't drink, it kills my stomach and makes me feel like crap the next day, thus making me unproductive. Smoking a bowl calms me down for the time, and when I wake up I'm fresh and ready for another day.

Now I want to be clear, my qualm is not with 'drug testing' parse but with them testing for my leisure use of Mary Jane. Crank for instance is a drug that I think STRONGLY affects people for days after they use it. This among other drugs like it, should be tested for as I believe it would cause a serious issue during the time of employment. But marijuana I put on the same level as alcohol (if not a little better). The statistics you should look at is the comparison of how much marijuana users cost a company in comparison to drinkers. I'm much more likely to call in sick after a night of drinking than a night of smoking pot. If two people are stupid enough to go to work, one drunk and one high, I think the drunk would be far more likely to get into an accident where as the stoned person would probably be sitting in a corner laughing at them. And as AthenA pointed out, pot smokers are not more likely to get into accidents. The accidents that were reported might have happened anyways if the person smoked pot or not, and was classified as a drug accident simply cause he showed THC in his system (which could have been from a week prior). This is why I agree with Hex's ideal that we should be judged on performance and if it ever is a question they can do a blood drug test to see if you are on drugs WHILE on duty. But unfortunately any and all arguments become null at this point because MJ is still illegal and until that changes the current drug testing system will remain unchanged.

Http://www.legalizehempusa.com/forum/images/logo/hempUSAlogo.gif

[Cedwyn]

Somebody's got to! Parent's can't protect their kid from drugs, kids can't protect themselves, families cannot protect members from drugs, adults cannot protect themselves, etc. If this country raised children to be aware and responsible and drug abuse was not a problem, I'd say take the laws off the books. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Drug abuse is one of the biggest killers in this country

drug abuse deaths fall quite short of the death toll associated with alcohol:

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

why can't parents "protect" their kids from drugs? you say you use drugs yourself; surely you check erowid to see what the story is and then evaluate the risks. why can't parents teach their children how to be responsible regarding drugs?

sheltering children from life does them no good; parents need to provide their children with the information they need to respond intelligently when they find themselves in situtations.

if you truly believe that basically no one can "protect" children from the very drugs you willingly ingest, then however do you propose our country achieves this glorious revolution in our attitude towards drugs? it has to start somewhere....are you going to tell your children that the government will always take care of them? or are you going to teach them what they need to take care of themselves?

and yes...since we cannot test for all factors that affect job productivity, singling out one factor (i.e. marijuana) is discriminatory. frankly, someone taking a goddamn cold medication is an equal, if not greater, threat.

[Star_Dancer]

Originally posted by EuroTrash


Because the harder I work the more stressed I become, the more stressed I become the more I want to blow a hole in that idiot the screwed up my script or the f*ckin whore that took down the network by opening attachments.

Werd to that! I know exactly what you are talking about there!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The statistics you should look at is the comparison of how much marijuana users cost a company in comparison to drinkers. I'm much more likely to call in sick after a night of drinking than a night of smoking pot.

I can second that. My office is divided into pot heads and alcoholics. I get to see the direct comparison to the two every time. I'd much rather work with someone who's stoned and might say "what was that?" a few extra times than someone who's drunk and would say "Sure no problem I got that" and then go fuck it up and make more work for me

[Elroy]

I'm gonna miss my train to class, but I just had to say that this is a completely ridiculous debate.

Zupangod clearly just has something to prove, and balloon kitten is quickly climbing the charts of most irritating board member that frequently posts.

That being said, when workers can be at risk of hurting others (surgeons, fork-lift operators etc), it is completely acceptable to drug test them imho. But I don't believe we were ever specifically talking about that anyhow.

I think that when it comes to computer jobs and other non-hazardous occupations, people will find that some of the most brilliant, talented workers are recreational drug users. Its just the way life goes... and people shouldn't rule them out because of that. Smart people tend to enjoy altered states of reality I've noticed... so deal with it and learn how to suck cock better because you are fucking boring, and its NOT getting me off.

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by HexRei
Ok, I'm done with this thread. I've had this argument about 68 billion times on nwtekno and they all boil down to the same crap from the same people:

balloon kitten: This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post, click here.

In any case, I don't think we'll ever all agree. But hey, I get paid a ridiculously large wage to do relatively simple things with computers and they don't give a damn what's in my urine, so I guess it's all moot to me anyway :)
Yeah, you expect us to believe you don't care when you just argued page after page after page? Pffffffft.

Also, I notice how you respond to me a few times, but then when I prove you wrong, or come up with something you can't dispute, you pretend to have me on ignore again. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by balloon kitten

Who says I'm at work today?

As usual, you are attacking me and ignoring the point (so much easier!).

:)
Originally posted by balloon kitten

Ok, HexRei. It's personal responsibility.

Let's say, for example.. that you're in Lowe's, Fred Meyer, or some locksmith shop. The guy who's copying your key just got back from lunch, where he smoked the pot. His hand slips, and the key goes flying right into your eye. You are now blind in your left eye. Would you consider it his fault and go after him, or the company? :)

I'll take your silence to mean I'm right. Thanks, HexRei! :D

[Cedwyn]

don't be daft...

let's say he's tired and his hand slips

or he's randy and daydreaming and his hand slips

or he's angry and his hand slips...

wtf?!??!

i wish i lived in a world so simple that everything could be blamed on drug use!

and, not that your example is relevant, but if there were some danger associated with it, stores wouldn't allow customers in work areas. you'll notice most car garages don't allow customers in there for safety reasons. and that's not to mention insurance.

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
and, not that your example is relevant, but if there were some danger associated with it, stores wouldn't allow customers in work areas. you'll notice most car garages don't allow customers in there for safety reasons. and that's not to mention insurance.
It is relevant. Go to Fred Meyer. Go to Lowe's. Most placest that copy keys do it right in the open, and the employee wears eye protection, not the customer. My example is relevant, and HexRei is still silent. :D

[AthenA]

"drug abuse deaths fall quite short of the death toll associated with alcohol:"

Why, yes they do! Do you think that would still be the case if everyone has easy access to drugs??? That's my point here, darlin'. Drug abuse is a problem, and drugs aren't even legal yet. With the way people in this country treat the drug issue, I find it hard to believe that if legalized, drug related deaths wouldn't rival alcohol related deaths. People in general cannot handle drugs due to the severe lack of education regarding them. I am reminded of that on a daily basis. Legalizing them wouldn't change that fact.

"why can't parents "protect" their kids from drugs? you say you use drugs yourself; surely you check erowid to see what the story is and then evaluate the risks. why can't parents teach their children how to be responsible regarding drugs?"

Yes, I do check Erowid. My parents taught me well about drugs, the lifestyle associated with them, the effects, pros and cons, etc. Why other parents can't or won't is beyond me, but exactly why I said that America needs to look at drug use through a different set of eyes. Education is key to turning this thing around...But no one is educating. Until that happens, responsible drug use as a society is nothing but a pipe dream.

"sheltering children from life does them no good; parents need to provide their children with the information they need to respond intelligently when they find themselves in situtations."

I never mentioned sheltering. Sheltering never gets anyone anywhere. I've seen 90% of my old neighborhood friends (that were all sheltered heavily) hit the real world like it was a brick wall. Sheltering and protecting are two different things. I was protected from the ill-effects drugs can produce by education. Everybody should be, but they're not. That hardly means we should legalize and let the education catch up. Education and then legalization. The two cannot be switched.

"and yes...since we cannot test for all factors that affect job productivity, singling out one factor (i.e. marijuana) is discriminatory. frankly, someone taking a goddamn cold medication is an equal, if not greater, threat."

Just because we can't test for all doesn't mean that we shouldn't test any!!! And yes, it could be considered discriminatory, but it’s discriminating against criminals. Most companies will ask potential employees if they’ve committed a felony. That’s discriminatory too, but no one seems to argue the logic behind that one. Now, I don’t understand why you say “singling out one factor (i.e. marijuana)” as if that’s all they test for. Perhaps it was inadvertent, but you make it out to sound like they are out to get pot smokers. They test for as many drugs as it is feasible. If they could test for a history of drinking problems, they probably would. Unfortunately, alcohol is legal and more difficult to test for. And as for the cold medication...Someone who gets in a job-site accident on cold medicine (with alcohol in it) should be (and often is) subject to the same discipline as someone on drugs.

“And as AthenA pointed out, pot smokers are not more likely to get into accidents.”

Whoa, buddy….AthenA said nothing of the sort. All I said was that Zupan’s scenario was a bit exaggerated. Perfect example of how “facts” can be twisted to suit a person’s needs (although I think in this case it was unintentional). I mentioned that on average, maybe 2 job-site accidents at my company can be attributed to drug use. In order for you to conclude what you did from my statement, you would have to know how many accidents we incur during the average year. During the average year, we see approximately 3 job-site accidents. By accident, I mean any injury worthy of hospital treatment. Deep cuts, loss of appendages or limbs, loss of consciousness for more than a few minutes, etc. Yes, drug users ARE more likely to be involved in a job-site accident (according to my research of company records). How much more likely and what types of drugs are debatable issues. The guy who I spoke of that lost a finger in the crimp machine was stoned when he had his accident. Some friends of his tried to convince him to go home and sober up before using the machines. He said he needed the money. Only pot-smokers that smoke on the job are more likely to hurt themselves or others. However, how do you determine who’s likely to smoke at work and who’s not? By not hiring pot-smokers, you avoid that issue entirely. I believe it’s a company’s right to do so.

"Smart people tend to enjoy altered states of reality I've noticed... so deal with it and learn how to suck cock better because you are fucking boring, and its NOT getting me off."

I can only hope that statement is not directed toward me.:)

"That being said, when workers can be at risk of hurting others (surgeons, fork-lift operators etc), it is completely acceptable to drug test them imho. But I don't believe we were ever specifically talking about that anyhow."

I completely agree. However, that's where the controversy lies (for me, anyway). I am a good example. I am a purchasing agent. I sit on my arse infront of a computer for 8 hours a day, for the most part. But every once in awhile, I have to drive a work truck to job-sites, vendors, other company locations. During this short period of time, I am a liability, and could possibly endanger others (if I was high). Most everyone that works for my company has the same situation going. At a desk 98% of the time, but a liability for the other 2%. That's why we get tested. If all a company does is say, telemarketing, no company trucks, no heavy lifting or other physical labor, I don't see why they feel the need to test for drug use. Sometimes it's to follow the norm. Sometimes it's because the policy makers do truely believe that drug use impacts productivity (which can be the case). Whatever. All I'm saying is that it's not some conspiracy to make everyone conform. You need not take it personally.

"don't be daft...

let's say he's tired and his hand slips

or he's randy and daydreaming and his hand slips

or he's angry and his hand slips...

wtf?!??!

i wish i lived in a world so simple that everything could be blamed on drug use!"

Let's say he's stoned and his hand slips. A friend of mine knocked himself out with a hole hog at work on his birthday because he went to work high. He said himself that had he not been stoned, he would have had the reflex and the mind-set to stop it from happening. He said that what was going on didn't register until it was too late. Sounds like a stoner move to me...

Yes, accidents happen. But if we can prevent a few...thousand, why not?

O.k....I think that's it for now. :D

[Cedwyn]

balloonbrain: hexrei is silent because he bowed out of this thread...does no one pay attention here?

AthenA:

Drug abuse is one of the biggest killers in this country
well, darlin'...i was merely replying to the above statement of yours, which does not appear to be accurate.

but to answer your often contradictory points:

i have to disagree with your comment that legalization won't foster education. besides the vast quantities of legalize manufacturers (in the case of e, etc.) would have to include in the information label, if the stuff were legal, people would be able to conduct meaningful research on it. we'd have much more accurate and useful information and our choices would be that much more informed. the biggest crock of nonsense on the planet is that the war on drugs protects anybody.

i also think you misestimate the american populace. i don't believe the issue of legality is the main deterrent from drug use. hard though it is to believe, a lot of people just aren't interested...so, no, i don't buy that a legalized market could cause as many deaths, let alone more, as the current system. If legalized, overdoses and impurities would be virtually eliminated as a risk factor. that accounts for most drug-related deaths right there.

Yes, I do check Erowid. My parents taught me well about drugs, the lifestyle associated with them, the effects, pros and cons, etc. Why other parents can't or won't is beyond me, but exactly why I said that America needs to look at drug use through a different set of eyes. Education is key to turning this thing around...But no one is educating. Until that happens, responsible drug use as a society is nothing but a pipe dream.
how can you be an (apparent) example of parents properly educating their children regarding drugs, but then carry on about how no one is educating and this will never work?

I was protected from the ill-effects drugs can produce by education
and yet, in an earlier post:
Somebody's got to! Parent's can't protect their kid from drugs, kids can't protect themselves, families cannot protect members from drugs, adults cannot protect themselves, etc.
make up yer precious little mind, would you? or are you just "the universal exception"?

Now, I don’t understand why you say “singling out one factor (i.e. marijuana
i mentioned marijuana because, of all the recreational drugs, marijuana alone can be reasonably compared to the after-work beer. i'm sorry, but if a person is indulging in any of the chemical toys as commonly as people are toking up or sipping beer, they are going to be so obviously incapacitated *at any time* that a urine test is less-than-necessary.

Let's say he's stoned and his hand slips.
that was the original statement to which i was replying with my comments. haven't you been paying attention? are you high?!?! you must be! you lost the thought trail! quick! let's test her!

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
balloonbrain: hexrei is silent because he bowed out of this thread...does no one pay attention here?
Obviously not. If you were, you'd see that I said that shit before he bowed out. He read it, and he chose not to reply. Why? Because he's afraid to admit that I am right. :D

[Cedwyn]

no, he's not replying because he's already stated his feelings on the subject. if you would quit acting like a 12-yr old and declaring victory over someone who is not here, you might just realize that.

and just for the record, most key cutters hold the keys in place with vice grips or similar devices.

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
no, he's not replying because he's already stated his feelings on the subject. if you would quit acting like a 12-yr old and declaring victory over someone who is not here, you might just realize that.

and just for the record, most key cutters hold the keys in place with vice grips or similar devices.
Oh, he's here, trust me.. he's here. Just cause he's not replying, doesn't mean he's not here. Otherwise this could just turn into petty drama. ;)

and just for the record.. if the guy is high, he could forget to place the vice grips or similar device where it should be, thus allowing the key to become projected into the left eye of the Rei.

Another victory for da balloon! :D

[*badmouse*]

Another victory for da balloon!
doesn't take much to get you all excited now, does it?

y'know, you remind me of a joke i heard today.
it's incredibly crude but i can't help but think of you....

Q: What's better than winning 4 gold medals in the special olympics?

A: not being RETARDED.

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by *badmouse*
y'know, you remind me of a joke i heard today.
it's incredibly crude but i can't help but think of you....

Q: What's better than winning 4 gold medals in the special olympics?

A: not being RETARDED.
I bet you laughed hard at that joke, all the while thinking, "That's easy for you to say, I'm the one with 4 gold medals!"

:D

[Elroy]

Why balloon kitten? You know from experience?

And lemme ask you another question... did you break your teeth trying to bite into your medals to eat the chocolate?

I'm pretty sure that Hexrei hasn't been responding to you because he has you on ignore... I believe he said so earlier in this thread, but maybe I'm wrong.

And why would he have you on ignore? Because you are a FUCKING MORON THAT COULDN'T ARGUE THEIR WAY OUT OF A PAPER BAG!!! I imagine he just doesn't see a point to even read what you have to say, because it doesn't even make sense... and maybe that is why everybody is railing on your dumb ass.... jesus crap!

Now shut up, and save your strength for the 100 yard waddle...

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Elroy
Why balloon kitten? You know from experience?

And lemme ask you another question... did you break your teeth trying to bite into your medals to eat the chocolate?

I'm pretty sure that Hexrei hasn't been responding to you because he has you on ignore... I believe he said so earlier in this thread, but maybe I'm wrong.

And why would he have you on ignore? Because you are a FUCKING MORON THAT COULDN'T ARGUE THEIR WAY OUT OF A PAPER BAG!!! I imagine he just doesn't see a point to even read what you have to say, because it doesn't even make sense... and maybe that is why everybody is railing on your dumb ass.... jesus crap!

Now shut up, and save your strength for the 100 yard waddle...
First: I didn't get the gold medals, read it again, hex-wannanbe. :D

Second: If you believe anything HexRei said after his obvious lie of ignoring me, pffffft. :D

You think everyone "is railing on (my) dumb ass.. jesus crap!"? Like I just said, pfffffft. :D

Until you can tell me why HexRei IGNORED my valid points, and then "bowed out" of this thread without replying, well, to quote the late Chris Farley.. "SHUT YOUR BIG FAT YAPPER!!!!!"

:D

[Star_Dancer]

Originally posted by balloon kitten

Until you can tell me why HexRei IGNORED my valid points, and then "bowed out" of this thread without replying, well, to quote the late Chris Farley.. "SHUT YOUR BIG FAT YAPPER!!!!!"

:D

Can you please tell me what made your points valid? Nothing as far as I can see. Just because the insane giberis of a schizophrenic makes sense to herself, doesn't mean the voices are right, OR valid.

[*badmouse*]

I bet you laughed hard at that joke, all the while thinking, "That's easy for you to say, I'm the one with 4 gold medals!"
i was wondering if you'd be able to make the connection between your 'victory' and the medals in the joke,
but i suppose even that much is beyond you.

it's always amusing to watch half the things that people say to you fly right over your head.
betcha can't tell the difference between when people are laughing with you and laughing at you (hint: it's always the latter).

[Star_Dancer]

Originally posted by *badmouse*

it's always amusing to watch half the things that people say to you fly right over your head.
betcha can't tell the difference between when people are laughing with you and laughing at you (hint: it's always the latter).

*snicker*

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Star_Dancer


Can you please tell me what made your points valid? Nothing as far as I can see. Just because the insane giberis of a schizophrenic makes sense to herself, doesn't mean the voices are right, OR valid.

lol!

And just for the record, I ignored her points cause I have her on ignore, as I have for several months :) Once you realize that everything she says is complete and utter bullshit, there's just no reason to read her posts *shrug*

[Elroy]

Originally posted by balloon kitten

First: I didn't get the gold medals, read it again, hex-wannanbe. :D

Second: If you believe anything HexRei said after his obvious lie of ignoring me, pffffft. :D

You think everyone "is railing on (my) dumb ass.. jesus crap!"? Like I just said, pfffffft. :D

Until you can tell me why HexRei IGNORED my valid points, and then "bowed out" of this thread without replying, well, to quote the late Chris Farley.. "SHUT YOUR BIG FAT YAPPER!!!!!"

:D

"I didn't win any gold medals because I am not the retard, but I bet you won a bunch of them because you are the retard and you are a hex-wannabe and I am cooler than you because I named myself balloon kitten and I am responding and trying to out argue somebody that CANNOT EVEN SEE MY POSTS, and I feel soooooo proud when he isn't responding, and nobody is railing on my dumb ass because they all love me actually... they are just messing around but they really think I am cool... and I think my next post is going to ask 'am I cool?' and I bet like maybe even %4 of people will think that I am so that isn't EVERYBODY now is it? And you are dumb elroy because you think that you can get into a flame war with zen-master-kitten... but you will lose this argument once you run out of energy trying to explain the situation to somebody who gets off on imagining they are winning arguments, even when nobody understands what the hell their point actually is, and that nobody even sees the value of wasting their energy posting... let alone agreeing with them... and if you keep flaming me, I'll quote one of the least funny or relevant lines from a dead comedian and laugh myself to sleep... so shut up and go to class because you are going to be late."
--- One of the voices in balloon kitten's head

Oh shit... that's true, I am going to be late... better go.

(for the record I know this is one of the most bizarre things I have ever posted)

[skloot]

Originally posted by HexRei
...eeverything she says is complete and utter bullshit...

W3rd
I wonder when she'll realize that people dislike her not because shes right (which she seems to think), but rather because she is fucking retarded and automaticaly assumes that she is correct, no matter what the context.

[AthenA]

Cedwyn....When I refer to "drugs", I am including alcohol. Last I checked, that was a drug too. Therefore, when I say that drug use is one of the biggest killers in this country, I am absolutely correct.

"I have to disagree that legalization won't foster education."

I never said it wouldn't. All I was saying is that the education should be there before legalization when the products to be legalized are potentially dangerous. We wouldn't bring a new machine into the shop and let the guys learn as they go along if a slip up meant loosing a limb. Education must come first, and continue to develop.

I do believe that legalization of all drugs across the board would result in an increase of deaths. Yes, some people don't do drugs because they aren't interested. But if drugs were being marketed like all other drugs currently on the market, many more people would become interested. Look at the alcohol and tobacco industries...Advertising powerhouses that pray on children. You are kidding yourself if you don't think that drug manufacturers wouldn't go down the same road. I may underestimate the people of this country, but I believe that you are over estimating here.

And how can you say that legalization would reduce overdoses? How many people die a year from alcohol poisoning? I don't believe that legalization has anything to do with that number. I agree that legalization would reduce impurities, but when the nature of many drugs in their purest form is still dangerous, impurities become a mute point. In other words, one could do the purest coke around, but if you do enough, it can still kill you.

"how can you be an (apparent) example of parents properly educating their children regarding drugs, but then carry on about how no one is educating and this will never work?"

I never said it wouldn't work. I merely said that the education must be there in order for it to work. I vividly remember a debate class discussion after a student died of an overdose. The teacher asked the class "How many of you talk with your parents about drugs?". 5 out of 38 students raised their hand. That's enough to suggest to me that not enought parents are educating their kids at all, much less properly, about drugs. Am I the "universal exception"? Hardly. Am I one of the small percentage that is the exception to the rule? I do believe so. Maybe it's because I was raised in an upper-middle class, white, predominantly Catholic neighborhood that I hardly know any kids who were taught about drugs, but I went to public school (HIghline H.S., who was said to have had the second highest rate of drug use among students in western Washington a few years back. HIGHline was a big joke to all of us), and for a fairly diverse class of 11th graders to say that only five of them had been spoken to about drug use...well, I'm sure you get my point.

Until kids get the proper education to make informed decisions, legalization of all drugs is not an option. Parents must be open, honest, and informative with their kids. I'm just not seeing that. Believe me, Cedwyn...If I could say in good conscience that legalizing drugs would not be disasterous as this point, I would! I don't like being a responsible drug user that doesn't hurt anyone else who fears getting arrested or getting sick from bunk drugs (although I ONLY smoke weed, so that really doesn't apply to me anymore). But I look around at the drug use I see in my life. Hell, a good portion of the threads on NWTekno are evidence that kids are uninformed about drugs. I go to raves. I see kids puking, passing out, getting molested by complete strangers - Not the actions of an informed, educated drug user. I see my own friends, intelligent college students who you'd think would know better, saying things like "I tried GHB last weekend." I ask, "do you even know what that is?", they reply "No...It was fun, though." - Not the words of an informed drug user. My own family...I had a cousin committ suicide while on drugs. Left two kids and a lovely wife. I have an aunt who lost both her kids (2 cousins I may never meet) because she has a nasty crank/coke habit and can't keep her life straight. Crank has ravaged my boyfriend's family; he's got less immediate family that is crank-free than not. So yeah, maybe I under estimate the general public. But thusfar, the general public has given me no reason not to.

"I'm sorry, but if a person is indulging in any of the chemical toys as commonly as people are toking up or sipping beer, they are going to be so obviously incapacitated *at any time* that a urine test is less-than-necessary."

I beg to differ! Have you ever met adult crank addicts??? They are masters of disguise! My boyfriend's brothers are both glazers (union glass workers). For many weeks they were stationed in Aberdeen working on the new prison in Westport. Everyday after work they would drive all the way back home (to Seattle), party all night doing crank, and drive back in the morning. The company they were working for never made any mention of their behaviour or appearance. They admitted after the fact that every day they did that, they were endangering their co-workers, and they were incredibly lucky that nothing happened. Coming to work on uppers is quite common in the manufacturing business. Often time, men and women work upwards of 50 hours a week. The pipe-fitters on my shift are currently working 70-80 hours a week. More than a couple actually bring methamphetamines to work as their own version of no dose. If I didn't know them, I wouldn't be able to tell.

"that was the original statement to which i was replying with my comments. haven't you been paying attention? are you high?!?! you must be! you lost the thought trail! quick! let's test her!"

I understand that. I was merely reitterating my earlier statements in a manner that matched yours to make a point. You talk about being tired or daydreaming, both of which are things I tend to experience when I'm stoned. Yes, both things can happen while sober, but are much more likely to happen when intoxicated by either alcohol or pot.

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by *badmouse*
i was wondering if you'd be able to make the connection between your 'victory' and the medals in the joke, but i suppose even that much is beyond you.

it's always amusing to watch half the things that people say to you fly right over your head. betcha can't tell the difference between when people are laughing with you and laughing at you (hint: it's always the latter).
So.. you're laughing at me. Ok, but who the fuck are you? Nobody. So shut the fuck up. :o

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Kranman
I wonder when she'll realize that people dislike her not because shes right (which she seems to think), but rather because she is fucking retarded and automaticaly assumes that she is correct, no matter what the context.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I had a valid point, and HexRei ignored it. He replied to my others, so he doesn't have me on ignore. Think about it, you fucking sheep. :D

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Elroy
"I didn't win any gold medals because I am not the retard, but I bet you won a bunch of them because you are the retard and you are a hex-wannabe and I am cooler than you because I named myself balloon kitten and I am responding and trying to out argue somebody that CANNOT EVEN SEE MY POSTS, and I feel soooooo proud when he isn't responding, and nobody is railing on my dumb ass because they all love me actually... they are just messing around but they really think I am cool... and I think my next post is going to ask 'am I cool?' and I bet like maybe even %4 of people will think that I am so that isn't EVERYBODY now is it? And you are dumb elroy because you think that you can get into a flame war with zen-master-kitten... but you will lose this argument once you run out of energy trying to explain the situation to somebody who gets off on imagining they are winning arguments, even when nobody understands what the hell their point actually is, and that nobody even sees the value of wasting their energy posting... let alone agreeing with them... and if you keep flaming me, I'll quote one of the least funny or relevant lines from a dead comedian and laugh myself to sleep... so shut up and go to class because you are going to be late."
--- One of the voices in balloon kitten's head

Oh shit... that's true, I am going to be late... better go.

(for the record I know this is one of the most bizarre things I have ever posted)
Actually, I win.. because you cared enough to type all that shit out. But.. you hear the voices too?? :rolleyes:

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by HexRei
And just for the record, I ignored her points cause I have her on ignore, as I have for several months :) Once you realize that everything she says is complete and utter bullshit, there's just no reason to read her posts *shrug*
Bullshit. You replied to my posts earlier in this thread. :rolleyes:

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Star_Dancer


*snicker*
Yeah, that's good. Don't be a victim of hunger! :o

[Cedwyn]

oh, ok...4 posts later you decide you're including "alcohol" in "drugs." charming :rolleyes:

I do believe that legalization of all drugs across the board would result in an increase of deaths... if drugs were being marketed like all other drugs currently on the market, many more people would become interested
it is my opinion that you, my dear, are kidding *yourself* if you think the government would just toss the scheduled substances on the common market without serious regulation. and i'd bet good money they would be conducting studies out the wazoo; it's just too controversial an issue for the opposition to settle with anecdotal evidence. if the government wants to pull it off, they're bloody well going to need support. and who's to say they wouldn't put together a mandatory drug-education class for students? and i don't mean D.A.R.E. bullshit...real info.

how is it you can be so gung-ho about the current laws of prohibition, yet be so pessimistic about regulation of the legalized drugs? and i really don't see how you can claim to know how it would play out. every depiction of heroin i've seen leaves me with no desire to dabble there. same with coke...no thank you, sir. and these are media influences, not drug education. i know you think the "general populace" is not trustable regarding drugs and i'm sorry your family seems plagued by such issues. but i hafta tell you, your genetic bloodline is not a representative sampling of the "general populace."

neither is your job environment, as that is a fairly specific demographic comprising the work force. speaking of your workplace:
Coming to work on uppers is quite common in the manufacturing business. Often time, men and women work upwards of 50 hours a week. The pipe-fitters on my shift are currently working 70-80 hours a week.
ok, the employees there are overworked and take stimulants to keep up. god forbid the company adequately staff instead of over-working people...why is the reasonable solution to you that the employees be punished for trying to keep up with such grueling schedules? yeah, ok, they choose illegal means to do so, but christ almighty, can you name any legal ways to keep that kinda pace?

besides, the privacy invasion issue inherent in drug testing is not about drugs in the workplace anyway. it's the fact that an employee can be fired for what they do off the company clock. being fucked up at work is a whole different story, but frankly, i'd feel safer with someone on speed than somone working while exhausted. jeebus.

And how can you say that legalization would reduce overdoses? How many people die a year from alcohol poisoning?
i don't know, AthenA; why don't you do some comparative research on the subject? but i do know that drug users do not function like frat boys. how often do you suppose junkies sit around playing games like "asshole" trying to get their friends to shoot up more? or when was the last time you saw someone peer pressured into eating tab after tab of e at the expense of $20 a pop? reality, anyone?

let's not forget that many drug "overdoses" are incidental deaths (i.e. asphyxiation on vomit...which also happens with alcohol) or instances of drugs being mixed with alcohol...which intoxicant gets to claim those fatalities? and yes, of course one can overdose on the purest of drugs. but often, overdoses are caused by variances in purities. if your body is used to a certain grade of narcotic, taking a comparable ("normal") dose of a purer substance can kill. standardizing dosages and eliminating the variable purity would dramatically cut back on the instances of overdoses.

http://www.mapinc.org/tlcnews/v02/n1591/a04.htm?132

both prohibition and legalization have risks and issues; i happen to be of the opinion that legalization would pose fewer problems of a less critical nature, not to mention save billions of dollars.

yes, i realize that having them legalized isn't going to be a magic utopia land where drug-related deaths become a distant memory, but let's get real. every one of us takes any number of risks with our lives daily just by going about our business.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/03/maryland.shootings/index.html

murphy's law, like the mechanisms of darwinism, is indomitable. people do stupid-arse things every day that get themselves killed, but society only gets its panties in a wad if it's associated with drug use. most everything in our modern world poses a risk to some facet of our well-being. but ya know what? such are the risks of freedom. embrace the lot or stay the fuck home already.

and please, for the love of bunny jesus, quit contradicting yourself. or start saying what you mean. one or the other. and for the record, it's "moot."

[EuroTrash]

Originally posted by balloon kitten

So.. you're laughing at me. Ok, but who the fuck are you? Nobody. So shut the fuck up. :o

Actually Lori kicks major ass and is a good friend to many on here. She has proven herself to be a much better person than you could ever aspire to be.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by EuroTrash


Actually Lori kicks major ass and is a good friend to many on here. She has proven herself to be a much better person than you could ever aspire to be.

Werd to that.

[Elroy]

Yeah, and its not just her... it's everyone that is laughing!

Originally posted by balloon kitten

Actually, I win.. because you cared enough to type all that shit out. But.. you hear the voices too?? :rolleyes:

No again, the voices must have lied when they informed you of that victory.

See, I'm in writing school... so flaming recently post e-tard trolls like you is basically like a personal exercise I do in my spare time.

And yeah... I hear voices too... but mine are actually really interesting and have a surprising accurate understanding of reality :)... unlike yours that probably come from the ghosts of Darwin award winners.

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by EuroTrash
Actually Lori kicks major ass and is a good friend to many on here. She has proven herself to be a much better person than you could ever aspire to be.
Says you. And who are you? :o

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Elroy
See, I'm in writing school... so flaming recently post e-tard trolls like you is basically like a personal exercise I do in my spare time.

And yeah... I hear voices too... but mine are actually really interesting and have a surprising accurate understanding of reality :)... unlike yours that probably come from the ghosts of Darwin award winners.
Ooooh, you got me there! Oh wait, I'm not an etard troll. Or am I a post etard troll? Stay in writing school, Elroy. ;)

p.s. Casper says hello!

[*badmouse*]

Oh wait, I'm not an etard troll.
yes, well, you're still going to end up being the person behind the counter who asks me if i want fries with that.
:: pats you on the head ::
your parents must be so proud!

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by *badmouse*
yes, well, you're still going to end up being the person behind the counter who asks me if i want fries with that.
:: pats you on the head ::
your parents must be so proud!
*feels all warm and fuzzy from the head pat*

I'm going to end up serving fast food? Mmmkay.. I really hope you can come up with something better than that. I would not be surprised if I make twice as much as you do.

Fries with that.. haha! Everybody knows you substitute onion rings. :rolleyes:

[HexRei]

Originally posted by balloon kitten

This person is on your Ignore List. Would you like fries with that?

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by HexRei
I tell people I have balloon kitten on ignore, but I just proved I can read what she says, because I responded to her. I really only do this because I'm secretly in love with her. Also, I love the pot.
Awww, HexRei! Too bad I don't date potheads.. or stupid fucks who should be fucked up their stupid asses. :D

[*badmouse*]

I would not be surprised if I make twice as much as you do.
mmmm..... right.
so you're a shift manager, then?
i would like fries with that, please!

and why would money make you a better person than i anyways?

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by *badmouse*

mmmm..... right.
so you're a shift manager, then?
i would like fries with that, please!

and why would money make you a better person than i anyways?
I think it's funny that you even know that there's even a postion titled "shift manager". I'd like a Dr. Pepper, please. :D

[lisam]

I think it's funny that you even know that there's even a postion titled "shift manager".

i think it's common sense that laurie knows what shift manager is. it shows she has some grey matter left up there that's functional ;) nice try at dissing her though, but your attempt gets a D- in my book

i've known what shift manager was since high school, and i've never even worked anywhere that somebody held a position with such a title. imagine that!

tacoooo smell! mmm mm good

what was this thread about again? heh

[*badmouse*]

they serve dr. pepper in the cafeteria near my lab, but i prefer mountain dew.

i'm actually a research scientist, behavioral neurogenetics if you want to be specific.
i play with brains and i do the research that will someday make a difference in understanding how to deal with issues such as alzheimer's and alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders.

so if you don't serve fries, how about some mexi-nuggets?
thank you, come again :D

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by lisam
nice try at dissing her though, but your attempt gets a D- in my book
Damn, and here I thought you were graiding on the curve. I thot for shure hex wuold take me up to at least a C+. :(
Originally posted by *badmouse*
i'm actually a research scientist, behavioral neurogenetics if you want to be specific.
i play with brains and i do the research that will someday make a difference in understanding how to deal with issues such as alzheimer's and alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders.

so if you don't serve fries, how about some mexi-nuggets?
thank you, come again :D
I don't want to be specific, thank you. Brains? Like sheep brains? Here, open your hands! :D

Mexi-nuggets, regular or large? Would you like hot, mild, or fire sauce with that? ;)

[*badmouse*]

mouse brains.
sheep brains are for kids still in college, basic anatomy and whatnot.

no sauce, but thanks for asking.....

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by *badmouse*
no sauce, but thanks for asking.....
That's ok, I'll put it in the bag anyway. And I'll forget the napkins. :D

[Star_Dancer]

Originally posted by balloon kitten

I'm going to end up serving fast food? Mmmkay.. I really hope you can come up with something better than that. I would not be surprised if I make twice as much as you do.


I can almost guarantee you that I make more money than you, does that mean I'm a better person than you?

Why the fuck do we keep sending Enron Executives to prison for then? Since they make A LOT more money than all of us put together that must make them saints.

I love it when people try to be hardcore witty with Laurie. It just doesn't work.

[Cedwyn]

and this thread had such promise....

:P

[EuroTrash]

Originally posted by balloon kitten

I don't want to be specific, thank you.

Oh and why is that? Maybe because the sad reality of it is true.

Balloon, I think I speak for everyone when I say, we are concerned about you. You've been spending so much time on the board that your ass is getting enormous. Everyone thinks you should take a break while your ass can still get out of the chair. And just because you make fast food, doesn't mean you have to eat it. I mean girl, common, baby got BACK.


Cedwyn: Yes this thread did/does have potential. I have a final interview Monday and then *dun dun duuuun* test day. Too bad some filthy beast tracked her kitty litter all over the place.

[ZupanGOD]

I read through the post and I didn't touch base with the fact that I don't support government regulating or making companies do it. Which the Government does do if the company recieves any federal funding.

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Star_Dancer
Why the fuck do we keep sending Enron Executives to prison for then? Since they make A LOT more money than all of us put together that must make them saints.

I love it when people try to be hardcore witty with Laurie. It just doesn't work.
They don't make A LOT more money. Right now they don't make any money. Someone who claims to be a smart as you should know the past sense form of the word "make."

[/hardcore wit]

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
and this thread had such promise....

:P
Yeah, almost like your poll about me being a troll. :rolleyes:

Although it's touching to know you care so much about me! ;)

[balloon kitten]

Originally posted by EuroTrash
Balloon, I think I speak for everyone when I say, we are concerned about you. You've been spending so much time on the board that your ass is getting enormous. Everyone thinks you should take a break while your ass can still get out of the chair. And just because you make fast food, doesn't mean you have to eat it. I mean girl, common, baby got BACK.
What? Please, bitch. If I walk down the street in front of you, your head would turn. In my direction. ;)

Oh, and I didn't eve know you had kids.

Originally posted by EuroTrash
Cedwyn: Yes this thread did/does have potential. I have a final interview Monday and then *dun dun duuuun* test day. Too bad some filthy beast tracked her kitty litter all over the place.
I can only assume you're talking about me, people like to do that from what I see. It's always my fault, isn't it? I'm talking to myself, not a few board people who like to argue with me, am I? :rolleyes:

[Elroy]

Originally posted by balloon kitten

What? Please, bitch. If I walk down the street in front of you, your head would turn. In my direction. ;)


Um... Eurotrash is a fag... though I suppose he might turn in your direction to look at the sad sight of an extremely obese woman... coasting down the street on a scooter.

And btw... if you AREN'T a recently post e-tard, then why the hell are you the way you are?

Clearly the board is in agreement that you are pretty fucking stupid (which happens when you burn out all your brain cells popping pills for a few months)... and you seem to get off on annoying people (which only makes sense if you have depression issues or something)... You are just sooooo against drugs, and you spend a LOT of time on here, meaning that you probably don't know what to do with yourself now that you are trying to be a sober raver.

But if I were you I would be against drugs too... look what it did to your brains?

She's trying to feed em to us as mexi-nuggets!!

[AthenA]

I believe that the contradictions you think I make are there because when I say "it will never work" there is an implied (under these circumstances) that you haven't been taking into consideration.

"and for the record, it's "moot."

Yes, I know it's "moot". I noticed that I spelled it incorrectly ( I often tend to do that kind of thing...I spelled "latter" ladder once, and Rawkus just couldn't help but to jump all over it) but was leaving and to lazy to fix it.

"ok, the employees there are overworked and take stimulants to keep up. god forbid the company adequately staff instead of over-working people...why is the reasonable solution to you that the employees be punished for trying to keep up with such grueling schedules? yeah, ok, they choose illegal means to do so, but christ almighty, can you name any legal ways to keep that kinda pace?"

You've got it all wrong on this one. Overtime is not mandatory. These people's irresponsibility is driven by greed. These men make $35-$40 an hour. Doubletime means $70+. Some do whatever necessary to bring in the cash, even if it means putting others in danger. "but christ almighty, can you name any legal ways to keep that kinda pace?" Yeah. Get a good night's rest.

"but i hafta tell you, your genetic bloodline is not a representative sampling of the "general populace."

neither is your job environment, as that is a fairly specific demographic comprising the work force.

My genetic bloodline? I've got 2 relatives with severe drug problems. It's got nothing to do with my bloodline. You'd be hard-pressed to find a family in this country with absolutely no drug problems, and that was the point I was trying to make.

As for my workplace, it is a shop. Just like the hundreds of thousands of shops in this country. SMACNA is a national association of sheet metal contractors. They publish newsletters and worksheets that are distributed to every union shop, and many non-union shops. SMACNA has recognized drug use in the workplace as a wide-spread problem. My work place was merely an example.

"how often do you suppose junkies sit around playing games like "asshole" trying to get their friends to shoot up more? or when was the last time you saw someone peer pressured into eating tab after tab of e at the expense of $20 a pop? reality, anyone?"

C'mon...If I was a complete idiot, I might be convinced. But anyone with half a brain would know that your analogy is completely unfair. No, junkies don't have to. You know why? Because they don't need to! Talk about reality....Since when did we live in a world where one tab of E is equal to one beer? And I do know a lot of kids that brag about their tolerance, or how much of a drug they did.


Anyway...Just to set the record straight...I'm a debate coach/judge. To properly coach students, I have to be at the "top of my game". The one thing I've always had problems with is impromptu devil's advocate. It's easy to argue a point you believe in. It's a bit harder the other way around, and I tend to accidentally give up ground in those events. I like to use NWTekno to sharpen my skills, I guess. I hope I wasn't abrasive, and I hope that you won't foster any ill opinion of me for beliefs that are not mine.

In actuality, I too believe that legalization of (some) drugs could do wonders for this country. I believe that laws play a great part in what is taboo and what's not, and I believe that taboos play a big part in what is taught and what's not. I think that heavily regulated legalization would pave the way for education to open up, and as education gets better (and depending on the results) regulations could become more lax.

What I've always been on the fence about, however, is the subject of hard, fairly addictive drugs (i.e. crack, coke, crank, heroin, etc.). One part of me believes that, as you've said, legalization and regulation would do a great deal to cut down on impurities and ODs, but the other part of me does not think that drugs like that should be widely available to the general public. Deaths aren't my biggest concern. It's crack-babies, children stuck in neglectful situations because of drug addicted parents, it's little kids getting their hands on the stuff, it's lost-souls. Ya know what I mean?

What say you of this? You seem like someone who has put some serious effort into formulating (or at least justifying) your opinion. Most people I encounter are very pro-drug prohibition. I've never really had the chance to ask someone how they would propose to go about legalizing and regulating drugs like this. Just an outline would be great. Would you be so kind as to humor me, Cedwyn (or anyone, for that matter, but Cedwyn seems like the only one who can pull herself away from the BK drama)? I'd be very interested in your thoughts on this. I have a kid in student congress who is trying to write a proposal along these lines, and frankly, I have been little help in regards to structuring such a bill. I think you'd be help. You know you want to....;)

And Ballon Kitten....This kind of drama that you seem to be perpetuating is one reason why threads get locked. I am asking you nicely ( :D See, nicely) to either contribute to the conversation at hand (and by conversation I mean what is germane to the original topic) or to stop provoking people. If Cedwyn is a nice person, she's about to do me a favor. A student of mine will be very happy to hear her theory. Neither I nor my student will get that information if you get this thread locked. That would kinda suck.

And you guys that are just feeding BK's position, you know that you sound just as assinine to her as she does to you. You'll never get anywhere, so why don't we all just follow HexRei's example here?

Um...thanks. :p