Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I very rarely smoke pot and would have no problem passing any drug test, but I wouldn't work for a company that required me to turn over my piss to them. It's degrading and an invasion of privacy, in my view.Now that just smacks of Puritanism. Why not just let people pursue happiness the best way they see fit?Do you feel the same about alcohol, which is a much more dangerous drug?
No because alcohol is a beverage used in social settings from weddings to bars. People enjoy some of the various brands of alcohol for taste, but nobody using drugs does so for taste. They use drugs for one purpose and one purpose only.
If alcohol was commonly used to get drunk only, then yes, I would feel the same way.
I do actually, but pot is ruining our nation.
During the recession, my employer put out an ad for a new driver. He had a hell of a time finding one because he insisted they take a drug test. It's not worth training somebody and then lose them because they smoke pot. It's not that my employer wanted drug tests, but it's the federal law that we must take them.
My father is a retired bricklayer. He did very well for himself financially. Granted, very tough work, but years ago, people would kill to get that job. Today, the union can't find anybody willing to work that can pass a drug test. My father knows this because they send retirees the union news letter, and they were begging their retirees to find younger clean people willing to work.
Working in industry, this is a common story with employers. People would rather stay home and smoke pot than jump at an opportunity to make real money and start a new career. I think that's very sad.
I agree, but again with us, it's a federal law. Companies that have drug testing do so for lower Workman's Compensation rates. Any company that doesn't drug test their employees are spending money they don't need to spend, and likely not very good in management.
From the Washington Post:
The Sessions memo marks the first significant criminal justice effort by the Trump administration to bring back the toughest practices of the drug war, which had fallen out of favor in recent years with a bipartisan movement to undo the damaging effects of mass incarceration.Of all the very serious issues out there, THIS is what Sessions puts out there? The stupid, unwinnable, unjust War on Drugs.
BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!
SMH
It's not surprise Trump would choose Sessions, who is weak and a bigot.
I very rarely smoke pot and would have no problem passing any drug test, but I wouldn't work for a company that required me to turn over my piss to them. It's degrading and an invasion of privacy, in my view.Now that just smacks of Puritanism. Why not just let people pursue happiness the best way they see fit?No because alcohol is a beverage used in social settings from weddings to bars. People enjoy some of the various brands of alcohol for taste, but nobody using drugs does so for taste. They use drugs for one purpose and one purpose only.
If alcohol was commonly used to get drunk only, then yes, I would feel the same way.
I do actually, but pot is ruining our nation.
During the recession, my employer put out an ad for a new driver. He had a hell of a time finding one because he insisted they take a drug test. It's not worth training somebody and then lose them because they smoke pot. It's not that my employer wanted drug tests, but it's the federal law that we must take them.
My father is a retired bricklayer. He did very well for himself financially. Granted, very tough work, but years ago, people would kill to get that job. Today, the union can't find anybody willing to work that can pass a drug test. My father knows this because they send retirees the union news letter, and they were begging their retirees to find younger clean people willing to work.
Working in industry, this is a common story with employers. People would rather stay home and smoke pot than jump at an opportunity to make real money and start a new career. I think that's very sad.
I agree, but again with us, it's a federal law. Companies that have drug testing do so for lower Workman's Compensation rates. Any company that doesn't drug test their employees are spending money they don't need to spend, and likely not very good in management.
Where my wife works they have random testing but since 2 doctor's own it they do not test for marijuana, only for the real drugs. Worker comp rates are a problem but as the years go by (I'll probably be dead) you will see marijuana being a non issue.
My husband is just about ready to retire as an attorney as well...I worked in his office helping out a bit, and what a depressing job...no one contacts an attorney to be happy, except if they win money maybe..
He is sick of it too..
Now let me ask...what about sugar and food? It is hard to trust someone without a vise...haaaa
I very rarely smoke pot and would have no problem passing any drug test, but I wouldn't work for a company that required me to turn over my piss to them. It's degrading and an invasion of privacy, in my view.Now that just smacks of Puritanism. Why not just let people pursue happiness the best way they see fit?No because alcohol is a beverage used in social settings from weddings to bars. People enjoy some of the various brands of alcohol for taste, but nobody using drugs does so for taste. They use drugs for one purpose and one purpose only.
If alcohol was commonly used to get drunk only, then yes, I would feel the same way.
I do actually, but pot is ruining our nation.
During the recession, my employer put out an ad for a new driver. He had a hell of a time finding one because he insisted they take a drug test. It's not worth training somebody and then lose them because they smoke pot. It's not that my employer wanted drug tests, but it's the federal law that we must take them.
My father is a retired bricklayer. He did very well for himself financially. Granted, very tough work, but years ago, people would kill to get that job. Today, the union can't find anybody willing to work that can pass a drug test. My father knows this because they send retirees the union news letter, and they were begging their retirees to find younger clean people willing to work.
Working in industry, this is a common story with employers. People would rather stay home and smoke pot than jump at an opportunity to make real money and start a new career. I think that's very sad.
I agree, but again with us, it's a federal law. Companies that have drug testing do so for lower Workman's Compensation rates. Any company that doesn't drug test their employees are spending money they don't need to spend, and likely not very good in management.
Where my wife works they have random testing but since 2 doctor's own it they do not test for marijuana, only for the real drugs. Worker comp rates are a problem but as the years go by (I'll probably be dead) you will see marijuana being a non issue.
All this bs about testing is merely an excuse to justify the insurance companies raising their rates. If anyone was serious about it controlling or deferring personal drug abuse everyone with a paycheck whether they be civilian or public entity checks would be tested. That making everyone go through testing would be way too fascist for me to think its all good. It comes down to if all are not tested then none should be. Besides it is just an added unneeded cost to small businesses as whackjobs come in all sorts and shapes. Legal meds can cause just as many brain altering issues as the non-legal ones but so can some parasitical invaders.I very rarely smoke pot and would have no problem passing any drug test, but I wouldn't work for a company that required me to turn over my piss to them. It's degrading and an invasion of privacy, in my view.Now that just smacks of Puritanism. Why not just let people pursue happiness the best way they see fit?
I do actually, but pot is ruining our nation.
During the recession, my employer put out an ad for a new driver. He had a hell of a time finding one because he insisted they take a drug test. It's not worth training somebody and then lose them because they smoke pot. It's not that my employer wanted drug tests, but it's the federal law that we must take them.
My father is a retired bricklayer. He did very well for himself financially. Granted, very tough work, but years ago, people would kill to get that job. Today, the union can't find anybody willing to work that can pass a drug test. My father knows this because they send retirees the union news letter, and they were begging their retirees to find younger clean people willing to work.
Working in industry, this is a common story with employers. People would rather stay home and smoke pot than jump at an opportunity to make real money and start a new career. I think that's very sad.
I agree, but again with us, it's a federal law. Companies that have drug testing do so for lower Workman's Compensation rates. Any company that doesn't drug test their employees are spending money they don't need to spend, and likely not very good in management.
Where my wife works they have random testing but since 2 doctor's own it they do not test for marijuana, only for the real drugs. Worker comp rates are a problem but as the years go by (I'll probably be dead) you will see marijuana being a non issue.
I don't think so--not with insurance companies. Sure, if your employer is willing to pay more for coverage, he can drop any test he wants, but like I said, it comes with a cost.
I very rarely smoke pot and would have no problem passing any drug test, but I wouldn't work for a company that required me to turn over my piss to them. It's degrading and an invasion of privacy, in my view.Now that just smacks of Puritanism. Why not just let people pursue happiness the best way they see fit?
I do actually, but pot is ruining our nation.
During the recession, my employer put out an ad for a new driver. He had a hell of a time finding one because he insisted they take a drug test. It's not worth training somebody and then lose them because they smoke pot. It's not that my employer wanted drug tests, but it's the federal law that we must take them.
My father is a retired bricklayer. He did very well for himself financially. Granted, very tough work, but years ago, people would kill to get that job. Today, the union can't find anybody willing to work that can pass a drug test. My father knows this because they send retirees the union news letter, and they were begging their retirees to find younger clean people willing to work.
Working in industry, this is a common story with employers. People would rather stay home and smoke pot than jump at an opportunity to make real money and start a new career. I think that's very sad.
I agree, but again with us, it's a federal law. Companies that have drug testing do so for lower Workman's Compensation rates. Any company that doesn't drug test their employees are spending money they don't need to spend, and likely not very good in management.
Where my wife works they have random testing but since 2 doctor's own it they do not test for marijuana, only for the real drugs. Worker comp rates are a problem but as the years go by (I'll probably be dead) you will see marijuana being a non issue.
I don't think so--not with insurance companies. Sure, if your employer is willing to pay more for coverage, he can drop any test he wants, but like I said, it comes with a cost.
I very rarely smoke pot and would have no problem passing any drug test, but I wouldn't work for a company that required me to turn over my piss to them. It's degrading and an invasion of privacy, in my view.Now that just smacks of Puritanism. Why not just let people pursue happiness the best way they see fit?
I do actually, but pot is ruining our nation.
During the recession, my employer put out an ad for a new driver. He had a hell of a time finding one because he insisted they take a drug test. It's not worth training somebody and then lose them because they smoke pot. It's not that my employer wanted drug tests, but it's the federal law that we must take them.
My father is a retired bricklayer. He did very well for himself financially. Granted, very tough work, but years ago, people would kill to get that job. Today, the union can't find anybody willing to work that can pass a drug test. My father knows this because they send retirees the union news letter, and they were begging their retirees to find younger clean people willing to work.
Working in industry, this is a common story with employers. People would rather stay home and smoke pot than jump at an opportunity to make real money and start a new career. I think that's very sad.
I agree, but again with us, it's a federal law. Companies that have drug testing do so for lower Workman's Compensation rates. Any company that doesn't drug test their employees are spending money they don't need to spend, and likely not very good in management.
Where my wife works they have random testing but since 2 doctor's own it they do not test for marijuana, only for the real drugs. Worker comp rates are a problem but as the years go by (I'll probably be dead) you will see marijuana being a non issue.
Doctors? Really? Doctors.
One mistake, a tiny one, and the employee on duty tests positive for pot, the mistake isn't even his fault, whoever suffers from that mistake is going to own that medical practice and probably everything else the doctors and other employees have. If you wife works for a place who plays that kind of fast and loose, put your home in a trust.
Years ago I got a call from my doctor that my pap had to be redone, the tech was on marijuana and had over 100 false positives. Everyone sued everyone. It took a couple of years for it to all be ironed out.
All this bs about testing is merely an excuse to justify the insurance companies raising their rates. If anyone was serious about it controlling or deferring personal drug abuse everyone with a paycheck whether they be civilian or public entity checks would be tested. That making everyone go through testing would be way too fascist for me to think its all good. It comes down to if all are not tested then none should be. Besides it is just an added unneeded cost to small businesses as whackjobs come in all sorts and shapes. Legal meds can cause just as many brain altering issues as the non-legal ones but so can some parasitical invaders.I very rarely smoke pot and would have no problem passing any drug test, but I wouldn't work for a company that required me to turn over my piss to them. It's degrading and an invasion of privacy, in my view.I do actually, but pot is ruining our nation.
During the recession, my employer put out an ad for a new driver. He had a hell of a time finding one because he insisted they take a drug test. It's not worth training somebody and then lose them because they smoke pot. It's not that my employer wanted drug tests, but it's the federal law that we must take them.
My father is a retired bricklayer. He did very well for himself financially. Granted, very tough work, but years ago, people would kill to get that job. Today, the union can't find anybody willing to work that can pass a drug test. My father knows this because they send retirees the union news letter, and they were begging their retirees to find younger clean people willing to work.
Working in industry, this is a common story with employers. People would rather stay home and smoke pot than jump at an opportunity to make real money and start a new career. I think that's very sad.
I agree, but again with us, it's a federal law. Companies that have drug testing do so for lower Workman's Compensation rates. Any company that doesn't drug test their employees are spending money they don't need to spend, and likely not very good in management.
Where my wife works they have random testing but since 2 doctor's own it they do not test for marijuana, only for the real drugs. Worker comp rates are a problem but as the years go by (I'll probably be dead) you will see marijuana being a non issue.
I don't think so--not with insurance companies. Sure, if your employer is willing to pay more for coverage, he can drop any test he wants, but like I said, it comes with a cost.
All this bs about testing is merely an excuse to justify the insurance companies raising their rates. If anyone was serious about it controlling or deferring personal drug abuse everyone with a paycheck whether they be civilian or public entity checks would be tested. That making everyone go through testing would be way too fascist for me to think its all good. It comes down to if all are not tested then none should be. Besides it is just an added unneeded cost to small businesses as whackjobs come in all sorts and shapes. Legal meds can cause just as many brain altering issues as the non-legal ones but so can some parasitical invaders.I very rarely smoke pot and would have no problem passing any drug test, but I wouldn't work for a company that required me to turn over my piss to them. It's degrading and an invasion of privacy, in my view.I do actually, but pot is ruining our nation.
During the recession, my employer put out an ad for a new driver. He had a hell of a time finding one because he insisted they take a drug test. It's not worth training somebody and then lose them because they smoke pot. It's not that my employer wanted drug tests, but it's the federal law that we must take them.
My father is a retired bricklayer. He did very well for himself financially. Granted, very tough work, but years ago, people would kill to get that job. Today, the union can't find anybody willing to work that can pass a drug test. My father knows this because they send retirees the union news letter, and they were begging their retirees to find younger clean people willing to work.
Working in industry, this is a common story with employers. People would rather stay home and smoke pot than jump at an opportunity to make real money and start a new career. I think that's very sad.
I agree, but again with us, it's a federal law. Companies that have drug testing do so for lower Workman's Compensation rates. Any company that doesn't drug test their employees are spending money they don't need to spend, and likely not very good in management.
Where my wife works they have random testing but since 2 doctor's own it they do not test for marijuana, only for the real drugs. Worker comp rates are a problem but as the years go by (I'll probably be dead) you will see marijuana being a non issue.
I don't think so--not with insurance companies. Sure, if your employer is willing to pay more for coverage, he can drop any test he wants, but like I said, it comes with a cost.
I was the employer. My cost went from 3.2% insurance up close to 30% before I semi-retired. We had one liability claim which was bogus and tossed and one employee hurt that drew workman comp the whole time I was in business. My WC was the state operated co-op and we always got a refund even the year one employee fell on the ice and hurt their shoulder. Truck driving is a whole different ballgame. Anything else its generally not about saving money its about the insurance ceo's and management lining their pockets. It is actually pretty simple when you start looking at the primary holders of the majority of these companies now.All this bs about testing is merely an excuse to justify the insurance companies raising their rates. If anyone was serious about it controlling or deferring personal drug abuse everyone with a paycheck whether they be civilian or public entity checks would be tested. That making everyone go through testing would be way too fascist for me to think its all good. It comes down to if all are not tested then none should be. Besides it is just an added unneeded cost to small businesses as whackjobs come in all sorts and shapes. Legal meds can cause just as many brain altering issues as the non-legal ones but so can some parasitical invaders.I very rarely smoke pot and would have no problem passing any drug test, but I wouldn't work for a company that required me to turn over my piss to them. It's degrading and an invasion of privacy, in my view.
I agree, but again with us, it's a federal law. Companies that have drug testing do so for lower Workman's Compensation rates. Any company that doesn't drug test their employees are spending money they don't need to spend, and likely not very good in management.
Where my wife works they have random testing but since 2 doctor's own it they do not test for marijuana, only for the real drugs. Worker comp rates are a problem but as the years go by (I'll probably be dead) you will see marijuana being a non issue.
I don't think so--not with insurance companies. Sure, if your employer is willing to pay more for coverage, he can drop any test he wants, but like I said, it comes with a cost.
If you can, ask your employer about what Workman's compensation costs the company. Yes, they do have to pay for those tests and even the employees time, but in the long run, what they save on coverage outweighs what they spend to do the testing.
In my case, it is a government thing because truck drivers are regulated by the federal government. But for most private industries, that's not the case. It has nothing to do with government, it has to do with saving money.
I can see within reason someone that used illegal means to gain wealth to have seizure laws for that instance but I have often wondered about abuse that could ensue. If someone borrowed a car or trailer from you could your property be seized. If so would a little person be able to pay attorneys to retrieve it in the courts or would it be worth it since the attorney bill would cost as much as to replace the item. Heck they took an antique clip from my 70 year old mom at the airport claiming it could be used as a weapon when they first started that whole affair. She was already through the gates and couldn't even get back to where we were to give it to me for I could mail it to her. Back when they put all the info on what was going down with pulling over out of stater's in nice vehicles in Louisiana my daughter called me as we were going through there in the next day or two. She wanted me to drive all the way around Louisiana on our way to Florida verses taking a chance on driving through there and them seizing my customized pickup truck. I told her not to get frenzied I'd be fine. Day or two later as we were going through my parents were behind me in their pickup camper when a state police went flying by them and slowed at my bumper. We weren't sure if the guy ran the plates and learned it was corporate own or if it was the big dogs in the cab with me that deterred him. Whichever one it was either the dogs or plates after a brief checking us out going down the road he decided to pass and went on.I have heard some horror stories on asset forfeiture but that was generally from local law enforcement.Then there is the corrosive effect on our law enforcement the practice has had of asset forfeiture, which grew out of our insane war on an inanimate object. A majority of police departments in the United States now get more than 50% of their annual budgets from the proceeds from armed seizures (robbery) of the property of private citizens. How glaringly stupid can a policy be? Any reasonably bright eight-year-old should be able to see why you don't give the guys with the guns a financial incentive to discover lawbreakers.
We had a neighborly friend that once upon a time owned a large trucking firm. He'd built it from the ground up. He started running drugs as the money was good. He used to tell me, 'I had a million dollars once, the government stole it and told me I had to like it'. He lost it all, the trucking firm, the money he'd saved up and his beautiful wife. The one thing that he couldn't get over was loosing his beautiful wife. He was doing the 'fly now pay later' when he ran the drugs with his firm. We met him during the time he was very humbly paying the price. He was test driving cigarette boats out of Miami Bay before there ever was a Miami Vice television show.
I think it's gotten really bad in some small towns. The narcs scoop up all the big plums and get used to that lifestyle, but as they get bigger and more decked out with all the latest technology, paid for by their victims, their prey become smaller and smaller until eventually they are seizing the family car from high school kids are caught with a dime bag of meth in it.
So you want violent criminals to get off Scott free? Typical socialistFrom the Washington Post:
The Sessions memo marks the first significant criminal justice effort by the Trump administration to bring back the toughest practices of the drug war, which had fallen out of favor in recent years with a bipartisan movement to undo the damaging effects of mass incarceration.Of all the very serious issues out there, THIS is what Sessions puts out there? The stupid, unwinnable, unjust War on Drugs.
BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!
SMH
Thats because you can't fight a "war" on an inanimate object. Who's going to accept the terms of surrender?We have never fought a war on drugs.
I can see within reason someone that used illegal means to gain wealth to have seizure laws for that instance but I have often wondered about abuse that could ensue. If someone borrowed a car or trailer from you could your property be seized. If so would a little person be able to pay attorneys to retrieve it in the courts or would it be worth it since the attorney bill would cost as much as to replace the item. Heck they took an antique clip from my 70 year old mom at the airport claiming it could be used as a weapon when they first started that whole affair. She was already through the gates and couldn't even get back to where we were to give it to me for I could mail it to her. Back when they put all the info on what was going down with pulling over out of stater's in nice vehicles in Louisiana my daughter called me as we were going through there in the next day or two. She wanted me to drive all the way around Louisiana on our way to Florida verses taking a chance on driving through there and them seizing my customized pickup truck. I told her not to get frenzied I'd be fine. Day or two later as we were going through my parents were behind me in their pickup camper when a state police went flying by them and slowed at my bumper. We weren't sure if the guy ran the plates and learned it was corporate own or if it was the big dogs in the cab with me that deterred him. Whichever one it was either the dogs or plates after a brief checking us out going down the road he decided to pass and went on.I have heard some horror stories on asset forfeiture but that was generally from local law enforcement.Then there is the corrosive effect on our law enforcement the practice has had of asset forfeiture, which grew out of our insane war on an inanimate object. A majority of police departments in the United States now get more than 50% of their annual budgets from the proceeds from armed seizures (robbery) of the property of private citizens. How glaringly stupid can a policy be? Any reasonably bright eight-year-old should be able to see why you don't give the guys with the guns a financial incentive to discover lawbreakers.
We had a neighborly friend that once upon a time owned a large trucking firm. He'd built it from the ground up. He started running drugs as the money was good. He used to tell me, 'I had a million dollars once, the government stole it and told me I had to like it'. He lost it all, the trucking firm, the money he'd saved up and his beautiful wife. The one thing that he couldn't get over was loosing his beautiful wife. He was doing the 'fly now pay later' when he ran the drugs with his firm. We met him during the time he was very humbly paying the price. He was test driving cigarette boats out of Miami Bay before there ever was a Miami Vice television show.
I think it's gotten really bad in some small towns. The narcs scoop up all the big plums and get used to that lifestyle, but as they get bigger and more decked out with all the latest technology, paid for by their victims, their prey become smaller and smaller until eventually they are seizing the family car from high school kids are caught with a dime bag of meth in it.
I once sold a piece of my artwork (to a cop, interestingly) out of state and the guy paid for it in cash. On the way back home, I was pulled over by a state patrol for tinted windows (but probably because I was driving a Jag with DC plates). I hadn't bothered to stash the cash anywhere so it was in plain sight. The cop sees the cash and takes that as probable cause I'm carrying drugs. So he calls for backup and they search my car and can't find anything except some paraphernalia, but they want that cash ($14,000), so they go ahead and arrest me for the paraphernalia. They take me to jail and inform me they are seizing my cash. They flew in a special car searching team of experts and tore my car apart. Had the entire engine out of the car the guy at the garage told me later. Still couldn't find my drugs, because I didn't have any. Finally, they let me go, but they keep my cash and, as you suspected, it cost me exactly half of it in attorney fees to get it back. Crooks. My car was destroyed. On the way back to DC I hit a rain storm and water just poured out of the roof and when I got home and opened the trunk, there was a foot of water standing in it. I ended up basically junking the car out. I demanded compensation, and was ignored. I explored suing but it would have cost me so much to sue it wasn't worth the risk. Bastards.
Where did I mention "violent criminals"?So you want violent criminals to get off Scott free? Typical socialistFrom the Washington Post:
The Sessions memo marks the first significant criminal justice effort by the Trump administration to bring back the toughest practices of the drug war, which had fallen out of favor in recent years with a bipartisan movement to undo the damaging effects of mass incarceration.Of all the very serious issues out there, THIS is what Sessions puts out there? The stupid, unwinnable, unjust War on Drugs.
BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!
SMH
You are playing my song, brother. Every year that passes, the amount of time we could survive without electricity gets shorter.Worse yet now is ten grand ain't near worth what it was twenty years ago so if you want to take the money you need on a trip you are forced to get one of the f'ing bankers to handle your money as if you were a child and couldn't handle those big dollars all by yourself.
We live in the sticks now but drug addicts are a problem here too. I met a guy last year waiting outside the grocery store for a friend to finish shopping. I'd taken the dog out to potty and got to talking with a former Meth addict. He was getting help through therapeutic drugs but from what he told me he'd gone through a lot of misery prior to that trying to find relief. Like I stated earlier there were a lot who got involved early on into the drug scene. Some ended up on the streets and other simply did not survive it at all, only a few I know of ended up with a semi normal life if that is what you would call it when they have to have a lot of prescription drugs to cope everyday. And the crime is outrageous in those areas of the cities now I used to drive through without a second thought. They are full with a lot of half brain dead people shooting at each other, raping, pillaging, beating one another to death or other despicable behaviors. Where do you start to clean all that up? We've tried to help people over the years but addicts have very little consciousness when they get on a roll and my temperament isn't what it used to be with them. Maybe more chemical lobotomies for the people that can't or are unwilling to help themselves get out of those terrible situations will be the answer long term. I don't know at this point. I do think I would rather see them be able to get legal doses of something from a pharmacy more than from a thug type that has no conscious when it comes to those who are not involved.You are playing my song, brother. Every year that passes, the amount of time we could survive without electricity gets shorter.Worse yet now is ten grand ain't near worth what it was twenty years ago so if you want to take the money you need on a trip you are forced to get one of the f'ing bankers to handle your money as if you were a child and couldn't handle those big dollars all by yourself.
