Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by T A A on June 4, 2011 at 2:54pm

Contemplation is most excellent :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by choSenfroZen on June 5, 2011 at 3:47am

Hey TAA, I contemplate from Marsh Lake.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on June 5, 2011 at 5:10am

Very nicely put. :)

My longest lasting chemical relationship is with alcohol, but I'm not monogamous about it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy R on June 4, 2011 at 10:28am

I think drug testing in the workplace has curbed alot of usage and again improved education helps alot.  I am 50 so when I was young drugs still had the counter-culture type influence and a lot of "woo woo" involved around them.  When you realize that drugs don't have some spiritual effect or supernatural reach into your consciousness and simply a hinderence to clear thought they have alot less appeal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on June 4, 2011 at 2:58pm

Due to long duration of soft drugs in system, drug testing in the work place focuses on soft drugs. Hard drugs stay the least amount of time in the system and thus hard drug users have least difficulty in passing tests.

 

Drug testing in the work place is the wrong policy for that reason and for privacy issues.

 

We simply have no business going down that path.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on June 5, 2011 at 11:27am

My company runs drug tests but cannot legally fire or demote anyone for usage of legal or illegal substances. They can fire me if I test to be intoxicated at work, which I think is fair.

I actually support drug tests which only focus on abuse, I prefer that safety over privacy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on June 5, 2011 at 12:37pm

But testing aims soft drugs! Why harass the soft druggers only??? and let the crazy druggers scott free... It simply makes no sense to waste legal-money-time aiming for soft drugs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on June 5, 2011 at 12:45pm

Not so much here, and if they detect a presence of drugs it has no consequences.  They only measure level as to indicate abuse or intoxication. Abuse is considered a medical problem - which you can't be fired for - and intoxication at work is just irresponsible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Wood on June 5, 2011 at 10:50am

Alcohol doesn't even test the next morning, and alcohol is seriously dangerous.  When's the last time you heard of a stoner beating up his wife.  "I'm gonna beat the shit out of you; Oh, look, fresh Tostitos!"

 

AND, again, by what right does ANY government tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body?  Mrkns who obey drug laws are as docile and sheeplike as christ-tards.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trisha Smith on June 5, 2011 at 1:17pm

Who the heck thinks its ok to go into the workplace stoned anyways - isnt that shit undermining our ethics and credulity from the get go - they make ridiculous assumptions and expect social reaction - some of this shit sells newspapers I guess......

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trisha Smith on June 5, 2011 at 1:45pm

I reckon you're very right Brian - somebody I used to know often went into work drunk - she has recently got into the AA stuff and doesnt speak to me anymore cos I dont believe in a higher power - it rather tickles my amusement center - it isnt a gay thing either, she is the ex of an old friend - I just reckon that unless people learn to talk things through they are going to be screwed big time............

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on June 5, 2011 at 1:59pm

I'd go to work stoned if I didn't drive to get there. Or cycle. Seriously. Cycling in the bay area is way more dangerous than driving. You need to have your shit together if you want to survive rush hour. 

 

But I don't work with the public my job is moronically easy and as long as I'm not being unfair to my employer by being less efficient or a danger to anyone else, being high at work is just like being high anywhere else, right?  Depends on the situation, I guess. Being high on my sofa is the same as being high in my bubble bath, but I'm sure as hell not going to light up when my inlaws are here...*le sigh*

 

OH AA. I'm going to do an entire thing on TA about that. 

My husband got popped the night of my company Christmas party. One too many glasses of wine. He actually made normal times and test scores on the road side Olympics (That's even noted in the bloody police report!)  but the breathalyser don't lie. We fucked up. Of course, he's being treated by a baby killer now, which is sort of amusing to me, because the same people that demonize drinking and driving are usually the exact same people who have no issue texting and driving which is same thing to me. Or you know.. down half a bottle of Valium before driving because it helps with "anxiety" in traffic. Why is that more acceptable?  You make a choice to control a deadly object when your full attention isn't on it. The consequences are the same (ethically) The dangers and statics are the same..but one punishment is away worse and way more frowned on than the other. Clearly it's the ALCOHOL that's the issue, not the choice or behavior. 

Seriously? Prohibition failed! Go back to your caves!

 

At any rate, he was forced into 25 Higher Power cult conventions for his sins. It's made for some pretty interesting material, truth be told. 

But um.. I'm saving that crazy for another day. Just thought I should share so you'd know you aren't alone!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• Next ›
• Page