Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot

The liberal agenda seems to be to first legalize drugs, and then pass laws to make it illegal to fire drug users from the workplace.

 

I'm pro legalization, because what I do is none of the government's business, unless my activity is harming someone else.

There is a legitimate reason why certain jobs, like those who are directly responsible for the safety of others, take drug tests. As we can't currently test to see if someone is actively high on MJ, I have no issue with pilots (for example,) being forced to take drug tests. It's due to passenger safety.

When they develop a test to determine current intoxication levels regarding MJ, you'll have a point. Until then, it is what it is. I don't know how you can reconcile it otherwise. I, for one, am glad that pilots get drug tested.

 

I see you have never worked in the corporate world. No justification to fire people is a$$anine. Do you think you should be able to fire someone because you don't like the way they look? Do you think you should be able to fire someone because you don't feel a woman should be on that job? Do you think you should be able to fire someone because you don't like minorities? Do you think you should be able to fire someone because that person is a riser and you feel threatened?

No thinking being would make such a statement.

 

You wanting to give employers the ability to fire people for using alcohol or smoking cigarettes on their own time, outside of work is an extreme left wing perspective "Justification for law on the basis of harm reduction".

This however is not what I am talking about (despite your desperate attempts to divert away from the discussion)

The topic is whether or not an Employer has the right to invade the privacy of its workers and fire them if they do not comply. I realize that you have no respect for essential liberty with respect to and employee wanting to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes on their own time - outside of working hours.

I was also wondering if you have the same lack of respect for essential liberty with respect to privacy ?

 

Sure - and I stated this earlier in the discussion stating something to the effect of (sans extreme situations such as Pilots and so on ). That said - Pilots are allowed to drink .. just not come to work drunk but I am not addressing this issue.

The question is whether or not all employers have the right to drug test .. for example .. should professional athletes be tested for Pot .. which is obviously not a performance enhancing drug. Does the risk of harm to public safety justify the invasion of privacy ?

 

My views lean Libertarian, so the most freedom to the most people, including employers. I don't object if companies want to drug test employees.

In my 35+ years of being employed, only two of my employers have required a drug test. I didn't for my current job, but should I ever need to find a new job, I'd have to go back to Xanax, Ambien an a couple of others, and lay off the pot, until new employment was secured.

 

Yes, I have worked in the corporate world all my life mostly in at-will States. People get hired and fired all the time. If they don't like your face, or the tone of your voice, you're GONE.

 

Using the strong arm of the law to force employers to keep druggies on payroll is your preference, and the preference of all lefties out there.

And no, it is not about "harm reduction" it is simply giving the employers the freedom to run their companies the way they want (not the way dictated by the government).

 

Anything that frees the mind is a danger to society.

 

I'm all for at-will employment. Some lefties like Giftedone prefer to have the government dictate how corporations should be ran.

As a matter of fact a client of mine is hiring me as an full-timer and it is an at-will deal. I already got the drug-test out of the way, and now its just pending E-Verify.

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion). When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning. The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

So should they be able to discriminate in hiring based on race. How about firing if they have genetic defects that don't affect performance? Should they be able to fire people or hire people based on their religion.

Should they be able to require hourly employees to work over forty hours without paying overtime.

How about being able to fire employees if they get sick or make heath insurance claims.

Lets see how far you are willing to go!

 

employees do not trust management that just fires people for no reason... as long as you have a valid reason, not a issue, you get a management job and start firing all the black people, gonna be a problem

 

That is BS. If you really worked in the corporate world you would know you have to jump through hoops and document tons of bad behavior before you can fire someone.

 

Allowing an employer to randomly invade privacy of its employees is not anywhere close to Libertarianism or Republicanism.

Essential liberty ends where the nose of another begins .. remember that.

 

Respecting privacy is not condoning use of law to keep druggies on any payroll. You are creating a falsehood and pretending it is true.

Freedom/essential liberty ends where the nose of another begins ... Learn this principle, understand that it is one of the founding principles, and stop trying to control others by making up nonsense excuses to violate essential liberty.

 

Read what I already posted about At-Will Employment. It is not complicated.

 

Not true. Study up about At-Will employment, or get a job in the corporate world.

 

Denying employers (who are people) the freedom to choose who to employ, or not employ is nowhere close to libertarianism.

 

Sure they do. If they keep you, and give you raises and promotions, you know they find you valuable. I worked for a company who reduced their US employers by 95%, while hiring hundreds in India. They said it was best for the shareholders, but since it was At-Will State, they didn't really need to say anything other than "you're terminated".

There is, however, a Federal law which prevents you from firing people based on race, religion, country of origin, so some restrictions do exist, but other than that you don't need a reason. Besides, does it really make a difference, because if you want to get rid of someone and needed a reason, just make something up.

 

no they do not, they fear they will be next by the narcissistic boss, look at Trump and his businesses... failures

had Trump's dad not given him all those properties and money, Trump would be lucky to a used car salesmen

 

Actually that’s not true. 420 is a reference to after school time of day. 420pm. Not April 20.

Edit, just saw it’s in the article lol. The author doesn’t even know.

 

The Trump administration’s crackdown on marijuana legalization might end under Bill Barr
Marijuana legalization: 1. Jeff Sessions: 0.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...legalization-trump-jeff-sessions-william-barr

A year ago, the Department of Justice, under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, made a move widely interpreted as a signal to federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials to crack down on cannabis — and marijuana businesses — in states that had legalized pot: It rescinded guidance issued during Barack Obama’s presidency that allowed states to legalize pot without the threat of federal interference even as marijuana remained illegal under federal law.

But Trump’s nominee to replace Sessions as attorney general, William Barr, confirmed in written responses to questions from US senators that he won’t be continuing that push to crack down on legal pot if he is confirmed by the Senate.

“As discussed at my hearing, I do not intend to go after parties who have complied with state law in reliance on the Cole Memorandum,” Barr wrote, referring to one piece of the Obama-era guidance.

 

Freedom of association isn't a concept Libertarians support? I disagree.

 

Great news.

 

So you are unwilling to answer just how far you would carry At-Will Employment as a way of overturning anti discrimination provisions in America.