It's that time of year again...

[AFK]

Sure, do tests for alcohol, I'm fine with that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, to recap, a Colorado court ruled it is okay for Colorado employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana.


What more are you looking for?

Either random screening for alcohol use, or the total repeal of marijuana prohibition.  I'd prefer the latter.

And I think I'll get it, sooner than I used to think.

UNNNNGGGGG!  Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test.  This is pretty straightforward.

REMEMBER, KIDS!  ALCOHOL HAS NO LINGERING EFFECTS!

[LMNO]

UNNNNGGGGG!  Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test.  This is pretty straightforward.

Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sure, do tests for alcohol, I'm fine with that.

Okay.  You'll be fired, but okay.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Yes, you are right, it is still illegal federally.  You do realize that is still in the mix, correct?  You can't just pretend that doesn't exist. 

I think some wrong lessons were learned in the last century, and I'm not sure how they got learned. Take the two biggest social change movements that happened in the 20th Century (in America) -- Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights. These two movements started as all great movements start out -- from the bottom up, with more and more people becoming sick and goddamn tired of the way things are, and deciding to live in a world where things aren't that way.

Somehow, when the history books were written (or taught, or both), people got the idea that the hard-fought equality (or progress toward equality, anyway) that was won in those movements was somehow a product of things like the 19th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act. And while yes, those pieces of legislation were -- and are -- crucial to the eventual and continued success of these movements, they are not the springs from which equality flows. They never would have happened if people weren't out there, being all free and shit, without permission.

But now we have this idea that the quickest way from Here to There is via the government and convincing lawmakers to send down enlightenment from Mount Olympus or wherever the fuck we seem to think those overblown lawyers live. But just as you can't legislate morality, you can't legislate liberty, either. You can't pass a law that says "Shit is hereby fixed." That isn't where liberty comes from.

It sounds quaint, and for some reason it seems counter-intuitive, but government follows a popular charge for social progress. Government does not lead those charges. You will never, ever find a government anywhere -- no matter how advanced or progressive you think it is -- that will ever be very good at paving the road to equality so the masses can have a smooth ride all the way to Utopia. Like any road, it gets built first by a ton of people walking that way before there's a fucking road there, breaking their legs, stubbing their toes, and spraining their ankles along the way until finally somebody notices that "hey! Everybody's going this way, let's put a grader on that shit and lay down some pavement."

[AFK]

Dumbass, that isn't going to go away when it is legal.  You think your employer is going to want to have a bunch of stoned goons running heavy equipment?  Are you allowed to show up to work drunk?


C'mon, use your brain.

Statement implies MJ is legal at all levels: local, state, fedeeral.

All responses from LMNO based on that premise.

All subsequest responses from RWHN back away from that premise.

MARIJUANA IS AN IMPAIRING SUBSTANCE REGARDLESS OF LEGAL STATUS.


Workplace safety doesn't give a fuck about legal status, it gives a fuck about someone impaired running over someone with a forklift.


C'mon!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Dumbass, that isn't going to go away when it is legal.  You think your employer is going to want to have a bunch of stoned goons running heavy equipment?  Are you allowed to show up to work drunk?


C'mon, use your brain.

Statement implies MJ is legal at all levels: local, state, fedeeral.

All responses from LMNO based on that premise.

All subsequest responses from RWHN back away from that premise.

MARIJUANA IS AN IMPAIRING SUBSTANCE REGARDLESS OF LEGAL STATUS.


Workplace safety doesn't give a fuck about legal status, it gives a fuck about someone impaired running over someone with a forklift.


C'mon!

AND ALCOHOL IS NOT.

[AFK]

UNNNNGGGGG!  Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test.  This is pretty straightforward.

Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.

Are employers risk averse?

[LMNO]

Averse to wrongful termination lawsuits, for certain.

[AFK]

Averse to wrongful termination lawsuits, for certain.

How about workplace accidents?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Averse to wrongful termination lawsuits, for certain.

How about workplace accidents?

THERE ARE NO LINGERING EFFECTS FROM ALCOHOL.

[LMNO]

RHWN:  What about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: What about Y?
LMNO: Refutes Y.
RHWN:  Well, what about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: Well, what about Y?
LMNO: Refutes Y.
RHWN:  Well, what about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: Well, what about Y?
LMNO: Stops responding.
RWHN: I guess I win.

[AFK]

RHWN:  What about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: What about Y?
LMNO: Refutes Y.
RHWN:  Well, what about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: Well, what about Y?
LMNO: Refutes Y.
RHWN:  Well, what about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: Well, what about Y?
LMNO: Stops responding.
RWHN: I guess I win.

You know darn well what I've been asking about in terms of employers being risk averse but you've been dancing around it refusing to acknowledge it.  That isn't refuting, that is obfuscating.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

THERE ARE NO LINGERING EFFECTS FROM ALCOHOL.

[LMNO]

First,

THERE ARE NO LINGERING EFFECTS FROM ALCOHOL.

Second, your question was an avoidance of mine, and while maybe pertinent to the larger conversation, is a deliberate avoidance of our particular angle.

Y'dingus.